Tusla keeps file on accusation made against boy.

davidcameron

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
8,778

Most professional opinion would say that the allegation here didn’t even constitute sexualised behaviour between a six-year-old (as the boy was then) and a girl of seven.
Either way, the matter was handled according to policy. Parents were spoken to and, in a class on SPHE (Social Personal and Health Education), the teacher mentioned the issue of good and bad touches in the school yard.
Requests that the file be deleted on the basis that it was an unfounded allegation concerning a seven-year-old were rejected. The family appealed this decision. The appeals officer wrote to the family with a decision, saying she “cannot agree to destroy this data and file as it has been correctly created in response to a report of a concern for a child, in accordance with Tusla’s own policies and procedures.”
The letter went on: “I wish to acknowledge to both of you the obvious difficulty experienced by you and by (boy’s name) following the report made by his school to Tusla. It appears that while Tusla’s own involvement was short-lived with a clear outcome for (boy’s name) which indicated no cause for concern, unfortunately other communications and decisions related to his former school have unfolded which have caused you significant difficulties. These issues however fall outside the scope of this appeal.”
Why does Tusla insist on keeping a file on the boy even though, judging by the details in the Examiner, it was 'much ado about nothing'?

Does it not occur to Tusla that the boy was 4 years below the age of criminal responsibility at the time of the alleged incident?

Why can't these social workers just let children retain their innocence instead of retaining files on them?!
 


Watcher2

Well-known member
Joined
May 2, 2010
Messages
34,135





Why does Tusla insist on keeping a file on the boy even though, judging by the details in the Examiner, it was 'much ado about nothing'?

Does it not occur to Tusla that the boy was 4 years below the age of criminal responsibility at the time of the alleged incident?

Why can't these social workers just let children retain their innocence instead of retaining files on them?!
And also this quotation from TUSLA about it - "...which indicated no cause for concern ...". If there was no cause for concern, no need to keep the file. Its contradictory.
 

Beachcomber

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 11, 2010
Messages
10,679





Why does Tusla insist on keeping a file on the boy even though, judging by the details in the Examiner, it was 'much ado about nothing'?

Does it not occur to Tusla that the boy was 4 years below the age of criminal responsibility at the time of the alleged incident?

Why can't these social workers just let children retain their innocence instead of retaining files on them?!
But he wasn't charged with a crime was he?

If there was inappropriate touching by him, why shouldn't it be kept on file for future reference? If he does engage in sexual later in life it would be important to know about this incident.

One question - why is the report saying that the allegation was unfounded?
 

Emily Davison

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 9, 2013
Messages
30,271
That’s unbelievable. The whole world has gone crazy.
 

petaljam

Moderator
Joined
Nov 23, 2012
Messages
30,639
But he wasn't charged with a crime was he?

If there was inappropriate touching by him, why shouldn't it be kept on file for future reference? If he does engage in sexual later in life it would be important to know about this incident.

One question - why is the report saying that the allegation was unfounded?
The point is that it was investigated and found to be the sort of normal "exploratory" types of activities that children have always got up to. Playing doctors and nurses or mammies and daddies, "you show me yours and I'll show you mine" that sort of thing.

Labelling a child as a potential sex offender for this sort of thing could be disastrous in the future, because there will no longer be the same presumption of innocence. Totally different if there was actually a concern, but there wasn't.
 

sic transit

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 30, 2008
Messages
25,392
Hmm, a seven year old knowing and using the word "genital". That whole thing is overreaching. Kids at play.
 

silverharp

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 21, 2015
Messages
16,162
the principal seems to have been the a55hat here and a whole family have been traumatized for no reason.
 

Sweet Darling

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 2, 2017
Messages
4,540





Why does Tusla insist on keeping a file on the boy even though, judging by the details in the Examiner, it was 'much ado about nothing'?

Does it not occur to Tusla that the boy was 4 years below the age of criminal responsibility at the time of the alleged incident?

Why can't these social workers just let children retain their innocence instead of retaining files on them?!
Because the Irish are quick at running to court looking for money.
May keep the files in case a claim is made in the future.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top