A CHILD IN THE CARE OF TUSLA IS BEING RAPED BY MULTIPLE MEN — WHY IS THE MEDIA NARRATIVE INVERTED TO TALK OF CARE BEDS INSTEAD OF PUTTING THE RAPE GANGS BEHIND BARS? The disturbing case of a 14-year-old girl in the care of Tusla, who the High Court has heard is being subjected to “horrifying” sexual exploitation by multiple men, has exposed two separate failures in the State’s response to vulnerable children. The first is the now well-documented crisis in special care. The second — and arguably even more disturbing — is the apparent absence from much of the public discussion of the adult men allegedly sexually abusing a child. The High Court heard that the 14-year-old, who has an intellectual disability, had been approached by men who brought her to a house in another county and supplied her with alcohol, cocaine and other drugs. Tusla sought a special-care order because of the grave risk to the child, but no special-care bed was available. The seriousness of the situation prompted High Court Judge John Jordan to direct that details of her case, together with two other extremely serious cases involving children in State care, be brought directly to the attention of Minister for Children Norma Foley, Minister for Justice Jim O’Callaghan and Minister for Public Expenditure Jack Chambers. The political response has concentrated heavily on the shortage of special-care beds. Taoiseach Micheál Martin described the girl’s situation as “very serious and deeply worrying” and said the fundamental problem was the difficulty recruiting specialist staff. Tusla, meanwhile, said it “deeply regrets” that it is unable to fulfil its statutory obligations to provide timely access to special care. Those failures are unquestionably serious. Nearly half of the State’s 26 special-care beds remain unavailable, despite court orders involving children deemed to be at exceptional risk. But there is another question that cannot be allowed to disappear behind a discussion about staffing levels and bed capacity: What is being done about the adult men sexually exploiting this child? The child is 14. The adults involved bear responsibility for their alleged actions. Providing a secure placement may be essential to protect her immediately, but protecting a child cannot simply mean restricting where she can go while failing to place equal public focus on identifying, investigating and prosecuting the adults allegedly exploiting her. The wider picture makes the issue still more alarming. The High Court was also told of another teenage girl being sexually exploited by men and a 16-year-old boy being drawn into drug trafficking by adult criminals. These are not merely “placement difficulties”. They involve allegations of serious criminal exploitation of children. There is also an uncomfortable contradiction emerging in the State’s response. At precisely the moment that the consequences of insufficient special-care capacity are being laid bare before the High Court, Tusla’s September strategy reportedly proposes reducing the number of highly at-risk children entering special care. According to the reported strategy, Tusla aims ultimately to have 20 special-care beds open by the end of 2028, with a target of having 20 children on the “at-risk” list by then. The strategy reportedly includes an objective of “strengthening workforce sustainability” and “improving system flow to and from special care”. That approach is already causing concern among legal sources, according to a report by Ann Murphy in today’s Irish Examiner, over the possibility that children recommended for special care could instead be refused and kept in existing placements. The State faces questions extending far beyond the number of beds available. A vulnerable child in Tusla care is reportedly being sexually exploited. Expressions of “concern” and “deep regret” are not enough. The perpetrators must be put behind bars in order to protect other children from the same fate.

DPP DROPS TWO SEXUAL ASSAULT CHARGES AGAINST MAN ACCUSED OF ASSAULTING 10-YEAR-OLD GIRL IN STATE CARE — BUT TUSLA STILL HAS QUESTIONS TO ANSWER The DPP has withdrawn two sexual assault charges against a man accused of sexually assaulting a 10-year-old girl in Tusla care. The decision was announced before Judge Martin Nolan at Dublin Circuit Criminal Court on Friday. No reason was given. The man, who had been in custody awaiting trial, was subsequently arrested on foot of a deportation order. There may be legal or evidential reasons why a prosecution cannot proceed. Withdrawal of the charges does not establish that the alleged assaults did not occur, while the accused remains entitled to the presumption of innocence. But the ending of the prosecution does not end the questions. How did a 10-year-old child for whom Tusla had assumed responsibility come to be in circumstances in which such serious alleged harm could occur? AN APOLOGY WE SHOULD NOT FORGET Tusla’s original statement said the girl had been voluntarily placed in its care “due to significant behavioural issues” and had “absconded” from staff during a recreational trip. The language was criticised as verging on victim blaming. On November 27th, 2025, questioned by Deputy Claire Kerrane, Tusla chief executive Kate Duggan apologised: “We apologise for that statement, the way it was released, its impact and the wording around it.” When serious harm is alleged to have happened to a 10-year-old in State care, her behaviour should not become the story. The greater her vulnerability, the greater the responsibility to protect her. HOW “VOLUNTARY” IS VOLUNTARY? The description of the child as “voluntarily placed” in Tusla care also deserves scrutiny. Research by Kenneth Burns and colleagues at University College Cork identified “soft coercion” within voluntary care. Parents reported being told that if they did not sign an agreement, Tusla could instead seek a court order. Concerns have also been raised about parents entering voluntary care without independent legal advice and the imbalance of power between vulnerable families and the State. This does not establish what happened to this particular family. We do not know. But “voluntary” describes a legal mechanism. It does not tell us whether these parents believed they had meaningful alternatives, had independent legal advice or what supports were offered before their child entered care. THE QUESTIONS THAT REMAIN The prosecution may have ended, but the State’s responsibility for this child’s welfare has not. What safeguarding review did Tusla undertake? How did this child become separated from those responsible for her care? Were shortcomings identified? What supports had her family received before she entered care, and what independent scrutiny followed? These questions do not concern the guilt or innocence of the accused or seek to second-guess the DPP. They concern State responsibility. A 10-year-old child entered State care and subsequently became the complainant in allegations of serious sexual assault. Tusla publicly referred to her “significant behavioural issues” and said she had “absconded”. Its chief executive later apologised. A man was charged with two sexual assaults and held in custody awaiting trial. Those charges have now been withdrawn without a reason being given publicly. Throughout this, enormous attention has focused on Citywest, immigration and the accused. It is time to return attention to the person with the least power in this story: A 10-year-old girl. We should know more about how the systems responsible for protecting her operated — and less about the personal difficulties of a vulnerable child whose privacy should have been paramount. For voluntary care to deserve that description, consent must be informed, meaningful and genuinely free. And when the State takes responsibility for a child, the ultimate question is simple: Did Tusla keep her safe?