GH v TUSLA Child and Family Agency & Ors (Approved)

I.                   Background

            This is an appeal by the Child and Family Agency (hereafter 'the CFA') against the judgment, delivered on 8 April 2025, and order, made on 11 April 2025, of the High Court (O'Higgins J. [2025] IEHC 263 ) whereby it ordered the CFA to furnish G.H. (hereafter 'the applicant') with the reasons for a decision it made on 19 December 2022 that a substantiation assessment on foot of a report made by the CFA was unfounded (hereafter 'the decision of 19 December 2022' or 'the impugned decision').

            Section 3(1) of the Child Care Act 1991, as amended (hereafter 'the Act'), confers the function of promoting the welfare of children who do not receive adequate care and protection upon the CFA.� In the performance of that function, the CFA is to take such steps as it considers requisite to identify children who are not receiving adequate care and protection and to co-ordinate information from all relevant sources relating to children: s. 3(2)(a) of the Act.

The First Respondent erred in law in failing to provide the Applicant with reasons for its decision dated 10 July 2023 and/or the decision dated 19 th December 2022. The said decision of 10 July 2023 and/or the decision dated 19 th December 2022 provides no reasons for the First Respondent's decision that the Applicant's complaint was "unfounded". ... The First Respondent was obligated to give reasons for the decision and failed to do so...., the claimant must know if the decision maker has directed its mind adequately to the issues which it has considered or is obliged to consider.

            The following summary of the High Court judgment is limited to identifying those of its findings as are of direct relevance to the determination of this appeal.