There have been 14 cases taken against the State over the last four years related to the issue of age verification of international protection applicants.
It comes amid confusion about which State agency is responsible for confirming that those who present as unaccompanied minors seeking international protection are indeed underage.
Tusla, the child and family agency, has now confirmed it “does not conduct age assessment in the strict statutory sense” on people who present as unaccompanied minors seeking international protection.
The Department of Justice was forced to clarify last week that the International Protection Office (IPO) is ultimately responsible for determining the age of an applicant being treated as an unaccompanied minor in the system. This is despite the fact that in practice, Tusla was the agency assumed to be responsible for determining someone’s age.
RM Block
Fine Gael TD for Dublin Bay South James Geoghegan, who is a Public Accounts Committee (PAC) member, said the Department of Justice had previously “allowed” the PAC to believe that age verification was Tusla’s responsibility.
Mr Geoghegan used a parliamentary question to ask Tusla for the total number of cases issued against it between 2021 and 2025 where “the question of age assessment has been an issue germane to the proceedings”.
The Tusla response, sent to him this week, confirmed there have been 14 such cases.
It includes three ongoing cases and six where no damages or costs were issued against Tusla. In two cases, the legal costs against Tusla were €45,675.17 and €6,460. In three other cases, the damages awarded against Tusla ranged from €2,500 to €6,460.
Tusla said it was “necessary and important to clarify” it does not conduct age assessment in the strict statutory sense”. Tusla said its role was “confined” to determining if someone referred to it was eligible for services under the Child Care Act 1991. It said the IPO had the responsibility to refer someone to Tusla, if they have “reason to believe” they are a child.
“Therefore, the appropriate authority for determining age for international protection purposes is the International Protection Office,” Tusla said.
Last week, Minister for Justice Jim O’Callaghan told the Dáil that “in practice, and for many years,” Tusla’s assessment has been the one that has been “taken as being determinative of age for the purposes of both eligibility for services and for the processing of an international protection application”.
New laws to reform the international protection system, which are due to come into effect next year, will make the IPO explicitly responsible for arranging and managing age assessments.
“There is a clear divergence between how Tusla describes its statutory responsibilities and how the process has functioned in practice,” Mr Geoghegan said.
“The upcoming legislation must close that gap so that every agency is operating from the same, transparent basis. The emergence of these cases demonstrates the real-world consequences of ambiguity, and reinforces why the reforms need to proceed with urgency and precision to ensure proper safeguards for all children, regardless of where they come from or what their status is.”
