Decision
Mr. Y and Tusla
From Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC)
Case number: OIC-155558-H0W7T3
Published on
From Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC)
Case number: OIC-155558-H0W7T3
Published on
Whether Tusla was justified in refusing access, under section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act, to further records relating an incident reported to Tusla concerning the applicant’s child
20 May 2025
In a request dated 1 October 2024, the applicant sought access to records relating to incident involving his child, including correspondence between Tusla and a named third party regarding this incident. On 29 October 2024, Tusla released a number of records to the applicant in full and part granted access to the remaining records, redacting the personal information of third parties under section 37 of the FOI Act. On 14 November 2024, the applicant sought an internal review of Tusla’s decision, saying he had requested all records that Tusla has on file which he did not receive. He added he was requesting these records again as they can be provided in redacted format. On 3 December 2024, Tusla affirmed its original decision. In a letter dated 10 December 2024, the applicant applied to this Office for a review of Tusla’s decision not to release all of the records associated with his request. In regard to Tusla’s decision to refuse personal information under sections 37 of the Act, the applicant said he does not want any personal information only the information relating to his child. He said any personal information can be redacted which is standard in these cases.
During the course of this review, the Investigating Officer provided the applicant with details of Tusla’s submissions wherein it outlined the searches it had conducted and its reasons for concluding that no further records could be found. The Investigating Officer invited the applicant to make submissions in the matter. In reply, the applicant said he was appealing the decision not to provide him with the relevant information he requested.
In its submissions, Tusla said that it had redacted a small amount of text in error about the applicant’s child that is at the top of the Referral & Screening Form which it had part granted. On 15 May 2025, Tusla sent another copy of that Form that to the applicant with his child’s information unredacted. The remaining redactions concern other individuals.
I have now completed my review in accordance with section 22(2) of the FOI Act. In carrying out my review, I have had regard to the correspondence outlined above and to the submissions made by both parties. I have also had regard to the records at issue. I have decided to conclude this review by way of a formal, binding decision.
The applicant considers further records ought to exist concerning the referral made to Tusla about the incident involving his child. The applicant has not contested Tusla’s decision to redact the personal information of other parties contained in the records released to him. Accordingly, this review is solely concerned with whether Tusla was justified in refusing access to further records relating to the incident in question under section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act on the ground that no further records exist or can be found.
Section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act provides for the refusal of a request where the records sought do not exist or cannot be found after all reasonable steps to ascertain their whereabouts have been taken. Our role in a case such as this is to review the decision of the FOI body and to decide whether that decision was justified. This means that I must have regard to the evidence available to the decision maker and the reasoning used by the decision maker in arriving at their decision and also must assess the adequacy of the searches conducted by the FOI body in looking for relevant records. The evidence in “search” cases generally consists of the steps actually taken to search for the records along with miscellaneous and other information about the record management practices of the FOI body, insofar as those practices relate to the records in question.
As noted above, the Investigating Officer provided details of Tusla’s submissions to the applicant and invited him to make submissions. In response, the applicant stated that he is appealing the decision not to provide him with the relevant information he requested.
In its submissions to this Office, Tusla said an initial child welfare report was received from An Garda Siochana. It said, Tusla followed up with due process and the referral was not deemed to meet the threshold for further social work intervention. As such there was only limited records held on file. Tusla described the process and records that may be generated once a referral/report has been made. It said at Screening, if there are no reasonable grounds for concern/no harm identified, then no further action is required, and the referral is closed. Tusla said that this was the outcome in this case. Tusla said that if the case is closed, closure letters are completed and sent out. Tusla said that in certain circumstances where there are reasonable grounds for concern and further information is required, an intake record and initial assessment are completed. Tusla said that email records are included in the case records which have been released to the applicant.
Tusla said that in processing the applicant’s request all records that were created were considered and the final decision was made to grant access to the records with only the personal information of other parties redacted under section 37 of the Act. It stated that records specified by the applicant in his application pertaining to correspondence between Tusla and a third party regarding this incident do not exist as the case was closed by Tusla on the basis that the referral did not meet the threshold to progress the Initial Assessment and Intake.
In its submissions to this Office, Tusla said that searches were completed on the Tusla Case Management (TCM) system where all records are stored in relation to children and case management with regard to child protection issues. It said it was not necessary to search outside of the TCM electronic database. Tusla also said that it did not conduct any manual searches to locate records relevant to the applicant’s request as the records are available on the TCM. It said that in completing electronic searches, searches were conducted using the name of the child, date of birth and address. It said it also searched using the applicant’s name, his partner’s name, and spelling variations of the applicant/his spouse and his child’s name.
It is important to note that the FOI Act does not require absolute certainty as to the existence or location of records, as situations can arise where records are lost or simply cannot be found. What the FOI Act requires is that the public body concerned takes all reasonable steps to locate relevant records. Furthermore, it is open to this Office to find that an FOI Body has satisfied the requirements of section 15(1)(a), even where records that an applicant believes ought to exist, or are known to have existed in the past, have not been located. Tusla provided details of the steps it undertook to locate the records sought by the applicant in his request and explained its record management practices in relation to a child welfare report. In this case, Tusla said there are only limited records on file as the referral was not deemed to meet the threshold for further social work intervention.
It is also important to note that the FOI Act provides for a right of access to records held by FOI bodies. A review by this Office is not concerned with the question of what records should exist. If a record does not exist, that is the end of the matter, regardless of the applicant’s views as to the existence of certain records. Furthermore, we do not generally expect FOI bodies to carry out extensive or indefinite general searches for records simply because an applicant asserts that records sought ought to exist.
Having regard to the information before this Office, and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I am satisfied that Tusla has taken all reasonable steps to locate the records sought by the applicant and that it has adequately explained why no further records exist. In the circumstances, I find that Tusla was justified in refusing access to further records sought by the applicant under section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act on the basis that no such records exist or can be found after all reasonable steps to ascertain their whereabouts have been taken.
Having carried out a review under section 22(2) of the FOI Act, I hereby affirm Tusla’s decision to refuse further records coming within the scope of the applicant’s request under section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act.
Section 24 of the FOI Act sets out detailed provisions for an appeal to the High Court by a party to a review, or any other person affected by the decision. In summary, such an appeal, normally on a point of law, must be initiated not later than four weeks after notice of the decision was given to the person bringing the appeal.
Richard Crowley
Investigator