Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Chat

Join the discussion and chat with other Mumsnetters about everyday life, relationships and parenting.

Original poster

Trigger Warning. Its the 10 year olds fault apparently!

30 replies

SmoothieForMe · 21/10/2025 10:35

Theres been a horrendous attack on a child in care of the Irish Government. The Government agency responsible issued a statement that all but blames the child. I am heartbroken for the child, cannot imagine what she is going through. But I cannot believe that victim blaming like this can happen to anyone of any age but especially a child. Its stinks of oh well SHE had behavioural issues and SHE absconded.

Trigger Warning. Its the 10 year olds fault apparently!
OP posts:
mustytrusty · 21/10/2025 14:18

I dont read this as victim blaming. What part of it makes you feel like that? Genuine question as it just seem like a factual report to me. Happy to be educated though!

BellissimoGecko · 21/10/2025 14:24

I agree with @mustytrusty. it’s not victim blaming; it’s a factual report.

Iloveagoodnap · 21/10/2025 14:34

I also read it as a factual account of the circumstances around the incident.

Frynye · 21/10/2025 14:41

It reads as factual to me as well.

mamagogo1 · 21/10/2025 14:47

It’s factually correct, the child was alone due to the child absconding then fleeing the relative’s house, nowhere does it say it was her fault

Original poster
SmoothieForMe · 21/10/2025 16:05

But she was 10. The parents had given over responsibility to the carers. Even if its factually correct the onus was on the carers to ensure none of this occurred. Theres no admission that they did anything wrong all they say is she did x y and z. If a 10 year old was in day care would it be acceptable that they 'absconded'. Even the use of the word absconded is so bad.

OP posts:
Simonjt · 21/10/2025 16:08

SmoothieForMe · 21/10/2025 16:05

But she was 10. The parents had given over responsibility to the carers. Even if its factually correct the onus was on the carers to ensure none of this occurred. Theres no admission that they did anything wrong all they say is she did x y and z. If a 10 year old was in day care would it be acceptable that they 'absconded'. Even the use of the word absconded is so bad.

Do you expect children in foster homes and childrens homes to have all windows and doors locked at all times, do you also expect them to only travel by car and be physically restrained when walking to and from the car?

Tiswa · 21/10/2025 16:09

How by locking her in? Which they can’t do. What word would you use rather than absconded

ComtesseDeSpair · 21/10/2025 16:34

It reads as explaining how she came to be alone in order to be vulnerable to attack, not blaming her for her attack or saying it was her fault: she was out on an excursion with carers when she ran away from them, which is when she became vulnerable.

Carers can’t forcibly restrain a child, nor keep her indoors in a locked room at all times, nor insist she wears reins when taken outdoors as if she were a toddler.

thisishowloween · 21/10/2025 16:38

It's just a factual report - there's no victim blaming anywhere Confused

ApplebyArrows · 21/10/2025 16:51

"Absconded" does come across quite judgemental, whilst at the same time it does sound like it might not have been appropriate for her to have been taken into a busy city centre, at least not without closer adult oversight than she actually received. And that perhaps, given her history, the carers should have known it wasn't appropriate before the incident happened!

Obviously you can't keep a 10-year-old locked up but if she runs away in a public place you should be able to run after her and catch her, and if you can't do that then you probably shouldn't be taking her to that place.

Burntt · 21/10/2025 20:56

She was put into care because of significant behavioural issues. Possibly absconding was part of why her family couldn’t cope. Reads to me like there should have been better risk assessments and measures taken. The failure is not acknowledged

Original poster
SmoothieForMe · 21/10/2025 22:02

Sadly the child was sexually assaulted, it actually shouldnt matter what happened but it makes the wording even worse. Didn't include at the start as its all so tragic but its interesting to hear opinions on the wording as it shows its well worded in that its a collection of facts.
Its truly try tragic tho as the facts were known re behaviour and locking up wasn't required but a shopping trip to a city centre was only going to end one way. Shes been failed horrifically.

OP posts:
NellieElephantine · 21/10/2025 22:07

Failed by leaving her accommodation?. Do you think she should have been in lockdown?
Do.you see her parents having failed in their role because she's ended up in care?

Firealarm1414 · 21/10/2025 22:25

I agree with you OP. I dont think they should have said she was in care because her parents couldn't cope with her "significant behavioural issues". Why even mention that at all? That's a breach of her and her family's privacy and also seems to be insinuating that this behaviour is part of the reason she was assaulted. Disgusting for a government agency tasked with protecting children really.

Bringemout · 21/10/2025 22:28

Tbh it would have bene enough to say she was in care. I also think talking about behavioural issues etc is inappropriate. She’s a 10yr old kid that has just been raped. I don’t think the wording of this was well thought out at all, it’s frankly insensitive.

Think of any ten year old you may know, even if they were a godawful pain in the arse would you think that it was necessary to state that in a report after they were raped. Really think about the ten year olds you may know or your own kids at ten.

Chulainn · 21/10/2025 22:38

SmoothieForMe · 21/10/2025 10:35

Theres been a horrendous attack on a child in care of the Irish Government. The Government agency responsible issued a statement that all but blames the child. I am heartbroken for the child, cannot imagine what she is going through. But I cannot believe that victim blaming like this can happen to anyone of any age but especially a child. Its stinks of oh well SHE had behavioural issues and SHE absconded.

Tusla's message does not attribute any blame for the fact that the girl went missing in the city centre while in their care. The word 'absconded' is a poor choice considering what happened to the poor girl. No alerts were issued to the public advising that there was a missing 10 year old girl. Tulsa have not said what they did to try and locate her. Where she was sexually assaulted is nowhere near the city centre. The Tusla message is factual but very cold, imo, in light of what happened. Why she was in care is irrelevant and was possibly a breach of her GDPR by making it public.

Tusla, in my view, is not currently fit for purpose and needs an overall. The tragic case of Daniel Aruebose, the murder or manslaughter in a Tulsa facility last week, and now this poor child's sexual assault. Each month, almost weekly, there's another admission from them of things they haven't done or have missed out. They are failing the children they are supposed to protect and help. I hope this little girl gets the help she now needs.

MILLYmo0se · 21/10/2025 22:38

If giving a trigger warning you need to say what it relates to eg SA, child abuse etc or there's no point in it imo. I'm Irish so immediately knew what it referenced but you run the risk of v few people reading your thread because it may upset them, or those that could be triggered opening it.
It's a desperately desperately tragic situation, the poor child. I think it's a factual report, all the gossips will be out on the street blaming the parents for her being in care and the carers for her escaping, and the investigation may well find they are at fault but for the moment those are the bare facts of the case.

Amberlynnswashcloth · 21/10/2025 22:45

They're trying to give context to a sensitive case that has found its way to the media. Her behaviour is clearly challenging: repeatedly running off while staying in touch but not revealing whereabouts and leading them on a wild goose chase then claiming to have been attacked. They'll investigate this obviously but its probably not the first time they've been in this situation with her. I hope she gets the support she needs.

Overthewaytwice · 21/10/2025 22:47

It just reads as a factual account of what happened. I'm confused about what part blames the victim?

There aren't enough details to say whether anyone other than the abuser were responsible. 10 year olds shouldn't routinely be locked up in secure buildings in case they abscond (but that doesn't make her in any was responsible for being attacked). I suppose it comes down to whether a proper risk assessment was done and followed.

Miceloveme · 21/10/2025 22:51

Victim blaming I don't see that at all.

Firealarm1414 · 21/10/2025 23:04

Amberlynnswashcloth · 21/10/2025 22:45

They're trying to give context to a sensitive case that has found its way to the media. Her behaviour is clearly challenging: repeatedly running off while staying in touch but not revealing whereabouts and leading them on a wild goose chase then claiming to have been attacked. They'll investigate this obviously but its probably not the first time they've been in this situation with her. I hope she gets the support she needs.

What do you mean "claiming to have been attacked"? A man has been arrested and charged.

The context of her being "difficult", which is what Tusla seem to be trying to convey with that statement, has absolutely no relevance to the fact that a 10 year old girl was raped by a man in his 20s. The relevant part is that tusla once again failed in their duty to protect a child. We dont need to know why she was in care in the first place. Tusla seem intent on humiliating and blaming this poor child in order to deflect blame for their own failings.

Original poster
SmoothieForMe · 21/10/2025 23:21

All the statement needed to say was to admit that the child was in their care and that they are supporting her and will contribute to any investigation into the assault and their role in her life since she came became their responsibility.
I stand by my opinion re victim blaming but happy to agree to differ. What they said is no different to dropping into court cases what a girl was wearing or drinking or doing before she got attacked. It creates a subtle narrative that creates an impression for anyone hearing it or reading it. It was 100% unnecessary in this case.

OP posts:
freedo · 21/10/2025 23:36

I agree with you OP. I dont think they should have said she was in care because her parents couldn't cope with her "significant behavioural issues". Why even mention that at all?

Agree why mention it.

CrossChecking · 22/10/2025 00:02

I think that the statement reads as Tusla trying to arse cover. There are huge issues with both Tusla and CAHMS, some of that big budget surplus really should be invested into the next generation. Helping the most vulnerable helps everyone in the long run.

I really hope that the girl will have all the support she needs to help her move forward from this and I hope that calm heads prevail all round. Tonight's actions won't help anyone.