As my party spokesperson on children, I am really glad to have the opportunity to speak on this motion, particularly about the importance of the voice of the child in court proceedings. This is an issue I have been raising with the Minister, Deputy Foley, repeatedly and I am glad to get the opportunity to raise it here this morning. The Minister of State will be aware of the new service being established for guardians ad litem, GALs, a system that will regulate them. That is welcome and GALs have no issue with it. Where issues have arisen and where they have flagged concerns is twofold. The first is their independence. They will go in with Tusla under the same Department. The second is the fact that there will be no guaranteed legal representation for the GAL in court proceedings. GALs are not legal experts. They will be in courtrooms where Tusla will have legal representation and where the parents, if they are there, will have legal representation. The GAL has the most important job of all, being a voice for the child, yet they will stand in a court of law without legal expertise. That is of no benefit to the child who is at the centre of court proceedings. It is really concerning. Judge Simms, who appeared on the "RTÉ Investigates" programme last week, was in here last month with GALs. I hosted them in the audiovisual room, so they could outline these issues. It is hard to take anything positive from the "RTÉ Investigates" programme last week but one tiny positive was seeing the powerful advocates that the GALs were on that programme. When they were in here last month, one GAL set out a case that I want to read into the record: I was a GAL for three siblings; they had been in care in different foster families for three weeks while Tusla tried to find them a permanent foster family... Tusla found a potential foster family that I was able to visit, the foster family were delighted to be able to offer a place for all three siblings. I went to court the next day, when I got into the court Tusla solicitor announced that this foster family was now approved, but was only approved to take two of the [three] siblings, the youngest would have to go somewhere else, another foster placement in a different county and a different province. I consulted [there and then] with my solicitor, and they agreed that [we] would lodge a section 47 application. This specifically asked for the Tusla foster care committee to present to the judge the reasons why they only approved [two of the three siblings]... My solicitor called me to give evidence to the judge. Because they had met them, the GAL could say that the foster family had fully committed to taking all three. The GAL was able to tell the judge how capable and committed these foster parents were, having visited them in their own home, and that their children were now adults and that they had lots of support and plenty of space. The court adjourned for the evening. The next morning, the GAL said that Tusla told me and the others that they had ... decided to approve the foster family for all three [children], due to the issue being raised ... by the GAL and the lodging of an application. Result was these three children can grow up together and continue [to care and look after each other]. The GAL said that "If I was not independent and not provided with [the] ability to have the ... conversations with this foster family and to consult with my solicitor 'in the moment'. This outcome would never have been possible." They would not have had the ability to bring the application under section 47 and the children would have been separated in two different families in two different parts of the country that evening. I cannot understand why we would remove the guaranteed legal representation for GALs. There is no GAL looking for legal representation willy-nilly. They look for it so they can be the best voice for the child in the court proceedings. Nobody can tell me why that is being removed. It will do no favours and provide no support for children in our State.

Sentiment score: 0.26