Child and Family Agency carried out assessment in an unfair manner

Child law – judicial review - whether social workers of The Child and Family Agency (TUSLA) carried out an assessment in an unfair manner - assessment concluded that an allegation of sexual abuse was well-founded - procedural rules provide that an adverse “provisional conclusion” is final, unless the factual conclusions which underpin it are displaced - deciders drew their “provisional conclusion” when they should have been keeping an open mind – should have canvassed the views of the accused - declined to make herself available for cross examination - the deciding social workers proceeded to make a final determination – appeal – terms of reference – refused to engage except on his own terms – wanted full de novo appeal – appeal deemed abandoned - TUSLA had a statutory duty to investigate the allegation – not given copies of notes of the interview with complainant and the other interviewees – did not have an opportunity to respond – decision – reasons for decision – demanded complainant be available for cross-examination - no new information had been received or considered since the provisional conclusion – stages of investigation - fairness dictates that they be given an opportunity to respond to materials - no absolute rule that a person who is the subject this type of assessment is entitled to confront a person who has made a disclosure or carry out a cross examination – judicial review granted