Peadar Tóibín (Meath West, Aontú)

I wish to raise a serious issue on the floor of the House. It is a complex issue, so I hope the Minister of State will be able to give it his attention, if possible. The case involves a seven-year-old child, who I am going to call "Patrick" for the purpose of this discussion. Patrick disclosed physical and sexual abuse by his father. These allegations were brought to the attention of Tusla by the child's mother in 2018. There was an ongoing court case whereby the father was seeking overnight access to the child. In light of the allegations, the court appointed a clinical child psychologist to carry out a section 32 report.

At a subsequent sitting of the court, a social worker informed a judge in writing that the psychologist had told her over the phone that she did not believe the allegations made by Patrick. In an email, the psychologist told the child's mother and solicitor that she had not made that assertion in the phone call to the social worker and that the social worker's account of the phone call, which was relayed to the court, was false. I have seen the email. In reality, the psychologist referred the child to Tusla and contacted the Garda, such was the gravity of the disclosures and her confidence in them.

The psychologist wrote a concerning report to Tusla. It goes into graphic detail about the child's behaviour and disclosures. She wrote that in her opinion, Patrick had been abused. Tusla, however, in its report to the court entirely omitted the contents of the psychologist's report and findings. This led to further injuries to Patrick by his father. In 2021, Patrick was referred to Temple Street hospital with injuries to his testicles.

Subsequently, Patrick was interviewed by a team leader from Tusla. He made further disclosures of what happened. The team leader gave the notes of that interview to the aforementioned social worker, who provided a letter to the court. Unbeknownst to the social worker and team leader, the family had recorded the interview. There exist major discrepancies between the letter to the court and the audio file. The court was told that Patrick had admitted telling a lie. It can be seen from a freedom of information request that the falsified interview report also prevented an investigation by An Garda Síochána into the alleged child sexual abuse. Tusla decided to take the child from his mother and place him in the custody of the person who he alleged was abusing him. The child remains in this arrangement three years later.

This week, a member of An Garda Síochána walked into my constituency office and said that he, along with six other gardaí, are deeply concerned about the way this case has been handled, the way the social workers lied to the judge and the fact that the child had been taken from his mother and placed with a man against whom he has alleged abuse. The garda stated in a letter to me that he has raised these questions with management over the case, including the Commissioner and the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission, GSOC, and was reprimanded for doing so. He stated that his name was smeared with suggestions that he was doing something untoward in his relationship with the child's mother; a woman he barely knows.

I find these details shocking, especially the falsified interview with the child. The family can provide an audio recording that it is at odds with what Tusla supplied to the courts. I am extremely concerned that a psychologist appointed by the court is willing to supply an affidavit to state that her report of her interactions was altered and falsified by Tusla before being presented to the judge.

Given that there is a vulnerable boy at the centre of this case, we need a proper and independent investigation. We need to ensure this case is investigated for the sake of the child who I believe is in a shockingly dangerous situation. There is a problem at the heart of what is happening in Tusla if this is the case.

See this speech in context