1/The is a response by @rodericogorman to questions posed by @SenLynnRuane regarding abuses within St John Ambulance service: https://www.kildarestreet.com/sendebates/?id=2020-10-22a.57&s=historical+abuse#g64

I am once again struck by the narrative that continues to develop regarding child abuse and distinguishing 'past' and 'current'..

2/ The use of the terms 'existing threat' and 'currently pose', do not encompass the full duty upon Tusla, as laid down in MQ v. Gleeson [1998] and recently endorsed in J. v. CFA [judgement delivered on 19th Oct 2020] ...

3/ Minister @rodericogorman's language otherwise does recognise the ongoing, and potentially daily impacts of abuse, whenever it is experienced during the life course and the importance of clarifying 'potential risks', which appears at odds with the language above...

4/ However, this is turned on its head again in a final response where the Minister discusses Tusla's role in terms of 'current' risk and oddly, and concerningly, discusses 'past abuse' as being primarily the responsibility of An Garda Síochána!

5/ From following, researching, teaching and commenting in this area, I see this as a developing narrative regarding past abuse. A narrative that seeks to distinguish past abuse from current and future risk....

6/ And a narrative the ebbs a flows (depending on the source) between who's duty it is to respond to which 'type' of risk. Both Gardaí and Tusla have a duty to respond to child sexual abuse, whenever it occurred. It is simultaneously a crime and a child protection issue.

7/ Debates about who ought to respond, and what policy should look like, are important but should not inform current debate about where the current duties lie.

8/ In a week where silencing of abuse victims has been to the very fore of national attention it is critical that those who have not come forward are encouraged, facilitated and supported in doing so. And that, whatever the system, it is fit to meet their needs and circumstances.