Gary Gannon (Dublin Central, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Apologies have been received from Deputy O'Shea and Senator Ní Chuilinn. I am delighted to welcome everyone to the third public meeting of the joint committee on drug use to discuss kinship care and care. I welcome the witnesses, with whom we will engage later in the meeting. I will introduce them as I call them to speak. Our engagement is on the topic of kinship care and we will follow on with any other business for members.

I will read a note on privilege. All witnesses and members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. Therefore, if statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, witnesses and members will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative they comply with any such direction.

I remind members of the constitutional requirement that in order to participate in public meetings, members must be physically present within the confines of the Leinster House complex. Members of the committee attending remotely must do so from within the precincts of Leinster House. This is due to the constitutional requirement that in order to participate in public meetings, members must be physically present within the confines of the place where the Parliament has chosen to sit. In this regard, I ask any Member partaking via MS Teams that prior to making their contribution to the meeting they confirm they are on the grounds of the Leinster House campus.

I welcome all our witnesses to continue our engagement on kinship care and care. It is timely that we are holding this session during kinship care week, which is taking place between 6 October and 12 October. It is a national celebration of the incredible families who step in to care for children when parents cannot.

All the opening statements have been circulated to members of the committee and will be published on the Oireachtas website after the session. As agreed, we will limit each opening statement to five minutes and I hope this will allow for plenty of time for questions and answers. I am aware that a wide range of issues will be subject to discussion today. If necessary, further and more detailed information on certain issues raised can be sent to the clerk to the committee for circulation to members. The witnesses are very welcome. Members will come in and out at various times as, unfortunately, sometimes we all have to be in two or three different places at once.

The first contributor is Mr. Wayne Stanley, who will give his opening statement on behalf of Empowering People in Care, EPIC. He is very welcome.

Mr. Wayne Stanley:

I thank the committee for the opportunity to present to it today. For those who do not know, EPIC is an independent children's rights organisation that works with and for children in State care and care leavers up to the age of 26. The central pillars of our work are the provision of an independent, human rights-based advocacy service, our youth engagement and participation programme and our commitment to knowledge exchange. That is about taking the experience of the young people that we engage with and communicating it to stakeholders. That is why today is such an important opportunity for us.

I am joined by my colleague Ms Fiona Murray, the head of our advocacy service. She has worked for more years than she would like me to say, caring for young people. She is a fountain of knowledge. I hope the committee can take advantage of that.

While those in the room will be aware, it is important to put on record that most young people in the care system have positive experiences. Even where experiences are difficult, young people are resilient and successful. EPIC has worked with young people who have faced multiple placements, early school-leaving, mental health crises and homelessness - and in the face of these challenges, they have become mature, empathetic adults that are changing lives in our care system today. That is always important to remember. It is also important to reiterate, as other presenters to this committee have done, that drug use is a societal issue. It is not a consequence of being in care.

Problematic drug use and addiction are often a response to trauma and in particular, a response to the feelings of loss and abandonment. For some, substance use can become a form of self-medication for mental health issues. For those in care, responses to unresolved trauma can lead to placement breakdown, which can deepen feelings of loss and abandonment, and spiral into further drug use and more difficult care experiences. Challenges can extend beyond illegal drugs. EPIC's national advocacy service has worked with young people using legal drugs, such as "spiced" vapes, over-the-counter painkillers and prescription drugs, believing they are safe or less harmful. For some young people we work with, these substances – in combination with underlying health difficulties – have resulted in hospital admission.

EPIC provides services across the care system, including working with children and young people with the highest support needs, such as those living in special care. Many of these young people report that substance misuse has contributed to them being in these facilities. Some reported getting caught up with drug dealing while living in the community. Young people have described feeling physically sick at the thought of doing this, yet unable to find a way out.

We are outlining these experiences because we believe that Ireland can do better for care-experienced children and young people. There are ways forward – improving services for those actively in addiction, more diversion options available to the courts, and innovation in the prevention of addiction in the first place. There is a gap in the data available on care-experienced young people within addiction services and the justice system. Collecting this data using the national drug treatment reporting system could be further explored to allow for more targeted responses and allocation of resources.

One of the main issues seen by EPIC advocates is the lack of appropriate detox and rehabilitation services for young people in care. While services like this for young people in general are limited, the services that exist are not always appropriate to the needs of care-experienced young people. In the absence of these services, special care is being relied upon as a detox service, which puts further pressure on already stretched resources. Similarly, with the absence of appropriate diversion options for young people engaged in drug activity, the system can turn to Oberstown, undermining its position as an option of last resort.

Young people with care experience can have a dual diagnosis, which means that they may have a moderate to severe mental illness at the same time as a substance use disorder. Treatment options must address both. There are currently very limited services for children and young people experiencing dual diagnosis, particularly outside Dublin. There is a need for bespoke drug, detox and rehabilitation services designed specifically to meet the needs of care-experienced children and young people. There is also a need for simple drug information sessions, relapse prevention and creative methodologies to explore substance misuse in an informal way.

Counselling may not be appropriate for care-experienced young people at a particular instance as they may not feel able to talk about their experiences and may respond better to youth work methodologies.

Prevention can begin within education. Key adults and professionals as well as children and young people themselves need greater awareness of the types of drugs available, their potential effects and the risks associated with their use. This knowledge can help professionals to offer support and empower young people to make informed choices and seek help early. Finally, I would like to draw the committee’s attention to upstream services which is often talked about in the context of preventing homelessness, particularly youth homelessness. The Geelong Project has been pioneered in Australia and a related project is now seeing success in Wales. It has been recommended by a subgroup working on Ireland’s youth homelessness strategy. It is being examined but has not been progressed and is something the committee might look at as a mechanism for getting in early to work with and support families who are finding themselves in conflict.

Gary Gannon (Dublin Central, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I invite Ms Fiona Kearney to give her opening statement on behalf of FamiliBase.

Ms Fiona Kearney:

I thank the committee for inviting FamiliBase to this meeting. Our colleagues from Kinship Care Ireland will go into a bit more detail on the statistics and data available to us on kinship care. I am going to focus on our own experience of working with children, young people and families in kinship care arrangements, particularly in the context of children experiencing hidden harm.

FamiliBase is a community-based organisation providing services in Ballyfermot and Cherry Orchard. We operate an integrated model of practice or a one-stop-shop which means we have a range of services under one roof that are easily accessible for children, young people and families. We provide an early years and after-school service, youth work programme, arts programmes, intensive family support, counselling, and parenting programmes. We realise that we are very lucky to have all of these services under one roof and we are very integrated in that there is one pathway into the service. A child can enter the service but the whole family can get support. That is what has worked for us as a model in terms of supporting families when there is parental addiction and children are impacted. We call that intensive support.

We also have universal service provision whereby people can drop in for late-night events on Friday night or can use the arts studio but some families need something different. They need more than just a youth work intervention or a counselling session. They need a service that is flexible and that responds to their needs. This is particularly the case for children who are affected by hidden harm. Members of the committee will have heard the term hidden harm, which is the experience of children living with, and affected by, parental problem alcohol and another drug use. The hidden element is the fact that these children are often not known to services because there is a huge fear of reaching out to statutory services. What will Tusla say if children are living with their mammy and their mammy is using drugs? These children are often hidden and doubly disadvantaged because they are not getting access to a lot of the available services. While it is not true of all families, some children do experience harm when they are living in these situations. There is lots of research available now on the social, physical, emotional and developmental impacts on children. One hugely protective factor for children is if there is one parent who does not use substances in a chaotic way at home. Another is a good educational experience or if a child is getting support.

Almost 22 years ago authorities in the UK published a hidden harm report. This was a seminal report in terms of looking at the needs of children because for years the focus within addiction services was on the person who presents for support, the addict. Then we looked at the family and the national family support agencies would look at how to support family members but children were often missing from the picture. Even in the last national drugs strategy there was very little about families. FamiliBase believes that we really need to highlight children in terms of policy and impacts. The greatest prevention is working with children. The hidden harm report highlighted some of the impacts on children. It gathered research on what can happen to children when they are in homes where there is massive addiction and the impact it has on them. Even at that stage, over 22 years ago, kinship care was recognised as vital in supporting children and one of the things that was holding the system up at the time. It was also hidden in that so many grandparents, aunts and older siblings were providing care for children.

In the Irish context, in 2013 we started talking about hidden harm. Tusla and the HSE got together and developed the hidden harm project. This led to the publication in 2019 of the Hidden Harm Strategic Statement and the practice guide, Seeing through Hidden Harm to Brighter Futures. Again, there was a big focus on kinship care. It may not have been called kinship care but the focus was on family involvement, family support, and the role of the extended family. We have been talking about this for a long time but we are not really giving it the value and focus it deserves. We need to start naming kinship care in policy.

In terms of the support that FamiliBase provides to children, young people and families with kinship care arrangements, it is often grandparents, aunts and older siblings who are providing care. The situation can occur by consent between the parent and the extended family who come up with these arrangements themselves or it can happen on the recommendation of Tusla, through a private arrangement. A private arrangement can be challenging because it can be unclear and unsupported at times. Another way for kinship care arrangements to happen is through a formal foster care arrangement. There is so much value in informal kinship care but long term, without supports, it is very challenging for families. That is what we would see in our service. There are challenges economically, with housing and education, as well as psychological challenges. Until we recognise this living arrangement as something that is providing a huge service to the State and to children and families, we are not going to be able to follow that up with services, supports and resources.

Gary Gannon (Dublin Central, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am sorry but I am going to have to stop you there. You are a minute over time.

Ms Fiona Kearney:

Am I? Can I do my recommendations in ten seconds?

Gary Gannon (Dublin Central, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I promise this will not be the last time you talk. I will let you back in.

Ms Fiona Kearney:

I am sorry. I talk a lot.

Gary Gannon (Dublin Central, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It was great. Thank you. I invite Mr. Gary Broderick from SAOL to give his opening statement.

Mr. Gary Broderick:

I am accompanied by our head of services, Ms Réidín Dunne. I thank the committee for inviting us to this important session. We welcome the committee’s sustained attention to the lived realities of families and communities most impacted and we appreciate the compassionate tone set in the opening statements at last week’s session on 25 September, especially the emphasis on dignity, partnership and the crucial need to listen to the voices of service users and front-line practitioners.

We are here today as representatives of SAOL, a front line women’s addiction service rooted in the north inner city. Every day we encounter the strength and resilience of women, including mothers, grandmothers, sisters and kinship carers, who provide stability, care and hope to families affected by drug use, often in the shadow of poverty, violence and exclusion. SAOL’s model reflects the care and complexity required by these families. Our integrated supports are practical and holistic. We provide a crèche for early-years development so mothers, grandmothers or other kin can access treatment and support with peace of mind. We offer a full-time, trauma-informed social worker to advocate for women and children and facilitate mother and baby groups that break isolation and build community. For example, we provide a mother and baby programme with the HSE Beag team from the north inner city. DAVINA, our domestic violence team, ensures women access help in ways that are safe, confidential and non-judgmental, challenging the silos that can keep addiction and domestic abuse apart in the system. We also support women whose children are being cared for by kin, assisting them with the grief and shame they experience as well as building their commitment and support for this new family arrangement.

As we have heard, the hidden harm framework is our national approach to protecting children impacted by parental drug use. It has helped social workers to recognise that harm can be present even where it is less visible, and has supported important collaboration between child welfare, addiction and mental health services. However, we ask the committee to examine the limitations of hidden harm more keenly. The literature warns us of the gendered nature of its implementation. In practice, it can intensify scrutiny and blame directed at mothers while under-engaging fathers. The work of Whitaker et alasks what is hidden in hidden harm. Along with the legal work of Rona Epstein’s input into the Howard League working papers, this acts as a starting point for our own thinking on this issue.

Hidden harm frameworks can sometimes overlook the influence of structural factors, such as poverty, racism, community violence and the stigmatising attitudes of professionals, each of which can deepen disadvantage and further marginalise families who are already vulnerable. This too can be mirrored in the short-term imprisonment of mothers in Ireland, which regularly results in abrupt disruptions to children’s lives, with children typically placed in kinship care. Research by the Irish Penal Reform Trust and international studies highlight that maternal imprisonment is especially destabilising because mothers are most often the primary caregivers. This sudden separation can result in children experiencing grief, anxiety, trauma and disrupted attachment.

Kinship care, while often the preferred alternative to State care, can still be fraught with uncertainty, financial strain and emotional upheaval for children and their relatives, particularly when placements are made hastily or without adequate support. The children’s human rights, especially their right to family life and to be cared for by their parents, as guaranteed by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 9 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, are often put at risk. The Irish system could be criticised for inadequately considering the child’s best interests in sentencing decisions for mothers, and for not providing consistent policy measures or supports that could safeguard these rights when short prison sentences break up family life. Indeed, Rona Epstein argues that courts are legally required to balance the needs of the child against the seriousness of the offence.

Therefore, as the committee members reflect on the improvements needed at the intersection of kinship care, family support and drug policy, we respectfully request that the committee would recognise and resource the practical, community-rooted family supports, like those offered by SAOL and kinship carers across the country; mandate more robust, gender-sensitive and anti-poverty approaches to both research and practice, including a review of hidden harm and professional training in trauma and implicit bias; examine, if this is within the committee’s remit, the sentencing of mothers and the impact of sentencing on children; and meaningfully involve service users and people with living and lived experience.

We would like to commend the invaluable advocacy and expertise represented in this room today, including our friends and partners at EPIC, which is supporting children and young people in care, and also Fiona Kearney, Jacqueline Williamson and Laura Dunleavy, given the wonderful work they do. I again thank the committee for the invitation and for its commitment to evidence, partnership and listening to the families whose lives and futures are most affected by the policies. We look forward to the questions and to working together for progressive and inclusive change.

Gary Gannon (Dublin Central, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Thank you. I call Ms Laura Dunleavy to give the opening statement on behalf of Kinship Care Ireland.

Ms Laura Dunleavy:

We welcome the invitation to speak today on behalf of Treoir’s Kinship Care Ireland programme. Founded in 2020 by kinship carer, Caitríona Nic Mhuiris, our mission is to promote the recognition, rights and entitlements of children, young people and families in kinship care. As we know, kinship care arises when children cannot live with their birth parents and are instead raised by relatives or close family friends. This care keeps children connected to their families and familiar network, and keeps children out of State care.

Approximately 10,000 to 12,000 children in Ireland are being raised in kinship care, many due to parental addiction. Kinship carers, often grandparents but also other relatives and family friends, provide vital stability for children. However, they face financial hardship, legal insecurity and limited access to supports, despite preventing many children from entering formal State care. If the 10,000 to 12,000 children in kinship care were to enter State residential care in the morning, it would cost the State more than €3.6 billion annually. If they were to access the lower rate of foster care allowance, it would cost the State €249 million. What is currently happening, by comparison, is that, in 2024, just 2,508 guardian payments were paid to an estimated one quarter of kinship families, equating to just €29 million. That rings true when compared to the statistics on our phoneline, where, in 2024, just 12% of our callers were in receipt of that vital support on their initial contact with us. Advocacy and support from Kinship Care Ireland and basic information brought that up to 32% but there are still a huge number without it. In the first half of this year, a percentage of 10% was brought up to 26% with advocacy.

Despite this vital role, informal kinship carers remain largely invisible in the official data. Private family arrangements are not fully captured by Tusla, and kinship care is not recorded in the CSO census, distorting our sense of the true scale. Between 2023 and the first half of 2025, Kinship Care Ireland’s phoneline data show that parental addiction was the leading pathway into kinship care, ranging from 40% to 50% of our callers in any given year, with 9% to 15% involving dual-parental addiction.

I am joined by Anna, who, if time allows, would like to answer any questions the members might have regarding her previously provided voice message about her lived experience and knowledge.

Another kinship carer we had intended to invite today has tragically lost her adult child since the time of this invitation in July. She continues to care for her grandchild while grieving. Without adequate supports, this responsibility deepens her burden, forcing her to hold the pain of loss and the demands of caregiving in the same breath. This reflects the hidden struggles of many kinship carers and highlights systemic failures in supporting families affected by substance misuse, failures that the Oireachtas has the opportunity to address.

Given my own social care experience, the reason I applied for this role was not from a love of public speaking, I can assure you, but because I grew disheartened and heartbroken after 11 years of attending the countless funerals of young adults, parents, children and babies whose lives were lost due to the impact of addiction. These deaths could have been prevented if our systems worked differently. They were the deaths of mothers, fathers, sons, daughters and young people who had potential and their entire lives ahead of them, if they had been given the opportunities, choices and supports similar to their peers in different catchment areas.

The Department of Children, Disability and Equality has begun vital work to support kinship families and address policy gaps, but the Department cannot do this work alone. Kinship care needs to span across Departments in the areas of health, housing, education, welfare and justice. To truly protect children in kinship care, we need a whole-of-government response. Treoir’s Kinship Care Ireland programme calls on the committee to demand cross-departmental responses to support kinship families. This includes providing a kinship care allowance equal to foster parents and guaranteeing child and welfare supports without unfair means testing. It means removing the criterion that people must evidence parental abandonment to access this basis payment, which is not in line with parental rights or a child’s right to a relationship with their parent. It is in contrast to the criteria for the foster care allowance, where children are, rightly, supported to sustain that parental relationship.

Families need secure housing and legal recognition through special guardianship orders with faster, low-cost processes. Children and carers must have access to mental health, therapeutic, educational and healthcare supports. Aftercare should be extended for young people with kinship care experience, and kinship carers should receive training, respite, counselling and social care, when needed, as well as access to in-person peer supports. Finally, integrated family recovery pathways, linking addiction and child and family supports, must be developed alongside stronger national data collection on kinship care.

In conclusion, kinship carers are a critical yet under-supported pillar of Ireland’s response to addiction-related family breakdown. By formally recognising and resourcing kinship families, the Oireachtas can reduce reliance on formal State care, support recovery and family resilience, safeguard the well-being of children and address intergenerational cycles of trauma and addiction. Kinship families are relied upon to break cycles of addiction. They cannot do it alone, nor should they have to.

I will now take a few moments to outline comments from carers regarding the impact of a lack of guardianship. Kinship carers are entrusted with the child's full-time caring role, but are often not supported with the legal status to fulfil this caring responsibility without challenges. One carer said:

I am stuck in the middle with this medical consent issue and about to be closed off to Tusla. She needs counselling.

Another said:

The baby was born with a heart condition. Not only was I terrified about that when she came to me, but also terrified that if I needed to bring her to the hospital in the middle of the night, they might not allow me in without a parent present, which I couldn’t guarantee. I was holding my breath for a year.

Another said:

I was terrified to apply for any sort of financial support until I had waited the year to apply for guardianship. I could not change over the child benefit. What if it caused conflict and the child was taken away from me and back to the situation?

The emotional toll of navigating addiction, and balancing love and worry for their adult child with the need to protect their grandchild, is profound.

At times, they must manage situations of extremely challenging behaviour from parents or face the fear of death threats relating to drug intimidation and violence. Kinship-----

Gary Gannon (Dublin Central, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am conscious of time and want to bring Ms Rice in as well. Before I do, I extend the deepest sympathies of everybody on the committee to the person Ms Dunleavy spoke about in her contribution. That was incredibly sad to hear. There was a statement sent through for Ms Rice. Would she like to say anything? We can come back to it if she would like.

Ms Anna Rice:

I came into Kinship Care because my daughter has substance misuse issues. They were a lot worse than I had realised. One Saturday, we were dropping our grandson back. He had come to us every weekend since he was born for a sleepover. My daughter just said that she could not do it any more and asked us to take him for a couple of months so that she could go to rehab. Those couple of months did not happen. She did not go to rehab and my grandson is still with us nine and a half years later. My daughter is in recovery but that does not mean she is better. It just means she is not using substances. She has a lot of mental health issues and additional needs so my grandson stays with us. He will never go back to his mam. With recovery, there is always the fear of relapse. My daughter's substances of choice were heroin and crack cocaine. She ended up on the streets here in Dublin. There were services available to her but, unfortunately, there were also services that were not available to her, especially housing, because she is from Meath and not Dublin. She could not access hostels or anything like that.

My grandson had witnessed some traumatic things, although thankfully not too many. As a result of that trauma, he had anger issues, trust issues and all of that. We had to put him into counselling, which we had to pay for ourselves. Unfortunately, I cannot work due to a disability. My husband's wages paid for the counselling because we were not getting a guardian's payment. We were getting no payment. My daughter was still accessing child benefit so we were not getting anything.

When my grandson came to us, he was sleeping in a bed with me because we did not have a bed for him. My husband had to sleep in the junk room in a single bed with all our worldly belongings in the room. That was in 2016. There was no Kinship Care Ireland. There was nothing. I did not know where to go. I was afraid to ring Tusla because I worried I would not be thought suitable to look after my grandson. Where would he go then? Would he go into care? I was afraid of that. We did not know anything. There was nowhere to go. The only advice I got was from a kinship care group in England, Kinship, which gave me some kind of an idea. I did not know what kinship care was. I had never heard the term. I was just looking after my grandson. I realised there was more than just me doing it so I reached out.

I applied for a guardian's payment and, a year and a half after my grandson came to us, we got that. We were then able to do up the spare room to give him a room of his own. He picked the things to go into it. That meant a great deal. If we had not had the guardian's payment, we would not have been able to do that. My husband works but he is paying all the bills. I am lucky in that my husband is still working. I am a young grandparent. There are grandparents who are not in my situation, people who are ten, 15 or 20 years older and who are not working. In these cases, there can be two pensioners not getting any payment while bringing up one, two, three and sometimes four young children, who grow into teenagers and who need lots of things these grandparents cannot provide.

Gary Gannon (Dublin Central, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

May I stop Ms Rice for a moment? We promise that everyone's voice will be heard several times during this meeting and that anyone who has not spoken yet will get an opportunity. I thank Ms Rice very much for sharing her lived experience with us. I am sure members will have some questions. In the first round, members will have seven minutes. I ask them to leave some time for the witnesses to respond to their questions.

Lynn Ruane (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank everyone for their presentations. I am a huge supporter of each group's work and I am very appreciative of it. I join with the Chair in acknowledging the death of that woman's daughter and that child's mother. I extend our sympathies. It shows the complexion of life for many families. Before I even ask any questions, I caveat that there are many families who will continue to struggle with substance use while continuing to raise their children. It is not always necessary to remove children from households. I acknowledge that there are many different circumstances and many different assessments to be made at different points in people's journeys. We must keep all of those families in mind and figure out how to support them at each stage and ensure adequate supports are in place, whether in keeping the family together or in moving children into kinship care or other care.

I will ask my questions first and ask the witnesses to note them and then come in rather than beginning a back and forth discussion. With regard to FamiliBase, I have heard lots of positive stuff about building safer communities within Cherry Orchard. I am not sure how much the representatives can speak to the work that happened under the pilot programme with Dublin City Council. From what I have heard about it, I understand it is hugely preventative. It supports people in difficult circumstances but also undertakes preventative work in terms of people's homes and families. Can FamiliBase say a few words on that programme, the role it has played and the necessity of something like that continuing in Cherry Orchard?

My other question is probably for the Department or Tusla. In way too many situations, I have become an advocate in social work spaces. I am not a social worker and do not have that expertise but I keep ending up in that space of supporting people because parents do not have access to a social worker. Even if they get to a point where family reunification is the obvious next step, they find huge barriers within that family reunification piece. I ask EPIC and SAOL in particular to comment on that balance. In some of the meetings I have attended, particularly where the mother has passed away or is in prison and the father looks for reunification, there seems to be a general sense sometimes that the kids are settled in their foster placement or are really happy where they are. That is sometimes presented in a children's rights framework, that the child's preference, because they feel settled there, is somehow children's rights, but actually there is also the family reunification piece or the child's right to a relationship piece. How do we engage with and manage that at an organisational level? Does it come up much?

My next question is for Kinship Care. Proof of parental abandonment is obviously so problematic and shaming. Plenty of parents are still involved in their children's lives but are not able to give everyday care. Maybe we can reiterate why it is so important to address that. I also wonder about a sibling's right to a relationship. I have found that, for example, where a father is in addiction and the children from his most recent relationship end up in kinship care, those children's relationship with other children from previous relationships is not facilitated. Children's right to a relationship with their siblings is not prioritised to ensure those sibling ties remain intact.

One young man I worked with in the prison for a long time who came through the care system spoke about how one of the most traumatising things for him was being split from his siblings and not having that bond and connection to be able to mind each other after such traumatic experiences. Maybe we can speak to how we make sure to safeguard siblings from previous or additional relationships in the family unit.

Ms Fiona Kearney:

On the building safer communities programme in Cherry Orchard, it is not complicated; it is as simple as the rest of the stuff. It is a case management model based on the needs of the person who is presenting. That is exactly how we do our intensive family support work. It is very vulnerable families who Dublin City Council often cannot engage with, or it is not managing. The council would say that the families will not engage with it, which is sometimes the case because they are fearful of the engagement at times. What we have done a new pilot, and it has been very successful. There is actually a kinship care arrangement in one of the families involved as well. It is about going out and meeting families. There might be a housing issue - there usually is a housing issue - or there is often an antisocial behaviour issue or a rent arrears issue. We do all of the things that we do with all families. We sit down and ask what is going on and how we can practically help with that. The big difference with this is that we have the local authority on board so, at a systems level, it is willing to be flexible. That means we have identified with the local authority a number of families where the children have gone into care and the mam might be in a house and does not feel safe there, or she is in the community and wants to move somewhere else. That is a long, protracted process, but we do it quite quickly. The council would say there is a benefit because it is getting a house back that might have more rooms, and the mother feels safer. There was another domestic violence case where we wanted apartment accommodation, but we could move quicker.

I will outline how that relates to all this work, and I am really interested in Senator Ruane's piece around how it is not every family. In 90% of the families we work with where there is parental addiction, we are working mostly with mothers in their home. Those mothers are caring for their children - rightly so - and they are doing a phenomenal job against all the odds, facing poverty, stigma, fear, violence and all of these issues. For the majority of the families, it is an outreach model and it is in their homes. It involves practical supports, such as food poverty and fuel poverty support. It is support to get to addiction services and mental health services, but it is also very practical support for their children. It provides one-to-one spaces for those children so that they can be validated because it is challenging. Most children want to live at home, however. That is usually the experience. They want to stay at home.

There are then a number of families where grannies or aunties step in. However, what I would say about kinship care arrangements is that they need to be movable and fluid because it does not last. That is why they are so valuable. If mammy goes and gets access to treatment, or she is in a better position or something changes with her partner or something like that, then it is okay for her children to live at home. That is the value of kinship care because it moves much quicker. Then, there are a tiny number who do need State care. The vast majority are at home, however, and I would say the vast majority are at home with their mothers. That does not mean that their granny or auntie and all those people are not wrapped around that families because they usually are as well. They are the greatest eyes around their family in supporting them. I do not know if that answers the questions.

Gary Gannon (Dublin Central, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We should have a second round of questions, Senator Ruane.

Lynn Ruane (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am speaking on the defamation Bill in the Seanad so I apologise if I have to leave; I will obviously be in and out.

Gary Gannon (Dublin Central, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Of course. I call Deputy Sherlock.

Marie Sherlock (Dublin Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank all the organisations here today, and Ms Rice in particular. Her contribution today was really powerful. I thank her.

I am familiar with the work of SAOL and EPIC, but it is great to have Kinship Care Ireland and FamiliBase here as well. I often think of the word "kinship"; we are all familiar with the phrase "next of kin" yet so few people out there actually understand what kinship means. We understand what it means informally but in terms of that phrase, obviously, it is reflected in the huge lack of resources and supports formally from the State. I see the very poor take-up of the guardianship payment. It is horrendous to think of the hoops people have to go through to prove there is parental abandonment in terms of the stigma. I was so struck by what Ms Rice said about that fear and concern about whether people will qualify or be deemed eligible or capable of looking after their grandchild.

I have a few questions on the data piece and understanding the formal and informal caring arrangements out there because the point was made that we do not have a good sense of it. How would we better understand the number of kinship carers out there? Is it a role for Tusla or is it for somebody else? It is not that data should be our primary focus here, but it is important in the context of understanding how we better support and make that powerful argument that it is happening on quite a significant scale. I do not know which organisation wants to respond to that, but that data collection piece is difficult so I would like to hear the witnesses' thoughts on how that could be done and who should be doing it.

Ms Laura Dunleavy:

I will address the parental abandonment question first and then go on. The language alone - the term "abandonment" - is simply so damaging. No parent wakes up in the morning and decides to leave. There is always an underlying circumstance that has led to that. I spoke with a young kinship carer who was caring for her teenage siblings, and she received a letter asking her to prove with evidence that her father abandoned her. It is so wrong to receive that type of letter. The social welfare payment is there and the deciding officers, who we have spoken to, have a set of operational guidelines they have to satisfy. We need that payment completely changed. We would love to see a kinship-specific payment.

Ms Rice kindly made a booklet, which members all have, capturing the insights from 114 kinship carers in a Facebook group that she co-ordinates. One of them stated:

Please amend the rules for eligibility to the Guardian's [payment] Allowance to one rule:

That this child, or these children, need the full-time care of this person.

That would make lives a lot easier and ensure that kinship carers have the time they need to invest into supporting a child to heal through trauma in relation to supporting their adult child or in relation to navigating their own grief. At the moment, what we are seeing is that kinship carers are asked questions in relation to any sort of access and whether it is unsupervised or if there is any receipt of maintenance, and all those answers collate together to evidence whether there is or is not parental abandonment. I hope that answers some of what was asked.

Then, in relation to the data prevalence and trying to capture what we have said, the Department of children is working with Tusla on that and it hopes to have a statistic by the close of this year in relation to private family arrangements that are receiving a Tusla payment and private family arrangements that are not. That would help and would give us a good place to start. We have been trying to get some sort of data from the census, and the Department of children is working on that. It is an estimated 1% of population, so we are working from that overseas data.

Going back to the parental abandonment piece, when a parent is returning home from treatment, sometimes that parent is moving back into their mam's or dad's home. We have seen guardian's payments removed in that process because a parent might have applied for a social welfare payment after coming out of prison or returning home after a period in treatment and their parents want to support them to not have to access homeless services, and that means that the guardian's payment is stopped. There are lots of barriers and glass ceilings and hoops to jump through that rob kinship carers of their time, which is needed to sustain the role and that caring piece. Is there anything Mr. Peelo wants to add?

Mr. Damien Peelo:

It is a bespoke payment for kinship care. As we said, it is trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. When we are trying to use the guardian's payment to address kinship care, it is not an adequate payment. We do not even have different payments for under-12s and over-12s. We know the cost increases for an over-12 and the extra costs that go with that. All these things we are talking about involve the lack of support for kinship care. It is only because we do not use the term enough.

We do not even know the extent of the problem that we have.

I will also speak on Senator Ruane's point on the family and the siblings' right to engage. Yesterday, on kinship care day, we heard the heartbreaking testimony of a grandmother who had the resources to take only one of her grandchildren into her care. What a choice to have to make. She was heartbroken speaking about it. There were many issues involved, including that the payment was not enough to support both children. She has all of the issues that Ms Murray just spoke about, including the lack of support for housing, the lack of mental health supports, the needs of her child and the extra needs of the grandchildren, and the needs of her daughter in addiction. All of these are very important. The goal should be to support a family to remain together with supports and pathways to do this. If this is not possible, the next choice is kinship care and how we support this, how we keep families together and how we keep the connection. We have learned that the adverse effects on a child go right into adulthood. We hear adults talk about being disconnected from their siblings, and there are cases regarding institutional care where adults speak about the impact of being separated from their siblings. We are not dealing with this now, and now is a chance to ask how we do it and how we support kinship care.

Marie Sherlock (Dublin Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I know I am out of time but I have a question which can be answered later as it is important to understand it. It is with regard to health and education. The lack of access has been well set out, as has lack of recognition by the health service of those in kinship arrangements, particularly in informal kinship arrangements. Has this changed much over the past 20 years? I am thinking in particular about GDPR and all of this. To what extent do the health services show a degree of flexibility and humanity towards families in these situations and allow access to the grandparent, aunt or uncle looking after the child? How has this changed. I am health spokesperson for my party and a message needs to go to the health sector on how it can better respond to and recognise families in these situations. I know this is a long-winded question.

Gary Gannon (Dublin Central, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am conscious we are over time but I am also more conscious that we are here to learn. I ask the witnesses to answer the question.

Ms Laura Dunleavy:

This points to the legal issue. People who are kinship caring due to the loss of a parent where there has been bereavement can apply for guardianship from the time they step into the role. Otherwise, they have to wait 12 months. This has an implication for the child's access to health services, whether it is a dentist appointment or to get an antibiotic or, more significantly, with regard to mental health illness. We have spoken to children who were not able to access supports from CAMHS or Pieta House when they were suicidal and had experienced overdoses. This was due to the issue regarding parental consent. Because there is no social worker involved, they go round in circles, and it could take two weeks before they get access through a social work department overriding it. This is the lived reality for at least 12 months for kinship carers, who are an estimated 80% of our callers.

When we look at the impact of adverse childhood experiences we know, and the evidence is there, that it can lead to a higher prevalence of the need to access physical health supports and mental health supports. We know the impact it has on children if we do not intervene early and wrap around, scaffold and support them to come through the trauma. We would love to see the same prioritisation and supports as are available to children in formal care.

We recognise these adverse childhood experiences exist. From the cold perspective of the financial return on investment, we know that if we intervene early and support a child, it comes back to us. This comes down to the medical element and the prioritisation for assessments and therapeutic supports. We speak to families where there has been significant trauma, in particular in cases of domestic homicide where the perpetrator serving a prison sentence holds guardianship consent for that child to access therapeutic supports. This is with regard to Valerie's law. At every step of kinship care we look at, there is a hurdle and a closed door. With regard to going on into adulthood and SUSI, this is an issue for the Department of higher education. We have given the committee a little briefing on each Department because this issue intersects so many areas. I thank Deputy Sherlock for the question.

Tom Brabazon (Dublin Bay North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank everybody for their very insightful presentations this morning on this very important issue. Listening to the contributions, it seems kinship care and the work that kinship carers do is far preferable to State care. One of the most important things anybody can give to a child is love, and if you are family member, you are going to give that child love. The witnesses are doing very important work and whatever supports they need they should be given, as should the carers. Whatever is there should be bolstered to enhance and maximise its effect.

I have a number of questions and I will direct them to EPIC because they stem from the presentation. It was stated there are other ways forward to improve services for those actively in addiction, and reference was made to more diversion options being available to the courts. Will the witnesses expand on this? What is meant by more diversion options? Are there any particular suggestions in this regard? It was also said there is a need for bespoke drug detox and rehabilitation services designed specifically to meet the needs of care-experienced children. What would that look like? As other speakers have done, I thank Ms Rice for her profound contribution today.

Mr. Wayne Stanley:

I thank Deputy Brabazon for his questions. On the question on the court system, this goes to the Department of justice and the options available to the courts when they are dealing with young people who are caught in addiction and, perhaps, veering into criminality. There are some measures in justice legislation but they are not up and running or available to the courts. These include diversion options in the justice system rather than committing a young person to Oberstown. One of our concerns is that there are not necessarily high level supports between special care and Oberstown. Such measures should be part of our alternative care system so the courts could intervene and send people to more supported environments. If these more therapeutic options were open to the courts, then perhaps we could have better outcomes for children in these circumstances.

EPIC has experience in this area but we are not a drug rehabilitation service. We refer people on. What we do see in terms of alternative options regarding services designed for care-experienced young people is that a lot of the services out there for young people are based around family intervention and counselling models. A lot of trauma may have led to addiction and contributed to their care experience, or their care experience has contributed to their addiction, but they are not necessarily ready to go into counselling. They are looking for alternative ways to address the crisis they are in. It might lead to counselling further down the road but these services are not there and, if they are, they are very rare. They are often innovations by individuals rather than systemic services in position. Social workers will tell us the services are not there for them to refer the young people in their charge. This is something we continue to see.

Ms Fiona Murray:

I will follow up on several matters. With regard to the young people we meet, perhaps through the likes of special care units such as Ballydowd, who have entered the services because of a welfare issue compounded by an addiction issue, or a young person with an addiction issue who has had a criminal conviction in Oberstown and meets us there, many of these young people tell us they are doing very well dealing with their addiction issues while in the services because they are getting the relevant supports but their concern is where they will go beyond it. They will get a discharge from Oberstown and go back to their local communities. They speak about being extremely vulnerable to gang-related matters or to persons in the community who will exploit them.

Being in special care presents its own issues for young people, including, obviously, identifying placements beyond special care.

Then again, where does that young person go? There are the issues that they face if they are back into their community and do not have a suitable placement to support them around their ongoing concerns around their addiction issues.

It is important to say that some of the young people we work with engage with local community-based addiction services. Those services are supportive and have often brought that young person successfully through their journey.

The issue for a young person with a care experience is that if you are on a care order and you need a residential placement, that is compounded by the authority overseeing that whereby that child is in the care of Tusla but there is no residential placement that can have that dual role of being the oversight as a statutory issue and also being their support them with their addiction. Residential placements are probably a badly needed service for these young people as well.

Tom Brabazon (Dublin Bay North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

To follow up on that, is Ms Murray aware whether the courts have power in respect of somebody who, for example, gets out of Oberstown? As I understand it, the courts are functus officio and do not have any further role. There is a gap there that needs to be looked at.

Ms Fiona Murray:

Absolutely. The service we provide to Oberstown is that we provide advocacy support to all young persons in Oberstown because they are in the care of the State. It is slightly different from our commitments with Tusla. These young people often go straight back home into their local communities and while they may have some supportive parental figures for them, there is that vulnerability as to what the community issues present for them.

For young people leaving Oberstown who are in the care of Tusla, what we do as advocates is advocate to the social work department responsible as to whether it is advisable that this young person is going back into that community given what they will face, and whether it should be looked at. Obviously, we do not want young people moving placements because that is a whole other issue, but we might say some alternative may have to be sought for the young person because we need to listen to what they are saying are their vulnerabilities. They will have been drug free for the previous year and a half and we have to make sure that we do our maximum to make sure that they remain drug free.

Ms Réidín Dunne:

Could I speak to a point made about the continuum of substance use that was made earlier? I too find myself in social work spaces all the time advocating for a non-binary view of what that looks like. Often, where we are is we speak about addiction full stop and addiction is chaos, whereas we do not have the ability within our systemic spaces to look at a family's function within that and how it is very possible, because we work with mothers every day, for a mother to provide good enough care to her child while using substances, and that is not said enough. In an ideal situation, of course, we would prefer that woman did not use substance but we do not live in an ideal world. However, the State's response to women who use substances is often binary and punitive in nature. To exemplify that point, of the 11 children in our children's centre three years ago, five of them were moved into care and no family reunification was planned because we know from our experience that when the child of a mother who is involved in substance use is removed into care, the chances of that child returning are limited and the barriers put in place in terms of what she is expected to do are unreasonable. I have been in social work spaces where social workers have requested the mother to be no longer on her methadone maintenance programme when that methadone maintenance programme is maintaining her stability. That very view shows a lack of understanding of and insight into the continuum of recovery. While we all accept that we are here to support people through their addiction, we have to accept that there is a continuum of recover. As Deputy Graves said, recovery is not about the absence or presence of drugs; it is a whole other function. There is lots to consider and we have to consider all of those things. As my colleague Mr. Broderick said, when we look at Hidden Harm only through the lens of addiction, we are ignoring systemic issues, such as poverty, mental health and systemic barriers that women face all the time.

Gary Gannon (Dublin Central, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Thank you so much.

Máire Devine (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank everybody for their presentations and their thoughtfulness for those that we need to be thoughtful for and care for. This meeting is being held at a good time. It is International Kinship Care Week and yesterday was World Mental Health Day. All those things are so mixed up together.

I have a few comments and questions. I ask the witnesses to forgive me if I fly off in different directions. There is a feeling among some people involved in the addiction and help groups, forums or whatever that we will invite the Minister into this arena but that, because there is a timeline on the new national drugs strategy, it is already set in stone. Do the witnesses feel as though their voices have been and will be heard in that? Is there time for their voices to be heard? Obviously, we are under pressure to get this report out but people have a concern that these groups' voices need to primary. Hopefully, following the two sessions we have had, we will be able to reflect that, but is there adequate time to do that because there is so much we could talk about forever?

I would like the committee to ask the Minister for justice, Deputy Jim O'Callaghan, to respond to the sentencing guidelines and the focus and re-emphasis on what is best for that family when the mother is getting sentenced, and whether he will take that all in to refocus and re-emphasis it to the courts. It is such a small area of incarceration but it causes such an explosion of ripples all around. That is something we need to focus on.

The other issue is the formalisation of kinship care. They talked quite a lot about this. It is kind of floating around and nobody has tied it down, but we do not want it tied down. We should formalise it in some manner but allow it to be flexible. Let us not go down the route of forms and whether you ticked this, did that or got this from that agency, another from the doctor and another from the paediatrician, etc. They have all that information. We are in a digital age. It has got to be simpler, but certainly it has to be to the forefront and be included every time we talk about care for children.

I do not know who will able to answer my next question, which relates to the issue of women seeking refuge who either are themselves in addiction or are running from addiction, and their children. I am trying to get local authorities to give me a concrete answer in the case of a woman in fear taking her children. There was one recently who went to the county next to us, Kildare. The council is refusing to house her, saying that she needs to go back to get emergency accommodation in Dublin, but that is where the problem is. The witnesses talked a little bit about that. By the way, I extend my deepest condolences to that mam who has lost her daughter and continues to care for the child. Ar dheis Dé go raibh a h-anam.

It is about trying to get local authorities to be a bit more definite. Violence, including domestic violence, is an endemic problem in society and often the two go hand in hand. It does not excuse the violence, but it is a factor in vulnerable communities that I see. Like Ms Dunne, we all become the social worker. We have people coming in to us and not knowing where to go. Certainly, local authorities need to be addressed as to that.

I have loads more but I will stop there.

Gary Gannon (Dublin Central, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Would anybody in particular like to respond?

Ms Réidín Dunne:

In relation to women seeking refuge, we have a very risk-averse view of women who are involved in substance use and their ability to seek refuge. We facilitate a domestic violence service called DAVINA, which looks at that intersectionality of women who use substances and are also survivors of domestic violence. We know that women who use substances are more likely to be involved in a domestically violent relationship, yet they are absent from the strategy. We have named migrant women and Traveller women. We have not explicitly named women in addiction as a vulnerable cohort.

Our ability for women to seek refuge, should they choose to do so, has been very limited because of their addiction. While I understand that there are risks, safety planning and so on in addiction services, addiction seems to be the absolute deterrent for a women seeking refuge. It is our view that is completely contrary to her human right to seek refuge.

In the past three years since DAVINA has been involved, we have managed to get three women into refuge. That was done with very creative narratives in seeking and advocating for those women. It is an issue we have to discuss. While our own consciousness and ability to speak about domestic violence is absolutely raised, we have to look at the "worthy victim" within that. Sometimes, our women - the woman who is involved in substance use - does not have access to her victimhood. She is seen as an unprotective parent in the social work space and she is seen as a problem and a risk in the domestic violence space.

Mr. Gary Broderick:

If a woman decides to act on the domestic violence, she is much more likely to enter into a problematic phase of substance use afterwards, yet we do not support her in that, therefore putting more families at risk. We have to start thinking more creatively. With the national drug strategy, we have moved away from criminalising but we may not have moved away from an abstinence focus to our responses. We need to be a lot more comfortable with the fact that, sometimes, people will use substances but we can support and help them and keep families together. Before the kinship care is necessary, keeping that unit together is the best option. That is also highlighted in to the sentencing guidelines. I thank the Deputy for bringing us back to that issue. The number of women in our prisons for what are usually non-violent crimes, and very often crimes that have roots in domestic violence, is utterly preposterous. If we can think differently and more creatively, we can keep that woman in the community so that she can be supported as a mother rather than putting her in prison where she then has to come back out and may have lost her home and may not be able to bring her children back together. One woman we worked with had her children in care and she was ready to take them back, but she had a one-bedroom apartment and three children, so she could not bring them back. Her housing situation has been in that limbo for a lengthy period. We need to think about all of that differently.

One other element linked with families and impact has to do with Dad going to prison. In the north inner city, there is a social obligation on the partner to support him while he is there, yet their finances have halved because he is now in prison and everything else that goes with all of that for families.

All of this is alongside the kinship care issue. To go back another step and thinking of young people programmes in particular, if we start moving away from the abstinence focus and start thinking about belonging, connection, a much broader sense of intersectionality and all of the other issues that come in when there is addiction, we can put the focus on the young people, what they need and the intersectionality of all their issues instead of on the drug use.

Máire Devine (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Their belonging.

Mr. Gary Broderick:

Belonging is so important. If we can offer people that, I believe we will move forward an awful lot better in helping them process the trauma. There is a great reminder of connection to the list of adverse childhood experiences, ACEs, but increasingly in the literature, we are beginning to ask if we can have an extended list of ACEs because childhood tends to go on a little bit longer. We now know more than we did before and that it is more than those ten things listed in the ACEs that people are experiencing.

Gary Gannon (Dublin Central, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am conscious that Deputy Devine also asked about the voice of kinship carers in the national drugs strategy, presumably in the previous one or in the formation of this one. Does anyone want to refer to that question?

Ms Laura Dunleavy:

The voice of kinship carers is often left on the sidelines and is not involved in any of those spaces, so we would always advocate to have that voice as central.

I want to follow up on and echo everything Mr. Broderick and Ms Dunne said. Regarding the formalisation piece of kinship care, it is often not a social work response that is needed or necessary and families are often closed off to social work when the child protection element is removed or they are not open to social work to begin with. What we are looking for is the resourcing of a support pathway for when a family steps up - they are in a crisis and a really difficult time - so that they are supported with wraparound support that is resourced.

At the moment, there is a lack of awareness. We are a team of two full-time and one part-time worker in our programme in Treoir and we would love to see a society that understands and is aware of kinship care. Having that awareness is a first point. We can then look at the pathway to support, which relates to the formalisation element.

Regarding the relative foster care assessment, and as Ms Rice said, a grandparent might have to step up for one, two, three or more children and is in a one- or two-bedroom apartment. That grandparent is not going to pass the relative foster care assessment. Sometimes, families are not informed about that being an option and once they take on the care, that case is closed off, so that option is not even on the agenda. Other families get that information and say they do not want to go through the formalisation of their care for their grandchildren, nieces, nephews or whoever it might be. That is the lived reality.

We need to look at having some level of assessment to ensure a family is supported but also at a pathway of support and a return point of contact, if needed.

Mr. Damien Peelo:

May I add to that?

Gary Gannon (Dublin Central, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Very briefly, and then I will need to move on.

Mr. Damien Peelo:

It does not need to be formalised to be supported; it is the informal. As the Deputy mentioned, it is about the ability to adapt and be flexible in situations. However, the needs to be support for both the parent of that child who has gone into kinship care and the kinship carer because there are often tensions as well around how to parent in those cases. There are a lot more supports that could be offered to the parent and to the family if the resources are there to give it.

Gary Gannon (Dublin Central, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Thank you.

Ann Graves (Dublin Fingal East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I want to start by saying how valuable it is to our work to have the witnesses here today and their particularly detailed submissions. We would have loads of questions to ask but a lot of the answers to them are in the submissions already, which is brilliant for us.

I want to acknowledge the importance of the role that kinship plays in keeping families together and providing essential care, given the children who suffer from hidden harm. I thank Ms Rice for sharing her story. I was listening to her and thinking back to a famous documentary in the 1990s, called "They Call Me Mammy Now". I do not know if many of those present remember it but it was about the grannies in Dublin looking after their grandkids during the worst times of addiction and, of course, the HIV crisis. Here we are 35 years later and things have not really changed dramatically, including the services. We are still waiting for kinship to get proper recognition and support.

I read through the Kinship Care Ireland submission on the 10,000 to 12,000 children and the cost saving to the State. We are in budget week, yet nothing was given to these services. Not only that, but the grants for the task forces have cynically been cut by 25%. They were increased last year in advance of the general election but are down again this year. What has happened is appalling but we will all continue to raise awareness.

If the witnesses do not mind, I will ask a couple of questions of all of them so that they have more time to respond rather than me talking all the time. I was with FamiliBase this week and saw at first hand the excellent service being provided there, particularly its child-centred approach. Will Ms Kearney or Mr. Cummins - I do not mind which - expand on how FamiliBase would envisage tackling the causes and consequences of intergenerational trauma, much of it caused by addiction, drug-related intimidation and mental health issues?

I visited SAOL earlier this year and was struck by the compassion and strength the staff had for the women who had journeyed long and hard to where they were. Recently, I was at a Council of Europe meeting and I raised the issue of how difficult it was for women to access services, given that they were the main people looking after their kids, and the problems they faced. Will the witnesses highlight what services are in place or what services and supports are needed to facilitate children moving back in with their mothers and their immediate families?

I realise this can be difficult for all concerned. How can the fear, worry and anxiety be approached?

Ms Dunleavy is calling on the committee to demand cross-government support for kinship families. It is a great idea and I support it 100%, but what does she think it would look like? Which Department or Departments should do the work?

Mr. Brendan Cummins:

I will have a go at answering on causes, consequences and how a service can address them. I got a sense from the presentation or walk-around last week. When trying to break the intergenerational effects of substance misuse, the earliest possible intervention is in the early years setting. It is about very early identification of speech and language issues and young people not meeting general milestones, and then getting in. We are in a unique position to address them. With the proper resources in early years, we can bring in speech and language therapists and OT therapists for young people so that when they start to engage in education, the internal frustrations are already addressed.

There is nothing worse than a four- or five-year-old who has loads of what I will call unintentional neglect. The damage is done. There is no mammy or daddy who wants to neglect her or his child. They are not consciously doing it; it is just the adverse effects of addiction in the home. They may not be able to communicate well or may have learned communication skills very differently from other young people, or their communication skills might be what we would see as negative. If they were 14 or 15, we would call them antisocial and then they are up before the courts before you know it. If they are going to school at four or five and cannot communicate their frustration, it will come out in behaviour.

We have identified a gap between early years and youth work as well. We have developed our own afterschool service which provides very intense support to bridge that gap. With intervention at early years stage, we are building relationships. We have said at the youth work committee that ten is sometimes too late for a youth work intervention. We need to build relationships with young people much earlier so we can support them and have challenging conversations with them. When they are ten, starting to be involved in criminality or experiment with drug use, starting off with smokes, a joint or a few cans in a field, those relationships are already built. The idea is that there would be one good adult through the life cycle of a young person into adulthood.

I do not think that it is one-size-fits-all. We are talking about the journey of addiction and recovery. There are levels of intervention that go with that. We have youth work, early years, family support, the role of the education system, the role of the council and the role of every other Department that is intertwined in a young person's life. It is not a quick answer, sorry.

Ann Graves (Dublin Fingal East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is fine.

Ms Fiona Kearney:

One of the greatest cures for everything is addressing poverty. It is about recognition of these arrangements. It is important to add two things relating to this and to other questions. First, we need to not formalise kinship care, but to recognise it. We have so many little children afraid to say what their arrangement is because there is so much fear: "Don't tell the schools that your auntie's moved into your mammy's house while your mammy's gone away." It is all secret: "Don't tell them that your nanny's going in and collecting your ma's payment." That creates an awful experience for children where their living arrangement is not recognised, is secret and wrong. Second, we need to remember that mammies and parents need a voice in kinship care. If a parent does not want the kinship care arrangement, they need to have a say. Some parents experienced trauma in their own family unit growing up. They may not want their child to be there. We need to listen to parents.

Mr. Gary Broderick:

In trying to formulate services and supports that might be necessary, first and foremost, we are not dealing with mainstream in the sense that we often have the extreme end of things. If that is reunification, it means there was a breakdown and children had to move out. There needs to be patience with the family and that means time. For relationship-building and giving people space, there is a need for patience within the system. This might take a while.

We speak of trauma-informed practitioning but I speak more of trauma-and-violence-informed practitioning. That means having staff in schools who are aware of the impact that will have on children and how they might present. The transition back to mammy is great but mammy may be distressed or whatever.

We have named it and, unfortunately, in many families we know in SAOL, domestic violence is regularly present. It is huge. The system around the woman may not be that secure and there may not be safety. It is about looking to see where safety might come in. Also, you can get out of practice of being a mammy if your children are away. It takes a while to get used to minding the kids again, giving over your time and giving over everything to the children. It is about simple things like how to be emotionally available for the children. With our services in SAOL, one of the most beautiful things is giving mothers the support and watching as they realise "Oh, this is what we're supposed to do." In the children's service in SAOL, the children - and the mammies more so - are trained for their preschool years. We work with one- to three-year-olds. It gives mammy two years of training and getting ready for preschool. We have a staff team who are addiction aware working with the children and we work with the mammies when they are there. I am not saying it is perfect in any way, shape or form but it is about thinking a little bit differently. When you are feeding the kids, maybe you need a bit of practice in cooking again. If you have been living in hostels, you lose the skills of cooking and preparing and managing meals. It is about being aware of those things.

A gap we see is around women using drugs who get pregnant. Social workers step in two weeks before the baby is born. Could we bring that back a few weeks or months to allow the process to be worked on earlier? I know social workers are stressed and stretched, but could we do that? When we go in two weeks beforehand, we are in crisis. We are just maintaining the crisis.

Ms Réidín Dunne:

We should acknowledge that when women who are involved in addiction medicine are pregnant, we know from very early on that they are pregnant. Often, women know by month one or month two. At that point, we are engaging with social work, asking for support and preplanning and, if there is a capacity assessment to be done, asking for it to done in month one or two so we can look at issues in relation to it. It is coming too late. Our women are often experiencing crisis pregnancy and the State offers a crisis response. We do not take the time to ask the woman what she feels about the pregnancy or what kind of mother she wants to be. Because we engage at a crisis, child-protection level all the time, we are not holding her as an expectant mammy. We are dealing with her as a drug-using woman who is also now pregnant. When many of our women are pregnant or when their children are subject to child protection concerns, there is an intense scrutiny. When the child is removed into care, all the scrutiny, which can be seen by the woman as very supportive, evaporates. Once you support mammy to support the kinship arrangement, that arrangement - it is not a placement - is far more likely to succeed because mammy can see and support the family functioning. However, once the child is removed into care, we often bypass the mother and no longer engage with her as a mother. She is still that child's mother.

She may be parenting from afar or parenting very differently but supporting her in her role as mother and helping to process that will also support family functioning.

Mr. Gary Broderick:

I have two very quick points. We have a social worker on our team, which makes a huge difference because social workers talking to social workers can be really great. Second, children change at puberty anyway, so the extra supports need to be factored in.

Ms Laura Dunleavy:

A cross-departmental response is needed. Ms Rice has given out an infographic on this. The Department has ongoing policy work and there have been consultations with kinship carers, young people and parents, but we need the involvement of the Departments of Social Protection, housing, justice, higher education and Health. The approach needs to be cross-departmental. For the Department of Social Protection, what is required is that all children in kinship care have accessible financial support, fast-tracked access to welfare supports such as the supplementary welfare allowance, the back to school clothing and footwear allowance and the fuel allowance, without unfair means testing. Kinship carers should have work leave similar to adoptive leave such that they do not have to step away from work and lose out on employment, which has an impact on their pensions. Department of Social Protection staff must recognise kinship care, and there should be trauma-informed practice.

With regard to the Department of housing, we want to consider changing succession rules so kinship carers can take over a tenancy or move into the family home in the sad case of a parental death, preventing homelessness and avoiding having children enter State care due to housing-related issues. That is an issue that arises for family members when they step in during the period of loss. We also need to ensure access to home-improvement grants so that when a grandparent steps in, she does not have to sleep on a couch in a cold room.

For the Department of justice, we want a special guardianship order similar to what is available in the UK, reduced court costs and delays, and the implementation of Valerie’s law. We want the Department of Health to work alongside the Department of justice on a health-led response, upholding citizens’ assembly recommendation No. 22 on supporting kinship families.

Regarding the Department of higher education, young people in kinship care are not recognised in the same way as children with formal care experience, and they face unfair means testing regarding access to SUSI grants. They have to evidence estrangement from a parent.

Regarding the Department of Health, we want the removal of means testing for medical cards so young people have access to a medical card, and also so kinship carers do not have to skip meals to provide basic medical care. We need the prioritisation of health assessments, developmental and therapeutic supports, and access to respite and carer health services. Engagement is needed with the Department of justice on its policy work on kinship and drugs. The Department of children is holding this piece and co-ordinating it, but we need buy-in and support from all of the other Departments to ensure children are supported in a trauma-informed way as well as their carers.

That summary is enough for now. There is more information on the sheet circulated.

Gary Gannon (Dublin Central, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank Ms Dunleavy. I am conscious that Senator Ruane might have to leave for a vote, so if it is okay with members, I will switch my slot with hers.

Lynn Ruane (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Cathaoirleach. My question is brief. I thank Ms Dunne for emphasising the refuge aspect. I am very aware of refuges turning women away if there is an intimation of substance use, especially if the women have been referred by a local drugs service. This referral comes with assumptions. Turning the woman away is removing her capacity to ask for help even at local level if it is the local service that makes the referral. I thank the witnesses for covering this so well.

My question is for EPIC. Mr. Stanley said something interesting, namely, that drug use or addiction – I do not know which term he used but I am going to refer to addiction – was a societal issue, not a consequence of being in care. I want to hone in on this. Could Mr. Stanley tease it out a little more? When we think about homelessness or imprisonment, we note that addiction can be compounded by circumstances. Obviously, drug use is societal but there are certain types of substance use, such as self-regulation and self-medication, that are in response to an environment that is not okay. Taking environmental factors into account, could Mr. Stanley speak to that point? I imagine he was not saying care as a whole did not have an impact on substance misuse. Obviously, all the environmental factors such as the type of care, how it is provided and how trauma-informed it is could have an impact on a person’s engagement with a substance.

Mr. Wayne Stanley:

I concur with everything the Senator just said. The point I was trying carefully to make, which I may not have phrased correctly, was that we should not associate addiction-----

Lynn Ruane (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Not stigmatise those in care by way of correlation.

Mr. Wayne Stanley:

There is causation but it is not correlation.

Lynn Ruane (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Exactly.

Mr. Wayne Stanley:

If we are to think about it correctly, we need to look at each young person in his or her own circumstances and approach it in a trauma-informed way. That feeds into the comments about the need for specialised services for young people who are care experienced. Addiction services that may be in place for young people will not necessarily work for care-experienced young people because they have different networks of support. When dealing with children, networks of support are often involved in therapeutic responses to addiction and other issues. That was the point I was trying to draw together.

Lynn Ruane (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Grand. I wanted to tease it out because I thought that was what Mr. Stanley meant. The point he made originally stood out to me because, if we are to call for bespoke responses, it is about acknowledging the connection between one thing and the other. That is super helpful. I thank Mr. Stanley.

Gary Gannon (Dublin Central, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am conscious that we are well into this engagement now. If anyone feels there is something he or she would like to develop, or if someone has not yet spoken and wants to add a final point, please feel free to do so.

Ms Fiona Murray:

I did not know Senator Ruane was leaving right now and wanted to refer to reunification. There are a couple of points to be made, even on what Mr. Broderick raised. We would hope to see reunification talked about at all points when a child comes into the care system. Every child has the right to go home. In certain circumstances, that will not happen, but as advocates we would push for it to be considered for every young person, even at the point when his or her first care plan is drawn up.

We have seen some really good examples of reunification, but Mr. Broderick’s point, and some of Ms Dunne’s points, concern the fact that the safety net can be missing. With some of the families and parents, the safety nets are few and far between. It can be a case of examining the life circumstances of a best friend. Some of the expectations around reunification can be really challenging for the families we engage with.

Lynn Ruane (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Sometimes, personalities come into the fray.

Ms Fiona Murray:

However, we have seen some very good examples. The process is slow, as Mr. Broderick pointed out, but let us be slow, and get the children back to where they want to be. The young people we work with always say we should look at their families first. We are aware some families may not be able to have them back because of their circumstances, but the young people still want them to be considered first.

Lynn Ruane (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Some family members have even been refused because two same-sex children would have to share a room, yet council policy is to give housing on the basis of same-sex children sharing a room. There is a very classist undertone.

Ms Fiona Murray:

One would query some of the hoops and loops.

Mr. Damien Peelo:

Let me raise another point about reunification, raised by Senator Ruane. With non-marital families, the legal status of fathers is so difficult at times. If they are not married, they do not automatically have guardianship rights. They can obtain them through court or in other ways, but that often puts them on the periphery. There is a wider societal issue around how men care and the role of men in care that we need to consider. It is often excluded from discussions. We need to think about how fathers are brought into the picture, and what the barriers to caring are for men, particularly fathers, when substance use is not an issue, but even where it is.

Gary Gannon (Dublin Central, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There have been a number of moments during this session where people’s jaws simply dropped to the floor over some of the testimony given. The idea and reality that a child or young person in the care of the State would be asked to prove his or her own abandonment is just incredible. My question is for the members. Would it be appropriate for us as a committee to write to the relevant Departments to ask about that practice?

While it will probably feature in the document in nine months’ time, we do not need to wait that long to challenge that practice. It is incredible.

Mr. Stanley described special care being used as a de facto detox unit. Will he describe that? He said there was a lack of appropriate detox and rehabilitation services for young people in care and that, in some cases, special care is being used as a de facto detox unit. Will the witness expand on that a little bit? What are the options for young people in care to access detox facilities?

Ms Fiona Murray:

Principally, that young person may have been placed on a special care order through the High Court. They are entering into special care on a placement. During their period in the placement, it is identified, or it has been pre-identified already, that they struggle with an addiction issue. Therefore, it is being managed within the special care placement through a medical model. It is not so much that addiction is the purpose of the placement. Rather, it is a combination of welfare matters that pertain to that child for which a special care order has been sought through the High Court. While placed within special care, that addiction issue is addressed through the support of a medical team.

Mr. Wayne Stanley:

The core issue is that there are no placements available for young people to deal with their addiction, which would prevent court orders placing them into special care. Special care is dealing with the substantive issue, that is, their addiction, as a result. A high support unit or residential placement, appropriate to a young person with care experience, could prevent young people ending up in special care. What is happening is that special care is taking on that role. We all know the pressure special care is under. In the context of all the other pressures on the system, the concern is that children may not be seen to reach the standard of requiring a court order. These young people are standing on the brink of being abandoned altogether.

Gary Gannon (Dublin Central, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Will the witnesses from SAOL talk a little more about short-term sentences for mothers? It seems the punishment extends far beyond whoever the State believes is being punished. Maybe the witnesses can develop that point for us.

Mr. Gary Broderick:

A mother who is locked away is separated from her child and the child is separated from the mother. That just adds to the trauma that can be in place in prison. What we are asking to be considered is that there is no need for all of that to be happening. Surely we can come up with better, non-custodial ways to punish the wrongdoing that society has a right to call out. We are talking with the Probation Service at the moment to try to come up with new ideas, such as women coming to SAOL rather than being imprisoned so that they can be punished by us.

Ms Réidín Dunne:

In a trauma-informed way.

Mr. Gary Broderick:

One of the huge benefits of such a model is that the family unit can hopefully stay together. That family unit will be under stress and pressure, so it is about offering other kinds of supports. Isolation and separation are the number one element in the impact of social-----

Gary Gannon (Dublin Central, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It seems contrary on a number of fronts, but especially to the rights of the child.

Mr. Gary Broderick:

Yes.

Ms Réidín Dunne:

As part of our BRIO programme, which is for justice-involved women and women who use substances, we work in Dóchas women's prison weekly. We are aware of the growing number of women on very short sentences. The Probation Service in Dóchas prison has recently spoken to us about women on two-week sentences in the hope that they will receive a probation report within that time. The disruption to those women's lives and the impact and fracture of family functioning as a consequence of a two-week sentence means they will not benefit from that, however. Even the ability of the Probation Service to turn around a probation report within that period of time is undermined. The fracture to that family is absolutely huge. Our view is that no woman should be sentenced for two weeks for any crime. There is an alternative. There are alternative placements for women that are community based that can hold them in that space. We, among other people, are willing to do that because we believe it is good for the family, mother and society.

Teresa Costello (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am a bit concerned by Ms Dunne's statement that no woman should be put in prison for any crime. That is concerning.

Ms Réidín Dunne:

I absolutely did not say that. What I meant was that no one should be committed to prison for a short sentence of two weeks, which is what is happening for women at the moment. There certainly are alternatives for women in the community rather than a custodial sentence for two weeks. A two-week sentence is usually for a very small crime that could absolutely be dealt with through probation and community sanctions. There are a whole range of options available to the court. Often, the court sentences women to short-term sentences in order for them to get a probation report, which they do not get in the community. It is more of a systemic decision rather than a penal one.

Gary Gannon (Dublin Central, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Senator Costello has a little bit more time left. She has not contributed yet. Does she wish to ask any questions or make any statements?

Teresa Costello (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

No, it is fine. I have been listening. I just wished to question that matter because it jumped out at me. I do not know whether I misheard the witness, but I have concerns for children's well-being in all of this. I agree that supports need to be in place for children. They have to be at the centre of everything.

Gary Gannon (Dublin Central, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Senator. Do any of the Deputies present wish to speak again?

Máire Devine (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

To go back to the idea of the family and kids being fractured and sent to different places, either through placement or in different houses to be reared, studies published at the beginning of the year state that siblings have much more of an influence on who we become and how we are as we grow than our parents at times. That connection has to be there. With our parents, there is a life cycle and life goes on, but we always have a connection with our siblings throughout our lives. They are quite influential. These studies highlight that.

Those in Tusla are always the bad guys or women in the whole situation. Women come in and are terrified of Tusla. They fear they cannot go through with it because Tusla will come to get them. You get to a stage where you just say to women to let Tusla come in because it has an obligation to protect both the mother and the children. You tell women you will be in their corner or whatever like that. That is what the witnesses do. It is about changing that attitude. If Tusla has the time, energy, staff and remit, it should change that whole attitude from one of punishment to one of being an enabler and a helper.

I am the Sinn Féin’s spokesperson on gender and domestic violence. We are launching the zero tolerance campaign and it has been quite challenging to get men involved because they think it is a women's problem. It is actually not a woman's problem; it is a man's problem. We are working on that as a society. What is missing in this conversation is the fathers. While someone mentioned the daddies, the mammies are always the go-to. That is the way it is. The fathers also need to be remembered and guided in respect of their children because they are – hopefully - another sensible adult who can root and secure children. They are not in the conversation a lot. I wish to note that. They are half of the population. I thank the witnesses very much. It has been a great to and fro.

Ann Graves (Dublin Fingal East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I agree with what Ms Dunne said about taking someone away from their family for two weeks. What sort of crime would it be anyway? They tend to be petty. When we are talking about drugs and the work of the drugs committee, we are looking at health-led approaches. It would be far better to take that approach to women in particular. These are not serious crimes. I definitely understand the trauma and destruction such sentences have on their lives and those of their families.

I definitely get it.

It would be very useful, in terms of the strategy that is coming up, if we make the case that the voice of people here has to be heard. Many groups we are meeting feel they have been distanced from the drafting of the strategy. That is something we will raise as a committee.

Ms Laura Dunleavy:

The Deputy has reminded me about an issue that emerges for a kinship carer specific to the guardian's payment where that kinship carer is also in a caring role for his or her vulnerable adult son or daughter. In that situation, due to the technicality of that son or daughter living under the same roof, even if the parent is in a caring role, he or she will not be approved for a guardian's payment. That is something that crops up as well.

I will put on the record the voice of a young person at yesterday's conference who stated that kinship is more than blood; it is the people who stay when life breaks. That is a young person who has travelled up through the process of being cared for by kin. She highlighted that her aunt had paid up to €20,000 in counselling services for her, from the age of eight to 18, to get her to a space where she was able to speak fluidly and well. I just wanted to put that on the record.

Mr. Damien Peelo:

I will add the simple thing that having access to a medical card that would allow her to access services, and not having to necessarily get those privately, is a huge part of it. Children in formal care get access to that but children in kinship care do not. Those children are in care. They are in the care of a family that loves and supports them, but they are still in care. That is not recognised.

I come back to two other points in relation to Tusla. Some of these issues are very systemic. I am talking to people in this room who know that poverty, social exclusion and racism are at the heart of a lot of the societal issues we are talking about. Tusla's prevention, partnership and family support programmes are so much less invested in than child welfare supports, but both need equal investment. Both need to be invested in, if we are talking about the preventative measures as much as responding to the crisis that is there. Everybody here has talked about early intervention and supports but prevention is as important.

In some of my work in the background, I am still involved, with Fiona and others, in Traveller projects and work. Travellers are hugely important in kinship care. They did it long before it was recognised, as was the support of the community for a family raising children. There are specific needs, when we are talking about those voices that are excluded from all the supports and services, around culturally appropriate supports. Tusla are before another committee today - I met its representatives in the hallway - regarding the Traveller project, but they need to be in here. There needs to be so much crossover. The intersectionality of all of those things is really important. We cannot take away from the investment in the preventative work. It does not always need to be a social work response. There is so much more in supports out there. We need to move away from the medicalisation of all this into a much more of a communities response.

Ms Fiona Kearney:

I will pick up on a couple of points, particularly in relation to siblings, or their brothers and sisters as our kids would call them. They are so important, particularly when there is family addiction. Whether it is an older brother, older sister or little sister, there are even more enhanced bonds because they become everything to you. One of the greatest ways to protect those bonds is kinship care, when things break down in a family. What we see happen is it is more likely that the kin, or brothers and sisters, will go together when they move into care. It is very hard to place three or four together, but four grandparents and aunties need support, particularly financial support.

In relation to what is being proposed in terms of next steps and supports, we have talked a lot about the statutory services. Obviously, we want the income support payments and housing with the local authorities, but for most families with kinship care, community supports are very important because most do not want to engage with Tusla. They probably do not need to engage after a certain point because once children move for a period and the parents are satisfied that is the arrangement, with the right community supports, they can manage that themselves. It can be fluid and flexible and, when things change for the parents, there can be arrangements that are agreed by all family members. That is in the best interest of children. We need to invest in community service to support kinship carers. Those are very practical supports.

Ms Laura Dunleavy:

I will follow on from that. As we are a small programme, we rely a lot upon the partnership. We have established a number of pilot peer groups within family resource centres, FRCs. It has an impact when we get information to someone at the right time in terms of access to community-based supports, early education, financial support and meeting other people who are navigating the same journey, as well as people seeing themselves reflected in the person who is sitting across from them. There is huge worth in that. We have relied a lot upon the partnership with FRCs to get some of that over the line. We would like to see that in every other community-based programme.

Mr. Gary Broderick:

To what Deputy Graves said, I will add our voice to not necessarily feeling heard in the community. I thank her for raising that.

I also acknowledge the work of the Probation Service. We can knock people, but social workers are often probation officers. Probation officers tend to have a positive relationship with the women we work with. I will mark the fact that Ms Rachel Lillis and her team's work on the women's strategy has been really helpful. Maybe something similar could be done within social work, if that has not been done already.

Mr. Wayne Stanley:

I will follow on from Mr. Peelo's point about early prevention models. To go back to the final point in our opening statement around upstream services, there is the potential to go into schools to meet young people in what, many times, is their safe space, to have an initial conversation with them. I referenced Dr. Peter Mackie, who talks about it being the whisper before the conversation. It is speaking to those children in their safe space. They give the potential to identify that something is going wrong at home and we then offer support. It is not that social workers or anybody else rushes in. There is an offer of support to the family. One of the issues in any area of social work or social policy is upstreaming is usually really expensive because you are trying to hit thousands of families in the hope that you hit one or two who are going to end up in crisis. This is a way of doing something that is really broad but also really targeted. I encourage the committee to take a look at that. Conversations about it are starting to happen in the Department of housing around youth homelessness. In terms of this cohort of young people, and getting the support to families early, it is a really useful model.

Gary Gannon (Dublin Central, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Would anybody like to make a point that has not already been made? I am conscious Ms Kelly has not spoken yet. As this room is usually for politicians, that blows my mind. Does she want to say anything?

Ms Shaunie Kelly:

No.

Gary Gannon (Dublin Central, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank everyone for lending us their expertise. I thank Ms Rice for sharing her pain with us. We have a responsibility to act upon that. This session has been beyond interesting. We all learned a lot of things that we wish we did not have to learn and that we have to rectify. I thank the witnesses. I am sure they will see their testimony reflected in the report we compile.