CHILDREN'S charities such as Barnardos and the ISPCC have come out against the Minister for Child Care's decision not to introduce mandatory reporting, while social workers and probation officers have supported him.
Mr Currie yesterday defended his decision, pointing out that it represented the consensus of the forum on child abuse he organised in September.
The decision on mandatory reporting was contained in a statement issued yesterday, announcing the establishment of an ombudsman to promote and protect children's rights. This decision has been universally welcomed.
The Dublin Rape Crisis Centre and the ISPCC have led the expressions of disappointment on mandatory reporting. "The two organisations regret that departmental advisers and senior health board management have effectively vetoed the single most important child care reform which is the sine qua non to give effect to any of the measures contained in the Child Care Act," they said in a joint statement.
"Rejecting mandatory reporting is equivalent to tearing up the Kilkenny Report, Madonna House Report, Kelly Fitzgerald Report and, perhaps most ominously, the current Department of Health Child Abuse Guidelines."
Ms Liz O'Donnell, the Progressive Democrats spokeswoman on justice, described the Ministers decision as "a bad decision in substance and in the mode of its announcement." She said Mr Currie was clearly ashamed of it, as he had refused to make it on the floor of the Dail, where he could be questioned about it.
However, the Irish Association of Social Workers supported the Minister's decision. "Like the Kilkenny Incest Report and the Madonna House Report, the IASW believes that mandatory reporting should only be introduced if there is confidence that the system has the ability to respond effectively and quickly, and that the introduction of mandatory reporting should not precede other major changes and developments in the child care system."
The Probation and Welfare branch of the IMPACT trade union also supported the decision. "This branch submission to that consultation (undertaken by the Minister) took as given that present reporting arrangements are unsatisfactory and we welcome a revision," it said in a statement.
"For reasons including the difficulty mandatory reporting would pose to therapeutic work with perpetrators of abuse, probation and welfare officers' branch questioned the effectiveness of the measure in enhancing child welfare."
However, the children's charity, Barnardos, expressed its disappointment. Ms Madeleine Clarke said. "We believe mandatory reporting should be introduced. The argument that it would impose too much of a strain on resources is not acceptable, if it is desirable in principle."
It had been argued that mandatory reporting would interfere with the confidential relationship between professional and client, but this raised the question as to whose rights came first those of the person sitting in front of the professional, or of the other children who might be at risk, she said. However, the issue needed to be dealt with very sensitively, she added.
Responding to the argument that mandatory reporting led to an increase in unsubstantiated reporting, she said that as there was an overall increase in reports, this was true. But there was also an increase in substantiated cases.
The Children's Rights Alliance, which is made up of some 60 organisations including Barnardos, as well as teachers unions and parents' organisations, welcomed the commitment on the ombudsman for children, which it had recommended.
Ms Clarke, who is also spokes woman for it, said the organisations also supported more resources for child protection and to improve services. There was no consensus among the affiliated organisations on mandatory reporting, with some in favour and some against, she said.
In his statement announcing the range of measures to improve child protection, Mr Currie said he noted the majority view of those involved in child welfare "that the introduction of mandatory reporting in the immediate future would not be in the best interests of children."
He was strengthening existing arrangements for reporting child abuse, to be evaluated over a three year period. He added. "Should the evaluation demonstrate that mandatory reporting would be in the best interests of children or that a statutory basis is needed to ensure inter agency cooperation, the necessary legislation will be introduced."
He told The Irish Times that the argument about mandatory reporting had been thrashed out during the child abuse forum. "I invited everyone to it who had made a submission to my discussion document," he said. "Everyone who was anyone in child care was there. The consensus was overwhelmingly against mandatory reporting. That's the day the battle was lost and won and I had to think in other terms.