Amendments Nos. 1 to 5 are related and may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Guardianship of Infants and Child Care (Amendment) Bill 2026: From the Seanad
The Dáil went into Committee to consider amendments from the Seanad.
Seanad amendment No. 1:
Section 3: In page 9, line 11, to delete “references” and substitute “a reference”.
The first four amendments in this group are minor drafting corrections. They corrected the wording in four places so that the Bill reads consistently. It is changing the word "references" to "a reference". They make no change to the substance or effect of the Bill.
The fifth amendment was, again, a technical amendment ensuring that we apply the provisions of the 1991 Act relating to the appointment of a guardian ad litem to proceedings heard under the new Part. The only substantive change was that the new drafting ensured that the guardian ad litem can be reappointed both where there is a review of an order, as set out in the order itself, and where a review of the order takes place under the proposed new section 12E. This amendment applies the rules of that service to the new proceedings and makes clear how they work in this context.
There are a number of amendments coming from the Seanad and I do not oppose any of them. I seek your indulgence, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, to make a number of points at this stage rather than going back and forth. As I outlined on different Stages of the Bill, we fully support the legislation to restrict guardianship rights in a situation where a person has murdered a child's other guardian. I again commend David French, the brother of Valerie, who this law will be named after, on everything he has done to ensure that this legislation is enacted to protect the best interests of children. The interests of children have been paramount to David and his family. This is particularly important when one parent has been killed by another parent. The insights David French gave to the justice committee were invaluable, in particular during the pre-legislative scrutiny process on this legislation and the impact it would have had on his family and the welfare of his nephews if it had been in place previously.
David shone a light on the reality of what many families face following a killing where children are involved. I know this has been a long and difficult campaign for him and his family. During previous debates on the Bill, the Minister said that such cases are, fortunately, not too common. The truth is, as we have seen with recent violent deaths of women, that they might not be too common but, on the other hand, there are too many of them. The number of women killed in violent circumstances this year has to be a matter of huge concern for these Houses.
I had hoped that the Minister would have accepted some of our amendments, particularly in respect of the application by Tusla to the court for every case following a conviction. A conviction for the murder or manslaughter of a co-guardian should be sufficient grounds for a review, ensuring consistency and prioritising the child's welfare. I had also tabled an amendment to ensure the family of the guardian who has been killed was made a notice party in these proceedings. They should have a clear right, considering their legitimate interest and the child's welfare. This role should be recognised, respected and reflected in the process.
I hope I am proved wrong, but I reiterate that I have concerns regarding the discretion being given to Tusla in dealing with convictions that will happen before the legislation is commenced. We have missed a trick in terms of ensuring that other parties would be able to have their voices heard in these instances.
Many people were astounded to discover that somebody, in most instances it will be a man, who has killed the mother of his children automatically retains guardianship rights. It is quite mind-boggling that this has been the case for so long. The truth of the matter is that it would have remained the case were it not for David French and the campaign he undertook when dealing with what must be unbelievable and unimaginable grief and trauma having lost a loved one in such violent circumstances. The work he has done is a huge credit to him. We have also just seen this with the Poole family and so many other families. In both instances, children were left behind. The families still found within themselves the strength and courage to invest their time in changing the law, not necessarily for their own benefit but for the benefit of others who might be in that position. We are so fortunate as a country that we produce people like this.
We are fortunate that we have a democratic system in which families in this situation can have access to their elected representatives and, ultimately, the Minister. We can then see legislative change being brought forward. It takes longer than we would like but it happens much quicker than it would in other jurisdictions where the same accessibility to the democratic process is not there. We have many what I consider to be bad days in this House, but, for all of the reasons I have outlined reasons, today is a good day. Certainly, when the Bill is finally passed, it will be a good day for Irish democracy and, hopefully, another small step in terms of the measures being taken to protect those families who have lost loved ones through violent deaths and the ongoing work being done to address the scourge of domestic, gender-based and sexual violence, especially against women.
Seanad amendment agreed to.
Seanad amendment No. 2:
Section 3: In page 9, line 12, to delete "references" and substitute "a reference".
Seanad amendment agreed to.
Seanad amendment No. 3:
Section 3: In page 9, line 15, to delete "references" and substitute "a reference".
Seanad amendment agreed to.
Seanad amendment No. 4:
Section 3: In page 9, line 16, to delete "references" and substitute "a reference".
Seanad amendment agreed to.
Seanad amendment No. 5:
Section 3: In page 9, to delete lines 18 to 40 and substitute the following:
"(c) section 35H of the Act of 1991 shall apply to the cessation of appointment and re-appointment of a guardian ad litem for the child concerned in proceedings under this Part as that section applies to the cessation of appointment and re-appointment of a guardian ad litem under section 35C(1) of that Act pursuant to an order under section 35B(3) of that Act, subject to the following modifications:
(i) in subsection (2), paragraph (a) shall not apply and a reference in any of paragraphs (b) to (f) of that subsection to the determination by the District Court of an application under that Act shall be construed as a reference to the determination by the court of an application under section 12C, 12D or 12E, as may be appropriate, of this Act, and
(ii) in subsection (3), the reference to an order made by a court under section 35B(3) of that Act directing that proceedings in which the order has been made are to be kept under review shall be construed as a reference to a condition for a review of the order concerned imposed by the court in an order made under section 12C or 12D, as the case may be;
(d) a reference in Part VA of the Act of 1991 to the performance by guardians ad litem of functions conferred on them by or under that Act shall be construed as including a reference to the performance by guardians ad litem of functions conferred on them under this Part or by or under Part VA of the Act of 1991 as applied by this section.".
Seanad amendment agreed to.
Seanad amendments Nos. 6 to 8, inclusive, are related and will be discussed together.
Seanad amendment No. 6:
Section 3: In page 10, to delete lines 2 to 5 and substitute the following:
"12G.(1) The District Court and the Circuit Court, on appeal from the District Court, shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine proceedings under this Part.".
The policy intention behind the new section 12G is that the proceedings to which it refers will be heard primarily in the District Court. When the relevant provisions of the Family Courts Act 2024 are commenced, these proceedings will be heard in the family district court. The intention is the same as in the Bill as initiated, but I am advised that this form of words will better accomplish the goal.
Seanad amendment agreed to.
Seanad amendment No. 7:
Section 3: In page 10, lines 9 to 13, to delete all words from and including "or," in line 9 down to and including line 13.
Seanad amendment agreed to.
Seanad amendment No. 8:
Section 3: In page 10, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following:
"(3) On and after the commencement of section 73 of the Family Courts Act 2024, a reference in this section to—
(a) the District Court shall be construed as a reference to the Family District Court,
(b) the Circuit Court shall be construed as a reference to the Family Circuit Court,
(c) a judge of the District Court shall be construed as a reference to a judge of the Family District Court, and
(d) a District Court district shall be construed as a reference to a Family District Court district.".
Seanad amendment agreed to.
Seanad amendments reported.
I recognise the presence of David French and of Valerie French's family. I commend and thank them and acknowledge the enormous work they did in campaigning for this. This change to the law was recommended in a report on familicide back in 2023. David French absorbed it, ran with it and campaigned for it. I met him in a television studio in January 2025. I gave him a commitment that I would seek to change the law through the Houses of the Oireachtas and now this is done. I commend him and the family of Valerie French for their fortitude and commitment to public service by seeking this change in the law.
That is well endorsed. I thank the Minister.