Breda O'Brien: Three children were failed so badly, a judge found Tusla in contempt of court

Think of three children. One is not yet 13, but has already experienced parental conflict, domestic violence and physical punishment. His dangerous, chaotic existence includes possible sexual exploitation. Another child suffers coercive control by a drug dealer. At times, threats have forced his family to move out of their home for their own safety. The last child has been in care since birth. She self-harms, assaults staff and absconds with terrifying regularity, given that she, too, is considered at high risk of sexual exploitation.Unsurprisingly, Judge Emily Egan found Tusla in contempt of court for failing to provide these three children with timely and secure special care placements, even though placements were eventually found.Although 26 designated special care beds exist, only 14 were operational in July due to a lack of staff.Less than two weeks before the contempt finding, Judge John Jordan declared that if Tusla were a parent in the community, it would be prosecuted by gardaí and pursued by social workers for exposing the most vulnerable children to extreme risk. Counsel for Tusla, Sarah McKechnie, could only reply “That’s correct, Judge.”READ MOREWhile Tusla’s failures are many, the ultimate responsibility for the chaotic state of residential care lies with successive governments. Decades ago, we had a better-structured system, but a well-intentioned belief that all children should be cared for in their families and communities led to decreased support for residential care. Ideally, every child should be in their family, and failing that, kinship care or fostering. But there will always be children whose needs for safety and wellbeing necessitate residential care. It should not always be seen as a last resort but sometimes as a planned intervention designed to facilitate a return home whenever possible.There used to be three ascending levels of residential care: mainstream, high-support and special care. High support units were dismantled by 2014.As a result, mainstream residential units have come under increasing pressure to take in children with highly complex needs, thereby threatening the stability of placements for others. High-support units also kept young people out of special care, or functioned as a step-down facility for those exiting special care.Tusla chief executive Kate Duggan said recently that what she described as three “step-up and step-down” facilities would be in place by 2027. Time will tell if the promise is kept. The statutory and voluntary sectors are under increasing pressure, leading to a vicious cycle of dependency on profitmaking entities. The current crisis cannot be blamed solely on the influx of separated children seeking international protection. The underlying problems date back decades.The voluntary sector, with a proven record of high-quality care, operates under a block grant system that is supposed to cover maintenance of ageing buildings, salaries, insurance, electricity and all the needs of growing children. Unlike for-profit companies, they have no access to capital investment to increase capacity.At a recent Oireachtas Committee meeting, members of the Children’s Residential and Aftercare Voluntary Association (Crava) laid out in stark terms how some of their organisations are under such severe financial pressure they may have to close. If some providers can extract profit from the care of children while not-for-profit organisations lose sleep about covering their costs, something is desperately wrong.While some for-profit entities are run well, Judge Conor Fottrell has accused some of “shameless profiteering”. He was referring to special emergency arrangements (SEAs) where children were placed in unregulated accommodation, sometimes including hotels and B&Bs. According to figures obtained by RTÉ, Tusla has spent at least €188 million on private, unregulated SEAs in the last three years. Imagine if that could have been invested in the State and voluntary system instead.Since the end of June 2026, Tusla has replaced SEAs with a three-tier system: registered private residential centres, Tusla emergency centres or private temporary placements. The final category is described as time-limited emergency placements provided by organisations working towards proper regulation within 45 days (with a further 60 days to complete the process). In theory, a child can still be placed in an unregulated environment for 105 days, and then be moved to another placement “working towards registration”. Worse, in response to a parliamentary question by Aontú leader Peadar Tóibín, Tusla revealed that as of July 19th 2026, 62 young people remained in unregistered temporary emergency placements, including 11 children for periods between seven and 12 months and two children for periods between 13 and 24 months. Solutions exist but need to be driven by political leadership at the highest levels in consultation with statutory and voluntary providers. Scotland, England, Northern Ireland and Wales have all conducted comprehensive independent reviews of their residential systems. The reviews were partly driven by the fact that once private providers corner the market, they often charge exorbitant prices. Wales has eschewed private providers entirely. Ireland needs a swift, comprehensive, independent review, followed by a fully costed, data-driven, five-year national strategic development plan for residential and aftercare services.We need urgent action to break the cycle of unhealthy dependency on profitmaking entities who will simply leave the market if forced to provide the level of care the most vulnerable children desperately need.