M-Compass Media

19/09/2025

𝐎’𝐂𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐠𝐡𝐚𝐧: 𝐓𝐮𝐬𝐥𝐚 𝐌𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐅𝐚𝐜𝐞 𝐈𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐒𝐜𝐫𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐲 𝐖𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐂𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐝𝐫𝐞𝐧 𝐆𝐨 𝐌𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠

Deputy Cian O’Callaghan, speaking for the Social Democrats, raised the case of Daniel Aruebose, whose remains were found in Donabate after he had been missing for four years without the State noticing.

Deputy O’Callaghan highlighted the moving words of Daniel’s foster sister, who described him as a sweet, clever and joyful child, and said Daniel was “failed in life” and must not be failed in death.

He called for an independent statutory review into every case of a child known to Tusla who goes missing, arguing that Tusla’s internal review and the national review panel were not sufficient.

He also referenced the similar case of Kyran Durnin and quoted Ombudsman for Children Dr Niall Muldoon, who has long warned that the national review panel lacks statutory powers and independence.

The Tánaiste, Simon Harris joined in paying tribute to Daniel and those involved in the search. He acknowledged that “something went seriously wrong” and said the Government would not rule out any action.

He outlined the Garda investigation, Tusla’s rapid review, and the referral to the national review panel, while noting an independently chaired well-being review of 42,000 child welfare cases closed during Covid.

He accepted the point about placing the review system on a statutory basis, confirmed it is in the programme for Government, and agreed it must happen quickly. He said the case had “shaken the country to the core” and that the Government will await the outcome of investigations before deciding further steps.

19/09/2025

𝐃𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐞𝐥’𝐬 𝐂𝐚𝐬𝐞 𝐒𝐡𝐨𝐰𝐬 𝐖𝐡𝐲 𝐓𝐮𝐬𝐥𝐚 𝐌𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐁𝐞 𝐇𝐞𝐥𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐀𝐜𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭

In an opinion piece in today’s Irish Mail, columnist Brenda Power says that while the tragic death of toddler Daniel Aruebose may never be fully understood, the Child and Family Agency, Tusla, had a duty to know and to protect him.

She highlights the disturbing fact that Daniel’s short life went largely unnoticed until skeletal remains were found in Donabate. Power writes, “We may never know what Daniel’s life was like, but Tusla should have known,” stressing that the agency exists precisely because some parents cannot be trusted to safeguard their children.

She criticises the failure of oversight, pointing out that Daniel “was last in the hands of Tusla” after his birth, but was later returned to his parents despite ongoing risks. Power argues that Tusla’s explicit role is to ensure that children’s “right to life and to safety, to shelter and food” are protected, and that in Daniel’s case the system failed utterly.

The opinion piece frames Daniel’s death not just as a family tragedy but as a shocking indictment of Tusla’s inability to carry out its statutory duty to the most vulnerable children.

19/09/2025

𝐅𝐨𝐫 𝐈𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐝, 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐡 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐥𝐨𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐚𝐤𝐞𝐧 𝐚 𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐨𝐧 𝐈𝐬𝐫𝐚𝐞𝐥𝐢 𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐲 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐨𝐟𝐭𝐞𝐧 𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐨𝐝 𝐚𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐄𝐔, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐟𝐭 𝐢𝐧 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧𝐭. 𝐈𝐭 𝐬𝐮𝐠𝐠𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐠𝐮𝐥𝐟 𝐛𝐞𝐭𝐰𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐃𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐖𝐚𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐭𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐮𝐞 𝐦𝐚𝐲 𝐛𝐞𝐠𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐨 𝐧𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐨𝐰.

Few magazines enjoy the global influence of The Economist.

With a weekly circulation of over one and a half million, its reach is dwarfed by mainstream newspapers. Yet its readership includes cabinet ministers, central bankers, CEOs and academics. Its analyses are digested in boardrooms and ministries from Washington to Brussels, often helping to frame debates before they reach the wider public.

The magazine’s style, anonymous articles written with brisk authority, has long shaped its identity as the voice of liberal globalisation.

Admirers praise its ability to distil complexity into clarity, while critics accuse it of ideological rigidity. But whether one agrees or disagrees with its conclusions, the magazine’s influence on decision makers is undeniable. It is less about swaying mass opinion than about shaping the worldview of the people who set policy.

This week, its cover story and accompanying editorial from editor in chief Zanny Minton Beddoes focus on a shift that could alter geopolitics: the erosion of American support for Israel. For decades, European public opinion has been critical of Israeli policy, particularly since the war in Gaza. In the United States, by contrast, bipartisan support for Israel has been a political constant.

What The Economist now warns is that this consensus is breaking down.

The numbers are stark. A YouGov Economist poll found that 43 per cent of Americans believe Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. Among Democrats over 50, unfavourable views of Israel have jumped by 23 percentage points in just three years. Among Republicans under 50, support that stood at 63 per cent in 2022 is now evenly divided. Beddoes calls this “striking and sobering”, warning that if the trend continues, Israel risks catastrophe: “Right now America is all that stands between Israel and pariah status.”

Why does this matter for Ireland?

Because The Economist is not simply a mirror of public opinion. It is a magazine read by those who make policy in Washington and Brussels. When it devotes its cover to warning that America’s support for Israel is collapsing, it signals to Western policymakers that the ground is shifting.

That message is amplified precisely because The Economist is not a campaigning publication but one trusted by elites across the ideological spectrum.

For Ireland, which has long taken a critical stance on Israeli policy and often stood apart within the EU, the change in American sentiment is significant. It suggests that the gulf between Dublin and Washington on this issue may begin to narrow. What was once dismissed as marginal European criticism could soon be echoed at the heart of American political life.

The Economist has its blind spots, but when its editor in chief says that complacency is “dangerously” out of step with reality, it is worth listening. The magazine does not set public opinion, but it does shape the conversations of those who do.

18/09/2025

𝐓𝐮𝐬𝐥𝐚 𝐅𝐚𝐢𝐥𝐮𝐫𝐞𝐬 𝐋𝐚𝐢𝐝 𝐁𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐚𝐬 𝐓𝐨́𝐢𝐛𝐢́𝐧 𝐖𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐂𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐝 𝐃𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐡𝐬, 𝐌𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐂𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐝𝐫𝐞𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐍𝐞𝐠𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭

Deputy Peadar Tóibín raised the tragic case of Daniel Aruebose, whose remains were found in Donabate after having been returned to his family from State care without follow-up checks.

He highlighted that since 2014, 239 children in or known to State care have died, including 10 murders and 51 deaths from drugs or su***de, while 37 children are currently missing.

He cited concerns raised by judges, the Ombudsman for Children, and a UCD study on child exploitation, and noted failures such as Tusla not informing courts that 250 children had no social workers, files on child protection being destroyed, and review panel recommendations not being implemented.

Tóibín referenced several other disturbing individual cases and accused the Government of failing to listen to experts, demanding stronger statutory powers to protect children.

In response, the Tánaiste acknowledged the seriousness of the issue and said that while steps had been taken—such as the Children’s Referendum, creation of a dedicated department, and establishment of Tusla—“a hell of a lot more needs to be done.” He promised constructive engagement with the Opposition, referencing forthcoming legislation to amend the Child Care Act and review Tusla’s powers and its cooperation with other State agencies.

18/09/2025

𝐀𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐃𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐞𝐥 𝐀𝐫𝐮𝐞𝐛𝐨𝐬𝐞 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐜𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝟒𝟐,𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝐂𝐨𝐯𝐢𝐝-𝐞𝐫𝐚 𝐜𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐝 𝐜𝐚𝐬𝐞𝐬 𝐟𝐚𝐜𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐰, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐓𝐚𝐨𝐢𝐬𝐞𝐚𝐜𝐡’𝐬 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐚𝐥 𝐨𝐟 𝐯𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐝 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐬 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐓𝐮𝐬𝐥𝐚 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐤𝐞𝐧 𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐫𝐚𝐢𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐝𝐨𝐮𝐛𝐭𝐬 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐥 𝐫𝐞𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐞.

The discovery yesterday of skeletal remains believed to be those of seven-year-old Daniel Aruebose in Donabate is a moment of national reckoning.

Daniel was unseen for more than four years. He was not flagged missing until irregularities appeared in a social welfare application.

His death is not just a tragedy for his family and foster carers who loved him. It is an indictment of a child protection system that continues to lose children in plain sight.

This week Tusla confirmed that more than 42,000 children whose cases were closed during the Covid-19 pandemic now require “well-being checks.”

That is not a typo. Forty-two thousand children. These were cases closed between March 2020 and February 2022, a period when schools and community services were shut, and when warning signs of abuse or neglect were least likely to be seen.

Tusla insists most of these children were not at risk. But the sheer scale of this retrospective trawl should terrify us. It is an admission that tens of thousands of files may have been shut without adequate follow-up.

Minister for Children Norma Foley has promised an independent chair to oversee the review, but the appointment has still not been made.

Sinn Féin’s Claire Kerrane rightly called this delay “incredible.” How can Tusla be tasked with checking 42,552 cases when its own leadership cannot yet confirm who will oversee the process?

The Taoiseach’s intervention in the Dáil this week only deepened public unease. Confronted by Deputies Paul Murphy, Peadar Tóibín and Ruairí Ó Murchú with evidence of systemic failure, including the 254 children who have died while known to Tusla over the past decade, he accused them of “propagandising.”

He dismissed the charge that Daniel had gone missing from State care and rejected what he called “the automatic impulse to blame the State.”

But denial is not leadership. To brush aside parliamentary concern in the face of a child’s death is to abdicate responsibility.

Deputy Murphy pointed out that the State tracks social welfare payments more closely than it tracks vulnerable children.

Deputy Tóibín noted that the Ombudsman for Children still lacks statutory powers to investigate child deaths.

Deputy Ó Murchú warned against reviews disappearing behind closed doors.

These are not propaganda points. They are legitimate demands for accountability.

Meanwhile, families who cared for Daniel speak of devastation and anger. His foster sister, now in her twenties, described him as “the sweetest little baby ever” and recalled how he “became part of the family quickly.” She last saw him in 2019. “How could this happen?” she asked. It is a question the Taoiseach has yet to answer.

Tusla insists that its involvement with Daniel’s family ceased in 2020 because it was “the most appropriate step to take.” That judgement now looks catastrophic. Daniel’s case may be exceptional in its horror, but it is not isolated. Kyran Durnin, another young boy, remains missing. Twenty-nine children known to Tusla died in 2023 alone. The pattern is undeniable.

The State cannot continue to rely on after-the-fact reviews by the National Review Panel.

Every “rapid review” is too late for the child concerned. What is needed is proactive oversight, statutory powers for the Ombudsman for Children, and a permanent mechanism for following up on closed cases. Data from early years schemes like ECCE may help, but technology cannot substitute for the political will to put children first.

At stake is public trust. A society is judged by how it treats its most vulnerable. When a child can vanish for years without the State noticing, the system is not merely stretched, it is broken.

The Taoiseach may wish to swat away criticism as propaganda. But Daniel’s foster family, the 42,000 children whose cases were closed during Covid, and the dozens who have died while known to Tusla remind us that this is not about political point-scoring. It is about children’s lives.

Anything less than radical reform of Tusla will leave the public asking the same anguished question: how could this happen in a so called developed country?

18/09/2025

𝐓𝐮𝐬𝐥𝐚 𝐂𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐦 𝐁𝐫𝐮𝐬𝐡𝐞𝐝 𝐀𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞 𝐛𝐲 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐓𝐚𝐨𝐢𝐬𝐞𝐚𝐜𝐡, 𝐋𝐚𝐛𝐞𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐓𝐃’𝐬 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐬 𝐚𝐬 “𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐚𝐠𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠” 𝐢𝐧 𝐇𝐢𝐬 𝐑𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐐𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐨𝐧 𝐂𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐝 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐅𝐚𝐢𝐥𝐮𝐫𝐞𝐬

Yesterday in the Dáil, three TDs confronted the Taoiseach over the shocking failures of the State in protecting vulnerable children following confirmation that the body of seven year old Daniel Aruebose, who went missing from State care at the age of three, had been found in north Dublin.

The Taoiseach’s response was nothing short of disgraceful. Faced with valid criticisms about Tusla losing track of vulnerable children, he chose to deflect and accuse deputies of “propagandising,” rather than acknowledge the State’s clear failures.

By denying responsibility and shielding Tusla from scrutiny, even as the public demand answers, he dismissed legitimate concerns and undermined public confidence in child protection.

Deputy Paul Murphy said the State was keeping closer track of social welfare payments than of children in its care. He highlighted that 29 young people known to Tusla died in 2023, while children such as Kyran Durnin remain missing. He asked what concrete action would be taken to prevent further failures.

Aontú Leader Deputy Peadar Tóibín described Daniel’s case as “horrific and damning.” He pointed out that 254 children have died in the past decade while in care or known to Tusla, and dozens more are still missing. He criticised the absence of statutory powers for the Ombudsman for Children to properly investigate these deaths and questioned what funding and legal powers the Taoiseach would provide Tusla to review 42,000 closed cases from the Covid period.

Deputy Ruairí Ó Murchú also expressed sympathy and anger at Daniel’s death, stressing that reviews must not take place behind closed doors and that lessons must be learned. He underlined the importance of early intervention and support for families, including the deployment of specialist public health nurses that had been promised under the early years policy framework but never delivered.

Across all contributions, the TDs accused the State of systemic neglect, lack of accountability, and failure to prioritise child protection.

In reply to the opposition TDs, the Taoiseach rejected what he called the “automatic impulse to blame the State” for the death of Daniel Aruebose.

He accused Deputy Peadar Tóibín of misrepresenting the situation by claiming the child had gone missing from State care, insisting that this was not the case.

He argued that conclusions should not be drawn before the facts are established and stressed that Daniel’s case should not be conflated with wider debates about statutory powers or Tusla’s role.

The Taoiseach defended the work of Tusla and social workers, saying it was unfair to imply they were responsible every time a child went missing.

He pointed to the National Review Panel as providing a robust mechanism for examining cases, even while acknowledging that legislative improvements could be considered. He criticised what he saw as Deputy Tóibín’s consistent tendency to lay blame on Tusla, and insisted that it was wrong to suggest the agency was at fault in all such cases.

17/09/2025

Gardai in Donabate believe they have located the remains of missing child Daniel Aruebose

17/09/2025

𝐅𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐞𝐫 𝐇𝐒𝐄 𝐜𝐡𝐢𝐞𝐟𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐰 𝐡𝐞𝐚𝐝 𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐯𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐡𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐬 𝐠𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐜𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐝𝐫𝐞𝐧 𝐭𝐚𝐤𝐞𝐧 𝐛𝐲 𝐓𝐮𝐬𝐥𝐚 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐜𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐚𝐝𝐮𝐥𝐭𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐇𝐒𝐄

History has a strange way of repeating itself in Irish public life.

Two former heads of the Health Service Executive now sit at the helm of private companies that provide accommodation for children taken into state care by Tusla and for adults in the care of the HSE. The sums involved run into tens of millions. The consequences for vulnerable people are profound.

Tony O’Brien, who resigned as HSE director general in 2018 during the CervicalCheck controversy, now chairs Lotus Care. The company received more than €4.5 million from Tusla last year for residential care and over €1 million from the HSE up to June this year. Yet HIQA inspectors have found repeated failings in its centres. At Corrig Woods in Laois, they issued urgent action orders after staff could not explain the legal basis for the admission of two children. In one case, there was no evidence that anyone with lawful authority had consented to the placement. Governance was weak, safeguarding insufficient, and risk management in need of major improvement.

At Lime Tree Lodge in Offaly, inspectors found non compliance in fire safety, training and management. Only five of the 18 staff had completed mandatory fire safety training, and on some shifts there was no trained staff member at all. A missing allergy alert in a child’s health passport was flagged as a serious risk. These are not minor breaches. They go to the core question of whether children in the care of the State are being kept safe.

The contrast is striking. O’Brien stepped aside from the HSE because public trust had collapsed in the wake of CervicalCheck. Yet now, under his chairmanship of Lotus Care, the same questions of governance and accountability arise. If HIQA continues to find serious failings, why does Tusla persist in paying millions to this provider? Oversight is not meant to be an exercise in paperwork after the fact. It is meant to ensure that children are never put at risk in the first place.

Paul Reid, who succeeded O’Brien and retired as HSE chief executive officer in 2022, has followed a similar path.

According to the Companies Registration Office he is one of three directors and chairs Ashdale Care, a private provider of residential placements for children.

Ashdale received over €24 million from Tusla in 2024. Reid is not breaking any law. He has simply recognised that Tusla is now heavily dependent on private companies to provide what were once state-run services. But his career shift highlights how the boundary between public service and private profit has all but disappeared.

This is not about personal blame but about systemic choices.

Tusla has moved away from providing accommodation directly and has instead outsourced at vast expense. HIQA has repeatedly documented problems in emergency placements and residential care: overcrowding, unvetted staff, unsafe conditions. Still Tusla turns to the same companies because the infrastructure of public provision has withered.

The logic of this model is clear. As long as care is outsourced, private providers will profit. Children taken into care become entries in procurement contracts. Their welfare is mediated not through communities or public service but through corporate governance and balance sheets.

As Diarmaid Twomey of UCC recently warned, the caring professions are being reshaped by profit motives and managerial culture, where person centred care is hollowed out and replaced by tick box compliance.

Ireland must decide if this is acceptable. Do we want the safety of children in state care to depend on companies with shareholders and directors, whose primary duty is to remain financially viable and expand? Or do we want a child protection system built on public service, where accountability flows back to the State and through it to the people?

When Tony O’Brien resigned from the HSE he accepted that the loss of trust required accountability. That principle still matters. It must apply again now. The safety of children and adults in state care cannot be placed second to private profit.

17/09/2025

𝐂𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐝 𝐒𝐞𝐱𝐮𝐚𝐥 𝐀𝐛𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐀𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐌𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐑𝐞𝐦𝐚𝐢𝐧 𝐅𝐨𝐜𝐮𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐝, 𝐍𝐨𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐌𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫

A mother who reported child s*x abuse and was subsequently accused of parental alienation in the family court has written the following opinion that she hopes will assist other mothers in a similar situation. Warning, the following is her opinion and must not be regarded as legal advice.

“In cases of child s*xual abuse, the central concern should always be the child, their trauma, safety, and recovery.

Yet in some court-ordered assessments, the focus shifts unfairly to the mother, especially when she is the one who reported the abuse.

Instead of remaining child-centred, these reports sometimes contain language that implies the mother is exaggerating, overly protective, or causing conflict. This is deeply problematic because it diverts attention from the child’s needs and undermines the mother’s protective role.

Professional standards are clear: any reference to a parent should be directly tied to the child’s well-being.

Critiquing a caregiver without that link is biased and risks silencing the child’s experience.

Red flags include reports that spend more time analysing the mother than documenting the child’s symptoms, or those that use terms like “parental alienation” without evidence.

When this happens, mothers can and should challenge the bias in a respectful, evidence-based way.

There are a number of ways that a mother can counter falls narratives against her that are biased and founded on hearsay.

If the mother is a litigant, she can lodge a letter to the judge via the court office. It’s totally at the discretion of the judge whether or not he will accept a letter from a mother. There is no consistency across the country.

The letter should clearly state that the assessment must remain child-focused and should raise specific concerns only where they affect the child’s safety and therapeutic needs.

Tips for Writing the Letter

• Stay professional and neutral: Avoid emotional or accusatory language.
• Keep it child-centred: Repeat that your focus is the child’s safety, trauma, and therapy.
• Point to specific examples: Quote or reference terms in the report that are unfair or biased.
• Provide supporting documentation: Attach therapy, school, or medical records that show trauma symptoms.
• Make a clear request: Ask for clarification, revision, or for the court to ensure the report is interpreted in a child-centred way.
• Keep it concise: Judges and evaluators are more likely to read a letter that is short and direct.

𝗦𝗮𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝗟𝗲𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿

[Your Name]
[Address]
[Postcode]
[Phone]
[Email]

Date: [Insert Date]

To: [Judge’s Name]
[Courthouse]

Re: Child Trauma Assessment – [Child’s Name], Case No. [Insert Case Number]

Dear [Judge’s Name ],

I am writing to respectfully raise concerns regarding the recent trauma assessment for my child, [Child’s Name]. My priority is ensuring that all findings and recommendations remain focused on [Child’s Name]’s trauma, safety, and therapeutic needs.

Concerns
• The report appears to attribute some of my child’s trauma-related behaviours to my parenting rather than to the reported experiences of abuse.
• Certain language may unintentionally misrepresent my child’s trauma responses (for example, [insert term used in report]).

Supporting Information
• Records from [therapy, school, medical] confirm that [Child’s Name] is showing trauma-related symptoms and is engaged in therapy.
• I can provide further documentation if required.

Request
I respectfully ask that the court and evaluators ensure that all conclusions and recommendations are child-centred, evidence-based, and directly related to [Child’s Name]’s well-being. Commentary on parental behaviour should only be included if it clearly impacts safety or therapeutic outcomes.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. My sole concern is supporting my child’s safety, emotional health, and access to appropriate trauma-focused interventions.

Sincerely,
[Your Name]

𝗦𝗮𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝗢𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝗦𝘂𝗯𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗿𝘁

Here’s a respectful, concise oral submission a mother could read out in court if the judge will not accept her written letter. It is framed in clear, child-centred language and avoids sounding adversarial.

Your Honour,

I wish to raise a concern regarding the recent trauma assessment of my child, [Child’s Name]. My only focus is [Child’s Name]’s safety, recovery, and access to appropriate therapy.

The report contains sections that appear to attribute my child’s trauma-related behaviours to me as a parent, rather than to the abuse that was reported. I am concerned that this shifts attention away from the child’s actual needs.

In addition, certain terms used in the report, such as [insert example], may misrepresent what are in fact normal trauma responses in children.

Professional standards are clear that assessments should remain child-centred. Any comments about a parent should only be included if they directly affect the child’s safety or therapeutic progress.

I respectfully ask that the court view the report in that light ensuring that conclusions and recommendations remain neutral, evidence-based, and focused on my child’s well-being.

Thank you, Your Honour.

𝐁𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐍𝐨𝐭𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐬𝐞𝐥

Here’s a sample briefing document a mother could give to her solicitor to submit to her barrister. It is written in plain but professional language, highlights the key concerns, and keeps the focus on the child.

Case: [Insert Case Name / Number]
Subject: Concerns about Child Sexual Abuse Assessment Report
Prepared by: [Mother’s Name]
Date: [Insert Date]

Key Point

The child s*xual abuse assessment should remain centred on my child’s trauma, safety, and therapeutic needs. However, the recent report shifts its focus onto me as the protective parent. I believe this is biased and risks undermining the child’s voice and experience.

Concerns
1. Shift from Child to Parent
• Parts of the report appear to attribute my child’s trauma symptoms to my parenting, rather than to the abuse.
• This diverts attention away from the child’s needs.
2. Language Used
• Terms such as [insert problematic terms from report] misrepresent my child’s behaviours, which are consistent with trauma responses.
• Language like “overly protective” or “parental alienation” is used without clear evidence.
3. Failure to be Child-Centred
• More attention is given to analysing my behaviour than to documenting the child’s trauma and therapeutic needs.
• Recommendations do not clearly prioritise trauma treatment for the child.

Supporting Information
• I have records from [therapy, school, medical] confirming trauma-related behaviours and showing that my child is engaged in therapy.
• I can provide these documents if required.

What I Am Asking Counsel
• Please ensure that the court is reminded the assessment must be child-centred and evidence-based.
• Please highlight that parental commentary should only be included if it directly affects the child’s safety or well-being.
• Please consider requesting clarification or revision of the assessment where it focuses on me rather than on the child.

Goal

My only concern is supporting my child’s safety, emotional health, and access to trauma-focused therapy.

⸻

This format allows the barrister to quickly see the mother’s perspective, the flaws in the report, and the key points to raise in court.

I am writing this in the hope that other mother is in a situation similar to mine might find this of some use to them.”

𝐂𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐝 𝐒𝐞𝐱𝐮𝐚𝐥 𝐀𝐛𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐀𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐌𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐑𝐞𝐦𝐚𝐢𝐧 𝐅𝐨𝐜𝐮𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐝, 𝐍𝐨𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐌𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫

A mother who reported child s*x abuse and was subsequently accused of parental alienation in the family court has written the following opinion that she hopes will assist other mothers in a similar situation. Warning, the following is her opinion and must not be regarded as legal advice. 

“In cases of child s*xual abuse, the central concern should always be the child, their trauma, safety, and recovery.

Yet in some court-ordered assessments, the focus shifts unfairly to the mother, especially when she is the one who reported the abuse.

Instead of remaining child-centred, these reports sometimes contain language that implies the mother is exaggerating, overly protective, or causing conflict. This is deeply problematic because it diverts attention from the child’s needs and undermines the mother’s protective role.

Professional standards are clear: any reference to a parent should be directly tied to the child’s well-being.

Critiquing a caregiver without that link is biased and risks silencing the child’s experience.

Red flags include reports that spend more time analysing the mother than documenting the child’s symptoms, or those that use terms like “parental alienation” without evidence.

When this happens, mothers can and should challenge the bias in a respectful, evidence-based way.

There are a number of ways that a mother can counter falls narratives against her that are biased and founded on hearsay.

If the mother is a litigant, she can lodge a letter to the judge via the court office. It’s totally at the discretion of the judge whether or not he will accept a letter from a mother. There is no consistency across the country.

The letter should clearly state that the assessment must remain child-focused and should raise specific concerns only where they affect the child’s safety and therapeutic needs.

Tips for Writing the Letter

• Stay professional and neutral: Avoid emotional or accusatory language.
• Keep it child-centred: Repeat that your focus is the child’s safety, trauma, and therapy.
• Point to specific examples: Quote or reference terms in the report that are unfair or biased.
• Provide supporting documentation: Attach therapy, school, or medical records that show trauma symptoms.
• Make a clear request: Ask for clarification, revision, or for the court to ensure the report is interpreted in a child-centred way.
• Keep it concise: Judges and evaluators are more likely to read a letter that is short and direct.

𝗦𝗮𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝗟𝗲𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿

[Your Name]
[Address]
[Postcode]
[Phone]
[Email]

Date: [Insert Date]

To: [Judge’s Name]
[Courthouse]

Re: Child Trauma Assessment – [Child’s Name], Case No. [Insert Case Number]

Dear [Judge’s Name ],

I am writing to respectfully raise concerns regarding the recent trauma assessment for my child, [Child’s Name]. My priority is ensuring that all findings and recommendations remain focused on [Child’s Name]’s trauma, safety, and therapeutic needs.

Concerns
• The report appears to attribute some of my child’s trauma-related behaviours to my parenting rather than to the reported experiences of abuse.
• Certain language may unintentionally misrepresent my child’s trauma responses (for example, [insert term used in report]).

Supporting Information
• Records from [therapy, school, medical] confirm that [Child’s Name] is showing trauma-related symptoms and is engaged in therapy.
• I can provide further documentation if required.

Request
I respectfully ask that the court and evaluators ensure that all conclusions and recommendations are child-centred, evidence-based, and directly related to [Child’s Name]’s well-being. Commentary on parental behaviour should only be included if it clearly impacts safety or therapeutic outcomes.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. My sole concern is supporting my child’s safety, emotional health, and access to appropriate trauma-focused interventions.

Sincerely,
[Your Name]

𝗦𝗮𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝗢𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝗦𝘂𝗯𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗿𝘁

Here’s a respectful, concise oral submission a mother could read out in court if the judge will not accept her written letter. It is framed in clear, child-centred language and avoids sounding adversarial.

Your Honour,

I wish to raise a concern regarding the recent trauma assessment of my child, [Child’s Name]. My only focus is [Child’s Name]’s safety, recovery, and access to appropriate therapy.

The report contains sections that appear to attribute my child’s trauma-related behaviours to me as a parent, rather than to the abuse that was reported. I am concerned that this shifts attention away from the child’s actual needs.

In addition, certain terms used in the report, such as [insert example], may misrepresent what are in fact normal trauma responses in children.

Professional standards are clear that assessments should remain child-centred. Any comments about a parent should only be included if they directly affect the child’s safety or therapeutic progress.

I respectfully ask that the court view the report in that light ensuring that conclusions and recommendations remain neutral, evidence-based, and focused on my child’s well-being.

Thank you, Your Honour.

𝐁𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐍𝐨𝐭𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐬𝐞𝐥

Here’s a sample briefing document a mother could give to her solicitor to submit to her barrister. It is written in plain but professional language, highlights the key concerns, and keeps the focus on the child.

Case: [Insert Case Name / Number]
Subject: Concerns about Child Sexual Abuse Assessment Report
Prepared by: [Mother’s Name]
Date: [Insert Date]

Key Point

The child s*xual abuse assessment should remain centred on my child’s trauma, safety, and therapeutic needs. However, the recent report shifts its focus onto me as the protective parent. I believe this is biased and risks undermining the child’s voice and experience.

Concerns
1. Shift from Child to Parent
• Parts of the report appear to attribute my child’s trauma symptoms to my parenting, rather than to the abuse.
• This diverts attention away from the child’s needs.
2. Language Used
• Terms such as [insert problematic terms from report] misrepresent my child’s behaviours, which are consistent with trauma responses.
• Language like “overly protective” or “parental alienation” is used without clear evidence.
3. Failure to be Child-Centred
• More attention is given to analysing my behaviour than to documenting the child’s trauma and therapeutic needs.
• Recommendations do not clearly prioritise trauma treatment for the child.

Supporting Information
• I have records from [therapy, school, medical] confirming trauma-related behaviours and showing that my child is engaged in therapy.
• I can provide these documents if required.

What I Am Asking Counsel
• Please ensure that the court is reminded the assessment must be child-centred and evidence-based.
• Please highlight that parental commentary should only be included if it directly affects the child’s safety or well-being.
• Please consider requesting clarification or revision of the assessment where it focuses on me rather than on the child.

Goal

My only concern is supporting my child’s safety, emotional health, and access to trauma-focused therapy.

⸻

This format allows the barrister to quickly see the mother’s perspective, the flaws in the report, and the key points to raise in court.

I am writing this in the hope that other mother is in a situation similar to mine might find this of some use to them.”