M-Compass Media

15/12/2025

𝐍𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐚 𝐅𝐨𝐥𝐞𝐲’𝐬 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐋𝐞𝐠𝐢𝐬𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐁𝐥𝐨𝐜𝐤𝐬 𝐌𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐅𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐄𝐱𝐚𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐈𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐮𝐚𝐥 𝐓𝐮𝐬𝐥𝐚 𝐂𝐚𝐬𝐞𝐬

The final section of the Child Care Amendment Bill 2025, published last week by Minister Norma Foley, marks a deliberate boundary the State is drawing between oversight and direct intervention.

The amendment inserts a new subsection into section 47 of the Child Care Act, which deals with the power of Ministers to give directions to Tusla. On the surface, it appears technical. In reality, it quietly but decisively clarifies where political authority ends when it comes to families and children.

Under this new provision, neither the Minister for Children nor the Minister for Education and Youth may give directions to Tusla in matters relating to a particular person. This is not a blanket ban on all Ministerial involvement with Tusla, but it is a firm legal barrier when decisions affect an individual child or family.

Specifically, the Minister is barred from directing Tusla on how it provides care, protection, or family support services to any named person. The Minister is also prevented from intervening in decisions about whether an individual qualifies for a service, whether they receive a grant or allowance, or the extent and manner in which any service is provided to them.

In practical terms, this means that once a decision becomes personal rather than policy based, Ministerial authority stops. Ministers may continue to set overall policy, require reports, commission thematic reviews, and shape how the system operates in general. What they cannot do is step in when a family says a decision is wrong, harmful, or unjust.

For parents, this distinction is critical. When something goes wrong in an individual case, political escalation is often the last avenue people turn to. TDs raise concerns with Ministers. Ministers express concern. But under this amendment, Ministers can now point directly to the legislation and say that they are legally prohibited from intervening.

This provision formalises what has often been presented as practice or convention. It places it clearly into statute. The effect is to insulate individual Tusla decisions from political scrutiny, even where those decisions carry life changing consequences for children and parents.

The State retains strong oversight of Tusla as an institution, but parents remain subject to a closed system at the case level. Tusla investigates. Tusla decides. Tusla records. Tusla reports. And when parents seek political intervention, the law now explicitly closes that door.

This may be intended to protect the independence of child protection work. But it also means that families affected by erroneous or harmful decisions are left without any democratic route of appeal beyond the courts and internal review processes.

In plain terms, the Bill strengthens Tusla’s autonomy while leaving parents with fewer avenues for redress. The balance it strikes is not between politics and protection, but between institutional authority and family power.

14/12/2025

𝐓𝐮𝐬𝐥𝐚 𝐀𝐠𝐞 𝐀𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐃𝐢𝐬𝐩𝐮𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐂𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐇𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐫𝐞𝐝𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐓𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐬𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐋𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐥 𝐅𝐞𝐞𝐬

Tusla has confirmed that it has been involved in 14 legal cases challenging age assessments used to determine whether individuals seeking international protection are children or adults. The cases highlight ongoing confusion and controversy about who has the authority to carry out age determinations and what standards apply.

Tusla says its role is confined to assessing whether a person referred to it is eligible for child care services. It does not accept that it has the statutory authority to formally determine age for international protection purposes, arguing that this function lies with the International Protection Office. However, in practice, Tusla has been responsible for assessing age in some cases, creating legal and procedural uncertainty.

The Department of Justice clarified last week that the International Protection Office is responsible for deciding the age of applicants. Despite this, Tusla acknowledged that it has assessed individuals as adults in some instances, leading to legal challenges. Fourteen cases have been taken against Tusla over age assessments, with four still ongoing.

The cases have cost the State more than €645,000 in legal fees to date, with further costs expected. Tusla said the issue is complex and that clear legislative reform is needed to establish a transparent and consistent system across agencies.

Legal representatives involved in the cases have argued that the lack of clarity has serious consequences, particularly where individuals assessed as adults may be denied protections and services available to children. They have called for new legislation to close gaps in the system and ensure that all agencies operate on the same transparent and fair basis when dealing with age assessments.

14/12/2025

𝐓𝐮𝐬𝐥𝐚 𝐀𝐥𝐞𝐫𝐭 𝐀𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐌𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐂𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐝 𝐂𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐓𝐨𝐨 𝐋𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐂𝐚𝐬𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐃𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐞𝐥 𝐍𝐨𝐰 𝐚𝐭 𝐂𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐇𝐨𝐦𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐝𝐞 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐛𝐞

Gardaí have confirmed that the death of Daniel Aruebose, whose remains were found in a shallow grave on wasteland in Donabate in north Dublin, is now being treated as a homicide. DNA analysis has confirmed the remains are those of Daniel, who would have been eight years old today.

An Garda Síochána has formally commenced a homicide investigation and is continuing to keep Daniel’s family informed. Gardaí in Swords are investigating all circumstances surrounding his death and have renewed their appeal for information from the public, stressing that no detail is too small and that all information will be treated in strict confidence.

Daniel is believed to have died more than four years ago, before his fourth birthday. His death only came to light in September following a routine social welfare check on a Child Benefit claim. Gardaí then carried out an extensive search of wasteland in Donabate, an area identified by Daniel’s parents during interviews. After nearly two weeks, a small amount of human remains was recovered. Initial post mortem findings were inconclusive as to the cause of death.

Daniel was born in the Rotunda Hospital on December 12, 2017, and was named Daniel Michael Aruebose. His mother, Maria Aruebose, and father, Ciaran Dirrane, have assisted gardaí and admitted that Daniel was dead. During questioning, Daniel’s mother gave differing accounts, initially stating he died in his sleep and later saying he died following an assault. She said she and the child’s father panicked and buried his body in secret.

The couple later separated and Daniel’s father moved to Brazil. Daniel’s mother continued living in Donabate and, when questioned by officials earlier this year about Daniel’s absence from school records, told Tusla he was living with relatives elsewhere. Checks established this was not the case, leading to garda involvement and further interviews in August.

Daniel had spent part of his early life in foster care at his parents’ request before being reunited with them. There have been no arrests to date.

14/12/2025

𝐇𝐢𝐠𝐡 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭 𝐇𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐬 𝐂𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐝𝐫𝐞𝐧 𝐏𝐥𝐚𝐜𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐲 𝐓𝐮𝐬𝐥𝐚 𝐖𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐚 𝐏𝐫𝐢𝐯𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐧𝐲 𝐍𝐨𝐰 𝐠𝐨𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐨 𝐋𝐢𝐪𝐮𝐢𝐝𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐋𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧 𝐀𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐜𝐢𝐨𝐮𝐬 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬

The High Court has appointed a provisional liquidator to Even Better Value Enterprises Ltd, a holding company linked to the Good People group of companies, which provided nursing, medical staff and accommodation services, including services for vulnerable children referred by Tusla.

The appointment follows a petition by Dr Judith Kundodyiwa, a director and co founder of the business, who alleges unlawful and fraudulent conduct within the company group. The High Court appointed Declan de Lacey of Fides Chartered Accountants as provisional liquidator, granting him powers to take control of the company and secure its assets.

The case arises against the backdrop of a Garda vetting scandal involving the Good People companies. Earlier this year, a 22 year old employee was convicted of 55 counts of forging Garda vetting certificates that were submitted to Tusla. Dr Kundodyiwa alleges the individual was a relative of her business partner, Gerard Chimbganda, and that claims she acted alone were not credible.

Dr Kundodyiwa and Mr Chimbganda jointly established the business in 2017. A dispute emerged in 2023, leading to legal proceedings in Ireland and the UK. A mediated settlement was reached under which Even Better Value Enterprises Ltd was to buy out Dr Kundodyiwa’s shares for €2.25 million. When the first two instalments were not paid, she sought the appointment of a provisional liquidator.

In sworn evidence, Dr Kundodyiwa claimed there was a history of misappropriation of company funds, unlawful removal of her as a director, diversion of business and assets within the group, and payment of substantial dividends to Mr Chimbganda without proper documentation. She expressed concern that assets could be moved beyond the reach of creditors.

The court also heard allegations that unvetted staff were placed with vulnerable children, that unsuitable accommodation was used, and that serious welfare issues arose, including poor living conditions. Additional concerns were raised about unsuitable staff placements in hospitals and the potential impact on patient safety.

The judge was satisfied that the threshold for appointing a provisional liquidator had been met and granted the order on a one sided basis.

14/12/2025

𝐂𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐭 𝐖𝐚𝐬 𝐖𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐃𝐮𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐋𝐨𝐜𝐤𝐝𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐑𝐞𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐞𝐝 𝐓𝐮𝐬𝐥𝐚 𝐈𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐏𝐮𝐭 𝐕𝐮𝐥𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐂𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐝𝐫𝐞𝐧 𝐢𝐧 𝐃𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞𝐫

A report in today’s Sunday Independent says the Government was repeatedly warned during the Covid 19 pandemic that vulnerable children had become effectively invisible to the child protection system and were at increased risk of violence and serious harm.

Confidential cabinet papers released under Freedom of Information laws show officials were acutely aware that lockdowns removed key safety nets such as schools, early learning services, youth groups and routine face to face contact with professionals.

Documents from 2020 state plainly that children living in poverty or violent homes were no longer being seen and that harm was likely occurring behind closed doors. One briefing warned that the sharp fall in child protection referrals was not a sign of reduced risk but a result of children being unseen by teachers, childcare workers, extended family and others who normally report concerns. Tusla recorded an initial drop in referrals of more than one third after restrictions were introduced and warned of hidden harm emerging once lockdowns ended.

Cabinet papers also warned that a sudden surge in referrals could overwhelm services and create backlogs that would further endanger high risk cases. Officials highlighted the dramatic reduction in face to face meetings, noting that support was delayed or incomplete and that many at risk children and families had effectively disappeared from the system during restrictions.

The records are particularly stark on the risks faced by children with disabilities, special needs and developmental delays, especially those living in poverty. Officials warned that disruption to routine and early learning would have severe and lasting consequences, with children on the autistic spectrum noted as being especially affected. The importance of restoring visibility through community and early learning settings was repeatedly emphasised.

These warnings proved tragically prescient. At risk children known to social services later went missing and died, including Kyran Durnin and Daniel Aruebose. In response, the Government announced welfare checks on 42,000 cases that had been closed during the pandemic. The cabinet records show clearly that the dangers were known at the time and that the loss of oversight by Tusla during Covid 19 posed a grave risk to vulnerable children. 

12/12/2025

𝐖𝐀𝐑𝐍𝐈𝐍𝐆! 𝐍𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐚 𝐅𝐨𝐥𝐞𝐲’𝐬 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐢𝐬𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐠𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐓𝐮𝐬𝐥𝐚’𝐬 𝐩𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐚𝐤𝐞 𝐜𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐝𝐫𝐞𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐤𝐞𝐞𝐩 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦 𝐢𝐧 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐜𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐥𝐨𝐧𝐠𝐞𝐫

Earlier this week, Minister for Children Norma Foley published the Child Care Amendment Bill 2025. It is presented as a technical update to the Child Care Act 1991, intended to modernise procedures and improve efficiency. In the second in a series of posts by the Alliance of Birth Mothers Campaigning for Justice examining how the proposed legislation will impact birth mothers, we take a look at emergency and interim care orders.

In reality, for mothers whose children are taken into State care by Tusla, this Bill quietly reshapes the balance of power in ways that should alarm anyone who cares about family life, due process and the rights of women and children.

This legislation governs the most intrusive power the State can exercise against a family. The power to remove a child. Any change to it deserves intense scrutiny. Yet much of what is proposed has passed with little public debate.

One of the most immediate impacts is what happens in the first hours and days after a child is removed. The Bill strengthens Tusla’s authority from the moment of removal, including cases where gardaí act on Tusla’s direction. Once a child is delivered to emergency accommodation, the law now treats that child as already in Tusla’s custody. For mothers, this matters. It narrows the window in which they can challenge what has happened before the State’s grip fully closes.

Even the language around time limits tells its own story. References to “three days” are changed to “three working days”. That may sound trivial, but in practice it can mean a baby removed on a Friday may not see meaningful court oversight until the following week. For a breastfeeding newborn or a traumatised toddler, that is not a technical adjustment. It is a profound intervention in a child’s life.

Emergency care orders, which are meant to be short and exceptional, can now last longer. Judges are being given the power to extend them up to fifteen days. These are days when a child is separated from their mother, often before any full assessment has been completed and before the mother has had a fair opportunity to respond.

But it is the changes to interim care orders that represent the most far reaching shift. Interim care orders were originally intended as a temporary holding position while Tusla prepared a full care case. Under the new Bill, interim care can now stretch across months and even years.

Judges will be able to grant interim care orders for up to ninety days at a time where welfare assessments are underway but not complete. With parental consent, these orders can last up to six months. Through extensions, interim care can now continue for up to eighteen months. Even then, the legislation allows for further interim orders where Tusla says the grounds still exist and that it is taking reasonable steps to progress the case.

For mothers, this means prolonged limbo. Children can remain in State care without a final determination, without findings of fact, and without the certainty of a full care order being granted or refused. In the lived reality of women involved in these cases, “temporary” often becomes permanent by default.

The Bill also expands the use of supervision orders. On paper, these are presented as less intrusive alternatives to care. In practice, they give Tusla broad powers to enter family life, visit children at home or school, speak to them alone, and monitor parenting on an ongoing basis. For mothers already under scrutiny, supervision orders can feel like care by another name, without the same procedural safeguards.

There are other quieter shifts. Language changes replace references to the wishes of the child with the views of the child, framed through what professionals deem to be the child’s best interests. Courts are given stronger powers to compel agencies and professionals to participate in proceedings. Rules around data and information sharing are loosened.

Each change on its own can be defended as reasonable. Taken together, they tell a different story.

This Bill increases the State’s ability to act quickly, extend control, and delay final decisions, while families wait. It prioritises administrative flexibility over certainty, and institutional convenience over the emotional and psychological impact on children and their mothers.

For mothers whose children are taken into care, time is not neutral. Every additional week apart can weaken bonds, disrupt attachment, and make reunification harder. A system that allows children to remain in interim care for extended periods risks normalising separation rather than treating it as a last resort.

If the State is going to give itself more time, more discretion and more power, it must also give families stronger protections. Without that balance, the Child Care Amendment Bill 2025 risks entrenching a system where removal is swift, return is slow, and mothers are left waiting while decisions about their children drift further out of reach.

12/12/2025

𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐦𝐚𝐤𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐜𝐚𝐬𝐞 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐥𝐲 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐛𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐳𝐞𝐚𝐥 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐓𝐮𝐬𝐥𝐚 𝐒𝐨𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐖𝐨𝐫𝐤𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐥 𝐭𝐞𝐚𝐦 𝐩𝐮𝐫𝐬𝐮𝐞𝐝 𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐯𝐚𝐥. 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐛𝐞 𝐧𝐨 𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐜𝐫𝐨𝐬𝐬, 𝐧𝐨 𝐝𝐞𝐩𝐭𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐮𝐧𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐨 𝐩𝐥𝐮𝐦𝐛 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐚𝐤𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐚𝐛𝐲 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐙𝐄𝐑𝐎 𝐫𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐫𝐝 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐡𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐭𝐡 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐰𝐞𝐥𝐟𝐚𝐫𝐞. 𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐬 𝐡𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐧 𝐊𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐃𝐮𝐠𝐠𝐚𝐧’𝐬 𝐖𝐚𝐭𝐜𝐡

Fourteen days. That is all the time this baby had with its mother before Tusla social workers finally got what they were looking for- a newborn baby. Fourteen days of skin to skin contact, breastfeeding, bonding and steady weight gain.

In the two weeks after giving birth, this mother was dragged through six days of court proceedings. Six days in which she was required to defend herself, her mental health, her medical prescriptions and even her personal safety, while recovering from childbirth and caring for a newborn. Her request to be allowed go with her baby to a mother and baby home was rejected. By the end of it, Tusla got what it was looking for. The baby.

What has followed should shame us.

This week, the High Court heard that the baby, now in State care, is failing to thrive. While breastfeeding in hospital, it met all expected developmental and weight markers. Since being removed from its mother and placed on formula milk, it has fallen below its birth weight, vomits after feeds and has been prescribed Gaviscon, sometimes up to six times a day.

The mother is not disputing the court’s authority to place her child in care. She is asking something far more basic and humane. That her baby be allowed access to her breast milk in the interests of its health and development.

Her case is so stark that it has been brought under Article 40 of the Constitution, an emergency provision normally associated with unlawful detention. Ms Justice Mary Rose Gearty described the application as very unusual and innovative, noting that a lawful care arrangement could potentially become unlawful if the standard of care provided to the child is inadequate.

That a mother should have to invoke constitutional emergency powers simply to breastfeed her sick baby tells us everything we need to know about how far this system has drifted from its stated purpose of child welfare.

According to sworn affidavits, the baby rejects formula milk and retches when fed. Even the interim foster carer has expressed grave concern that the current feeding plan is not meeting the baby’s nutritional needs and has resulted in suboptimal weight gain. The mother says she has medical letters confirming that her prescribed medications were safe for breastfeeding and that initial drug test concerns were based on a false positive later disproven by full hospital tests.

Yet despite this, she says Tusla would only “advise” on when breastfeeding might resume, while failing to respond meaningfully to her solicitor’s repeated correspondence.

What makes this case particularly disturbing is the zeal with which the agency pursued removal. In the preliminary stages, social workers even named a man who is not the baby’s father in the court proceedings, despite the fact that the mother has a protection order against him. There appeared to be no line they were not prepared to cross, no depth they were unwilling to plumb, in pursuit of a care order.

It would appear this was not about last resort intervention, it was a mission.

The result is that a baby who was gaining weight, thriving and feeding naturally is now under its birth weight, vomiting and medicated. A mother who has done everything asked of her is reduced to begging the courts to allow her to nourish her own baby.

We are told repeatedly that Tusla intervenes only in the best interests of children. If that is so, then someone must explain how separating a breastfeeding newborn from its mother, against medical advice and observable outcomes, serves those interests.

There is something profoundly barbaric about this case. Not because the law exists to protect children, but because it has been applied without proportion, without humanity and without regard to the most basic biological needs of a newborn.

If the State cannot recognise that a baby’s first and most fundamental need is its mother, then the problem is not an individual case. It is the system itself. This is happening on the watch of Tusla CEO Kate Duggan.

𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐦𝐚𝐤𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐜𝐚𝐬𝐞 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐥𝐲 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐛𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐳𝐞𝐚𝐥 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐓𝐮𝐬𝐥𝐚 𝐒𝐨𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐖𝐨𝐫𝐤𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐥 𝐭𝐞𝐚𝐦 𝐩𝐮𝐫𝐬𝐮𝐞𝐝 𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐯𝐚𝐥. 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐛𝐞 𝐧𝐨 𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐜𝐫𝐨𝐬𝐬, 𝐧𝐨 𝐝𝐞𝐩𝐭𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐮𝐧𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐨 𝐩𝐥𝐮𝐦𝐛 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐚𝐤𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐚𝐛𝐲 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐙𝐄𝐑𝐎 𝐫𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐫𝐝 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐡𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐭𝐡 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐰𝐞𝐥𝐟𝐚𝐫𝐞. 𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐬 𝐡𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐧 𝐊𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐃𝐮𝐠𝐠𝐚𝐧’𝐬 𝐖𝐚𝐭𝐜𝐡

Fourteen days. That is all the time this baby had with its mother before Tusla social workers finally got what they were looking for- a newborn baby. Fourteen days of skin to skin contact, breastfeeding, bonding and steady weight gain.

In the two weeks after giving birth, this mother was dragged through six days of court proceedings. Six days in which she was required to defend herself, her mental health, her medical prescriptions and even her personal safety, while recovering from childbirth and caring for a newborn. Her request to be allowed go with her baby to a mother and baby home was rejected. By the end of it, Tusla got what it was looking for. The baby.

What has followed should shame us.

This week, the High Court heard that the baby, now in State care, is failing to thrive. While breastfeeding in hospital, it met all expected developmental and weight markers. Since being removed from its mother and placed on formula milk, it has fallen below its birth weight, vomits after feeds and has been prescribed Gaviscon, sometimes up to six times a day.

The mother is not disputing the court’s authority to place her child in care. She is asking something far more basic and humane. That her baby be allowed access to her breast milk in the interests of its health and development.

Her case is so stark that it has been brought under Article 40 of the Constitution, an emergency provision normally associated with unlawful detention. Ms Justice Mary Rose Gearty described the application as very unusual and innovative, noting that a lawful care arrangement could potentially become unlawful if the standard of care provided to the child is inadequate.

That a mother should have to invoke constitutional emergency powers simply to breastfeed her sick baby tells us everything we need to know about how far this system has drifted from its stated purpose of child welfare.

According to sworn affidavits, the baby rejects formula milk and retches when fed. Even the interim foster carer has expressed grave concern that the current feeding plan is not meeting the baby’s nutritional needs and has resulted in suboptimal weight gain. The mother says she has medical letters confirming that her prescribed medications were safe for breastfeeding and that initial drug test concerns were based on a false positive later disproven by full hospital tests.

Yet despite this, she says Tusla would only “advise” on when breastfeeding might resume, while failing to respond meaningfully to her solicitor’s repeated correspondence.

What makes this case particularly disturbing is the zeal with which the agency pursued removal. In the preliminary stages, social workers even named a man who is not the baby’s father in the court proceedings, despite the fact that the mother has a protection order against him. There appeared to be no line they were not prepared to cross, no depth they were unwilling to plumb, in pursuit of a care order.

It would appear this was not about last resort intervention, it was a mission.

The result is that a baby who was gaining weight, thriving and feeding naturally is now under its birth weight, vomiting and medicated. A mother who has done everything asked of her is reduced to begging the courts to allow her to nourish her own baby.

We are told repeatedly that Tusla intervenes only in the best interests of children. If that is so, then someone must explain how separating a breastfeeding newborn from its mother, against medical advice and observable outcomes, serves those interests.

There is something profoundly barbaric about this case. Not because the law exists to protect children, but because it has been applied without proportion, without humanity and without regard to the most basic biological needs of a newborn.

If the Tusla cannot recognise that a baby’s first and most fundamental need is its mother, then the problem is not an individual case. It is the system itself. This is happening on the watch of Tusla CEO Kate Duggan.

11/12/2025

𝐓𝐮𝐬𝐥𝐚 𝐎𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐔𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐒𝐜𝐫𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐲 𝐚𝐬 𝐆𝐚𝐫𝐝𝐚𝐢́ 𝐥𝐚𝐮𝐧𝐜𝐡 𝐡𝐨𝐦𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐝𝐞 𝐢𝐧𝐯𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐠𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐨 𝐝𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐡 𝐨𝐟 𝐃𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐞𝐥 𝐀𝐫𝐮𝐞𝐛𝐨𝐬𝐞

Gardaí have reclassified the disappearance and death of three year old Daniel Aruebose as a homicide investigation. Daniel vanished more than four years ago from his home at the Gallery apartments in Donabate. His skeletal remains were found earlier this year on waste ground near the area after a search prompted by concerns raised during a check on social welfare payments. Those concerns were passed from the Department of Social Protection to Tusla and then to gardaí, which led to the discovery of his remains after two and a half weeks of searching.

A post mortem did not establish how Daniel died, but detectives now believe his death was caused by another person. No arrests have been made, though several persons of interest have been interviewed. The move to a full criminal investigation is significant as it enables gardaí to seek search warrants, arrest suspects and conduct interviews under caution.

Daniel’s foster family, who cared for him for the first year and a half of his life, have been deeply affected by his disappearance and say he was never forgotten. His remains are still with the coroner and have not yet been released for burial.

As tomorrow would have been his eighth birthday, gardaí have renewed their appeal for information. They stress that even the smallest detail may be important and urge anyone with knowledge to come forward.