Court of Appeal Confirms Right to Reasons in Child Protection Investigations – G.H. v Tusla [2026] IECA 31

Court of Appeal Confirms Right to Reasons in G.H. v Tusla

The Court of Appeal has upheld a significant High Court judgment requiring the Child and Family Agency (Tusla) to provide reasons for a decision that allegations of abuse were “unfounded”.

In G.H. v Child and Family Agency IECA 31, the Court dismissed Tusla’s appeal and confirmed that complainants in child protection investigations may be entitled to reasons for decisions affecting them.

Our firm acted for the applicant in both the High Court and the Court of Appeal.

Background

The applicant had been placed in foster care as a child.

As an adult, she made a complaint to Tusla alleging emotional abuse, physical abuse, and neglect during that placement.

Tusla initially investigated the complaint and in 2017 concluded that there were “matters of concern” regarding the foster placement.

Several years later Tusla conducted a further investigation under its Child Abuse Substantiation Procedure (CASP). In December 2022, it concluded that the allegations were “unfounded.”

However:

the decision was not communicated to the applicant until July 2023, and
no reasons were provided explaining the basis for the decision.
The applicant brought judicial review proceedings challenging that decision.

The High Court Decision

In G.H. v Tusla IEHC 263, O’Higgins J. held that:

The applicant had locus standi to challenge the decision.
Tusla was required to provide reasons for its conclusion that the allegations were unfounded.
The Court emphasised that the applicant had a clear interest in ensuring that the complaint she had made regarding her childhood welfare was properly investigated and processed in accordance with law.

Tusla was ordered to provide reasons for the decision.

The Appeal

Tusla appealed the decision to the Court of Appeal. The main arguments advanced were that:

the applicant lacked standing because the outcome of the investigation had no legal consequences for her, and
Tusla’s CASP procedures did not provide for reasons to be given to complainants.
Tusla also argued that the High Court had taken into account matters outside the scope of the leave granted in the judicial review proceedings.

The Court of Appeal Decision

In a judgment delivered by Collins J., with Faherty and Binchy JJ. concurring, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

The Court confirmed that the correct test for standing is whether a decision affects a person’s interests “in a real way”, not simply whether it affects their legal rights.

In this case, the Court found that the decision clearly affected the applicant’s interests because it concerned matters relating to:

• her childhood
• her welfare while in foster care
• her personal dignity and wellbeing.

Once standing existed, the Court held that the applicant was entitled to know the reasons for the decision.

Providing reasons serves an essential function in administrative law: it enables individuals to determine whether they should challenge a decision and allows courts to properly supervise the legality of public decision-making.

The Court also rejected Tusla’s reliance on its internal procedures, noting that the CASP did not clearly exclude the possibility of providing reasons to complainants.

Significance of the Judgment

The decision is an important reaffirmation of basic administrative law principles.

It confirms that:

• individuals affected by decisions of public bodies may have standing even where their legal rights are not directly determined, and
• public authorities must provide sufficient reasons for decisions where those decisions significantly affect a person’s interests.

While child protection investigations are necessarily sensitive and complex, the Court confirmed that transparency and accountability remain essential safeguards.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal’s judgment confirms that Tusla must now provide reasons for its decision in this case.

The ruling reinforces the principle that individuals engaging with child protection processes are entitled to fair procedures and meaningful transparency in the decisions that affect them.

_________________

Contact us

If you would like further information about this decision, or require advice in relation to judicial review, administrative law, or issues arising in child protection investigations, please contact Séamus Hempenstall or Gary Daly, or your usual contact at Daly Hempenstall Solicitors LLP.

Our team regularly advises clients in complex public law and judicial review proceedings, including cases involving statutory decision-making, fair procedures, and the duties of public bodies.

Link to Judgment: https://www2.courts.ie/view/judgments/70fa28eb-9d63-4d1e-9512-f23b627134b0/204c2d31-05af-4169-9835-460e23455c64/2026_IECA_31.pdf/pdf