Dáil Éireann Debate, Tuesday - 20 June 2017
1913. Deputy Anne Rabbitte asked the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs the criteria by which historical cases of child abuse are assigned as high priority, medium priority and low priority, respectively. [27191/17]
Amharc ar fhreagra1914. Deputy Anne Rabbitte asked the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs the number of historical cases of child abuse that are assigned as high priority, medium priority and low priority, respectively. [27192/17]
Amharc ar fhreagra1915. Deputy Anne Rabbitte asked the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs the number of staff on the specialist teams assigned to historical cases of child sexual abuse; and if this is their full-time role. [27193/17]
Amharc ar fhreagraI propose to take Questions Nos. 1913 to 1915, inclusive, together.
A historical or retrospective disclosure is where an adult discloses abuse experienced in childhood. I understand that the overwhelming majority of such disclosures are about sexual abuse. Tusla has informed me that a case is categorised as high priority if any of the following criteria apply: the alleged perpetrator has a conviction for sexual abuse or assault against child/young adult; the alleged perpetrator is residing with children/young adults; the alleged perpetrator is employed to work with children/young adults or involved with voluntary or community based activities; the alleged perpetrator makes an admission of abuse or if the disclosure refers to organised or ritual abuse.
A case is categorised as medium priority if it is not yet established if the alleged perpetrator has contact with children or young people or where a parent is already aware of potential concern and is acting appropriately and a safety plan is in place.
A case is categorised as low priority if it has been established that the alleged perpetrator does not have contact with children or young people, or there is no information to indicate that the alleged perpetrator has contact with children or young people.
Tusla has advised me that there were 1,895 historical/retrospective cases on hand at the end of March 2017. All of these referrals have been reviewed by a social worker and 551 were categorised as high priority, 943 were medium priority and 401 low priority.
I can advise the Deputy that the management of all referrals including retrospective/historical cases occurs at Area level. Each retrospective case referred to Tusla is screened by the Area Duty Team who will initially establish if there are any known child protection concerns and the Area will respond thereafter, as appropriate, to the referral. Tusla has advised me that a service improvement plan has been put in place to deal with these outstanding cases. In the first instance, specialist teams are working on high priority cases. Medium and low priority cases are assessed by social workers who are drawn from non-child protection teams, on a project basis, to deal with this work. They are provided with training and supervision.
I have asked Tusla to provide information on the number of staff on specialist teams assigned to historical cases of child sexual abuse and will revert to the Deputy when the reply is received.
