District Court: Court criticises Tusla’s inaction in grave child abuse cases

About this case:

• Citation:
  [2026] IEDC 8
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  District Court
• Judge:
  Judge John Campbell

Delivering judgment for the District Court, Judge John Campbell opined, “That a woman in the Ireland of the 21st century could remain effectively invisible to her neighbours and her daughters’ school for years is another dreadful indictment of the Agency and its child protection policies and practices, which were found completely wanting in the case of this mother and her children, who endured such appalling and sustained brutality in this house of horrors.”

Background

On 2 September 2024, a child “M” attempted suicide at her school campus. Her life was saved by the actions of her school principal and his colleagues in the immediate aftermath of the incident.

The school notified the Child and Family Agency/Tusla and An Garda Síochána of the events. 

Later in September 2024, proceedings were instituted in the District Court relating to the care of M and two younger siblings, “J” and “O”, and interim orders were granted in order to keep the children and their mother safe from the children’s father.

In separate but parallel proceedings, the children’s mother secured domestic violence orders against the children’s father.

In October 2024, the court directed that the children’s Irish passports be cancelled and issued “All Ports” orders due to concerns for their lives and safety.

The Agency subsequently applied to the District Court under s.18 of the Child Care Act 1991 to take J and O into the care of the Agency. 

The children’s guardian ad litem supported the applications on the basis that they were in accordance with the children’s wishes and best interests, where O did not envisage returning to the care of either of her parents and where J wanted only a part-time relationship with her mother.

Evidence

The court heard from various individuals including the principal of the Roman Catholic school attended by M, who noted that M had regularly featured in the school’s weekly welfare meetings due to concerns over her presentation but felt unable to contact the Agency about these concerns.

The principal, CD, alleged that it was impossible to contact M’s mother during her four years in the school and that he had never met the mother or had spoken to her during that time. 

Detective Garda LMcC asserted that on 6 September 2024, the family home was searched by eight members of An Garda Síochána, the Armed Response Unit having effected entry. The Detective Garda recalled an overpowering stench in the property, along with the presence of flies, thousands of euro in cash hidden in the parents’ bedroom, and the absence of any electricity, food, toilet paper, and cleaning or sanitary products. 

The Detective Garda opined that in all of the homes searched during her seventeen years on the force, “this was the worst” and the neighbours appeared to be unaware that a woman had been residing there.

The next witness, a Social Work Team Leader, gave evidence about a meeting with the respondent father held after M’s incident on 3 September 2024. The meeting was described as being very challenging at times, with the father speaking over the other parties to the meeting and never asking how his daughter was.

Garda KB gave evidence of responding to call from M’s school and attending at the hospital to which M had been conveyed. The garda spoke to M, who alleged that her father had committed physical, sexual, and emotional abuse against her, and invoked s.12 of the 1991 Act in respect of M and J, who was present with her. 

The witness gave further evidence concerning his attendance at the family home and his invocation of s.12 in respect of O and another sibling who was present. The mother alleged to the garda that she had been subjected to sexual abuse by the father and left the property with Gardaí and the children.

The assessor witnesses gave evidence of their assessments of the children and the mother, the latter of which was described as “one of the most visibly traumatised people” the assessor had met in 30 years of practice.

The allocated social worker gave threshold evidence regarding the necessity for Full Care Orders to majority in both cases, and the guardian ad litem reported that O wished to remain in his current placement and did not wish to see his mother or siblings but would review that position one month prior to his 18th birthday. 

The guardian noted that neither O nor J wished to have contact with their father, but J wished to see her mother and sisters, and such access was taking place.

The District Court

Having heard the evidence, Judge Campbell found that the mother, J and O were victims of serious physical and emotional abuse and neglect at the hands of the father.

The court observed that the children had been housed in squalor and were denied basic amenities including toilet paper, sanitary products, food, heating and lighting.

Judge Campbell highlighted that the mother had been held “as a virtual prisoner in her own home” where she endured domestic violence, sexual assault and financial abuse for years and was a victim of coercive control to such an extent that she was unable to protect her children.  

Pointing out that the cases were “among the gravest cases of child abuse to have come before this Court in recent times”, Judge Campbell emphasised “That a woman in the Ireland of the 21st century could remain effectively invisible to her neighbours and her daughters’ school for years is another dreadful indictment of the Agency and its child protection policies and practices, which were found completely wanting in the case of this mother and her children, who endured such appalling and sustained brutality in this house of horrors.”

Noting that the Agency must revise its procedures so that “decent and conscientious teachers such as this principal” feel confident to report concerns to the Agency and that a file should never again be closed because a mother “did not engage” without meeting her in person absent the overbearing presence of her husband/partner, the court determined that a similar obligation should be imposed on all schools.

Judge Campbell continued, “If child safeguarding and child protection take a backseat to cultural sensitivities, it will only serve to consign even more children and mothers to life sentences such as were suffered in this case.”

The judge further outlined that Department of Social Protection should ensure that Child Benefit is paid only to the child’s mother, with any departure from that default practice being considered only when the Department believes it is as a result of the mother’s free will and at her request, after a face-to-face meeting with her conducted in the absence of her husband/partner.

Conclusion

In the circumstances, the District Court acceded to the applications.

In the matter of the Child and Family Agency and the Children “J” and “O” [2026] IEDC 8