GAL interrupted

As Ireland’s child-protection system undergoes long-awaited reforms, a new study sheds light on the crucial role of guardians ad litem in family-contact disputes concerning vulnerable children in State care. Lisa O’Reilly shares the findings

With the Child Care (Amendment) Act 2022 now enacted, but full implementation still underway, practitioners are increasingly concerned that changes could undermine the independence of guardians ad litem (GALs) and their ability to effectively advocate for the welfare needs of the children they are court-appointed to represent.

This independence, as new empirical research shows, is the foundation of effective advocacy for children in foster care. For solicitors and barristers managing child-care proceedings, the stakes are extremely high.

Family contact – those supervised meetings or communications between children in care and their birth families – often forms the emotional core of cases, balancing a child’s right to relationships with potential risks of harm.

Judges also look to GALs to cut through adversarial noise and offer impartial insights and best-interest solutions.

However, with reforms aiming to create a national GAL executive agency, concerns are growing that bureaucratic oversight might undermine this neutrality, echoing criticisms of England’s Child Impact Assessment Framework model, where a diluted service and political considerations have diminished trust and confidence from the child’s perspective.

Enter the first-ever Irish study on GALs’ practical impact, based on my own experience of over 20 years in the field.

Based on surveys and focus groups involving District Court judges and GALs, the research not only confirms the value of independent representation, but also provides actionable insights for legal professionals navigating these turbulent changes.

As one judge remarked: “GALs succeed where others fail because they’re impartial.”

For lawyers representing parents, foster carers, or Tusla, understanding these findings could sharpen advocacy strategies, enhance client outcomes, and potentially influence how reforms develop.

Pushing tin

In Ireland, GALs are court-appointed advocates responsible for representing a child’s voice and best interests in care proceedings, as outlined in section 26 of the Child Care Act 1991.

Independent of parents, social workers, and agencies, they assess a child’s needs, observe family interactions, and report to the court – often tipping the scales in contentious contact decisions.

This role reflects the 2012 referendum on article 42A of the Constitution, which prioritises children’s welfare and rights and which committed Ireland to giving them an effective voice in applications that affect their interests.

The 2022 act seeks to standardise this patchwork system by creating a national service with consistent training, eligibility criteria, and oversight.

Proponents argue it will address inconsistencies, such as variable appointment patterns and lack of regulation. Funding seeds were planted as far back as 2020, with €2.8 million allocated for setup.

Critics, including judges and GALs, worry that integrating GALs into a State-aligned agency could compromise their ability to challenge Tusla or other parties, thereby hampering the ability to progress the needs of children.

This tension forms the backdrop to the new research, which hypothesises that independent GAL representation enhances family contact outcomes for children in foster care.

With nearly 6,000 children in State care – 91% in foster placements – many grappling with abuse, neglect, and fractured attachments, effective contact is crucial.

Poorly managed visits can retraumatise, while well-supported ones aid healing and identity formation.

The study aims to fill a critical evidence gap: until now, reforms have proceeded without robust data on what actually works.

Tomb raider

The study employed a mixed-methods approach, blending surveys and focus groups for a practical, real-world lens.

All 60 District Court judges were invited; 21 responded (a 35% rate), offering rare judicial perspectives.

Among 84 experienced GALs, 34 participated (40%), with an additional focus group of eight delving deeper. Ethical safeguards, including anonymity, ensured candid responses.

Key findings resonate directly with legal practice. First, GALs overwhelmingly (97%) advocate for more or better-quality contact, viewing it as essential for rebuilding relationships.

They craft bespoke plans, extending beyond parents to include siblings or former carers if meaningful to the child.

For solicitors, this underscores opportunities to leverage GAL reports in arguing for flexible arrangements under section 37 of the 1991 act, which mandates reasonable access.

Judges were unanimous in praising GAL independence as their “most trusted asset”. In 85% of responses, they highlighted how GALs provide psychological context – explaining, for instance, why a child’s post-contact distress might stem from unresolved trauma rather than parental fault.

This impartiality allows GALs to mediate high-conflict disputes, de-escalating tensions between Tusla, parents, and carers.

One judge noted: “They refocus everyone on the child, often brokering agreements that avoid protracted hearings.”

Barristers in adversarial proceedings could use this to push for GAL involvement early, reducing court backlogs and costs for clients.

A standout theme was the role of play in making contact ‘meaningful’. Endorsed by 92% of GALs, play-based approaches – simple activities like drawing or games – help children express emotions they can’t verbalise.

In lay terms, think of it as using a child’s natural ‘language’ to ease anxiety and foster bonds, drawing on concepts like attachment (the deep emotional ties formed early in life) without getting bogged down in theory.

Judges supported this, with GAL recommendations on play-equipped venues influencing orders.

For family-law practitioners, this offers a tool to advise clients: parents could prepare for visits with play tips, while solicitors might cite the research to challenge restrictive contact plans that ignore developmental needs.

Support gaps were stark. GALs flagged misinterpretations of children’s behaviour – for example, tantrums seen as evidence against contact rather than trauma responses – leading to unnecessary reductions.

They called for trauma-informed training across the board, including for foster carers and social workers.

In court, lawyers could draw on these insights to counter biased assessments, advocating for holistic evaluations that prioritise healing.

Wanted

The study’s judicial chorus is clear: erode independence, and you risk silencing children.

Judges drew parallels to the English agency Cafcass, where State integration has led to bureaucracy and lost credibility. In Ireland, with reforms still in limbo, similar pitfalls loom.

GALs fear agency oversight could align them too closely with Tusla, muting challenges to State decisions.

As one focus group participant said: “We advocate without budget constraints. Lose that, and children’s needs take a back seat.”

For solicitors and barristers, this translates to practical risks: weaker GAL reports could complicate representing vulnerable clients, prolong cases, or skew outcomes. But the research offers a roadmap.

It recommends enshrining GAL autonomy in the new service, mandating play training for contact supervisors, and broadening definitions to include non-biological ties aligned with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Judges urged multidisciplinary teams to support reunification where safe, with GALs helping to guide plans under court oversight.

Long-term, the study calls for more research, including children’s direct input and post-reform evaluations. Limitations (such as response rates potentially favouring engaged participants) are acknowledged, but the mixed methods bolster credibility.

Mr and Mrs Smith

This research isn’t just abstract academia – it’s a toolkit for daily practice. Solicitors advising parents in access disputes can reference GAL advocacy stats to push for child-centred plans.

As implementation drags on, the message is urgent: preserve what works – independence and mediation and the ability to bring welfare applications before the courts where needed – while fixing flaws like delays.

By integrating psychological insights into advocacy, lawyers can enhance decisions, protect clients, and amplify children’s voices under article 42A.

In a system where over 5,800 children depend on fair proceedings, this study provides the evidence-led push needed. Reforms must amplify, not undermine, the GAL role – or risk failing Ireland’s most vulnerable.

Dr Lisa O’Reilly is a researcher and practising guardian ad litem with over 23 years’ experience in Ireland’s protection and foster-care system.

LOOK IT UP

LEGISLATION:

• Child Care (Amendment) Act 2022
• Child Care Act 1991 (sections 26 and 37)
• Constitution of Ireland (article 42A)
• UN Convention on the Rights of the Child

LITERATURE:

• Lisa O’Reilly, The Child’s Independent Voice on Family Contact (2025). See www.gallore.ie. Also O’Reilly (2021, 2022, 2025) on play and
  family contact