We've partnered up with to offer a space where you can talk directly to Peter from and get an exclusive discount code for a free job listing. If you are recruiting or know anyone else who is please check out the forum here.
If you have a new account but can't post, please email Niamh on [email protected] for help to verify your email address. Thanks :)

Five Adults Convicted of Litany of Child Abuse and Neglect

  • 09-08-2021 2:18pm
    Registered Users Posts: 10,744 ✭✭✭✭ JupiterKid

    I'm sort of surprised no one else here has posted a thread up on this appalling story - five adults have been convicted of a catalogue of child abuse against five young children in their care over a number of years - both parents of the children, an aunt, uncle and another relative. The convictions include over 77 counts of sexual abuse, physical abuse, severe neglect etc.

    Definite shades of the Dalkey House of Horrors case.

    I hope those vile abusers are jailed for the maximum length possible. Sickening stuff. The incredibly slow response by Tusla and social workers to this cesspit of abuse and neglect - despite glaringly obvious evidence that the children were malnourished, filthy dirty and in a feral state almost beggars belief.

    Article here:

    Does Tusla need more resources and powers to forcibly remove children from homes where abuse and neglect are par for the course? Should the parents be jailed for life?

    Post edited by JupiterKid on


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,524 ✭✭✭ Jequ0n

    Why can’t the convicted not be named? I don’t think there is usually a ban on reporting names?

  • Registered Users Posts: 25,643 ✭✭✭✭ Dempo1

    To protect the Children

    Utterly appalling case, the adults involved absolute monsters. What has baffled me if I'm understanding the sequence of events correctly is these children were under the supervision of State childcare services for over a year, Foster parents gave some harrowing testimony, whilst I understand these type of cases extremely complex, why did it take so long to expose what was going on. I further question extended family, there must be dozens who at a minimum had suspicions. Just an appalling situation.

    Is maith an scáthán súil charad.

  • Registered Users Posts: 7,411 ✭✭✭ Yurt2

    Perpetrators are not named to protect the identity of victims when they are minors.

    An appalling case.

    At the arrest stage the town(s) these crimes took place in were carried in the press. It looks like that information has been embargoed by the courts as well as it is potentially identifying the victims.

    I'm in two minds about naming offenders in cases like this.

    It gives the victims the anonymity and chance to recover to a somewhat normal life, and prevents a red top frenzy that could spiral out of control. But on the other side, it may prevent further victims being identified.

  • Registered Users Posts: 2,524 ✭✭✭ Jequ0n

    Surprising since it’s not a single perpetrator but a whole group which makes it feasible that there might be more victims.

    I guess it’s a small country and people in the affected areas will know and can come forward (or run)

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 5,621 ✭✭✭ MrMusician18

    Ah c'mon, this went on for years. I find it odd that sometimes Tusla can step in in the dead of night and act quickly to take children into care, yet when there's obvious neglect and abuse (as was here) it takes years.

  • Registered Users Posts: 10,500 ✭✭✭✭ padd b1975

    Probably not permanent residents of that town if you catch my drift...

    Mod - don't post in this thread again

    Post edited by Ten of Swords on

  • Registered Users Posts: 7,411 ✭✭✭ Yurt2

    I agree with some of this sentiment, however, you don't need to be part of of some religious conservative cabal like David Quinn to want to be cautious of the state overstepping the boundaries of the family.

    A very pertinent example is Norway, which has a child protection regime that ostensibly places the welfare of the child above all other things and few could disagree with on paper.

    Unfortunately, the individuals staffing it were empowered to such an extent that they completely lost the plot and children were taken from families on extremely spurious grounds (often on the word of tittle tattle from nosey neighbors who could care less about the welfare of the children) and they didn't see them for years in some cases. It was and is an ongoing scandal in Norway. A lot of parents reading this could conceivably in Norway have found themselves having their child taken from them on ridiculous grounds such as enjoying a drink in their own home.

    So, I suppose I or you don't really know were there glaring signs missed by Tusla in this case. I would hope not. It's the very worst end of the scale in terms of abuse and violation of trust. Would citizens be willing to tolerate a far nosier state that has the potential to screw up on the state end like in Norway to catch these cases? It's not an either or answer by the way, but it's a difficult question.

    God help the poor victims in this case. I hope they can somehow live fulfilled happy lives.

  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]

    And these five are the ones that went to trial and pleaded not guilty. There are more offenders

    Horrific case, those children are ruined for life and will never live normal lives.

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭ HildaOgdenx

    A horrific case, I read some of the coverage on and off, as the trial was on.

    Those poor little kids, sometimes there are no words adequate.

  • Registered Users Posts: 753 ✭✭✭ Notmything

    Not without a court order, gardai are the only ones with the power to remove a child from their home.

  • Registered Users Posts: 20,372 ✭✭✭✭ One eyed Jack

    I think in this particular case it’s very fair to say that the social workers, involved in the case for years, DID encounter this level of neglect and think “meh, it’ll be grand”. That’s precisely why the level of neglect and abuse of the children involved carried on for as long as it did.

    It’s untrue to say that we give legal supremacy to the family unit when we don’t, and historically speaking we have never done that as the State has always been regarded in law as the guardian of the common good in Irish society. We had a referendum called the Children’s Referendum in 2012 which recognised the State as having the authority to supplant the place of the parents in circumstances where children were deemed to be at risk (notwithstanding the existence of the Children’s Act of 2001, specifically S. 246 regarding Cruelty to Children).

    The fact is not that social workers need more powers, the fact is that social workers are already obligated to report their concerns to Gardaí, and many social workers do report their concerns to Gardaí, but some social workers, don’t, and they can become involved with the family for years without ever reporting their concerns or making Gardaí aware of the situation. You’re using an example of one case among hundreds, which are ongoing on a daily basis. The case here, and the case you’re referring to, are extremes of a culmination of factors, all or none of which can be involved, as each individual case is has it’s own circumstances.

    There’s also no “dark network of religious nut jobs”. It’s precisely because of our history with said dark network of religious nut jobs who had a propensity to separate children from their parents that we learned from the mistakes of the past - separating children from their parents has a detrimental effect on children’s welfare and outcomes in later life. It’s why that’s just not the default policy any more, hasn’t been since 2015 when Tusla adopted the “Signs of Safety” model to manage risk rather than going straight for the nuclear option of removing children from the family home and their parents care. Unfortunately there’s no way to plug the gap between policy, practice, and individuals judgement, which means there are still children who are suffering neglect and social workers who imagine that “it’ll be grand” because they’re “managing the risks” (or at least those risks that they’re aware of anyway!).

    The kind of action you’re talking about is exactly the kind of short-term action you’re critical of, which would mean sacrificing achieving the long-term aim of catering for the best interests of the child or children’s future and their relationship with their family. The circumstances of this case should never have gotten to the extreme that they did, and it’s clear that early intervention was ineffective as the case workers had been involved with the families for years. It wasn’t simply the case that they didn’t notice that the children were being neglected, and so it’s not unfair to say that the social workers involved didn’t do their jobs properly, nor is it unfair to say that that social workers didn’t need more powers to protect children, the procedures already exist, up to and including having the children removed from the family home a hell of a lot sooner than allowing the neglect which they observed to go on for years.


    Details of the level of neglect which social workers were aware of:

    Post edited by One eyed Jack on

  • Registered Users Posts: 488 ✭✭ tawnyowl

    In the case you mentioned, the mother of the children had allowed the children to go on holiday with their father, but he didn't want to let them return to France. It was a custody case - the church service was a red herring.

  • Registered Users Posts: 389 ✭✭ Deirdre5

    was it some sort of a paedophile ring? I wonder if the uncle and his partner made the two parents with intellectual disabilities have children so they could be abused?

    Earlier articles mentioned over 20 possible child victims and a 'sports referee' arrested (later released I think).

    Very strange altogether

  • Registered Users Posts: 2,524 ✭✭✭ Jequ0n

    someone wants to believe a different side of the narrative.

    I guess it’s as believable as the other versions.

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,460 ✭✭✭ WrenBoy

    Absolutely. Its the worse kind of betrayal and perversion of what we would assume to be the natural disposition to protect and care for your family.