Helen Doherty

TUSLA SOCIAL WORKER ADMITS IN COURT ‘NOTHING’ WAS DONE TO REUNITE BREASTFED NEWBORN BABY WITH HIS MOTHER A report by Debbie McCann in the Irish Mail on Sunday, drawing on the Child Law Project's latest reports on child care proceedings, describes a High Court case involving a newborn baby placed in foster care. The case came before the High Court in December 2025, when the mother's legal team made an Article 40 application to allow the baby to continue to be breastfed. The baby had been placed with two male foster carers who had no experience with newborns. At a hearing early this year, the mother's barrister asked the social worker what had been done in the previous month to reunite the baby with his mother. She replied: "Nothing, as far as I am aware." The social worker also told the court she had been allocated the case only five days before the hearing, because two colleagues had been on sick leave since the interim care order was granted weeks earlier. The mother said that after the District Court granted the initial interim care order, she returned to the Rotunda Hospital at around 3pm. There were "lots of people in the room" and her baby was taken "pretty much immediately". She was told she could not breastfeed, but was given a sample pot and told she could resume if tests were clear. A toxicology test some days later was positive. The person who carried out the test acknowledged that the result might have been caused by the mother's mental health medication. Sources later told the Irish Mail on Sunday that repeat tests were negative. The mother described how she learned her baby had been admitted to hospital. She received an out-of-hours voicemail from a social worker but there was no number to call back. When she got through to Tusla's out-of-hours service, she was told the baby was very unwell but not where he was. At around 1.30pm on the Saturday, she was finally told he had been taken to Temple Street Hospital at about 12.30am the previous night. A lumbar puncture was carried out to rule out meningitis. Tusla said she could not go to the hospital, as it was the weekend and no access workers were available to supervise. Later that day it relented and allowed her to visit, accompanied by her solicitor. She found her baby in a hospital bed, hooked up to an intravenous cannula. "He was asleep and whimpering. I'd never seen him do that. He curled up in my chest and immediately went to sleep," she told the court. The mother's barrister said they were "very concerned" the baby was not meeting his weight targets and was vomiting up formula, and that he had been prescribed Gaviscon since going into Tusla's care. The solicitor said the baby's weight had dropped from 50 per cent of his weight trajectory to just 15 per cent. A Tusla-accredited counsellor told the court she had seen a "significant increase in emotional regulation" in the mother, that she was coping very well in the circumstances and consistently showing up. The counsellor said she had no concerns and saw no reason why the mother should not be allowed to parent with appropriate supports in place. The solicitor said the first 24 hours after removal were "very difficult". She said access was cancelled, that she had asked for a feeding plan and had still received nothing, that there had never been a stated goal post, and that she had asked for a reunification plan and more access in the community. The guardian ad litem appointed by the court to represent the child's best interests, supported immediate resumption of breastfeeding. The judge said he could not understand why the mother's milk "is not being accepted by the CFA ". He described her as a "kind, caring person" who suffered traumatic events, including the loss of her sister He said he had reasonable cause to believe the interim care order should be extended, noting previous referrals to Tusla during the mother's pregnancy. He waived the in-camera rule to allow the case to be reported