A husband and wife, who have been visited by children under state guardianship, have engaged the High Court in disputes against an announcement by the Child and Family Agency (CFA), or Tusla, hinting they might pose a threat to children and vulnerable individuals.
After the end of a foster care placement in the previous year, the pair got a message from the CFA (also referred to as Tusla) stating it was commencing a course under its child maltreatment verification process due to allegations against them.
The first step in this course is to verify if the allegations made are backed by proof. The couple, whose identities are concealed due to legal premises, were notified that the CFA was briefing the Garda vetting bureau about accusations of child abuse against them.
The duo, who refute any culpability, asserts that they haven’t been briefed about the nature of these charges. They, along with their attorneys are challenging the CFA’s right to inform the vetting bureau prior to the completion of the initial step of the verification process.
The court was advised that the CFA has communicated that its notification was based on sincere worries about the couple and its responsibilities under national vetting regulations. According to the CFA, the notification doesn’t imply a resolution of facts, yet they are legally obligated to notify the bureau about specific information.
However, the pair reject these interpretations and have initiated related, but separate High Court cases arguing that the CFA has exceeded its legislative powers and acted illegitimately. They seek the withdrawal of the notification.
They contend that the vetting regulations don’t present any legislative basis for issuing such notifications. They are represented by Dr Ciaran Craven SC and Aisling Mulligan BL, and demand the CFA retract the notifications through multiple orders and declarations.
They are also asking for multiple declarations stating that the notifications were sent out without legal powers and the 2012 National Vetting Bureau (Children and Vulnerable Persons) Act doesn’t lend legal powers for such notifications. They also want declarations indicating that immaterial considerations were taken into account and the CFA’s own policies were violated in making such notifications.
All these matters were presented to Ms Justice Niamh Hyland on Monday. The judge, on an ex parte basis, conceded to the requesters to proceed with their complaints. The cases will be reconsidered by the court next month.