“Something happened but I’m not going to tell you about it.” In the therapy world that phrase often refers to a past experience of child abuse.
Thanks to a recent, welcome ruling from the Court of Appeal, they are likely to hear it less often in the future.
The ruling means that a counsellor does not have to pass on a report to Tusla unless a child is at risk of abuse or unless the client wants it passed on. In my view the fear of triggering an investigation into events in the distant past has prevented people talking to counsellors about what happened to them. The Court of Appeal ruling removes that fear.
Why would anybody not want a report of historic abuse to be passed on?
Sometimes, a person wants a report made and a counsellor will help them to do so. But that’s not always the case. Quite often the person, now an adult, who was abused as a child, does not believe that anybody else is at risk and dreads throwing a grenade into the family by making an allegation. In a moral sense, however, the one who threw that grenade was the abuser. But the person who was misused years ago may not be ready to endure the family conflict, perhaps even isolation, that would follow an allegation – abuse often involves an immediate or extended family member.
For all of these reasons, counsellors often warned prospective clients that if historic abuse was disclosed and if the person could be identified, then a report may have to be made to Tusla.
Why would counsellors put the client on notice in this way? Mainly, in my experience, because counsellors are on the side of their clients. They do not want to see them re-traumatised by making reports against their wishes that may result in little of any value happening. Historic abuse is hard to prove and sometimes the conflict resulting from a report leaves the client with a heavy extra burden.
[ Pádraig O’Moráin: Being kind to colleagues is key to our own wellbeingOpens in new window ]
HSE policy requiring its mandated workers to report historic child abuse allegations to Tusla, regardless of the wishes of the client, was challenged in the High Court by Tom McGrath, director of counselling with the HSE in Sligo.
As The Irish Times reported, under the then HSE rules, a report would have to be sent to Tusla, “even if the client is now an adult, there is no current risk of harm to a child and the alleged perpetrator is not identifiable”.
“He said an adult client was denied counselling if they did not consent in writing to a report of their account of child abuse being sent to Tusla.”
I believe some counsellors in private practice did not follow this procedure because they were not willing to have their clients “abused” again, this time by a system that might carry out an investigation that would achieve nothing and leave devastation in its wake.
The High Court backed up the HSE interpretation but, on appeal, the High Court ruling was struck down by the Court of Appeal.
Counsellors are still obliged to report “any reasonably held suspicions that a child is at risk of harm”. Also, if the client consents to report about historic abuse being made then the counsellor should do so.
As Clare Daly, a child care solicitor puts it in Irish Legal News: “The question to be assessed in real terms is whether a child is at risk of being harmed. If that answer is in the affirmative, then a report must always be made.”
Most counsellors will be relieved, I think, that where their client doesn’t want a report made and there is no reason to suspect a child is at risk, they don’t have to make a report.
This doesn’t mean past abusers are off the hook: the court was told that adult clients of the National Counselling Service were more likely to engage with Tusla after experiencing a safe therapeutic relationship.
- Padraig O’Morain (Instagram, Twitter: @padraigomorain) is accredited by the Irish Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy. His books include Kindfulness – a guide to self compassion; his daily mindfulness reminder is available free by email (pomorain@yahoo.com).