Olivia
Online
M Compass Media
@MCompassMedia
Independent Irish Media Covering Stories That Matter in Ireland and around the world
Joined August 2021
300 Following
5.8K Followers
6.4K Posts
TUSLA DATA CHIEF ACCUSED OF LACKING REQUIRED QUALIFICATIONS AS WHISTLEBLOWER RAISES CONCERNS OVER KYRAN DURNIN FILE BREACHES
Irish Daily Mail | 10 November 2026 | Muiris Ó Cearbhaill
A senior Tusla executive appointed to oversee data protection investigations allegedly lacked the required qualifications, according to a protected disclosure reported in today’s Irish Daily Mail.
The allegations raise questions about Tusla’s handling of confidential information, its response to whistleblowers and the independence of investigations into staff accessing sensitive files.
KYRAN DURNIN’S FILES ACCESSED INAPPROPRIATELY
The controversy centres partly on Kyran Durnin, the missing eight-year-old boy whose disappearance became the subject of a murder investigation in 2024.
The newspaper reports at least 22 instances of inappropriate access to Kyran’s files by Tusla staff without a legitimate reason.
The executive overseeing investigations into such breaches was reportedly appointed in 2024 without an open recruitment process.
A whistleblower alleges that the official lacked the level-nine qualification specified for the Data Protection Officer position.
ALLEGED BREACHES OF GDPR
The protected disclosure alleges non-compliance with Articles 37(1) and 37(5) of GDPR.
Article 37(5) requires Data Protection Officers to possess appropriate professional qualities and expert knowledge of data protection law and practices.
The whistleblower claims Tusla management failed to provide evidence of appropriate qualifications when concerns were raised.
The allegations have not been independently established.
CONCERNS ABOUT CONFIDENTIAL CHILDREN’S RECORDS
The newspaper also highlights wider concerns about Tusla employees accessing sensitive information without authorisation.
Tusla was previously investigated by the Data Protection Commission following procedural data protection breaches.
Internal reviews reportedly identified employees accessing confidential files without legitimate business reasons.
These revelations raise serious questions about safeguards protecting children and families.
TUSLA DENIES THE ALLEGATIONS
Tusla strongly disputes claims that the appointment was inappropriate.
It maintains that the official possesses the necessary qualifications and experience and says the Data Protection Commission approved the relevant qualifications.
The agency also says it has strengthened internal procedures for identifying and reporting data breaches.
Tusla maintains that its arrangements comply with data protection legislation.
CALLS FOR ACCOUNTABILITY
Fine Gael TD and Children’s Committee member Grace Boland has called for examination of the whistleblower’s allegations.
She warned that such concerns undermine public confidence in Tusla and stressed that employees must never access confidential files simply out of curiosity.
The newspaper also reports concerns about the independence and effectiveness of internal oversight.
CONCLUSION: WHO PROTECTS CHILDREN’S CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION?
These allegations raise fundamental questions about governance, professional competence and accountability within Tusla.
The agency holds exceptionally sensitive information concerning vulnerable children, birth parents and families involved in child protection proceedings.
The reported 22 instances of inappropriate access to Kyran Durnin’s files are particularly disturbing.
The allegations concerning the senior appointment require independent examination, taking account of Tusla’s response.
When the State removes children from their families, it assumes an extraordinary duty of care, including protecting their confidential information.
That responsibility demands effective safeguards, independent investigations and appropriately qualified oversight.
Without transparency, independent scrutiny and meaningful accountability, public confidence in Tusla will continue to be undermined.
TUSLA UNDER FIRE AS HIGH COURT JUDGE PRAISES SPECIAL CARE STAFF BUT WARNS VULNERABLE CHILDREN ARE BEING FAILED BY THE SYSTEM
The Irish Times | 10 November 2026 | Kitty Holland, Social Affairs Correspondent
A High Court judge has praised the extraordinary difference that special care staff are making to the lives of vulnerable children, while highlighting the devastating consequences for those unable to access desperately needed placements.
Judge John Jordan told the High Court that children who had experienced serious trauma, exploitation and neglect were making remarkable progress after receiving intensive therapeutic care.
However, the judge also revealed that only 12 of Ireland’s 26 special care beds are operational, leaving highly vulnerable children without access to court-ordered protection.
A FRIGHTENED BOY TRANSFORMED BY SPECIAL CARE
One particularly encouraging case involved a boy who entered special care as a frightened and unhealthy young person.
Following his placement, he has developed into what the judge described as a formidable, ambitious and articulate young writer and artist.
The boy, who had suffered significant trauma, is now excelling at school, woodworking, art and chess.
Judge Jordan praised his artistic abilities and the progress he had made, describing his transformation as a powerful example of what special care can achieve.
However, the boy was overwhelmed at the prospect of moving to an aftercare placement more than 100 kilometres from his home and needed reassurance about the transition.
GIRL WHO SUFFERED SEXUAL EXPLOITATION MAKES REMARKABLE PROGRESS
The court also heard about a girl who had experienced sexual exploitation and neglect.
After receiving intensive support in special care, she is preparing to leave the secure setting and enter a less restrictive form of care.
She is now described as a much happier person who loves attending school.
Judge Jordan paid tribute to the staff responsible for her recovery, saying they deserved full credit for the love, care and attention they had provided.
FOUR CHILDREN DENIED SPECIAL CARE BEDS
Despite these successes, the judge revealed that four highly vulnerable children whom he had recently ordered to be detained in special care had been unable to obtain beds.
The shortage is attributed to difficulties recruiting and retaining staff.
Judge Jordan stressed that the positive outcomes for children receiving special care demonstrated what those denied placements were missing.
He said the children unable to access the service were suffering as a result.
TEENAGER FAILED BY THE SYSTEM
The court also heard about a teenager who had been waiting months for a special care bed.
By the time he finally received a placement, he had only a short period remaining before turning 18.
His court-appointed advocate, barrister Alan Brady, described the situation as deeply disappointing.
The teenager had subsequently faced criminal charges, and Mr Brady expressed concern that special care had come too late.
Judge Jordan agreed that the young man had been failed by the system.
Another teenager who had recently left special care upon turning 18 had deteriorated following discharge, according to the judge.
TUSLA FACES CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS
The report concludes by revealing that four sets of alleged contempt proceedings are underway against Tusla over failures to provide special care beds to children.
These proceedings raise serious questions about the State’s ability to comply with High Court orders intended to protect children facing significant risks.
TUSLA UNDER FIRE AS HIGH COURT JUDGE PRAISES SPECIAL CARE STAFF BUT WARNS VULNERABLE CHILDREN ARE BEING FAILED BY THE SYSTEM
The Irish Times | 10 November 2026 | Kitty Holland, Social Affairs Correspondent
A High Court judge has praised the extraordinary difference that special care staff are making to the lives of vulnerable children, while highlighting the devastating consequences for those unable to access desperately needed placements.
Judge John Jordan told the High Court that children who had experienced serious trauma, exploitation and neglect were making remarkable progress after receiving intensive therapeutic care.
However, the judge also revealed that only 12 of Ireland’s 26 special care beds are operational, leaving highly vulnerable children without access to court-ordered protection.
A FRIGHTENED BOY TRANSFORMED BY SPECIAL CARE
One particularly encouraging case involved a boy who entered special care as a frightened and unhealthy young person.
Following his placement, he has developed into what the judge described as a formidable, ambitious and articulate young writer and artist.
The boy, who had suffered significant trauma, is now excelling at school, woodworking, art and chess.
Judge Jordan praised his artistic abilities and the progress he had made, describing his transformation as a powerful example of what special care can achieve.
However, the boy was overwhelmed at the prospect of moving to an aftercare placement more than 100 kilometres from his home and needed reassurance about the transition.
GIRL WHO SUFFERED SEXUAL EXPLOITATION MAKES REMARKABLE PROGRESS
The court also heard about a girl who had experienced sexual exploitation and neglect.
After receiving intensive support in special care, she is preparing to leave the secure setting and enter a less restrictive form of care.
She is now described as a much happier person who loves attending school.
Judge Jordan paid tribute to the staff responsible for her recovery, saying they deserved full credit for the love, care and attention they had provided.
FOUR CHILDREN DENIED SPECIAL CARE BEDS
Despite these successes, the judge revealed that four highly vulnerable children whom he had recently ordered to be detained in special care had been unable to obtain beds.
The shortage is attributed to difficulties recruiting and retaining staff.
Judge Jordan stressed that the positive outcomes for children receiving special care demonstrated what those denied placements were missing.
He said the children unable to access the service were suffering as a result.
TEENAGER FAILED BY THE SYSTEM
The court also heard about a teenager who had been waiting months for a special care bed.
By the time he finally received a placement, he had only a short period remaining before turning 18.
His court-appointed advocate, barrister Alan Brady, described the situation as deeply disappointing.
The teenager had subsequently faced criminal charges, and Mr Brady expressed concern that special care had come too late.
Judge Jordan agreed that the young man had been failed by the system.
Another teenager who had recently left special care upon turning 18 had deteriorated following discharge, according to the judge.
TUSLA FACES CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS
The report concludes by revealing that four sets of alleged contempt proceedings are underway against Tusla over failures to provide special care beds to children.
These proceedings raise serious questions about the State’s ability to comply with High Court orders intended to protect children facing significant risks.
TUSLA DATA CHIEF ACCUSED OF LACKING REQUIRED QUALIFICATIONS AS WHISTLEBLOWER RAISES CONCERNS OVER KYRAN DURNIN FILE BREACHES
Irish Daily Mail | 10 November 2026 | Muiris Ó Cearbhaill
A senior Tusla executive appointed to oversee data protection investigations allegedly lacked the required qualifications, according to a protected disclosure reported in today’s Irish Daily Mail.
The allegations raise questions about Tusla’s handling of confidential information, its response to whistleblowers and the independence of investigations into staff accessing sensitive files.
KYRAN DURNIN’S FILES ACCESSED INAPPROPRIATELY
The controversy centres partly on Kyran Durnin, the missing eight-year-old boy whose disappearance became the subject of a murder investigation in 2024.
The newspaper reports at least 22 instances of inappropriate access to Kyran’s files by Tusla staff without a legitimate reason.
The executive overseeing investigations into such breaches was reportedly appointed in 2024 without an open recruitment process.
A whistleblower alleges that the official lacked the level-nine qualification specified for the Data Protection Officer position.
ALLEGED BREACHES OF GDPR
The protected disclosure alleges non-compliance with Articles 37(1) and 37(5) of GDPR.
Article 37(5) requires Data Protection Officers to possess appropriate professional qualities and expert knowledge of data protection law and practices.
The whistleblower claims Tusla management failed to provide evidence of appropriate qualifications when concerns were raised.
The allegations have not been independently established.
CONCERNS ABOUT CONFIDENTIAL CHILDREN’S RECORDS
The newspaper also highlights wider concerns about Tusla employees accessing sensitive information without authorisation.
Tusla was previously investigated by the Data Protection Commission following procedural data protection breaches.
Internal reviews reportedly identified employees accessing confidential files without legitimate business reasons.
These revelations raise serious questions about safeguards protecting children and families.
TUSLA DENIES THE ALLEGATIONS
Tusla strongly disputes claims that the appointment was inappropriate.
It maintains that the official possesses the necessary qualifications and experience and says the Data Protection Commission approved the relevant qualifications.
The agency also says it has strengthened internal procedures for identifying and reporting data breaches.
Tusla maintains that its arrangements comply with data protection legislation.
CALLS FOR ACCOUNTABILITY
Fine Gael TD and Children’s Committee member Grace Boland has called for examination of the whistleblower’s allegations.
She warned that such concerns undermine public confidence in Tusla and stressed that employees must never access confidential files simply out of curiosity.
The newspaper also reports concerns about the independence and effectiveness of internal oversight.
CONCLUSION: WHO PROTECTS CHILDREN’S CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION?
These allegations raise fundamental questions about governance, professional competence and accountability within Tusla.
The agency holds exceptionally sensitive information concerning vulnerable children, birth parents and families involved in child protection proceedings.
The reported 22 instances of inappropriate access to Kyran Durnin’s files are particularly disturbing.
The allegations concerning the senior appointment require independent examination, taking account of Tusla’s response.
When the State removes children from their families, it assumes an extraordinary duty of care, including protecting their confidential information.
That responsibility demands effective safeguards, independent investigations and appropriately qualified oversight.
Without transparency, independent scrutiny and meaningful accountability, public confidence in Tusla will continue to be undermined.
TUSLA DATA CHIEF ACCUSED OF LACKING REQUIRED QUALIFICATIONS AS WHISTLEBLOWER RAISES CONCERNS OVER KYRAN DURNIN FILE BREACHES
Irish Daily Mail | 10 November 2026 | Muiris Ó Cearbhaill
A senior Tusla executive appointed to oversee data protection investigations allegedly lacked the required qualifications, according to a protected disclosure reported in today’s Irish Daily Mail.
The allegations raise questions about Tusla’s handling of confidential information, its response to whistleblowers and the independence of investigations into staff accessing sensitive files.
KYRAN DURNIN’S FILES ACCESSED INAPPROPRIATELY
The controversy centres partly on Kyran Durnin, the missing eight-year-old boy whose disappearance became the subject of a murder investigation in 2024.
The newspaper reports at least 22 instances of inappropriate access to Kyran’s files by Tusla staff without a legitimate reason.
The executive overseeing investigations into such breaches was reportedly appointed in 2024 without an open recruitment process.
A whistleblower alleges that the official lacked the level-nine qualification specified for the Data Protection Officer position.
ALLEGED BREACHES OF GDPR
The protected disclosure alleges non-compliance with Articles 37(1) and 37(5) of GDPR.
Article 37(5) requires Data Protection Officers to possess appropriate professional qualities and expert knowledge of data protection law and practices.
The whistleblower claims Tusla management failed to provide evidence of appropriate qualifications when concerns were raised.
The allegations have not been independently established.
CONCERNS ABOUT CONFIDENTIAL CHILDREN’S RECORDS
The newspaper also highlights wider concerns about Tusla employees accessing sensitive information without authorisation.
Tusla was previously investigated by the Data Protection Commission following procedural data protection breaches.
Internal reviews reportedly identified employees accessing confidential files without legitimate business reasons.
These revelations raise serious questions about safeguards protecting children and families.
TUSLA DENIES THE ALLEGATIONS
Tusla strongly disputes claims that the appointment was inappropriate.
It maintains that the official possesses the necessary qualifications and experience and says the Data Protection Commission approved the relevant qualifications.
The agency also says it has strengthened internal procedures for identifying and reporting data breaches.
Tusla maintains that its arrangements comply with data protection legislation.
CALLS FOR ACCOUNTABILITY
Fine Gael TD and Children’s Committee member Grace Boland has called for examination of the whistleblower’s allegations.
She warned that such concerns undermine public confidence in Tusla and stressed that employees must never access confidential files simply out of curiosity.
The newspaper also reports concerns about the independence and effectiveness of internal oversight.
CONCLUSION: WHO PROTECTS CHILDREN’S CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION?
These allegations raise fundamental questions about governance, professional competence and accountability within Tusla.
The agency holds exceptionally sensitive information concerning vulnerable children, birth parents and families involved in child protection proceedings.
The reported 22 instances of inappropriate access to Kyran Durnin’s files are particularly disturbing.
The allegations concerning the senior appointment require independent examination, taking account of Tusla’s response.
When the State removes children from their families, it assumes an extraordinary duty of care, including protecting their confidential information.
That responsibility demands effective safeguards, independent investigations and appropriately qualified oversight.
Without transparency, independent scrutiny and meaningful accountability, public confidence in Tusla will continue to be undermined.
14 COMPLAINTS, ONE IRISH CONNECTION: JBS, BLACKROCK IRELAND AND THE THREAT TO IRISH BEEF FARMERS
An investigation into alleged criminal deforestation in Brazil has exposed Irish connections and raised questions about the EU-Mercosur agreement.
On 5 November 2026, environmental organisations filed 14 complaints with regulators and prosecutors in Ireland, Britain, Germany and the Netherlands.
The complaints concern JBS, the world’s largest meat processor, and financial institutions allegedly linked to profits from cattle raised on illegally deforested Amazon land.
DEFORESTATION ON AN ENORMOUS SCALE
AidEnvironment links JBS’s cattle supply chains to approximately 6.5 million hectares of Amazon deforestation between 1988 and 2026.
That is 65,000 square kilometres, equivalent to 92% of the Republic of Ireland.
These are supply-chain associations, not proven criminal responsibility.
THE IRISH FINANCIAL CONNECTION
Mighty Earth and the Global Legal Action Network have complained to the Central Bank of Ireland about BlackRock Asset Management Ireland Limited.
According to the Irish Farmers Journal, 19 Dublin-managed funds held JBS-related shares or bonds.
The organisations seek an investigation into anti-money laundering compliance. No wrongdoing has been established.
AN IRISHMAN CHAIRS JBS
Jerry O’Callaghan, originally from west Cork and a UCC graduate, has chaired JBS since 2017.
He serves on its sustainability committee but has not been personally accused of wrongdoing.
The Global Legal Action Network, founded in Galway, is helping coordinate the complaints.
JBS DISPUTES THE ALLEGATIONS
JBS told the Associated Press it had not received the underlying data or methodology needed to assess the claims.
It says satellite monitoring and supplier screening help exclude farms associated with illegal deforestation.
The allegations remain unproven.
MERCOSUR: THE THREAT TO IRISH BEEF FARMERS
The EU-Mercosur interim trade agreement has been provisionally applied since 1 May 2026.
It provides for a phased-in quota of 99,000 tonnes of beef at a 7.5% tariff, shared between Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay.
The European Commission expects limited impact on EU beef producers. Some analysts argue additional imports may replace existing trade.
Nevertheless, Ireland’s export-dependent beef industry faces legitimate concerns about price competition.
Irish farmers face demanding environmental, animal welfare and traceability requirements, involving substantial costs and narrow margins.
Cheaper South American beef could intensify competition, particularly in valuable beef cuts.
The JBS complaints concern alleged financial links to deforestation, not proof that illegally produced beef is entering Europe under Mercosur.
They underline the importance of verified supply chains and environmental enforcement.
Imported beef must meet EU food safety standards, but production costs and environmental obligations may differ.
The Irish Government opposed Mercosur over concerns about sensitive agricultural sectors, particularly beef.
Those concerns remain.
Irish farmers must reduce emissions, protect biodiversity and meet increasingly demanding sustainability requirements.
They deserve safeguards against unfair competition and market disruption.
The Government must insist on rigorous traceability, independent inspections, environmental enforcement and monitoring of beef imports and prices.
The central issue is fairness.
If Irish family farmers must bear the cost of protecting the environment, cheaper imported beef must not gain an advantage through unlawful production or weaker enforcement.
We cannot demand ever-higher standards from Irish farmers while allowing cheaper imports to undermine their livelihoods without effective safeguards.
Protecting the Amazon rainforest and Irish family farms should not be competing objectives.
Both demand fair competition, enforceable environmental standards and accountability.
Who to follow
IrishInquiry
@IrishInquiry
Stephen Kerr & Susanne Delaney Exposing Irish Corruption & Cover-ups.
If you'd like to support us, here's the link. Thanks
https://t.co/Q6pqaFncT3
Senator Rónán Mullen
@RonanMullen
Independent NUI Senator #27Seanad.
Lawyers For Justice Ireland
@LFJIreland
A group of pro bono Irish Lawyers committed to empowering people with knowledge to take action to uphold our natural rights and freedoms.
TUSLA CRITICISED BY JUDGE AS HIGHLY VULNERABLE BOY IS SENT TO DETENTION DESPITE URGENT NEED FOR SPECIAL CARE
A deeply troubling case before Dublin District Children’s Court has raised serious questions about Tusla’s failure to provide timely protection for one of Ireland’s most vulnerable children.
According to a report by Kitty Holland, published in today’s Irish Times, Judge Brendan Toale expressed profound frustration with Tusla after being forced to revoke the bail of a teenage boy who urgently requires specialist therapeutic care.
The judge made clear that special care should have been considered long before the situation reached this crisis.
CHILD IN VOLUNTARY CARE LEFT SLEEPING ROUGH
The teenager, who cannot be identified, has convictions involving stolen vehicles and dangerous driving.
Despite being released from Oberstown Children Detention Campus in September under strict bail conditions, he repeatedly disappeared, breached his curfew and continued engaging in dangerous behaviour.
Most disturbingly, the court heard that the boy, who is in voluntary care, had told a Garda he was sleeping outdoors most nights.
His circumstances raise serious questions about how a vulnerable child known to Tusla could repeatedly go missing and sleep rough while his behaviour continued to deteriorate.
JUDGE HAS LITTLE FAITH IN TUSLA’S ASSURANCES
The court heard that Tusla social workers had recommended the teenager for special care and that its referral committee was scheduled to consider his case on 19 November.
However, Judge Toale highlighted that Tusla had previously indicated it would pursue special care but had failed to do so.
He stated:
“I regret to say that I have very little faith in the latest report indicating that there is any real change in the Tusla position.”
The judge also declared:
“Special care should have been considered long before and I remain of that opinion.”
These are serious criticisms of an agency legally responsible for protecting vulnerable children.
DETENTION COULD PREVENT THE BOY RECEIVING SPECIAL CARE
The hearing exposed another disturbing problem.
Under existing legislation, Tusla cannot apply for a High Court special care order while a child is detained in Oberstown.
Consequently, revoking the teenager’s bail could prevent him from accessing the therapeutic care he urgently needs.
His barrister sought therapeutic bail, warning that detention would effectively return the special care process to the beginning.
Judge Toale questioned whether this legal restriction was genuinely in the best interests of vulnerable children.
He nevertheless revoked bail because of the teenager’s persistent breaches.
ANOTHER WARNING ABOUT TUSLA’S CHILD PROTECTION FAILURES
This case comes amid a wider crisis in Tusla’s special care services, with serious staffing shortages, unavailable beds and recent High Court findings of contempt arising from failures to comply with special care orders.
However, this case raises an additional concern: why was specialist intervention not progressed before the teenager’s circumstances deteriorated so seriously?
Why was a child in voluntary care repeatedly missing and sleeping outdoors?
Why did Tusla fail to pursue special care when it had previously indicated that it would?
And why must a judge choose between detention to address dangerous offending and preserving a vulnerable child’s opportunity to receive therapeutic care?
The teenager’s offending cannot be ignored. Public safety matters. But so does the State’s responsibility to protect children whose vulnerability is already known.
The question is whether Tusla failed to intervene effectively before this child reached the point where detention became the only immediately available response to his dangerous behaviour.
Judge Toale’s expressed lack of confidence in Tusla’s assurances should be treated as a serious warning.
Children should not have to reach crisis point before the State acts to protect them.
TUSLA CRITICISED BY JUDGE AS HIGHLY VULNERABLE BOY IS SENT TO DETENTION DESPITE URGENT NEED FOR SPECIAL CARE
A deeply troubling case before Dublin District Children’s Court has raised serious questions about Tusla’s failure to provide timely protection for one of Ireland’s most vulnerable children.
According to a report by Kitty Holland, published in today’s  Irish Times, Judge Brendan Toale expressed profound frustration with Tusla after being forced to revoke the bail of a teenage boy who urgently requires specialist therapeutic care.
The judge made clear that special care should have been considered long before the situation reached this crisis.
CHILD IN VOLUNTARY CARE LEFT SLEEPING ROUGH
The teenager, who cannot be identified, has convictions involving stolen vehicles and dangerous driving.
Despite being released from Oberstown Children Detention Campus in September under strict bail conditions, he repeatedly disappeared, breached his curfew and continued engaging in dangerous behaviour.
Most disturbingly, the court heard that the boy, who is in voluntary care, had told a Garda he was sleeping outdoors most nights.
His circumstances raise serious questions about how a vulnerable child known to Tusla could repeatedly go missing and sleep rough while his behaviour continued to deteriorate.
JUDGE HAS LITTLE FAITH IN TUSLA’S ASSURANCES
The court heard that Tusla social workers had recommended the teenager for special care and that its referral committee was scheduled to consider his case on 19 November.
However, Judge Toale highlighted that Tusla had previously indicated it would pursue special care but had failed to do so.
He stated:
“I regret to say that I have very little faith in the latest report indicating that there is any real change in the Tusla position.”
The judge also declared:
“Special care should have been considered long before and I remain of that opinion.”
These are serious criticisms of an agency legally responsible for protecting vulnerable children.
DETENTION COULD PREVENT THE BOY RECEIVING SPECIAL CARE
The hearing exposed another disturbing problem.
Under existing legislation, Tusla cannot apply for a High Court special care order while a child is detained in Oberstown.
Consequently, revoking the teenager’s bail could prevent him from accessing the therapeutic care he urgently needs.
His barrister sought therapeutic bail, warning that detention would effectively return the special care process to the beginning.
Judge Toale questioned whether this legal restriction was genuinely in the best interests of vulnerable children.
He nevertheless revoked bail because of the teenager’s persistent breaches.
ANOTHER WARNING ABOUT TUSLA’S CHILD PROTECTION FAILURES
This case comes amid a wider crisis in Tusla’s special care services, with serious staffing shortages, unavailable beds and recent High Court findings of contempt arising from failures to comply with special care orders.
However, this case raises an additional concern: why was specialist intervention not progressed before the teenager’s circumstances deteriorated so seriously?
Why was a child in voluntary care repeatedly missing and sleeping outdoors?
Why did Tusla fail to pursue special care when it had previously indicated that it would?
And why must a judge choose between detention to address dangerous offending and preserving a vulnerable child’s opportunity to receive therapeutic care?
The teenager’s offending cannot be ignored. Public safety matters. But so does the State’s responsibility to protect children whose vulnerability is already known.
The question is whether Tusla failed to intervene effectively before this child reached the point where detention became the only immediately available response to his dangerous behaviour.
Judge Toale’s expressed lack of confidence in Tusla’s assurances should be treated as a serious warning.
Children should not have to reach crisis point before the State acts to protect them.
TUSLA, THE FAMILY COURTS AND GARDA WHISTLEBLOWERS RAISED AT WESTMINSTER
A major report by Crime Correspondent Debbie McCann in today’s Irish Mail on Sunday, 8 November 2026, examines serious concerns about Tusla, the Irish family courts and the treatment of Garda whistleblowers, following an intervention by Irish campaigner Anna Kavanagh at a parliamentary summit in the House of Commons, London, on Monday, 2 November.
Ms Kavanagh, co-founder and convenor of the Alliance of Birth Mothers Campaigning for Justice, addressed the summit entitled ‘Why We Must Protect the Wellbeing of Whistleblowers’, organised by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Investment Fraud and Fairer Financial Services.
At the centre of Ms Kavanagh’s contribution was the deeply disturbing case of a boy, referred to as Patrick, who disclosed alleged sexual abuse by his father and was subsequently removed from his mother’s care and placed in his father’s custody.
The newspaper reports that Patrick had displayed overt sexualised behaviour and had been hospitalised with injuries he claimed were caused by his father.
Despite serious concerns raised by professionals, including a court-appointed psychologist, a court order resulted in Patrick being removed from his mother’s care.
The case was previously raised in Dáil Éireann by Aontú leader Peadar Tóibín, who described it as a very serious and complex issue.
The article also examines allegations concerning evidence presented by a social worker to the family court and the treatment of Garda whistleblowers who raised concerns.
According to the report, a Garda whistleblower who attempted to have his concerns independently investigated faced intimidation, disciplinary threats and allegations concerning his own conduct.
His identity was also disclosed by the Department of Justice, which subsequently issued a written apology in 2023.
These developments raise fundamental questions about the protection afforded to those who speak out when they believe a child is at risk.
TUSLA AND GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS WERE INFORMED
Ms Kavanagh raised Patrick’s circumstances directly with Tusla CEO Kate Duggan in 2024 and subsequently brought the matter to the attention of senior officials in the Department of Children during 2025.
The newspaper reports that Children’s Minister Norma Foley confirmed that Tusla’s chief executive had been advised of the case and that a full internal review would be carried out.
“PATRICK’S VOICE DESERVES TO BE HEARD”
Speaking about the significance of raising these concerns at Westminster, Ms Kavanagh said the intervention represented an important step towards achieving justice.
She told the newspaper:
“Patrick’s voice deserves to be heard, his mother deserves answers, and those who raised concerns in an effort to protect him deserve protection rather than punishment.”
She also highlighted the importance of bringing serious concerns about Tusla, the Irish family courts and the treatment of Garda whistleblowers before an international parliamentary audience.
The revelations raise fundamental questions about the operation of Ireland’s child protection and family justice systems.
How are children protected when serious allegations of abuse arise during family court proceedings?
What happens when professionals raise safeguarding concerns?
Who protects Garda whistleblowers when they speak out?
And who is ultimately accountable when serious concerns remain unresolved for years?
Ms Kavanagh’s intervention at Westminster does not, in itself, deliver justice or establish the truth of allegations requiring independent investigation.
However, bringing these matters before an international parliamentary audience represents an important development in efforts to secure greater transparency, independent scrutiny and accountability
Patrick’s voice deserves to be heard. His mother deserves answers. And those who raise concerns in an effort to protect children deserve protection, not punishment
TUSLA, THE FAMILY COURTS AND GARDA WHISTLEBLOWERS RAISED AT WESTMINSTER
A major report by Crime Correspondent Debbie McCann in today’s Irish Mail on Sunday, 8 November 2026, examines serious concerns about Tusla, the Irish family courts and the treatment of Garda whistleblowers, following an intervention by Irish campaigner Anna Kavanagh at a parliamentary summit in the House of Commons, London, on Monday, 2 November.
Ms Kavanagh, co-founder and convenor of the Alliance of Birth Mothers Campaigning for Justice, addressed the summit entitled ‘Why We Must Protect the Wellbeing of Whistleblowers’, organised by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Investment Fraud and Fairer Financial Services.
At the centre of Ms Kavanagh’s contribution was the deeply disturbing case of a boy, referred to as Patrick, who disclosed alleged sexual abuse by his father and was subsequently removed from his mother’s care and placed in his father’s custody.
The newspaper reports that Patrick had displayed overt sexualised behaviour and had been hospitalised with injuries he claimed were caused by his father.
Despite serious concerns raised by professionals, including a court-appointed psychologist, a court order resulted in Patrick being removed from his mother’s care.
The case was previously raised in Dáil Éireann by Aontú leader Peadar Tóibín, who described it as a very serious and complex issue.
The article also examines allegations concerning evidence presented by a social worker to the family court and the treatment of Garda whistleblowers who raised concerns.
According to the report, a Garda whistleblower who attempted to have his concerns independently investigated faced intimidation, disciplinary threats and allegations concerning his own conduct.
His identity was also disclosed by the Department of Justice, which subsequently issued a written apology in 2023.
These developments raise fundamental questions about the protection afforded to those who speak out when they believe a child is at risk.
TUSLA AND GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS WERE INFORMED
Ms Kavanagh raised Patrick’s circumstances directly with Tusla CEO Kate Duggan in 2024 and subsequently brought the matter to the attention of senior officials in the Department of Children during 2025.
The newspaper reports that Children’s Minister Norma Foley confirmed that Tusla’s chief executive had been advised of the case and that a full internal review would be carried out.
“PATRICK’S VOICE DESERVES TO BE HEARD”
Speaking about the significance of raising these concerns at Westminster, Ms Kavanagh said the intervention represented an important step towards achieving justice.
She told the newspaper:
“Patrick’s voice deserves to be heard, his mother deserves answers, and those who raised concerns in an effort to protect him deserve protection rather than punishment.”
She also highlighted the importance of bringing serious concerns about Tusla, the Irish family courts and the treatment of Garda whistleblowers before an international parliamentary audience.
The revelations raise fundamental questions about the operation of Ireland’s child protection and family justice systems.
How are children protected when serious allegations of abuse arise during family court proceedings?
What happens when professionals raise safeguarding concerns?
Who protects Garda whistleblowers when they speak out?
And who is ultimately accountable when serious concerns remain unresolved for years?
Ms Kavanagh’s intervention at Westminster does not, in itself, deliver justice or establish the truth of allegations requiring independent investigation.
However, bringing these matters before an international parliamentary audience represents an important development in efforts to secure greater transparency, independent scrutiny and accountability
Patrick’s voice deserves to be heard. His mother deserves answers. And those who raise concerns in an effort to protect children deserve protection, not punishment
LIES OF SILENCE: WHY HAS MAINSTREAM MEDIA IGNORED SENATOR KEOGAN’S CALL TO ABOLISH TUSLA?
On Wednesday, 4 November 2026, @SenatorKeogan called in Seanad Éireann for Tusla to be abolished and rebuilt, describing what she saw as the agency’s “total moral collapse”.
What makes the apparent silence of Ireland’s mainstream media so extraordinary is that she was responding directly to revelations reported by those same news organisations.
The journalists exposed the horrors. Senator Keogan read their reports, brought the failures into the Seanad and demanded the abolition of the agency responsible.
Yet, as far as I can establish, the major national newspapers and broadcasters have not specifically reported that demand.
WHY DID THE STORY STOP AT THE SEANAD?
The Irish Times, RTÉ and others reported disturbing High Court proceedings involving children in Tusla’s care.
Reports described a teenage boy who had reportedly vomited almost 40 bags of crack cocaine and gone missing; a teenage girl subjected to sexual exploitation; and roughly half of special care beds being unavailable despite court orders.
That journalism was important and deserves recognition.
But Senator Keogan went further. She argued that these failures were not simply a question of funding or administrative reform. She called for the dismantling of a State agency with a budget of approximately €1.4 billion.
Surely that is a major political news story.
Reporting institutional failure is not the same as reporting an elected representative’s demand that the institution itself cease to exist. Both matter.
If a Senator called for the abolition of An Garda Síochána or the HSE after similarly shocking revelations, would the demand receive so little attention?
DOES IT MATTER WHO SAID IT?
Senator Keogan is a controversial political figure who is willing to challenge prevailing narratives. People are entitled to disagree with her.
But should the newsworthiness of a parliamentary intervention depend on the speaker’s popularity or political views?
Would the response differ if a senior Government or opposition politician said it?
The public interest, not approval of the politician, should determine whether a story is covered.
QUESTIONS THAT DESERVE SCRUTINY
Senator Keogan also questioned Tusla’s financial priorities, citing more than €70 million in office and administration costs, over €13 million in commercial rents and €43.8 million in legal expenditure.
She challenged spending on private care providers while children remained without essential protection.
These are her claims, requiring verification. Journalists should scrutinise them and seek answers from Tusla and the Government.
Reporting her call for abolition would not mean endorsing it. What would replace Tusla? How would children’s care continue? Would abolition actually improve safeguarding?
Those questions deserve a national debate.
THE CHILDREN DESERVE MORE THAN SILENCE
The media exposed the failures. The Senator responded. The Government should now be asked to respond to the Senator.
At its centre are children exposed to exploitation, drugs and failures to deliver court-ordered protection.
Their reporting prompted a Senator to call for the agency’s abolition.
Three days later, I have been unable to identify mainstream national coverage specifically reporting that call. I welcome correction if such coverage exists.
How can the media consider Tusla’s failures important enough to expose, yet apparently not consider a Senator’s demand for its abolition important enough to report?
This is about editorial consistency, accountability and the public’s right to know.
The media exposed the horrors. Senator Keogan called for Tusla’s abolition. Why has that parliamentary response apparently been left out of the national news?
The children deserve a debate that does not end at the courthouse door
@VirginMediaNews @Independent_ie @IrishTimes @irishexaminer @morningireland @drivetimerte @NewstalkFM
LIES OF SILENCE: WHY HAS MAINSTREAM MEDIA IGNORED SENATOR KEOGAN’S CALL TO ABOLISH TUSLA?
On Wednesday, 4 November 2026, @SenatorKeogan called in Seanad Éireann for Tusla to be abolished and rebuilt, describing what she saw as the agency’s “total moral collapse”.
What makes the apparent silence of Ireland’s mainstream media so extraordinary is that she was responding directly to revelations reported by those same news organisations.
The journalists exposed the horrors. Senator Keogan read their reports, brought the failures into the Seanad and demanded the abolition of the agency responsible.
Yet, as far as I can establish, the major national newspapers and broadcasters have not specifically reported that demand.
WHY DID THE STORY STOP AT THE SEANAD?
The Irish Times, RTÉ and others reported disturbing High Court proceedings involving children in Tusla’s care.
Reports described a teenage boy who had reportedly vomited almost 40 bags of crack cocaine and gone missing; a teenage girl subjected to sexual exploitation; and roughly half of special care beds being unavailable despite court orders.
That journalism was important and deserves recognition.
But Senator Keogan went further. She argued that these failures were not simply a question of funding or administrative reform. She called for the dismantling of a State agency with a budget of approximately €1.4 billion.
Surely that is a major political news story.
Reporting institutional failure is not the same as reporting an elected representative’s demand that the institution itself cease to exist. Both matter.
If a Senator called for the abolition of An Garda Síochána or the HSE after similarly shocking revelations, would the demand receive so little attention?
DOES IT MATTER WHO SAID IT?
Senator Keogan is a controversial political figure who is willing to challenge prevailing narratives. People are entitled to disagree with her.
But should the newsworthiness of a parliamentary intervention depend on the speaker’s popularity or political views?
Would the response differ if a senior Government or opposition politician said it?
The public interest, not approval of the politician, should determine whether a story is covered.
QUESTIONS THAT DESERVE SCRUTINY
Senator Keogan also questioned Tusla’s financial priorities, citing more than €70 million in office and administration costs, over €13 million in commercial rents and €43.8 million in legal expenditure.
She challenged spending on private care providers while children remained without essential protection.
These are her claims, requiring verification. Journalists should scrutinise them and seek answers from Tusla and the Government.
Reporting her call for abolition would not mean endorsing it. What would replace Tusla? How would children’s care continue? Would abolition actually improve safeguarding?
Those questions deserve a national debate.
THE CHILDREN DESERVE MORE THAN SILENCE
The media exposed the failures. The Senator responded. The Government should now be asked to respond to the Senator.
At its centre are children exposed to exploitation, drugs and failures to deliver court-ordered protection.
Their reporting prompted a Senator to call for the agency’s abolition.
Three days later, I have been unable to identify mainstream national coverage specifically reporting that call. I welcome correction if such coverage exists.
How can the media consider Tusla’s failures important enough to expose, yet apparently not consider a Senator’s demand for its abolition important enough to report?
This is about editorial consistency, accountability and the public’s right to know.
The media exposed the horrors. Senator Keogan called for Tusla’s abolition. Why has that parliamentary response apparently been left out of the national news?
The children deserve a debate that does not end at the courthouse door
@VirginMediaNews @Independent_ie @IrishTimes @irishexaminer @morningireland @drivetimerte @NewstalkFM
Govt Misinformation #101 1. Rush Abolition Of Triple Lock Debate Thru Dàil & Cttee Stage 2. Announce Deployment of Irish Troops to #Lebanon on Non-UN Mandated EU ‘Peace Enforcement’ ‘Support’ Mission to Assist ‘Disarmament’ of #Hezbollah 3. Accuse Opposition of ‘Misinformation’🤷
TUSLA FACES SERIOUS QUESTIONS OVER DEATH OF TODDLER DANIEL ARUEBOSE, WHO DISAPPEARED FOR ALMOST FOUR YEARS BEFORE HIS BODY WAS FOUND IN AN UNMARKED GRAVE
A report by Seán McCárthaigh in the Irish Daily Mail reveals that the inquest into the death of toddler Daniel Aruebose, whose body was discovered in an unmarked grave in Donabate, Co. Dublin, in September 2025, has been postponed while the Gardaí and Director of Public Prosecutions consider potential criminal charges.
Daniel, described as a happy and vibrant little boy, was last seen alive in December 2021, aged three, at his family home in The Gallery, Turvey Walk, Donabate.
His disappearance was not reported to authorities until August 2025, almost four years later.
INQUEST ADJOURNED PENDING CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION
At the opening of the inquest in Dublin District Coroner’s Court, Detective Inspector Seán Earley requested an adjournment because criminal proceedings are being contemplated.
The court heard that Gardaí are continuing to investigate the circumstances surrounding Daniel’s death.
Forensic scientist Dr Gillian Lavelle confirmed that DNA testing had established the remains were those of Daniel, the biological child of Maria Aruebose and Ciarán Dirrane.
The identification process was particularly challenging because the remains were extensively decomposed.
CHILD HAD BEEN IN FOSTER CARE BEFORE RETURNING TO HIS PARENTS
The report reveals that Daniel had been in foster care for a period before being returned to his parents in 2020.
Tusla, the Child and Family Agency, had supervised his parents’ care of him until that year.
Daniel’s disappearance first came to light when a check of a back-to-school allowance claim revealed that he was not registered at any named school.
This raised concerns about his welfare and whereabouts.
Officials from the Department of Social Protection alerted Tusla, which notified Gardaí in August 2025.
An extensive Garda investigation followed, culminating in the discovery of Daniel’s exhumed remains in an unmarked grave in Donabate in September 2025.
MORE THAN 800 GARDA TASKS AND 400 WITNESS STATEMENTS
Gardaí have conducted a major investigation involving more than 800 separate tasks, over 400 statements, more than 100 physical exhibits and almost 300 documentary exhibits.
Investigators have also liaised with law enforcement agencies in several countries, including Brazil, France, Australia, Portugal, the United Kingdom and the United States.
Two people, both in their twenties, have been arrested during the investigation.
One was a female suspect deported to Ireland from Brazil. Both were subsequently released without charge.
CAUSE OF DEATH REMAINS UNKNOWN
The inquest heard that the cause of Daniel’s death has not been established.
Assistant State Pathologist Dr Myra Cullinane concluded that the results of the post-mortem examination were inconclusive because of the extensive decomposition of his remains.
The coroner granted a six-month adjournment, with the case scheduled to return on 12 May 2027.
No relatives attended the hearing, although Daniel’s mother was represented by her solicitor.
The circumstances surrounding Daniel’s disappearance raise profound questions about how a child who had previously been in foster care, and whose family had been supervised by Tusla, could remain unaccounted for over such an extended period.
However, it does not establish whether Tusla retained any statutory responsibility for Daniel after its supervision ended in 2020.
At the centre of this investigation is a little boy whose disappearance went unreported for years, whose remains were eventually discovered in an unmarked grave, and whose cause of death remains unknown.
The continuing criminal investigation may establish what happened to Daniel. It also leaves an urgent wider question: whether existing child protection safeguards are sufficient to prevent vulnerable children from disappearing from the oversight of the State.
TUSLA FACES SERIOUS QUESTIONS OVER DEATH OF TODDLER DANIEL ARUEBOSE, WHO DISAPPEARED FOR ALMOST FOUR YEARS BEFORE HIS BODY WAS FOUND IN AN UNMARKED GRAVE
A report by Seán McCárthaigh in the Irish Daily Mail reveals that the inquest into the death of toddler Daniel Aruebose, whose body was discovered in an unmarked grave in Donabate, Co. Dublin, in September 2025, has been postponed while the Gardaí and Director of Public Prosecutions consider potential criminal charges.
Daniel, described as a happy and vibrant little boy, was last seen alive in December 2021, aged three, at his family home in The Gallery, Turvey Walk, Donabate.
His disappearance was not reported to authorities until August 2025, almost four years later.
INQUEST ADJOURNED PENDING CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION
At the opening of the inquest in Dublin District Coroner’s Court, Detective Inspector Seán Earley requested an adjournment because criminal proceedings are being contemplated.
The court heard that Gardaí are continuing to investigate the circumstances surrounding Daniel’s death.
Forensic scientist Dr Gillian Lavelle confirmed that DNA testing had established the remains were those of Daniel, the biological child of Maria Aruebose and Ciarán Dirrane.
The identification process was particularly challenging because the remains were extensively decomposed.
CHILD HAD BEEN IN FOSTER CARE BEFORE RETURNING TO HIS PARENTS
The report reveals that Daniel had been in foster care for a period before being returned to his parents in 2020.
Tusla, the Child and Family Agency, had supervised his parents’ care of him until that year.
Daniel’s disappearance first came to light when a check of a back-to-school allowance claim revealed that he was not registered at any named school.
This raised concerns about his welfare and whereabouts.
Officials from the Department of Social Protection alerted Tusla, which notified Gardaí in August 2025.
An extensive Garda investigation followed, culminating in the discovery of Daniel’s exhumed remains in an unmarked grave in Donabate in September 2025.
MORE THAN 800 GARDA TASKS AND 400 WITNESS STATEMENTS
Gardaí have conducted a major investigation involving more than 800 separate tasks, over 400 statements, more than 100 physical exhibits and almost 300 documentary exhibits.
Investigators have also liaised with law enforcement agencies in several countries, including Brazil, France, Australia, Portugal, the United Kingdom and the United States.
Two people, both in their twenties, have been arrested during the investigation.
One was a female suspect deported to Ireland from Brazil. Both were subsequently released without charge.
CAUSE OF DEATH REMAINS UNKNOWN
The inquest heard that the cause of Daniel’s death has not been established.
Assistant State Pathologist Dr Myra Cullinane concluded that the results of the post-mortem examination were inconclusive because of the extensive decomposition of his remains.
The coroner granted a six-month adjournment, with the case scheduled to return on 12 May 2027.
No relatives attended the hearing, although Daniel’s mother was represented by her solicitor.
The circumstances surrounding Daniel’s disappearance raise profound questions about how a child who had previously been in foster care, and whose family had been supervised by Tusla, could remain unaccounted for over such an extended period.
However, it does not establish whether Tusla retained any statutory responsibility for Daniel after its supervision ended in 2020.
At the centre of this investigation is a little boy whose disappearance went unreported for years, whose remains were eventually discovered in an unmarked grave, and whose cause of death remains unknown.
The continuing criminal investigation may establish what happened to Daniel. It also leaves an urgent wider question: whether existing child protection safeguards are sufficient to prevent vulnerable children from disappearing from the oversight of the State.
TUSLA FACES SERIOUS QUESTIONS OVER DEATH OF TODDLER DANIEL ARUEBOSE, WHO DISAPPEARED FOR ALMOST FOUR YEARS BEFORE HIS BODY WAS FOUND IN AN UNMARKED GRAVE
A report by Seán McCárthaigh in the Irish Daily Mail reveals that the inquest into the death of toddler Daniel Aruebose, whose body was discovered in an unmarked grave in Donabate, Co. Dublin, in September 2025, has been postponed while the Gardaí and Director of Public Prosecutions consider potential criminal charges.
Daniel, described as a happy and vibrant little boy, was last seen alive in December 2021, aged three, at his family home in The Gallery, Turvey Walk, Donabate.
His disappearance was not reported to authorities until August 2025, almost four years later.
INQUEST ADJOURNED PENDING CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION
At the opening of the inquest in Dublin District Coroner’s Court, Detective Inspector Seán Earley requested an adjournment because criminal proceedings are being contemplated.
The court heard that Gardaí are continuing to investigate the circumstances surrounding Daniel’s death.
Forensic scientist Dr Gillian Lavelle confirmed that DNA testing had established the remains were those of Daniel, the biological child of Maria Aruebose and Ciarán Dirrane.
The identification process was particularly challenging because the remains were extensively decomposed.
CHILD HAD BEEN IN FOSTER CARE BEFORE RETURNING TO HIS PARENTS
The report reveals that Daniel had been in foster care for a period before being returned to his parents in 2020.
Tusla, the Child and Family Agency, had supervised his parents’ care of him until that year.
Daniel’s disappearance first came to light when a check of a back-to-school allowance claim revealed that he was not registered at any named school.
This raised concerns about his welfare and whereabouts.
Officials from the Department of Social Protection alerted Tusla, which notified Gardaí in August 2025.
An extensive Garda investigation followed, culminating in the discovery of Daniel’s exhumed remains in an unmarked grave in Donabate in September 2025.
MORE THAN 800 GARDA TASKS AND 400 WITNESS STATEMENTS
Gardaí have conducted a major investigation involving more than 800 separate tasks, over 400 statements, more than 100 physical exhibits and almost 300 documentary exhibits.
Investigators have also liaised with law enforcement agencies in several countries, including Brazil, France, Australia, Portugal, the United Kingdom and the United States.
Two people, both in their twenties, have been arrested during the investigation.
One was a female suspect deported to Ireland from Brazil. Both were subsequently released without charge.
CAUSE OF DEATH REMAINS UNKNOWN
The inquest heard that the cause of Daniel’s death has not been established.
Assistant State Pathologist Dr Myra Cullinane concluded that the results of the post-mortem examination were inconclusive because of the extensive decomposition of his remains.
The coroner granted a six-month adjournment, with the case scheduled to return on 12 May 2027.
No relatives attended the hearing, although Daniel’s mother was represented by her solicitor.
The circumstances surrounding Daniel’s disappearance raise profound questions about how a child who had previously been in foster care, and whose family had been supervised by Tusla, could remain unaccounted for over such an extended period.
However, it does not establish whether Tusla retained any statutory responsibility for Daniel after its supervision ended in 2020.
At the centre of this investigation is a little boy whose disappearance went unreported for years, whose remains were eventually discovered in an unmarked grave, and whose cause of death remains unknown.
The continuing criminal investigation may establish what happened to Daniel. It also leaves an urgent wider question: whether existing child protection safeguards are sufficient to prevent vulnerable children from disappearing from the oversight of the State.
UNIVERSITY OF GALWAY ‘FAKE NEWS’ EXPERT ALLEGEDLY FALSELY CLAIMED TO HOLD DOCTORATE, RTÉ PRIME TIME INVESTIGATION REVEALS
An RTÉ Prime Time investigation by journalist Paul Murphy, published on 6 November 2026, has raised serious questions about academic integrity at the University of Galway.
Tom Felle, an associate professor of journalism and former head of the university’s Department of Journalism and Media, claimed to hold a doctorate from City, University of London, awarded in 2022.
However, RTÉ uncovered evidence contradicting that claim.
UNIVERSITY RECORDS CONTRADICT DOCTORATE CLAIM
Mr Felle told RTÉ that he had obtained a PhD by prior publication, based on academic articles rather than a conventional thesis.
However, a former senior academic at the London university said he had registered for the programme but never completed it.
Information obtained by RTÉ under Freedom of Information legislation confirmed that none of the four journalism doctorates awarded during the relevant academic years had been awarded through the prior-publication route.
Mr Felle was also unable to recall the precise title of his thesis.
RTÉ found no record of his thesis in the university library.
He told RTÉ that he had not undergone a doctoral oral examination, known as a viva, and had neither a supervisor nor an external examiner.
City St George’s confirmed that doctoral candidates must successfully complete a viva involving an external examiner and must have supervisors.
UNIVERSITY OF GALWAY USED THE TITLE ‘DR’
University publications, prospectuses and social media posts repeatedly referred to him as “Dr Tom Felle”.
The title also appeared in a January 2026 submission to an Oireachtas committee on University of Galway headed paper.
When RTÉ asked whether the university had verified his qualifications, it declined to answer directly, stating that questions concerning academic records would be handled internally.
RTÉ subsequently observed that numerous university webpages and social media posts had been amended or deleted to remove the doctoral title.
THE IRONY: AN EXPERT ON FAKE NEWS
Mr Felle’s academic interests include disinformation, media transparency, verification, public trust and journalism’s role in democracy.
He has appeared regularly in the media discussing fake news and online misinformation.
In 2024, he was appointed an expert assessor for Coimisiún na Meán, Ireland’s media regulator.
He was also listed as a judge for the 2026 Irish Journalism Awards and was a Fulbright Scholar in the United States in 2023.
The contradiction between his professional expertise in verification and the evidence surrounding his own academic credentials makes the revelations particularly striking.
FAILURE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS
RTÉ sent Mr Felle three sets of detailed follow-up questions seeking clarification about his doctorate.
He did not respond. Further attempts to contact him were unsuccessful.
RTÉ also reported that his LinkedIn profile had recently been deleted.
SERIOUS QUESTIONS ABOUT UNIVERSITY ACCOUNTABILITY
The investigation raises fundamental questions about how universities verify the qualifications of senior academics.
How did Mr Felle come to be repeatedly identified as holding a doctorate that the awarding university’s records contradict?
Were his claimed qualifications relevant to his appointment or promotion?
Why did the University of Galway decline to explain whether it had verified the qualification?
Universities have a responsibility to protect academic standards and ensure that credentials used to establish professional authority are accurate.
The central irony is that an academic whose expertise includes exposing disinformation and promoting verification has himself become the subject of an investigation into a disputed academic qualification.
The findings raise serious questions about institutional oversight, transparency and public trust.
Source: RTÉ Prime Time, Paul Murphy, 6 November 2026.
WHO INDEPENDENTLY SCRUTINISES THE QUALITY AND CONSISTENCY OF THE DPP’S DECISION-MAKING, WHILE PRESERVING THE INDEPENDENCE THAT THE LAW RIGHTLY GUARANTEES?
Two recent newspaper investigations raise serious questions about the accountability of Ireland’s Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP).
CASE ONE: SEXUAL ASSAULT CHARGES INVOLVING CHILD IN TUSLA CARE WITHDRAWN
The Irish Independent reported on 24 October 2026 that two sexual assault charges against a 27-year-old man, concerning an alleged assault on a 10-year-old girl in Tusla care, were withdrawn following a review of the investigative file.
The alleged offences occurred at the Citywest Hotel in October 2025. The accused was released from custody and subsequently arrested on foot of a deportation order.
The DPP declined to explain the withdrawal publicly, stating that the Office does not comment on individual cases.
Withdrawal does not establish that the allegations were false or that the DPP acted improperly.
But what changed following the review? Were there evidential difficulties? What explanation was provided to the child and those responsible for protecting her interests?
CASE TWO: NO PROSECUTION OVER GARDA FIREARMS EXPENDITURE
In the Irish Examiner, Mick Clifford reported on a Garda who transported private firearms in a Garda vehicle and purchased parts for weapons belonging to a private gun club using public funds.
The matter was investigated internally and referred to the DPP, who decided not to prosecute.
The report also raised concerns about how the investigation was conducted.
Again, a decision not to prosecute does not establish wrongdoing by the DPP.
Nevertheless, questions remain. Was the investigation sufficiently independent? Was all relevant evidence gathered? Would the same standards apply to someone outside An Garda Síochána?
The current Director, Catherine Pierse, heads an Office established under the Prosecution of Offences Act 1974.
Its independence protects prosecution decisions from political interference. That protection is essential.
But independence is not the same as being beyond scrutiny.
The Office’s expenditure is subject to public audit and parliamentary examination.
Courts can review prosecution decisions on limited legal grounds. Eligible victims can seek reasons for certain decisions and request internal reviews.
The DPP also publishes prosecution guidelines and annual reports.
These safeguards matter, but they leave a fundamental question: who independently assesses the quality and consistency of decisions not to prosecute?
An internal review remains within the same Office. Judicial review is not a fresh assessment of the evidence. Financial scrutiny does not examine prosecutorial judgment.
An appropriately independent mechanism could examine whether procedures are followed, evidential standards applied consistently, reviews handled fairly and vulnerable complainants treated appropriately.
It could also examine safeguards surrounding investigations involving public officials.
Such oversight must never allow politicians to direct prosecutions, interfere with individual cases or access confidential evidence improperly.
Neither newspaper report establishes that the DPP made an incorrect decision. The underlying evidence and legal reasoning have not been publicly examined.
However, both cases demonstrate why public confidence requires more than assurances of independence.
The rights of accused persons must be protected. So must the rights and dignity of complainants, particularly vulnerable children.
The DPP exercises enormous power. Its decisions can determine whether allegations of serious criminal wrongdoing are ever tested in court.
That power must remain independent of political interference.
But institutional independence cannot become an answer to every legitimate request for accountability.
No public institution entrusted with such consequential power should be beyond meaningful independent scrutiny.
TUSLA UNABLE TO PROVIDE CENTRAL RECORD OF SERIOUS INCIDENTS INVOLVING CHILDREN IN STATE CARE PLACED ABROAD
Serious questions have been raised about Tusla’s oversight of vulnerable children placed outside Ireland after Independent TD Ken O’Flynn revealed that complaints and serious incidents involving these children are not centrally collated.
Deputy O’Flynn has challenged the agency’s ability to demonstrate that children sent abroad for specialist care are being adequately monitored, visited and protected.
“When the State takes a child into care and decides that child’s needs can only be met in another country, the duty of care does not stay behind at the airport.”
SERIOUS INCIDENTS RECORDED BUT NOT CENTRALLY COLLATED
Deputy O’Flynn asked Tusla how many complaints and serious incidents had involved children placed in care outside Ireland over the previous five years.
According to the Deputy, Tusla responded that the information was recorded on individual children’s files but was “not centrally collated.”
This raises serious accountability concerns. The information exists within individual records, yet the agency could not provide an overall figure.
Deputy O’Flynn argued that the law already requires significant events to be recorded and that the relatively small number of children involved should make compiling the information straightforward.
“The information exists. Nobody has added it up.”
HOW OFTEN ARE CHILDREN VISITED?
Deputy O’Flynn also questioned how frequently social workers visit children placed abroad.
According to his account, Tusla replied that children receive “regular visits”, without specifying how often.
“Regular is not a number,” he observed.
Social worker visits are essential safeguards, particularly for children separated from their families, communities and familiar support networks.
Without clear figures, it is difficult to establish whether children receive consistent supervision and opportunities to raise concerns.
The Deputy also asked whether the regulatory authority in each country had inspected every placement accommodating children from Ireland.
He reported being told that other countries have their own inspection bodies.
However, the existence of a regulatory authority does not establish that each individual placement has actually been inspected.
Questions therefore remain about how Tusla verifies standards, obtains inspection reports and responds to concerns identified by overseas regulators.
Deputy O’Flynn emphasised that he was not alleging children were being harmed.
“To be clear, I am not saying any child is being harmed. I am saying the State cannot show, in any joined up way, that they are safe.”
The absence of centrally collated information does not prove that children are unsafe. However, it raises legitimate questions about Tusla’s ability to identify recurring problems, evaluate placements and demonstrate effective safeguarding.
The central issue extends beyond administrative record-keeping.
When the Irish State removes children from their families and places them in specialist care overseas, its responsibility for their protection continues.
If serious incidents are recorded individually but never brought together, how can senior management identify patterns or assess the safety of overseas placements?
Similarly, assurances about social worker visits and foreign inspection authorities require supporting evidence.
Deputy O’Flynn has called for Tusla to examine the files, calculate the figures and make the information available.
“If the numbers are small, the job is small. Open the files, count them, and tell the public.”
The fundamental question is whether the State can demonstrate, through documented visits, reliable records and verified inspections, that every child it places abroad is receiving appropriate protection.
Children do not cease to be the responsibility of the Irish State simply because their care is provided beyond its borders.
TUSLA UNABLE TO PROVIDE CENTRAL RECORD OF SERIOUS INCIDENTS INVOLVING CHILDREN IN STATE CARE PLACED ABROAD
Serious questions have been raised about Tusla’s oversight of vulnerable children placed outside Ireland after Independent TD Ken O’Flynn revealed that complaints and serious incidents involving these children are not centrally collated.
Deputy O’Flynn has challenged the agency’s ability to demonstrate that children sent abroad for specialist care are being adequately monitored, visited and protected.
“When the State takes a child into care and decides that child’s needs can only be met in another country, the duty of care does not stay behind at the airport.”
SERIOUS INCIDENTS RECORDED BUT NOT CENTRALLY COLLATED
Deputy O’Flynn asked Tusla how many complaints and serious incidents had involved children placed in care outside Ireland over the previous five years.
According to the Deputy, Tusla responded that the information was recorded on individual children’s files but was “not centrally collated.”
This raises serious accountability concerns. The information exists within individual records, yet the agency could not provide an overall figure.
Deputy O’Flynn argued that the law already requires significant events to be recorded and that the relatively small number of children involved should make compiling the information straightforward.
“The information exists. Nobody has added it up.”
HOW OFTEN ARE CHILDREN VISITED?
Deputy O’Flynn also questioned how frequently social workers visit children placed abroad.
According to his account, Tusla replied that children receive “regular visits”, without specifying how often.
“Regular is not a number,” he observed.
Social worker visits are essential safeguards, particularly for children separated from their families, communities and familiar support networks.
Without clear figures, it is difficult to establish whether children receive consistent supervision and opportunities to raise concerns.
The Deputy also asked whether the regulatory authority in each country had inspected every placement accommodating children from Ireland.
He reported being told that other countries have their own inspection bodies.
However, the existence of a regulatory authority does not establish that each individual placement has actually been inspected.
Questions therefore remain about how Tusla verifies standards, obtains inspection reports and responds to concerns identified by overseas regulators.
Deputy O’Flynn emphasised that he was not alleging children were being harmed.
“To be clear, I am not saying any child is being harmed. I am saying the State cannot show, in any joined up way, that they are safe.”
The absence of centrally collated information does not prove that children are unsafe. However, it raises legitimate questions about Tusla’s ability to identify recurring problems, evaluate placements and demonstrate effective safeguarding.
The central issue extends beyond administrative record-keeping.
When the Irish State removes children from their families and places them in specialist care overseas, its responsibility for their protection continues.
If serious incidents are recorded individually but never brought together, how can senior management identify patterns or assess the safety of overseas placements?
Similarly, assurances about social worker visits and foreign inspection authorities require supporting evidence.
Deputy O’Flynn has called for Tusla to examine the files, calculate the figures and make the information available.
“If the numbers are small, the job is small. Open the files, count them, and tell the public.”
The fundamental question is whether the State can demonstrate, through documented visits, reliable records and verified inspections, that every child it places abroad is receiving appropriate protection.
Children do not cease to be the responsibility of the Irish State simply because their care is provided beyond its borders.
CHILD TRAVELS 330KM DAILY TO SCHOOL AT AN ANNUAL TAXI COST OF OVER €109,000 OUT OF €143 MILLION SPENT ON TAXIS
A report by Róisín Cullen, published by RTÉ News on 5 November 2026, reveals that a child with special educational needs travels approximately 330 kilometres every school day by taxi, costing the taxpayer more than €109,000 annually.
The journey was disclosed at the Public Accounts Committee (PAC), which examined rising transport costs and access to local special education.
A 330KM JOURNEY EVERY SCHOOL DAY
PAC Chairman and Sinn Féin TD John Brady questioned Bus Éireann officials about the longest journey undertaken by a pupil with special educational needs.
Bus Éireann Chief Financial Officer Tom Delaney confirmed the 330km daily journey and its annual cost of more than €109,000.
The child, school and reasons for the journey were not identified. The distance raises serious welfare concerns.
Department of Education and Youth Secretary General Bernie McNally said she did not know the circumstances of this particular case. She explained that some families choose distant schools because their children require highly specialised placements.
Deputy Brady described the situation as deeply concerning and argued that it represented a failure towards the pupil as well as a considerable cost to taxpayers.
CHILDREN SPENDING HOURS ON THE ROAD
Deputy Brady also highlighted another child travelling two hours each way to school — four hours daily before accounting for classroom time.
Such journeys can cause exhaustion and reduce time for family life.
€143 MILLION ON TAXIS — €96 MILLION OVER BUDGET
The committee heard that €143 million was spent on school transport taxis in 2025, accounting for 27% of total school transport expenditure.
Approximately 3,000 taxis were used, including 740 operating on a single-use basis.
The overall school transport scheme exceeded its 2025 budget by €96 million.
Dedicated taxis are essential for some pupils. But these figures expose the cost of lengthy journeys to access education.
WHY ARE SUITABLE SCHOOL PLACES NOT AVAILABLE LOCALLY?
Bernie McNally said additional special schools and special classes should eventually reduce the need for lengthy journeys.
Deputy Brady challenged the focus on future provision when children are already enduring such journeys. He argued that successive governments had failed to deliver adequate local services and stressed that families want their children educated within their communities.
The issue goes beyond transport budgets. It concerns children’s wellbeing, equal access to education and the State’s responsibility to plan services around their needs.
A child travelling 330km every school day at an annual cost exceeding €109,000 should trigger urgent scrutiny.
WHY MUST CHILDREN ADAPT THEIR LIVES TO THE FAILURES OF THE EDUCATION SYSTEM, INSTEAD OF THE SYSTEM ADAPTING TO THEIR NEEDS?
Source: RTÉ News, Róisín Cullen, 5 November 2026.
ENOCH BURKE WAS JAILED FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT. TUSLA HAS BEEN FOUND IN CONTEMPT OF COURT. WHERE IS THE ACCOUNTABILITY?
A report in The Irish Times by Fiachra Gallagher on 5 November 2026 reveals that the High Court has formally declared Tusla in contempt for failing to place three vulnerable children in secure special care as ordered.
It is believed to be the first declaration of its kind against a State body in Ireland.
In July, Ms Justice Emily Egan ruled that Tusla’s efforts to comply did not excuse its breaches. On Thursday, she refused another adjournment and made final orders.
THREE CHILDREN DENIED COURT-ORDERED PROTECTION
The children were described as facing “profound vulnerability, exploitation, trauma and risk”. Despite High Court orders, Tusla failed to provide special-care placements on time.
All three were eventually admitted, but the breaches remained. Ms Justice Egan described the failure to comply with special-care orders as a “systemic, recurring problem”.
HALF OF SPECIAL-CARE BEDS UNAVAILABLE
Only 13 of Ireland’s 26 designated special-care beds are operational. Chronic staffing shortages leave children waiting for secure placements even after a court has ordered their protection.
TUSLA ACKNOWLEDGED BREACHING COURT ORDERS
Tusla admitted the breaches and apologised to the court and children. It argued that its efforts to address staffing and capacity problems excused its failure to comply.
Ms Justice Egan rejected that argument. Operational difficulties did not excuse breaches of binding court orders.
TUSLA REQUESTED FURTHER DELAY
Tusla sought another adjournment, citing progress on staffing. Its counsel, Seán Guerin, said proposals for improved pay and conditions for special-care workers were under consideration by the Department of Public Expenditure.
The children’s lawyers opposed further delay. Senior counsel Alan Brady questioned what another adjournment would achieve when judgment had been delivered and the final order agreed.
JUDGE REFUSES TO DELAY FINAL ORDERS
Ms Justice Egan found no legal basis to postpone the orders. She questioned how finalising the proceedings would obstruct efforts to improve staffing.
“I don’t think the court can tolerate a situation where it continuously puts its order back,” she said.
The judge formally declared Tusla in contempt of court.
WHERE IS THE ACCOUNTABILITY?
Enoch Burke was imprisoned for continuing non-compliance with court orders. Tusla, a State agency, has now been found in contempt for failing to implement orders intended to protect vulnerable children.
The legal circumstances differ, but the contrast raises serious questions about accountability. The Irish Times report identifies no financial penalty or other punitive sanction imposed on Tusla.
Meanwhile, the court has identified a systemic, recurring failure affecting children in urgent need of protection.
What protection does a High Court order provide if the State agency responsible cannot deliver it?
Who is accountable when children remain exposed to exploitation, trauma and serious risks despite judicial intervention?
What meaningful consequences should follow when a State body fails to comply with orders intended to protect children?
A court order is not child protection unless the protection actually reaches the child.
Enoch Burke was jailed for contempt of court. Tusla has been found in contempt of court. The circumstances differ, but the question remains: WHERE IS THE ACCOUNTABILITY?
Source: Fiachra Gallagher, The Irish Times, 5 November 2026.
ENOCH BURKE WAS JAILED FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT. TUSLA HAS BEEN FOUND IN CONTEMPT OF COURT. WHERE IS THE ACCOUNTABILITY?
A report in The Irish Times by Fiachra Gallagher on 5 November 2026 reveals that the High Court has formally declared Tusla in contempt for failing to place three vulnerable children in secure special care as ordered.
It is believed to be the first declaration of its kind against a State body in Ireland.
In July, Ms Justice Emily Egan ruled that Tusla’s efforts to comply did not excuse its breaches. On Thursday, she refused another adjournment and made final orders.
THREE CHILDREN DENIED COURT-ORDERED PROTECTION
The children were described as facing “profound vulnerability, exploitation, trauma and risk”. Despite High Court orders, Tusla failed to provide special-care placements on time.
All three were eventually admitted, but the breaches remained. Ms Justice Egan described the failure to comply with special-care orders as a “systemic, recurring problem”.
HALF OF SPECIAL-CARE BEDS UNAVAILABLE
Only 13 of Ireland’s 26 designated special-care beds are operational. Chronic staffing shortages leave children waiting for secure placements even after a court has ordered their protection.
TUSLA ACKNOWLEDGED BREACHING COURT ORDERS
Tusla admitted the breaches and apologised to the court and children. It argued that its efforts to address staffing and capacity problems excused its failure to comply.
Ms Justice Egan rejected that argument. Operational difficulties did not excuse breaches of binding court orders.
TUSLA REQUESTED FURTHER DELAY
Tusla sought another adjournment, citing progress on staffing. Its counsel, Seán Guerin, said proposals for improved pay and conditions for special-care workers were under consideration by the Department of Public Expenditure.
The children’s lawyers opposed further delay. Senior counsel Alan Brady questioned what another adjournment would achieve when judgment had been delivered and the final order agreed.
JUDGE REFUSES TO DELAY FINAL ORDERS
Ms Justice Egan found no legal basis to postpone the orders. She questioned how finalising the proceedings would obstruct efforts to improve staffing.
“I don’t think the court can tolerate a situation where it continuously puts its order back,” she said.
The judge formally declared Tusla in contempt of court.
WHERE IS THE ACCOUNTABILITY?
Enoch Burke was imprisoned for continuing non-compliance with court orders. Tusla, a State agency, has now been found in contempt for failing to implement orders intended to protect vulnerable children.
The legal circumstances differ, but the contrast raises serious questions about accountability. The Irish Times report identifies no financial penalty or other punitive sanction imposed on Tusla.
Meanwhile, the court has identified a systemic, recurring failure affecting children in urgent need of protection.
What protection does a High Court order provide if the State agency responsible cannot deliver it?
Who is accountable when children remain exposed to exploitation, trauma and serious risks despite judicial intervention?
What meaningful consequences should follow when a State body fails to comply with orders intended to protect children?
A court order is not child protection unless the protection actually reaches the child.
Enoch Burke was jailed for contempt of court. Tusla has been found in contempt of court. The circumstances differ, but the question remains: WHERE IS THE ACCOUNTABILITY?
Source: Fiachra Gallagher, The Irish Times, 5 November 2026.
NEW RULES IN ENGLAND TO PROTECT NEWBORN BABIES AND MOTHERS FROM UNNECESSARY SEPARATION — IRELAND MUST INTRODUCE SIMILAR SAFEGUARDS TO PREVENT TUSLA FROM REMOVING BABIES WITHOUT GENUINE NECESSITY
New judicial guidance introduced in England aims to reduce the number of newborn babies becoming the subject of emergency care proceedings within hours or days of birth, following growing concerns about the trauma inflicted on mothers and babies and the fairness of decisions made immediately after childbirth.
According to a BBC report published on 4 November 2026, judges have been instructed that same-day emergency hearings should take place only where a child’s immediate safety would otherwise be compromised.
The changes follow a BBC investigation revealing that more than half of urgent care hearings in England during 2024–25 involved newborn babies, with some mothers required to attend court within hours of giving birth.
Research by the Nuffield Family Justice Observatory found that the proportion of newborn care proceedings involving same-day hearings doubled over a decade, rising from one in ten in 2012–13 to one in five in 2022–23.
Under the new guidance, local authorities seeking emergency hearings must provide evidence demonstrating why urgent intervention is necessary. Judges are instructed to refuse applications that do not meet the required urgency criteria.
A new Newborn Baby Protocol also emphasises early assessment, preventative family support and consideration of relatives who may be able to help keep children safely within their families.
Crucially, the reforms recognise that mothers recovering from childbirth must have a meaningful opportunity to participate in proceedings that could result in permanent separation from their babies.
IRELAND MUST FOLLOW ENGLAND’S EXAMPLE
A similar system of safeguards must now be introduced in Ireland to prevent unnecessary removals of newborn babies by Tusla, the Child and Family Agency.
The removal of a newborn baby from its mother is one of the most serious interventions the State can make in family life. Such decisions should never be rushed, taken without compelling evidence or made without properly examining every reasonable alternative.
Where Tusla has concerns during pregnancy, those concerns should ordinarily be addressed through early assessment, practical assistance, independent legal advice and family support rather than allowing matters to escalate into emergency court proceedings immediately after birth.
Irish judges should be required to rigorously examine whether an emergency application is genuinely necessary, whether the child faces an immediate risk of serious harm and whether less intrusive measures could protect the baby while preserving the mother-child relationship.
The introduction of a statutory newborn protection protocol, together with stronger judicial safeguards, would represent an important step towards ensuring that mothers are not unnecessarily separated from their babies.
There will always be circumstances where immediate intervention is essential to protect a child. However, removing a newborn must remain a measure of last resort, not a substitute for providing families with the assistance they need.
Protecting children and protecting their relationships with their mothers are not opposing objectives. A properly functioning child protection system must strive to achieve both.
Ireland should act now to introduce equivalent safeguards, ensuring that Tusla cannot obtain emergency care orders without demonstrating genuine urgency, presenting compelling evidence and showing that reasonable alternatives have been properly considered.
NEW RULES IN ENGLAND TO PROTECT NEWBORN BABIES AND MOTHERS FROM UNNECESSARY SEPARATION — IRELAND MUST INTRODUCE SIMILAR SAFEGUARDS TO PREVENT TUSLA FROM REMOVING BABIES WITHOUT GENUINE NECESSITY
New judicial guidance introduced in England aims to reduce the number of newborn babies becoming the subject of emergency care proceedings within hours or days of birth, following growing concerns about the trauma inflicted on mothers and babies and the fairness of decisions made immediately after childbirth.
According to a BBC report published on 4 November 2026, judges have been instructed that same-day emergency hearings should take place only where a child’s immediate safety would otherwise be compromised.
The changes follow a BBC investigation revealing that more than half of urgent care hearings in England during 2024–25 involved newborn babies, with some mothers required to attend court within hours of giving birth.
Research by the Nuffield Family Justice Observatory found that the proportion of newborn care proceedings involving same-day hearings doubled over a decade, rising from one in ten in 2012–13 to one in five in 2022–23.
Under the new guidance, local authorities seeking emergency hearings must provide evidence demonstrating why urgent intervention is necessary. Judges are instructed to refuse applications that do not meet the required urgency criteria.
A new Newborn Baby Protocol also emphasises early assessment, preventative family support and consideration of relatives who may be able to help keep children safely within their families.
Crucially, the reforms recognise that mothers recovering from childbirth must have a meaningful opportunity to participate in proceedings that could result in permanent separation from their babies.
IRELAND MUST FOLLOW ENGLAND’S EXAMPLE
A similar system of safeguards must now be introduced in Ireland to prevent unnecessary removals of newborn babies by Tusla, the Child and Family Agency.
The removal of a newborn baby from its mother is one of the most serious interventions the State can make in family life. Such decisions should never be rushed, taken without compelling evidence or made without properly examining every reasonable alternative.
Where Tusla has concerns during pregnancy, those concerns should ordinarily be addressed through early assessment, practical assistance, independent legal advice and family support rather than allowing matters to escalate into emergency court proceedings immediately after birth.
Irish judges should be required to rigorously examine whether an emergency application is genuinely necessary, whether the child faces an immediate risk of serious harm and whether less intrusive measures could protect the baby while preserving the mother-child relationship.
The introduction of a statutory newborn protection protocol, together with stronger judicial safeguards, would represent an important step towards ensuring that mothers are not unnecessarily separated from their babies.
There will always be circumstances where immediate intervention is essential to protect a child. However, removing a newborn must remain a measure of last resort, not a substitute for providing families with the assistance they need.
Protecting children and protecting their relationships with their mothers are not opposing objectives. A properly functioning child protection system must strive to achieve both.
Ireland should act now to introduce equivalent safeguards, ensuring that Tusla cannot obtain emergency care orders without demonstrating genuine urgency, presenting compelling evidence and showing that reasonable alternatives have been properly considered.
BREAKING NEWS: SENATOR SHARON KEOGAN CALLS FOR TUSLA TO BE ABOLISHED OVER “TOTAL MORAL COLLAPSE”
Senator Sharon Keogan has called for Tusla to be abolished and rebuilt from the ground up following disturbing High Court revelations concerning children in State care.
Addressing Seanad Éireann, she described the situation as a “total moral collapse”, insisting that failures to protect vulnerable children could no longer be explained by inadequate funding.
She highlighted the case of a 16-year-old boy who reportedly vomited almost 40 bags of crack cocaine and was reported missing, and a 17-year-old girl subjected to what she called “industrial-scale sexual exploitation”, with taxis allegedly collecting her from her State care placement.
€1.4 BILLION BUDGET
Senator Keogan questioned how Tusla, with a budget she put at €1.4 billion, could continue to fail children facing serious danger.
Citing figures she attributed to Tusla’s accounts, she said the agency spends over €70 million annually on office and administration costs, including more than €13 million on rent, alongside €43.8 million in legal expenditure.
HALF OF SPECIAL CARE BEDS UNAVAILABLE
She said approximately half of Ireland’s 26 designated special care beds were unavailable because of staffing difficulties, leaving some children without placements even where the High Court had ordered protective care.
She contrasted this with €38 million spent on special emergency arrangements and €359 million paid to independent, for-profit placement providers.
She questioned how much of the latter expenditure became corporate profit, arguing that public money was flowing to commercial interests while frontline services struggled.
“WE ARE STARVING THE FRONTLINE”
“We are starving the frontline to enrich external asset holders, legal teams and private care companies. This is State-sanctioned neglect,” she declared.
“Children do not consent to chaos, and they should not be subjected to a system that acts as a conveyor belt for exploitation.”
MINISTERIAL ACCOUNTABILITY
Senator Keogan criticised Minister Norma Foley, claiming she had not attended the Seanad for a Commencement matter since the beginning of the current Dáil.
Rejecting further reviews, committees and minor policy changes, she called for the existing agency to be dismantled and replaced with a system that genuinely protects children.
Her contribution raises an urgent question: how can an agency with such substantial funding fail to deliver essential protective placements for children at serious risk?
The expenditure figures and criticisms above are those presented by Senator Keogan, rather than independently verified findings.
Her central message was unequivocal: children in State care need protection, not another review of a failing system.
WATCH: Senator Sharon Keogan’s contribution to Seanad Éireann.
TUSLA AND THE FAMILY COURTS: WHY DO THOSE WITH POWER TO CONFRONT INSTITUTIONAL FAILURE FAIL TO DELIVER CHANGE?
In Julius Caesar, Shakespeare’s Cassius tells Brutus:
“The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,
But in ourselves, that we are underlings.”
Power is sustained not only by those who exercise it, but by the inaction of those who could challenge it. The parallel with Ireland’s handling of Tusla and the family courts is striking.
Governments have heard warnings about children in care, parents’ treatment, safeguarding and whistleblowers through judgments, Oireachtas debates, inspections and families’ testimony.
The problems are known. Why do remedies so rarely follow?
WHEN COURT ORDERS DO NOT PRODUCE PROTECTION
High Court cases have exposed children at risk of exploitation and drug-related harm without available special care placements. Judges have criticised failures to implement orders.
A court order is not a suggestion. Staffing shortages may explain difficulties, but explanations are not accountability. Responsibility cannot disappear between Tusla, Government and the courts.
FAMILY COURTS: PRIVACY AND SCRUTINY
Family court decisions shape childhoods. The in-camera rule protects privacy, but must not obstruct scrutiny. Judicial independence matters, as do adequate laws and safeguards.
Judgments have stressed fairness, children’s views and parents’ rights to challenge evidence. But how many families can afford litigation? Inaccessible rights offer limited protection.
WHEN OVERSIGHT REPLACES ACTION
Ireland has plenty of reports, inspections and hearings. Ministers express concern, agencies promise improvement and recommendations follow.
But were recommendations implemented? Were children made safer? Did families obtain remedies? Where misconduct was established, did consequences follow?
A parliamentary hearing is not a remedy. A ministerial assurance is not a safeguard. A recommendation is not reform until it is implemented and shown to work.
THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE IRISH BODY POLITIC
Tusla, ministers, civil servants, parliamentarians, regulators and judges have distinct responsibilities. Those distinctions matter, but must not become excuses for endlessly passing responsibility elsewhere.
When failures occur, who knew, who could act and what was done? This demands institutional responsibility, not political interference in court decisions.
THE HUMAN COST
Behind the language of governance and capacity are traumatised children, separated parents and professionals raising concerns.
An apology cannot restore a year of childhood. Parents unjustly separated from children cannot recover lost years after an error is acknowledged. Accountability means human outcomes, not procedures.
WHISTLEBLOWERS AND SILENCE
Whistleblowers deserve fair examination, not retaliation or exposure. If speaking out risks careers, others may remain silent. When children’s safety is at stake, silence can be devastating.
HAS FAILURE BECOME NORMAL?
A disturbing case emerges. There is outrage. Questions are asked in the Oireachtas. A minister expresses concern. A review is announced. Attention moves on. Then another case emerges.
The danger is that the political system becomes better at managing controversy than resolving its causes. Promises of reform become routine, and the extraordinary becomes normal.
Many professionals are dedicated. Child protection is complex, but that cannot excuse persistent failure. Problems must be investigated, remedied and prevented from recurring.
Shakespeare’s challenge remains: we must examine not only what Tusla and the family courts do, but what those entrusted with overseeing them fail to do.
Have those with the power to confront institutional failure become so accustomed to it that their own inaction is now part of the problem?
Until that question is confronted, the distance between political promises and justice for children and families may remain as wide as ever.
TUSLA AND THE FAMILY COURTS: WHY DO THOSE WITH POWER TO CONFRONT INSTITUTIONAL FAILURE FAIL TO DELIVER CHANGE?
In Julius Caesar, Shakespeare’s Cassius tells Brutus:
“The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,
But in ourselves, that we are underlings.”
Power is sustained not only by those who exercise it, but by the inaction of those who could challenge it. The parallel with Ireland’s handling of Tusla and the family courts is striking.
Governments have heard warnings about children in care, parents’ treatment, safeguarding and whistleblowers through judgments, Oireachtas debates, inspections and families’ testimony.
The problems are known. Why do remedies so rarely follow?
WHEN COURT ORDERS DO NOT PRODUCE PROTECTION
High Court cases have exposed children at risk of exploitation and drug-related harm without available special care placements. Judges have criticised failures to implement orders.
A court order is not a suggestion. Staffing shortages may explain difficulties, but explanations are not accountability. Responsibility cannot disappear between Tusla, Government and the courts.
FAMILY COURTS: PRIVACY AND SCRUTINY
Family court decisions shape childhoods. The in-camera rule protects privacy, but must not obstruct scrutiny. Judicial independence matters, as do adequate laws and safeguards.
Judgments have stressed fairness, children’s views and parents’ rights to challenge evidence. But how many families can afford litigation? Inaccessible rights offer limited protection.
WHEN OVERSIGHT REPLACES ACTION
Ireland has plenty of reports, inspections and hearings. Ministers express concern, agencies promise improvement and recommendations follow.
But were recommendations implemented? Were children made safer? Did families obtain remedies? Where misconduct was established, did consequences follow?
A parliamentary hearing is not a remedy. A ministerial assurance is not a safeguard. A recommendation is not reform until it is implemented and shown to work.
THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE IRISH BODY POLITIC
Tusla, ministers, civil servants, parliamentarians, regulators and judges have distinct responsibilities. Those distinctions matter, but must not become excuses for endlessly passing responsibility elsewhere.
When failures occur, who knew, who could act and what was done? This demands institutional responsibility, not political interference in court decisions.
THE HUMAN COST
Behind the language of governance and capacity are traumatised children, separated parents and professionals raising concerns.
An apology cannot restore a year of childhood. Parents unjustly separated from children cannot recover lost years after an error is acknowledged. Accountability means human outcomes, not procedures.
WHISTLEBLOWERS AND SILENCE
Whistleblowers deserve fair examination, not retaliation or exposure. If speaking out risks careers, others may remain silent. When children’s safety is at stake, silence can be devastating.
HAS FAILURE BECOME NORMAL?
A disturbing case emerges. There is outrage. Questions are asked in the Oireachtas. A minister expresses concern. A review is announced. Attention moves on. Then another case emerges.
The danger is that the political system becomes better at managing controversy than resolving its causes. Promises of reform become routine, and the extraordinary becomes normal.
Many professionals are dedicated. Child protection is complex, but that cannot excuse persistent failure. Problems must be investigated, remedied and prevented from recurring.
Shakespeare’s challenge remains: we must examine not only what Tusla and the family courts do, but what those entrusted with overseeing them fail to do.
Have those with the power to confront institutional failure become so accustomed to it that their own inaction is now part of the problem?
Until that question is confronted, the distance between political promises and justice for children and families may remain as wide as ever.
It’s your Misinformation Minister -What ‘Peacekeeping’ are you referring to? Any future foreign missions will be Peace Enforcement & if without UN Mandate -that would end our military neutrality as we would be participating in a military alliance, a ‘coalition of the willing’ etc
BREAKING NEWS: SENATOR SHARON KEOGAN CALLS FOR TUSLA TO BE ABOLISHED OVER “TOTAL MORAL COLLAPSE”
Senator Sharon Keogan has called for Tusla to be abolished and rebuilt from the ground up following disturbing High Court revelations concerning children in State care.
Addressing Seanad Éireann, she described the situation as a “total moral collapse”, insisting that failures to protect vulnerable children could no longer be explained by inadequate funding.
She highlighted the case of a 16-year-old boy who reportedly vomited almost 40 bags of crack cocaine and was reported missing, and a 17-year-old girl subjected to what she called “industrial-scale sexual exploitation”, with taxis allegedly collecting her from her State care placement.
€1.4 BILLION BUDGET
Senator Keogan questioned how Tusla, with a budget she put at €1.4 billion, could continue to fail children facing serious danger.
Citing figures she attributed to Tusla’s accounts, she said the agency spends over €70 million annually on office and administration costs, including more than €13 million on rent, alongside €43.8 million in legal expenditure.
HALF OF SPECIAL CARE BEDS UNAVAILABLE
She said approximately half of Ireland’s 26 designated special care beds were unavailable because of staffing difficulties, leaving some children without placements even where the High Court had ordered protective care.
She contrasted this with €38 million spent on special emergency arrangements and €359 million paid to independent, for-profit placement providers.
She questioned how much of the latter expenditure became corporate profit, arguing that public money was flowing to commercial interests while frontline services struggled.
“WE ARE STARVING THE FRONTLINE”
“We are starving the frontline to enrich external asset holders, legal teams and private care companies. This is State-sanctioned neglect,” she declared.
“Children do not consent to chaos, and they should not be subjected to a system that acts as a conveyor belt for exploitation.”
MINISTERIAL ACCOUNTABILITY
Senator Keogan criticised Minister Norma Foley, claiming she had not attended the Seanad for a Commencement matter since the beginning of the current Dáil.
Rejecting further reviews, committees and minor policy changes, she called for the existing agency to be dismantled and replaced with a system that genuinely protects children.
Her contribution raises an urgent question: how can an agency with such substantial funding fail to deliver essential protective placements for children at serious risk?
The expenditure figures and criticisms above are those presented by Senator Keogan, rather than independently verified findings.
Her central message was unequivocal: children in State care need protection, not another review of a failing system.
WATCH: Senator Sharon Keogan’s contribution to Seanad Éireann.
BREAKING NEWS: SENATOR SHARON KEOGAN CALLS FOR TUSLA TO BE ABOLISHED OVER “TOTAL MORAL COLLAPSE”
Senator Sharon Keogan has called for Tusla to be abolished and rebuilt from the ground up following disturbing High Court revelations concerning children in State care.
Addressing Seanad Éireann, she described the situation as a “total moral collapse”, insisting that failures to protect vulnerable children could no longer be explained by inadequate funding.
She highlighted the case of a 16-year-old boy who reportedly vomited almost 40 bags of crack cocaine and was reported missing, and a 17-year-old girl subjected to what she called “industrial-scale sexual exploitation”, with taxis allegedly collecting her from her State care placement.
€1.4 BILLION BUDGET
Senator Keogan questioned how Tusla, with a budget she put at €1.4 billion, could continue to fail children facing serious danger.
Citing figures she attributed to Tusla’s accounts, she said the agency spends over €70 million annually on office and administration costs, including more than €13 million on rent, alongside €43.8 million in legal expenditure.
HALF OF SPECIAL CARE BEDS UNAVAILABLE
She said approximately half of Ireland’s 26 designated special care beds were unavailable because of staffing difficulties, leaving some children without placements even where the High Court had ordered protective care.
She contrasted this with €38 million spent on special emergency arrangements and €359 million paid to independent, for-profit placement providers.
She questioned how much of the latter expenditure became corporate profit, arguing that public money was flowing to commercial interests while frontline services struggled.
“WE ARE STARVING THE FRONTLINE”
“We are starving the frontline to enrich external asset holders, legal teams and private care companies. This is State-sanctioned neglect,” she declared.
“Children do not consent to chaos, and they should not be subjected to a system that acts as a conveyor belt for exploitation.”
MINISTERIAL ACCOUNTABILITY
Senator Keogan criticised Minister Norma Foley, claiming she had not attended the Seanad for a Commencement matter since the beginning of the current Dáil.
Rejecting further reviews, committees and minor policy changes, she called for the existing agency to be dismantled and replaced with a system that genuinely protects children.
Her contribution raises an urgent question: how can an agency with such substantial funding fail to deliver essential protective placements for children at serious risk?
The expenditure figures and criticisms above are those presented by Senator Keogan, rather than independently verified findings.
Her central message was unequivocal: children in State care need protection, not another review of a failing system.
WATCH: Senator Sharon Keogan’s contribution to Seanad Éireann.
Trends for you
Most Popular Users
Elon Musk
@elonmusk
241.3M followers
Barack Obama
@barackobama
118.8M followers
Cristiano Ronaldo
@cristiano
114.5M followers
Donald J. Trump
@realdonaldtrump
111.9M followers
Narendra Modi
@narendramodi
107M followers
Rihanna
@rihanna
98.7M followers
NASA
@nasa
92.3M followers
Justin Bieber
@justinbieber
91.8M followers
KATY PERRY
@katyperry
90M followers
Taylor Swift
@taylorswift13
84M followers
Lady Gaga
@ladygaga
75.5M followers
Virat Kohli
@imvkohli
73.4M followers
Kim Kardashian
@kimkardashian
70.8M followers
YouTube
@youtube
68.7M followers
Neymar Jr
@neymarjr
66.4M followers
Bill Gates
@billgates
65.2M followers
Selena Gomez
@selenagomez
63.1M followers
The Ellen Show
@theellenshow
62.2M followers
CNN
@cnn
61.7M followers
X
@x
60.6M followers