Tusla is against a new law that would remove parental rights from killers because the child and family agency claims “children’s best interests” are served by them having a connection with their birth parents.
The State agency argued that parents accused of a “suspected killing” still have “inherent rights” to their children, who may still want to see their mother or father.
Internal emails reveal Tusla was “disappointed” the Department of Justice ignored its “many objections” to Valerie’s Law, a landmark piece of proposed legislation that would strip automatic child guardianship rights from those convicted of killing their partner or the other parent of their child. The legislation also deals with parents “suspected” of killing.
Kate Duggan, Tusla chief executive, considered going public with the agency’s opposition to the legislation, which is included in the Programme for Government and was one of the first priorities of Minister for Justice Jim O’Callaghan when he took office.
READ MORE
Valerie’s Law is named after Valerie French (41), a mother of three young boys who was murdered in June 2019 by her husband James Kilroy. Despite being convicted, Kilroy continued to have guardianship rights over the three boys whose mother he had killed. David French has led a campaign to legislate to remove parental rights from killers, in honour of his sister Valerie.
Last February, shortly after the Government was formed, the Department of Justice started circulating plans for Valerie’s Law with Tusla, with one official advising O’Callaghan was “anxious to progress this matter very quickly”.
Correspondence released under the Freedom of Information Act has almost entirely redacted Tusla’s views on the law, but emails show senior staff within the child and family agency had “significant concerns” about it.
Tusla told the Department of Justice on February 11th that it would not support Valerie’s Law, and a senior solicitor at Tusla later complained to a colleague that the Department of Justice “did not take many of our points on board”.
In March, a Tusla official told senior staff that O’Callaghan’s department was proceeding with the law “despite our previous and many objections”. Gerry Hone, interim director of services and integration at Tusla, suggested in an internal email that the agency needed to make its objections stronger.
That same week, Hone wrote to the Department of Children, its parent department, to complain Tusla was “disappointed that the Department of Justice have not taken onboard to any real degree our serious concerns regarding this proposed legislation”.
By May, Duggan was asking colleagues whether Tusla would “ever as a State agency publicly comment on our views, or give an indication of our general thinking?”
In June, Tusla set out its opposition to Valerie’s Law in a submission to the Oireachtas Justice Committee, which was carrying out pre-legislative scrutiny of the law.
Tusla said it was “required to promote the welfare of children having due regard to the rights of parents”. It said that, even when children were in care, “children’s best interests often require us to support ongoing connection to birth family and inclusion of birth family in key decision-making affecting that child”.
[ Tusla rejects claim it did not fully investigate sex abuse allegationsOpens in new window ]
It claimed Valerie’s Law would put the State agency in “direct conflict” with its principle of having trusting relationships with families and guardians. In cases where a mother was accused of killing her partner, Tusla pointed out that removing guardianship rights from the mother would be “unprecedented”. It questioned whether this would be constitutionally compliant.
A report on the draft legislation was published in September and it is among various bills on the Government’s priority legislation programme for the spring.
Tusla also complained the law would have “budget implications” for the organisation, and questioned how it would be informed “if a parent murdered the other guardian in another jurisdiction and has served their time in prison, has been released from prison and is now caring for their child?”
“Even, if we did know, are we expected to make an application to remove that parent because of their past offence in another jurisdiction, where they have served their time?”
In cases where Tusla was required to remove parental rights from parents suspected of killing, the agency said: “What is a suspected killing? Do parents not have inherent rights regarding their birth/legal children?” It asked about “the views and voice of the child(ren) and their possible wish to continue to have contact and a relationship with the parent/suspect.”
The Department of Justice said officials are working with the Office of the Attorney General “to ensure the Bill meets all constitutional obligations, including that the best interests of the child are the paramount consideration in any proceedings concerning the guardianship of a child”.
It said the concerns of Tusla were considered before the Government approved the Bill.
