2026-05-21

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time." I am very pleased to introduce the Guardianship of Infants (Amendment) Bill 2026. This Bill upholds a fundamental principle that those convicted of the most serious crimes should not retain automatic legal authority over the children left behind. This Bill delivers on the programme for Government commitment to "examine proposals to remove guardianship rights from those convicted of killing their partners or a parent of their child". This Bill is not about additional punishment for a crime, rather it is about the welfare and protection of children. It is intended to protect vulnerable children from further trauma, to provide clarity for surviving family members and to prevent perpetrators from maintaining control over the lives of their children. I welcome David French and his sisters, Suzette and Hilary, to the Visitors Gallery and acknowledge his other sister, Veronica, who is watching in Australia. The reason this law is being brought forward today is because of the campaign David and his siblings launched, arising from the murder of his other sister, Valerie French. David French and his family have campaigned tirelessly for a change to the law in memory of his sister, Valerie, who was murdered by her husband seven years ago. Valerie’s husband still retains all guardianship rights over their three children. I supported David in his campaign and since becoming Minister for justice, I have worked to change the law. There are other families in the same terrible situation and this Bill acknowledges their circumstances and I hope, in some way, ameliorates their difficulties. This important Bill will give the State the necessary power to ensure that the safety and welfare of the children left behind by such horrendous crimes are protected. It will do so in a manner that ensures that their voices are heard and ensures that their best interests are the paramount consideration at all times. The State must play a role here. Guardianship, when one guardian kills another, should not be regarded as a matter of private law to be determined between the families concerned but must be regarded as a child protection and welfare issue. As I said earlier, this Bill delivers on the programme for Government commitment to "examine proposals to remove guardianship rights from those convicted of killing their partners or a parent of their child". It is part of the ongoing work to implement appropriate recommendations from the independent Study on Familicide and Domestic and Family Violence Death Reviews, published in May 2023. This study was commissioned by my Department to analyse and present recommendations on how the State's response could be more effective, both in terms of response after an incident occurs but also how systems could be put in place to learn lessons with a view to reducing future incidence of domestic homicides, insofar as this may be possible. The Bill ensures that following the conviction of a parent or guardian of a child for the murder or manslaughter of another parent or guardian of that child, Tusla, the Child and Family Agency, will make an application to the court. Tusla will be required to make that application as soon as is practicable for an order which may remove or restrict the guardianship rights of the convicted guardian. My Department has worked with the Department of Children, Disability and Equality to ensure that the Bill is focused on child welfare, ensure that the voice of the child can be heard in proceedings and that Tusla will be best placed to make the applications provided for in the Bill. I thank and commend my colleague, the Minister, Deputy Norma Foley, the Minister for Children, Disability and Equality, who has been centrally involved in this legislation and has been completely supportive of its introduction. The role of Tusla in making these applications recognises its important role as the State agency with primary responsibility to promote the safety and well-being of children. Given the tragic and serious circumstances addressed by this Bill, Tusla will, in many cases, already be involved in providing support to the children and their caregivers. In some cases, Tusla may be making use of its powers under the Child Care Act 1991 to safeguard the safety and welfare of the child in the immediate aftermath of the crime. This is in keeping with Tusla’s functions to promote the welfare of children, to identify children who are not receiving adequate care and protection and co-ordinate information, as well as to have regard to the rights and duties of parents, whether under the Constitution or otherwise. This Bill is a short one but it deals with fundamental rights under our Constitution, including Article 42A, which provides that the State recognises and affirms the natural and imprescriptible rights of all children and shall by its laws, as far as practicable, protect and vindicate those rights. The Bill will apply to both married and unmarried guardians. Children will have a voice in proceedings and the courts will ensure that the child's best interests are balanced against the rights of a guardian who has failed in their duty towards their child by their horrific crime of killing that child's parent. Importantly, the provisions of this Bill will apply also to cases where one guardian killed another before the commencement of the legislation. This is an essential element to ensure that Tusla has the power, where it considers it necessary in the best interests of the child, to make an application to restrict or remove guardianship in the circumstances. The Bill provides for a mechanism to remove or restrict the rights of a guardian who has been convicted of the killing of, or a serious offence causing harm to, the other guardian of a child. It amends the Guardianship of Infants Act 1964 by the insertion of a new Part IIA to that Act. The Guardianship of Infants (Amendment) Bill contains four sections. Section 1 is a provision defining "Principal Act" as the Guardianship of Infants Act 1964, which is the Act to be amended by this Bill. Section 2 inserts a new Part IIA into the Guardianship of Infants Act 1964. Part IIA is the Part that gives effect to the programme for Government commitment to remove guardianship rights from those convicted of killing their partners or a parent of their child. This is in implementation of the recommendations in Study on Familicide and Domestic and Family Violence Death Reviews. This new Part IIA contains nine sections. The first of these, section 12B, defines terms that are used throughout the new Part. Section 12C is the principal operative provision of the Bill. Tusla must apply to the District Court within six months of the conviction of a guardian for the murder or manslaughter of another guardian of the child. This application must be made where the agency has reasonable cause to believe that the convicted guardian has failed in his or her parental duty to such an extent that the child's safety or welfare is likely to be prejudicially affected. An order may be made by the court that will be suspended and take effect once an alternative arrangement is in place, either where a care order under the Child Care Act 1991 has been made or where another guardian of the child is already in place. The court must consider both the failure of duty and the best interests of the child before making such an order. An order may either restrict the convicted guardian's powers and duties or remove the convicted guardian from office as a guardian. The court may impose such conditions as it considers necessary in the best interests of the child relating to the review of the order. It is important to emphasise that Tusla is required in these circumstances to make an application. However, it will be a matter for the court to determine the form of the order to be made, considering the best interests of the child, whether that order is one to restrict or to remove entirely the convicted guardian from office as a guardian. The court has the power to consider the totality of the circumstances in relation to any case before it may determine that it is not in the best interests of the child to make an order. The requirement is that this application be made as soon as practicable after the conviction, but in any case within six months of the conviction. This requires swift action, but the circumstances that give rise to such an application are thankfully rare. Section 12D provides for the same procedure and powers on the part of Tusla and the court in circumstances where the other guardian of the child has been a victim of a serious offence but has not been killed. A serious offence is defined as an offence causing serious harm that carries a sentence of at least ten years' imprisonment. In these circumstances, Tusla may apply to the court for an order removing or restricting guardianship of the guardian who has been convicted of a serious offence. Tusla may make such an application where there has been a failure of parental duty, as in section 12C, and there has been a change in the care arrangements or guardianship of the child as a result of the serious offence, for example, where a new guardian has had to be appointed or care arrangements under the Child Care Act 1991 are being put in place in respect of the child. Unlike section 12C, regarding murder and manslaughter, the provision here will be a discretionary power for Tusla. This is to ensure that guardianship of the convicted guardian can still be removed or restricted only in situations where the victim guardian has not been killed but is not in a position to exercise his or her guardianship. Section 12E provides for the procedures for a review of court orders under the Part. Applications may be made by Tusla, the convicted guardian, another guardian of the child or the child concerned where there has been a significant change to the circumstances of the child that is capable of affecting his or her welfare. Tusla must, and the convicted guardian may, make an application for such a review by the court where the conviction of the convicted guardian has been quashed or set aside. The court may determine that the order made under section 12C or section 12D should remain in place, having regard to the best interests of the child, and must provide its reasons for doing so in writing. Section 12F provides for the appointment of a guardian ad litem to represent the voice of the child in proceedings under this Part. This section applies the relevant provisions of the 1991 Act, as amended by the Child Care (Amendment) Act 2022. This will ensure that the practices for appointment of guardians ad litem under this Part, once the relevant sections of the Child Care (Amendment) Act 2022 are commenced, are in keeping with best practice. This includes a requirement for the court to appoint a guardian ad litem unless it is satisfied that the best interests of the child can be determined without such an appointment and that it has determined that there are other means to facilitate the expression by the child of those views. Where a court has decided not to appoint a guardian ad litem, it will be required to give reasons for its decision in writing. Best practice also includes powers to procure reports, allowing a guardian ad litem to make an application for procurement of a report on any question affecting the welfare of the child where there is no such report, or where it is out of date, after consultation with the parties in the proceedings. It should be noted that the Minister for Children, Equality and Disability will pay the costs or expenses incurred by a guardian ad litem. Section 12G provides for jurisdiction and the conduct of proceedings. Proceedings under this Part will be heard in the District Court, and in the Family District Court on commencement of the relevant sections of the Family Courts Act 2024. This will serve to reduce costs and timelines, along with ensuring that proceedings are heard before the court that is most experienced in dealing with such matters. Proceedings will be heard otherwise than in public, as is standard for guardianship and care proceedings. Section 12H provides for the necessary safeguards in relation to data protection and data sharing under this Part. Consultation has been undertaken with the Data Protection Commission in developing these provisions. They will provide for the necessary legal basis to permit Tusla to share and receive data with relevant bodies to enable it to perform its functions under this Part. I will, in consultation with the Minister for Children, Equality and Disability, be able to make regulations under this section to specify the nature of and manner in which personal data may be shared and the measures to be taken to ensure that such personal data is shared only where necessary and proportionate. Section 12I provides for individuals to be made notice parties to proceedings. Any guardian of the child must be made a notice party to proceedings. Any relative of the child may seek leave to be joined as a notice party to proceedings, and this is broadly defined. This section implements a request of stakeholders and a recommendation of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Home Affairs and Migration that family members be in a position to be made notice parties to proceedings. Section 12J provides for the retrospective application of this Part to cases in which a conviction predates the commencement of the provisions of this Bill. In such circumstances, where a convicted guardian was convicted of the murder or manslaughter of another guardian of the child, Tusla will be able to apply for an order, as set out in the provisions of section 12C, where there is reasonable cause to believe that there has been a failure of duty on the part of the convicted guardian and Tusla considers it appropriate to apply for such an order. Section 3 is a technical amendment to section 8A of the principal Act to acknowledge the new Part IIA inserted by section 2 of the Bill. Section 4 is a standard provision relating to the Short Title of the Bill and its commencement. The Bill will come into operation on a day to be appointed by me after consultation with the Minister for Children, Equality and Disability. I will speak briefly about the amendments I intend to make on Committee Stage. At the request of the Minister for Children, Equality and Disability, I intend to provide for the inclusion of a short set of technical amendments to the Child Care Act 1991. While further detail will be provided on Committee Stage, these amendments will ensure that the policy intent in respect of the appointment of guardians ad litem and the provision to them of legal advice and legal representation under the guardian ad litem national service are further elaborated in the legislation. These amendments are necessary for the proper operation of this Bill. Many details will merit debate and I look forward to working constructively with Members as the Bill progresses. I am aware that there is general acceptance across the House that measures are needed to ensure the welfare and safety of children are protected in the wake of what are, thankfully, rare but incredibly serious and tragic circumstances. This Bill has a narrow scope. It seeks to deliver on a well-defined and much-needed recommendation in Study on Familicide and Domestic and Family Violence Death Reviews. The Bill has been carefully calibrated to make sure that it reaches the appropriate balance between the constitutional protection of the family and the constitutional imperative that the best interests of children are the paramount consideration when it comes to their guardianship. This Bill is a significant and important development in giving the State the tools that it needs to ensure it is the child's best interests, welfare and safety that are prioritised in the aftermath of these horrific crimes. Everyone in the House will agree that this is a worthy purpose and that is why I commend this legislation to the House.

I thank the Minister. I send a céad míle fáilte to the people in the Gallery, including Valerie's brother and sisters, and to SiSi, which is a collective of women survivors of intimate partner violence. I thank them for their unceasing work. Sincere thanks resonate from this Chamber for its protection of women and children as a priority. Sinn Féin welcomes the progression of legislation to restrict guardianship rights in situations where a person has murdered a child's other guardian. I commend Mr. David French, brother of Valerie, who was murdered by her spouse. His love for his sister and nephews, his tenacity and relentless campaigning are largely why we are having this debate today. Déanaim comhghairdeas le David agus a chlann. Mr. French was an integral witness before the Oireachtas justice committee when it conducted pre-legislative scrutiny of the Minister's general scheme. My party colleague and Cathaoirleach of the Oireachtas justice committee, Deputy Carthy, highlighted that it was essential that the committee should hear directly from those ordinary people with real-life experience of the matters being discussed, rather than just from the statutory agencies, NGOs, academics and Government Departments. The insights that Mr. French gave to the committee in respect of the impact that this legislation would have had for his family and the welfare of his nephews were invaluable. The testimony, alongside the written submissions received by the committee, provided for a report on pre-legislative scrutiny that identified a number of areas in need of consideration but which can serve as the basis of a strong and robust piece of legislation. I also commend my party colleague and Sinn Féin finance minister in the Executive in the North, John O'Dowd, who has committed to progressing similar legislation known as "Jade's law". I hope we will have tied-up all-Ireland legislation to enact. What this law will do is to recognise, as David French told the committee, that to murder a parent is to grievously abuse a child. It would facilitate the restriction of guardianship rights from those who kill their partners or the parents of their children. I welcome the Bill that now reflects the concerns of recommendation 2 of the committee's report and provides for a review process in case of a later acquittal of the guardian. That makes sense. However, a number of other areas were touched on in the report and I do not see them reflected in the Bill. Recommendation 3 suggested that parties beyond Tusla, such as relatives, should be able to submit applications to the court. It would be useful if the Minister were to outline his rationale for limiting this to only Tusla. While recommendation 8 does allow for relatives to seek leave to be joined as a notice party, it falls short of the committee's report recommendation that they would be a notice party. Some concern was expressed by the committee regarding the resourcing of Tusla, in particular in relation to the terms of applications generally being time-bound to six months. As such, I think that recommendation 6, which was that a specialist unit be established within Tusla that would have the responsibility of submitting any applications, could bring multiple reassurances in terms of the successful operation of this Bill. It is widely known and accepted that Tusla is under enormous and severe pressure from unprecedented child protection referrals, severe social work shortages and a crisis in emergency placements. Reassurance is needed that it will be competent. At times, it has been found not to be competent. We need reassurance that it will be competent in this instance to act on this legislation as laid out without delay and to act in a fair and equitable manner, given its remit and terms of reference as the Child and Family Agency. Recommendation 4 advocates that a register of guardians be established to aid State bodies. I know that in recent weeks campaigners have been highlighting an issue whereby widowed parents must provide death certificates to the passport service every time the child's passport is renewed. I ask the Minister if this is a matter he may be willing to review, in conjunction with his colleagues, as something that could bring greater benefit. To bring a death certificate every time is a painful and reminiscent requirement. It does not make sense to do it for the length of a child's life until he or she turns 18. I will ask the Minister about his position on recommendation 7, which sought to safeguard that this legislation could not be applied in cases where a person is convicted of manslaughter when acting in self-defence or where there has been a history of domestic abuse towards the alleged perpetrator. I would appreciate if he would address these matters in his closing remarks. Sinn Féin welcomes the progression of this legislation and stands ready to work with the Minister to ensure it is as robust as possible. We hope it will see a swift but detailed passage through committee. I pay tribute to Valerie, a woman, mother, caregiver and professional therapist dedicated to affirming life and love. Cuimhneoimid uirthi. To Valerie.

It probably does not happen often, but this is a matter that we, collectively, as a Legislature and a body politic, are glad to see happening. I welcome Valerie's family. They are very welcome. I commend Valerie's brother, David, to whom I listened on multiple media appearances over recent years and during pre-legislative scrutiny in committee. His testimony was compelling. His steadfast determination and resilience are completely admirable. I say "Well done" for the fight. He has ensured that legislation that is absolutely necessary is coming forward because of his advocacy and strength, and the way in which he has pushed for it. I also commend the Minister, which does not happen every day, as we know.

I thank the Deputy.

We have to acknowledge when legislation is necessary and we all agree that this legislation is necessary, and the Minister has brought it forward. We will tease it out. In the main, I support it. I will obviously be supporting it, but we will tease out a few things. The Minister and his Department are to be commended on bringing it forward in a pretty quick manner. I hope we will bring it through the Houses relatively quickly. I have a few issues. The Minister went through section 12D, which relates to the issue of being able to take away guardianship where there is a situation in relation to the second guardian as well. He outlined that comprehensively in his few words, but we might look to see how we can tighten it up on Committee Stage. There has been some commentary from Tusla, probably not on the record, relating to resources and so on. It is not something that I believe we need to get overly concerned about because in truth, it must be the agency to deal with this. That is the way it should go. There are issues with the constitutionality of the legislation. My concern when this legislation was being drafted was whether there would be a constitutional test. Article 42A was inserted by the referendum on the rights of the child. Article 42A.2.1° states: In exceptional cases, where the parents, regardless of their marital status, fail in their duty towards their children to such extent that the safety or welfare of any of their children is likely to be prejudicially affected, the State as guardian of the common good shall, by proportionate means as provided by law, endeavour to supply the place of the parents, but always with due regard for the natural and imprescriptible rights of the child. This test, that a parent has failed in his or her duty towards the child concerned to such an extent that the safety of welfare of the child is likely to be prejudicially affected, is recited throughout the Bill. That is necessary just in case of constitutional challenges, which we know can happen quite frequently. From a Labour Party perspective, we are watching out for that but we do feel that it is covered as part of the Bill. As Professor Louise Crowley argues, in the event of a challenge, the court will very likely have very strong grounds to say that it was in the best interests of the children to have someone else acting as their guardian or custodian. That is in relation to interaction with Article 41. That puts that to bed and I expect that we will be covered. Having gone through the pre-legislative recommendations, I am glad that a review mechanism is in place whereby there is an acquittal. We cannot foresee all circumstances as to what will happen in this country in years to come, so where there is an acquittal, we need to make sure the legislation is safeguarded for such scenarios. I am glad that is there. There were some other recommendations, which the Minister might discuss. When we went through this, there was a specific kind of onus put in on the voice of the child. We might discuss that on Committee Stage as well. I might bring forward an amendment relating to how children can be better involved, how they can be better brought through and how there can be a mechanism to hear the voice of the child or children through the Bill. That was something we specifically went through when we discussed this previously. There was consideration also of a register of guardians to aid State bodies implementing the legislation. I do not know whether the Minister has considered that. There was also the issue discussed earlier of the consideration of explicitly excluding victims of domestic violence convicted of manslaughter when found to be acting in self-defence from having guardianship rights removed. That is quite a delicate area but that needs to be teased through. In relation to the timeframes, currently, the Bill's only time limit is a six-month deadline after conviction, during which Tusla can apply for restriction or removal of guardianship rights. This takes no account of the time it takes to charge and convict or the time for the application to be decided. This means the child would likely remain under the guardianship of their parents' killer for many months. Can we tease that out? Can there be a period when there is something else in place, or can we define even what that is? I do not have all the answers to this but it is certainly that six-month period. Are there any guardianship issues that will still remain with the person who will have the guardianship rights removed? I acknowledge we have to have a time period, but does the Minister see what I am getting at? I do not know if, from a legislative basis, we can even provide an answer because there has to be some sort of timeframe. This is something that cropped up when I was discussing this with some people. Maybe there could be a suspension of guardianship once a guardian is charged rather than convicted, and then there would be the overlap of the six months. Maybe something like that could be considered. That might be appropriate. Maybe child impact assessments should be completed ahead of an application to court as well. That is something else we might discuss. By and large, however, I and the Labour Party are one hundred per cent supportive of this. There are some issues that I have just raised and that I will tease out on Committee Stage. We will look at amendments. I would rather work with the Minister on amendments than table amendments myself. We could maybe discuss that and get to the right wording, but I wanted to put out those issues, which are the ones we should consider. In particular, I have a concern about the issue of the six-month period. Maybe there should be a way in which that is covered. Furthermore, the voice of the child, as part of this process, is the second most important issue, which we may need to look into again. I thank the Minister again. I thank David and the family of Valerie. It is appropriate that this Bill is named after her. I hope it will be put through in a very speedy manner. The Minister will get the full co-operation of the House. I expect and hope we can do this in a short time. I commend the Minister and his officials.

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on this important legislation. I join colleagues in welcoming Mr. French and his family and colleagues to the Gallery. We are here to honour Valerie and her family for their enduring commitment and to honour Valerie's children. This is a very rare occasion, certainly in my short spell as a TD, to see such overwhelming support across the House for legislation. I commend the Minister and his officials on the short time it has taken from the publication of the programme for Government to bringing such detailed legislation before us today. Having been a youth worker and taught child protection to many volunteers for so many years, it is really welcome to see this type of terminology and language in legislation in Ireland today whereby the welfare of the children of this State is of paramount importance to us. We have come an awful long way and we still have a long way to go in that regard, but when we hold the welfare of children at the core of the decisions we make as legislators, we will never go too far wrong. That is why, notwithstanding I am sure the many constructive amendments that might be tabled on Committee and Report Stages, the Social Democrats are very much behind and look forward to supporting the basis of this legislation. With regard to child and youth participation, since becoming the Social Democrats' spokesperson for children and young people, I have heard from many organisations and many young people about their ability to be informed participants in legal proceedings. That is not for today but it is something we might consider in the ways in which we can ensure that young people are given the capacity to participate and to share their experiences and their feelings in a way that is safe, ethical and heard. That is certainly something we will consider. Similarly, today we have heard from the Ombudsman for Children that one in five complaints that it received to its office last year related to Tusla. While we acknowledge and agree that Tusla should be the body in this legislation that is the primary actor, we cannot ignore what is a significant concern about resourcing. When we put in a timeframe like six months from conviction, I just think we need to all be assured that the agency has the resources and the competencies to be able to act from day one of that conviction at least. Again, that is something we will consider and discuss, I am sure, in future. Many others want to speak. I just want to take the opportunity to offer our party's full support. Deputies Gannon and Cairns tabled similar legislation in the past. It does not matter how we get there as long as we get there, and that is why we will support this Bill and we look forward to supporting it and working in earnest with the Minister and others. I commend the French family and all who have campaigned on this for so long at this point. It is a position that no one should be in, but today marks a very important day in that journey, and I commend them all for that.

Although we are in a different order now, Deputy Devlin is next.

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate. While it is a short Bill, it is a very significant one. I thank the Minister and his officials for bringing it forward. It delivers on a clear programme for Government commitment. It implements a key recommendation of the independent Study on Familicide and Domestic and Family Violence Death Reviews. It does so under a name, Valerie's Law, in honour of Valerie French, killed in June 2019 by her husband, James Kilroy. I welcome David French and the wider French family to the Gallery and I offer my deep condolences to them. I commend them on their commitment, courage and persistence in relation to this legislative change. Valerie's brother David, whose advocacy has carried this issue through years when it could easily have slipped down the agenda, has spoken with dignity and persistence. The State owes him a debt of gratitude and we remember Valerie and her loved ones today. Fianna Fáil supports this Bill. The principle at its heart is straightforward. A person convicted of killing the other parent of their child should not automatically retain guardianship rights over that child. A person convicted of a serious offence causing serious harm against the other parent should not by default continue to hold those rights either. Until now, the law has been almost silent on this. Families have been left to navigate it themselves. That is not acceptable and this Bill ends that practice. The legislation is built on three sound foundations. First, the best interests of the child are the paramount consideration, and rightly so. Section 12C and Section 12D both require the court to weigh both the failure of duty and the welfare of the child before any order is made. The court can restrict a guardian’s powers or remove the guardian entirely. It can impose conditions, which can be reviewed over time. Second, the voice of the child is heard. Section 12F provides for the appointment of a guardian ad litem in line with the Child Care Act 2022. The child is not a footnote in proceedings about their own future; he or she is a party to them. Third, Tusla is placed at the centre. Section 12C requires the agency to apply to the District Court within six months of a conviction where there is reasonable cause to believe parental duty has failed. This is appropriate. Tusla is the body with the expertise, the statutory remit and the institutional memory to make these applications properly. The data-sharing provisions in section 12H, developed in consultation with the Data Protection Commission, will allow it to do that work on a sound legal footing. I welcome too the retrospective application provided for in section 12I. There are families already living with the consequences of these convictions. They should not be excluded from this protection because their cases predate commencement. Taking a step back for a moment, guardianship is defined by the Courts Service as the rights and duties of parents in respect of the upbringing of their children. Rights and duties are the two halves of the same legal status. The Bill addresses the most extreme end of the spectrum, where the duty has been violated in the gravest way imaginable, but the principle that guardianship carries responsibilities as well as rights is one this House should be willing to examine across the spectrum, not only at the extremes. There is a real concern in communities across the country, including in my constituency of Dún Laoghaire, about a small but persistent cohort of young people who are engaged in serious antisocial and criminal behaviour. We all know the pattern. It is the same names, the same addresses and the same incidents. In too many of these cases, the guardians of those children have effectively disengaged from any role in steering their behaviour. Will the Minister to examine, as part of the ongoing implementation of the Youth Justice Strategy 2021–2027, what further measures can be brought forward to hold guardians meaningfully responsible for their children who continue to engage in serious antisocial and criminal behaviour? Section 111 of the Children Act 2001 provides for a parental supervision order where the court is satisfied that a wilful failure of a parent to control the child contributed to the child’s offending. The principle is on the Statute Book. The question is whether it is being used, whether it is being resourced and whether it can be strengthened. The vast majority of parents of children in difficulty are doing their best in circumstances none of us would want to face. The answer for them is support, not sanction, but that is why this conversation cannot be separated from continued investment versus intervention. I welcome the record €43 million allocation for youth justice services in budget 2026, which is a 22% increase on the previous year. I welcome the achievement of full nationwide coverage of youth diversion projects, with 94 in operation. I also welcome the continued funding of the Greentown programme, which targets children subject to coercive control by criminal gangs. These are the right investments. They must continue and they must reach communities such as those in Dún Laoghaire and across the country. However, intervention works best when responsibility is shared by the State, the community and the guardians of the children concerned. The aside I am asking the Minister to consider is the third leg of that stool. To return to the Bill before us, this is good legislation. It is carefully drafted. It has been developed in consultation with the families who lived through events it addresses, with civil society and with the Data Protection Commissioner. It places child welfare where it belongs, in the public law arena, not in the private negotiations of grieving families. It honours Valerie French. It honours every child who has been left in legal limbo while the State worked out what to do. That is welcome in this legislation, and I am pleased to support it.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this important legislation. I acknowledge the work the Minister has done in bringing forward this necessary change to the laws around guardianship. Guardianship currently refers to the set of legal rights and responsibilities to make major decisions about the upbringing of a child or a young person. This includes everything from what school they attend, what religion they are raised in, major medical decisions, whether they are allowed leave the country for a holiday or for other reasons and all that set of significant decisions in a child or young person's life. We separate out the power to make those big decisions from the day-to-day decisions about a child, which are governed by the rules surrounding custody. The Bill provides that new power at law, namely, that a court can make an order suspending the guardianship held by a parent who has been convicted of killing the child's other parent. It is a very significant interference and significant restriction with guardianship rights but one which is necessary and for which there is a basis. The Bill would give that power to Tusla within six months of a conviction for the killing of a child's parent to bring forward an application to the court seeking such an order and that application could be made within a further six months if there were particular circumstances for that. Ultimately, the Bill recognises that the killing of a child's parent by the other child's parent represents an abuse of that child and it is for that incredibly severe reason that this significant restriction is being proposed. On behalf of the Green Party, I will support this Bill. I will make points. First, has the Minister considered the possibility of providing for an interim order? A former colleague of mine, Dr. Brian Tobin, in the University of Galway has made the case that there should be provision for an interim order, particularly if there is a lengthy trial or a length of time between conviction and sentencing. Any additional time period in which a parent who has undertaken this grievous crime has guardianship over a child represents a longer period within which the potential abuse that we are recognising in this Bill and are legislating to restrict could take place, and in which additional traumatisation of that child and additional damage to their welfare could take place. I am sure the Minister has given this some thought but I ask him, particularly as he brings this Bill through Committee and Report Stages, to give some consideration to that particular point of an interim order. There are other jurisdictions which implement it and perhaps we can look at that model there. Second, I step back to a slightly wider point. The Minister's predecessor commissioned research and a wider analysis of guardianship in infancy. This legislation has been with us for some time, since 1964. My understanding is that this report, which has not been published yet, contains some recommendations, particularly around the acquisition of guardianship duties. It is probably a good time to consider that. Recognising the different ways across which families are formed these days, it is fair that we look at how guardianship duties are acquired. I have tabled a number of parliamentary questions to the Minister over the past 18 months about where this report is, whether he will publish it and whether he will implement all, or, indeed, some of its recommendations. To date, his replies have not been hugely illuminating. It would be valuable to publish that report. It is my understanding that it is completed and it is on the Minister's desk. It was even on his predecessor's desk as well. It may be that he does not wish to follow some or all of the recommendations in it. If so, it is legitimate for him to make that decision. I do not propose that we delay the Bill in any way on foot of that. This Bill has merit to work on its own. Perhaps in his wrap-up or in the near future, he would set out his proposals regarding the potential publication of the draft report on the wider question of guardianship.

First, I thank the Minister for the work he has done on this Bill. I acknowledge the relentless work and advocacy of David French and his family in regard to the work behind the Bill. When we talk about laws like Valerie's Law, we are ultimately asking a difficult but essential question. What does justice mean for a child whose parent has committed the most serious harm imaginable, killing the other parent? There is often an instinct in law to preserve parental rights wherever possible. This is right because the Constitution recognises the importance of family. The bond between parent and child is one that should never be lightly broken but we must be clear about one thing: parental rights are not absolute. They exist alongside and must sometimes give way to the rights and well-being of the child. In situations of domestic homicide, it is simply not acceptable to assume that a perpetrator should always have access to their child. First, we must consider the psychological reality for the child. A child who has lost one parent at the hands of the other is not just grieving, they are dealing with a profound trauma. Forcing or even allowing contact in all cases risks reopening that trauma, creating fear, confusion and emotional harm that will be felt not just today or tomorrow but well into the future. Access in these circumstances is not always a benefit. It can be a source of significant psychological damage. Second, we must look at the nature of the crime itself. The act of killing the child's other parent represents a fundamental breach of trust, responsibility and care. It is not just a crime against an individual but it is a violation that directly affects the child's sense of safety and stability. In many ways, a person who has committed such an act compromises their role as a caregiver. Third, there is an issue of power and control. Even limited access can allow a perpetrator to continue exerting influence over a child or even over the wider family. In cases of domestic violence, control does not always end with the criminal act. It can continue through legal processes and claims of parental involvement. The law must be careful not to become a tool that extends that control. Fourth, we must prioritise the best interests of the child as the overriding principle. While this is the fourth point, it is the most fundamental and important one. This is not a moral claim: it is a legal standard. The child's welfare must always come first, ahead of any entitlement the parent may claim. In many cases of domestic homicide, maintaining contact simply will not meet that standard. There is nothing to argue that access should never be allowed, there may be rare, exceptional circumstances where carefully managed contact is appropriate but the key point is that access should never be assumed or automatic. Instead, it must be carefully assessed, strictly controlled and only permitted where it clearly benefits the child. Valerie's Law reflects this shift in thinking. It moves us away from a system that prioritises parental status and towards one that centres the child's safety, dignity and emotional well-being. In conclusion, we must recognise that in extreme cases the question is not what the parent is entitled to but what the child needs in order to heal, feel safe and move forward. Sometimes that means recognising that no access at all is the most favourable outcome in these scenarios. I again thank the Minister. I also again acknowledge the French family for all their efforts. It is quite extraordinary. I reiterate the point that the child's interests has to always be at the centre of argument we make.

I welcome the core intention of the Guardianship of Infants (Amendment) Bill. Any measure that seeks to strengthen the legal framework for protecting our most vulnerable children from those who would do them harm deserves full support. The provisions aimed at safeguarding children from the influence of individuals guilty of major crimes, enhancing care orders, and promoting better interagency co-operation are, on paper, positive steps. We must always strive to put the welfare of the child first in our laws. However, I must speak plainly. Many people across this country will find it profoundly galling that Tusla, the agency entrusted with child protection, is being further empowered and charged with making these orders, when it stands accused of being institutionally unfit for the task it already has. There are many serious questions about Tusla. As a public representative, I certainly have no confidence in it. Time and again we have seen failures that should shake the confidence of every parent, child and citizen in this country. Just last year there was an horrific alleged rape of a ten-year old child in the care of the State at Citywest - a young girl who was under Tusla's guardianship. That is the fact of the matter. She absconded and was allegedly assaulted in circumstances that raise the most serious questions about supervision, placement safety and basic duty of care. How does a child in State care end up in such danger? This was not an isolated tragedy. It is in fact symptomatic of a deeper systemic problem within the system. Let us not forget the ongoing scandal that I have consistently highlighted in this House, which to my mind has not been effectively addressed. The findings of the sexual exploitation research programme, SERP, report were very disturbing. The report was carried out by academics from UCD and it was entitled Protecting Against Predators. The report raises serious questions for Tusla that have not been adequately addressed. The State should hang its head in shame that it has not adequately dealt with this report, when the facts and evidence are laid bare in the SERP report. The report clearly laid out how predatory gangs, often organised groups of men, are targeting and sexually exploiting vulnerable children, particularly girls, while they are under the care of Tusla. That is under the State's watch. Children are coerced into sexual acts in exchange for gifts. They are preyed upon because of their vulnerability, instability and the gaps in the system that is meant to protect them. This is grooming and exploitation on a scale that should urgently demand a full public inquiry. It should demand decisive action because the report is very disturbing, yet the response has been nothing short of criminally inadequate. This Bill is about protecting children from the influence of those guilty of major crimes. That is certainly right and necessary but even as we debate these measures here today, unknown numbers of vulnerable children remain in the care of the State - in the care of Tusla, acting as the State guardian, and they are being failed day in, day out. Young girls are being raped and exploited day in, day out, under the State's watch. Children are going missing from placements and are exposed to exploitation. The basic safety of these children cannot be guaranteed, yet the Minister wants to give Tusla more power, even though there are serious questions hanging over it already. It does not make sense to me. The State has taken on the role of parent for these boys and girls, yet too often it fails in that most fundamental duty. We cannot pass legislation that expands Tusla's role without simultaneously demanding radical reform, accountability, transparency and a proper inquiry. We need independent oversight, proper resourcing of front-line staff, rigorous vetting of placements and a zero-tolerance approach to failures that put children at risk. The public rightly expects that when the State removes a child from their family, it provides something better, something more stable and not a new set of dangers. I support the Bill's protective aims, but I urge the Minister to address these uncomfortable truths about Tusla. Our children deserve far more than fine words and amended legislation. They deserve a child protection system that adequately protects them. Anything less is a betrayal of the most vulnerable in our society, and it is neglect. I ask once again for the disturbing findings in the Sexual Exploitation Research Programme, SERP, report, which was compiled by UCD academics, to be looked at and for Tusla to be brought to an inquiry as soon as possible because it has to be. It is going to be a big scandal in years to come. There is no doubt about that. By ignoring it, it is making it worse, and it is certainly making the suffering more unbearable for all of those victims who are mainly girls.

I am happy that Sinn Féin is supporting this Bill on its way through the Houses. I also want to remember Valerie. I have an older brother, and I am sure that Valerie's three sisters are very proud of the fact that their big brother has led on this. I am sure that it means a lot to Valerie, wherever she is, and to her children as well knowing that they have an uncle who went out to bat for them like this. Regarding the legislation to protect children, it is going to take ongoing efforts from the Members in these Houses and from our communities. Lifting the lid on the scourge of femicide uncovers layers and layers of needed legislation. I know that my colleague an Teachta Devine will continue to work with SiSi and others in drafting legislation for femicide given that every ten minutes across the world a woman is killed by her partner. We have to work towards zero tolerance in this House. In addition, could the Minister detail how Tusla will operate robustly given its overburdened workload? It is a fact that mishaps occur from time to time and "mishaps" is a word that puts it lightly. I welcome this legislation but we need to know that Tusla will be resourced and held accountable when it is needed.

I welcome the Bill. It has been a long time coming. Two things were very striking when women in particular were murdered in the past. One was the fact that the partner who may have killed them could inherit the family home and other wealth, and the other was that they could be the immediate first guardian. This Bill deals with the latter. I commend the relatives and in particular David, the brother of Valerie French Kilroy who was murdered by her husband. David has battled to get this Bill passed. It is that type of activism that leads to legal changes because for many years this has been demanded and called for. The idea that the birth father has a divine right to the custody of their children and access to their children has to be challenged. We heard a while ago from Deputy who talked about Tusla. She talked about rape and child sexual abuse without any care for the impact it has on people who are listening as well. She also spoke about the child sexual abuse of people in State care. Let us be clear: most child sexual abuse takes place within families. Let us nail this one on of the head because it is a constant mantra from a few parties and Deputies in this House. It is just a common refrain. For all the faults and issues relating to Tusla - and there are many - the idea that it should not be able to remove a child or take a child away from the natural father is something that we should challenge. We have all read about and seen sisters and so on coming out onto the court steps and talking about how abuse continued for many years. It is very relevant because it is the mindset that led to this law talking so long to come about. We need Tusla to be properly resourced. We need all of the child State agencies to have the ability and staffing, which is a huge problem because of burnout as well, to be able to intervene to protect children, no matter where it is coming from. We see the same phenomenon in the family courts. This is something that more women are coming out and talking about. Children are being forced to stay with abusive fathers in cases of separation because the patriarchal family has such a huge power and status in our society and in our legal systems. The claims regarding parental alienation are all related to the philosophy that has led to this law taking so long. As has been mentioned, femicide is a huge problem. It is a global epidemic related to gender-based violence. The UN says that every ten minutes a girl or woman is killed by a relative somewhere in the world. That is a shocking and stark statistic. It is more commonplace in some societies and cultures than in others but we are far from immune. Northern Ireland is the most dangerous place for women and historically the Republic of Ireland has been a very patriarchal and sexist culture as well. I welcome this Bill. I give huge credibility to David French and others who have campaigned for it. It has been a long time coming but we need much more legal change in the area of gender-based violence. While I welcome this Bill and also welcome the fact that other Bills such as Jennie's Law are being looked at, we also need huge change in the area of the misogyny in the court system. It is something that has come up, and I know that the Minister is dealing with the counselling notes issue, and we had a debate only the other day on this. Survivors and therapists were hugely upset and disappointed after that committee meeting. In fact, rather than seeing progress, they feel that it is going backwards, and I feel that too. Deputies Simon Harris, Micheál Martin, Helen McEntee and others talked about the need to remove counselling notes from the courts system, but the Minister seemed to defend the practice the other day. That was hugely disappointing for so many people, and I just have to relay that. It is good that this is happening but we need a lot more innovation in our courts system as well because if we keep gender-based violence silent and secret, people will not report and will not come forward if these really traumatising practices are maintained in our system. I welcome the Bill.

Before the Minister stands to conclude, I must outline the Topical Issue Matters as we are way ahead of time and Deputies should be on notice.