Saoirse Coughlan

Introduction

The District Court’s judgment in Child and Family Agency v J & O [2026] IEDC 8 exposes profound failures in Ireland’s child protection system and highlights a critical gap in the State’s criminalisation of coercive control. Judge John Campbell described the matter as “among the gravest cases of child abuse” to come before the court, revealing a pattern of sustained psychological domination, deprivation, and violence within the family home. While the Domestic Violence Act 2018 (DVA 2018) criminalises coercive control in intimate relationships, this case demonstrates the urgent need to recognise children as direct victims of coercive control within parent–child relationships. This commentary examines the judgment, situates it within Ireland’s coercive control framework, and argues that legislative reform is required to recognise children as victims of coercive control.

Factual Background and Timeline

On 2 September 2024, a child, “M”, attempted suicide on her school campus. Her life was saved only through the immediate intervention of school staff. The school notified Tusla and An Garda Síochána. Later that month, the District Court granted interim care orders for M and her younger siblings, “J” and “O”, to protect them and their mother from the children’s father. In parallel proceedings, the mother obtained domestic violence orders against him.

In October 2024, the court cancelled the children’s passports and issued “All Ports” orders due to concerns for their safety. Tusla subsequently applied under s.18 of the Child Care Act 1991 for full care orders for J and O. The guardian ad litem supported the applications, noting that O did not wish to return to either parent and that J wished only limited contact with her mother.

Evidence Before the Court

The evidence presented was extensive and disturbing. M’s school principal testified that M had repeatedly featured in weekly welfare meetings due to concerns about her presentation, yet the school felt unable to contact Tusla. He had never met the mother in four years, describing her as effectively unreachable.

Detective Garda LMcC described the family home as the worst she had encountered in seventeen years: an overpowering stench, flies, thousands of euros hidden in the parents’ bedroom, and the absence of electricity, food, toilet paper, sanitary products, or cleaning supplies. Neighbours appeared unaware that a woman lived in the home.

Garda KB testified that M alleged physical, sexual, and emotional abuse by her father. Section 12 of the 1991 Act was invoked for all children present. The mother alleged sexual abuse by the father and left the home with Gardaí.

Assessors described the mother as “one of the most visibly traumatised people” encountered in thirty years of practice. The allocated social worker provided threshold evidence supporting full care orders. The guardian ad litem confirmed the children’s wishes and their fear of their father.

Judicial Findings

Judge Campbell found that the mother and children were victims of serious physical and emotional abuse, sexual abuse, and chronic neglect. The children had been housed in squalor and denied basic amenities including food, heating, lighting, toilet paper, and sanitary products. The mother had been held “as a virtual prisoner in her own home”, enduring domestic violence, sexual assault, financial abuse, and coercive control to such an extent that she was unable to protect her children.

The judge criticised Tusla’s failures, stating: “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.”

He emphasised that child protection cannot “take a backseat to cultural sensitivities” and urged systemic reform, including improved reporting confidence for teachers and face to face engagement with mothers without partners present. The court granted full care orders.

Coercive Control and the Limits of the Domestic Violence Act 2018

Coercive control is understood in Irish law as a pattern of behaviour that is knowingly and persistently engaged in, is controlling or coercive, and has a “serious effect” on a relevant person, as defined in s.39 of the Domestic Violence Act 2018. The offence reflects contemporary understandings of domestic abuse as cumulative, relational, and grounded in domination rather than discrete incidents of violence. International scholarship describes coercive control as a system of entrapment characterised by isolation, intimidation, degradation, surveillance, and restriction of autonomy.

The District Court’s findings in CFA v J & O demonstrate these dynamics with exceptional clarity: the mother and children were subjected to sustained deprivation, fear, and psychological domination within the home. However, because s.39 limits protection to intimate partners, the children’s experiences of coercive control fall entirely outside the scope of the offence, rendering them legally invisible despite clear evidence of patterned psychological abuse. Irish criminal law continues to conceptualise children primarily as witnesses to domestic abuse rather than autonomous victims of patterned psychological harm.

Under s.39 DVA 2018, coercive control is criminalised only where the victim is a “relevant person”: a spouse, civil partner, or intimate partner. Children are excluded entirely. As a result, the father’s coercive control over the children is not criminalised; the children’s psychological entrapment and deprivation are legally invisible; the law treats children as witnesses rather than victims; and the criminal justice system lacks a mechanism to recognise or respond to patterned psychological abuse within parent–child relationships.
This legislative gap is not a conceptual necessity. It is a policy choice that fails to reflect the realities of domestic abuse.

International Obligations and GREVIO’s Critique

GREVIO — the Council of Europe’s expert monitoring body for the Istanbul Convention — assesses how States implement their obligations to prevent and respond to domestic and gender-based violence. GREVIO has repeatedly criticised Ireland’s narrow definition of “relevant person”, noting that psychological violence and coercive control occur within parent–child relationships, elder care relationships, and extended family structures. Ireland’s approach is inconsistent with the Istanbul Convention, particularly Article 3 (definition of domestic violence within the family or domestic unit), Article 33 (criminalisation of psychological violence), Article 26 (recognition of children exposed to domestic violence as victims), and Article 4 (non discrimination based on relationship type). The facts of CFA v J & O demonstrate Ireland’s non compliance in practice.

Comparative Perspectives

Other jurisdictions have already addressed this gap. In Scotland, children who witness domestic abuse are recognised as victims, and child involvement is an aggravating factor. In Northern Ireland, the offence applies to partners, former partners, and family members, explicitly including children. In England and Wales, the “personally connected” definition includes family relationships and non sexual domestic relationships. Ireland is now an outlier in limiting coercive control to intimate partners.

The Case for Legislative Reform

The District Court’s judgment demonstrates the urgent need to expand the definition of “relevant person” in s.39 DVA 2018 to include children, older people, dependent adults, and family members within the domestic unit. Ireland should also recognise child exposure as an aggravating factor, criminalise coercive control within parent–child relationships, and adopt a pattern based test similar to Scotland’s model. Without these reforms, children will continue to experience unrecognised and uncriminalised harm. The case also underscores the need for practitioners and agencies to recognise coercive control indicators in parent–child relationships.

Conclusion

CFA v J & O is a watershed case. It reveals the devastating impact of coercive control within families and the consequences of Ireland’s failure to recognise children as victims of it. The judgment demonstrates that coercive control is central to child abuse and that the current legislative framework is structurally incapable of protecting children from patterned psychological domination. Children are not peripheral witnesses to coercive control; they are victims of it. Legislative reform is now essential to ensure that Ireland’s coercive control framework protects all victims, not only those in intimate relationships.

Saoirse Coughlan holds a BCLGA in Law and Irish and an LLM in Children’s Rights and Family Law from University College Cork. She has worked as a legal research assistant in UCC and has experience in the practice of family and childcare law.