Five ways to strengthen the Child Care Amendment Bill from a Children’s Rights perspective

 

1.     Place a time limit on voluntary care and put in place an independent review process

In its 2023 Concluding Observations, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child urged Ireland to “establish a maximum duration for the placement or continued placement of children in “voluntary” care”.[1] While we welcome the provisions which require for a review of the arrangements for a child in voluntary care at regular intervals, we remain concerned by the absence of any provision for an overall time limit on the use of voluntary care arrangements. We are of the view that a time limit of 12 months on voluntary care arrangements should be sufficient to satisfy whether it is appropriate to return a child to the care of their parents, or to place the child in the care of the State.

We welcome proposals for a regular review of voluntary care arrangements as contained in Section 6 of the Bill. However, we remain of the view that it is not appropriate for Tusla to review itself in these circumstances and in this regard, provision needs to be made for the independent review of voluntary care arrangements. We are also of the view that reviews of a voluntary care arrangements should take place sooner and more frequently, where an initial independent review would take place within two months of the arrangement first being put in place.

Recommendation 1.1: Amend Section 4(3)(a) of the Principal Act to introduce a 12-month time limit on voluntary care orders.

Recommendation 1.2: Amend Section 4(4) of the Principal Act to ensure the review process is conducted independent of Tusla, with an initial review taking place within two months of the arrangement being put in place.

 

2.     Introduce additional safeguards for homeless children

Section 7 of the Bill does not include a lower age limit for children to be accommodated under Section 5 of the Principal Act. While the Bill states that the proposed regulations may make different provision for different categories of children, including children of different ages, we remain of the view that given the vulnerability of children in these circumstances, a minimum age should be specified within the legislation itself.

We are also concerned that the Bill does not provide for a maximum length of time that a child may be placed in temporary accommodation. The proposed regulations contained in Section 7 of the Bill do not refer to time limits, which means that a child could potentially be accommodated under Section 5 for years. We are of the view that a maximum timeframe for the placement of children under Section 5 should be included in the revised Act.

We are also of the view that, due to the particular vulnerabilities of these children, the Bill should include provision for independent review of decisions made by Tusla under the proposed Sections 5 and 5A.

Recommendation 2.1: Amend section 5(1) of the Principal Act to add provisions to introduce a minimum age for the placement of children under section 5.

Recommendation 2.2: Amend section 5(1) of the Principal Act to add provisions to introduce a maximum timeframe for the placement of children under section 5.

Recommendation 2.3: Amend section 5(3) of the Principal Act to include provision for an independent review of decisions made by Tusla under Sections 5 and 5A.

 

3.     Include explicit provisions for unaccompanied children, recognising their particular vulnerabilities.

The OCO remains concerned that the Bill remains silent on the care of unaccompanied children. The OCO had welcomed the DCDE’s proposals in its 2020 consultation paper to define unaccompanied children in the Child Care Act 1991 (1991 Act) and to provide clarity on the grounds for taking unaccompanied children into care and applying for residence permissions on their behalf.[2] The purpose of these proposals was to address the lack of specific provisions for unaccompanied children in the 1991 Act.[3] As previously expressed by the OCO, the current legislative proposals perpetuate this invisibility and do not offer any clarity on which sections of the revised Act are to apply to these children’s particularly vulnerable situation. We have continually expressed our concerns about the use of Section 5 of the Act to accommodate unaccompanied children. It often leaves older children in unsafe accommodation without the wrap-around supports they need.

This issue is currently even more pressing as the OCO has significant concerns about the potential breaches of children’s rights when Ireland implements the EU Migration Pact. We have highlighted this in our observations on the General Scheme of the International Protection Bill 2025. The entry of unaccompanied children into the care system is distinct from that of other children and requires a bespoke response, separate to that of the international protection framework.[4]

It is our understanding that specific provision has not been made for unaccompanied children because the DCDE wants to protect the equity of care principle, whereby unaccompanied children get exactly the same level of care and are taken into care under the same thresholds as Irish-resident children.[5] However, the State is obliged to identify children who require special measures in order to enjoy their rights on an equal basis with other children.[6] We are of the view that the Bill must therefore make explicit provision to develop statutory regulations for the care and specific needs of unaccompanied children.

The OCO is also concerned that in the process of reforming Section 4 (1) of 1991 Act, which allows Tusla to take a child into care if they were abandoned, Tusla will now be required to notify and obtain consent from the parent/ guardian (as  contained in the proposed Section 4 (2a) and 4 (2)b). By adding a requirement for parental consent, a barrier to the care system is created for unaccompanied children.  We understand that a court order would be required without parental consent therefore making access to Tusla care through this route much more restrictive.

Recommendation 3.1: Insert a specific provision for statutory guidelines on the care of unaccompanied children including access to a care plan, a social worker and aftercare.

Recommendation 3.2: Amend the proposed Section 4.2 of the Principal Act so that parental consent is not required if that parent cannot be contacted or resides in another country.

 

4.     Ban unregulated placements

The OCO has long called for prohibiting the placement of children in unregulated accommodation and imposing a statutory duty for Tusla to ensure that there are sufficient appropriate placements for children within each administrative area, including for children in need of emergency accommodation. A report from October 2025 found that 15 companies shared €56m in payments from Tusla to run ‘special emergency arrangements’.[7] These placements are not regulated, and the Judiciary has expressed serious concerns on the ongoing use of special emergency arrangements for children in care, in particular for unaccompanied children.

Recommendation 4: Introduce specific provisions to ban the placement of children in unregulated accommodation.

 

5.     Independent statutory powers to the National Review Panel

In our Child Death Review report published in 2025, the OCO highlighted the limitations of the National Review Panel (NRP) due to the ongoing failure to place it on a statutory basis, including in its ability to undertake its work effectively with limitations in accessing information, engaging with other agencies, and fundamental governance.[8] We therefore welcome the proposals to include provisions in the Child Care (Amendment) Bill 2025 to place the National Review Panel on a statutory footing.[9] Any provisions included in this regard in the Bill must ensure that the NRP is fully independent, is able to access the information it needs to complete timely reviews and has the authority to publish its reports.

However, while placing the NRP on a statutory footing will benefit children in care and those known to Tusla, it will not change the process for how other unexpected child deaths are investigated, and we remain of the view that a statutory national Child Death Review mechanism, with the ability to review all unexpected child deaths in the State, also needs to be established.[10]

Recommendation 5: Include specific provisions that ensure the NRP is fully independent, is able to access the information it needs to complete timely reviews and has the authority to publish its reports.

 

[1]UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (2023), Concluding observations on the combined fifth and sixth periodic reports of Ireland, p. 9.

[2] Ombudsman for Children’s Office (2020), Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth Review of the Child Care Act 1991 -July 2020 Consultation Paper: Observations by the Ombudsman for Children’s Office, p. 7.

[3] Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth (2020), Review of the Child Care Act 1991 July 2020 Consultation Paper, p. 13.

[4] Ombudsman for Children’s Office (2023), General Scheme of the Child Care (Amendment) Bill 2023: Observations by the Ombudsman for Children’s Office, p. 8.

[5] Joint Committee on Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth (May 2023), General Scheme of the Child Care (Amendment) Bill 2023: Discussion, p. 17.

[6] Ombudsman for Children’s Office (July 2025), Draft Child Care Amendment Bill 2025 ⎯ Observations of the Ombudsman for Children’s Office, p. 8.

[7] The Irish Times (2025), Companies being paid millions to run emergency housing for children in care.

[8] Ombudsman for Children’s Office (April 2025), Child Death Review, p. 43.

[9] DCDE, Press Release : Minister Foley receives government approval to publish the Child Care (Amendment) Bill 2025, (3 December 2025).

[10] Ombudsman for Children’s Office (April 2025), Child Death Review, p. 20.

• 24 Márta 2026
• Ábhar: Leanaí faoi chúram