A spokesperson for Ireland’s Ombudsman for Children said it is “very concerned” that the best-interests principle was not referenced in the new policy.
On 12 June, the Department of Justice officially rolled out its fresh family-reunification rules.
These govern whether someone settled in Ireland can bring family members to live with them, and if so, which ones, and under which conditions.
The changes affected the rights of Irish citizens, people from outside the European Economic Area (EEA) on different immigration stamps, and people who've come to Ireland seeking asylum.
Much has been said about these new policies. That they make family reunions more expensive. That they narrow the opportunity – and even, for some, take it away entirely – for people who have turned to the state for housing or other social support to live alongside their loved ones.
“Minister [Jim] O’Callaghan [of Fianna Fáil] and Minister [Colm] Brophy [of Fine Gael] have, with a few strokes of a pen, made the intentional decision of keeping families apart, possibly forever,” said Nick Henderson, CEO of the Irish Refugee Council, in a press release, last month.
But the new family reunification policy document included a smaller tweak that went unremarked. It does not include considering “the best interests of the child” in assessing reunification cases.
That was explicitly laid out in the old one. “In cases involving a child, the best interests of that child will be a key consideration in any decision made,” that version said.
Legal academics say committing to the idea that the best interests of the child are what matters the most in family-reunion cases flows from Article Three of the UN's Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) – to which Ireland became a signatory in 1992.
“In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration,” says the convention.
In practice, it means the interests of the child prevail over state interests, including “control of borders or migration control”, said Patrícia Nabuco Martuscelli, lecturer in international relations at the University of Sheffield in the United Kingdom.
A spokesperson for Ireland’s Ombudsman for Children said it is “very concerned” that the best-interests principle was not referenced in the new policy.
It recommends that the Department of Justice revise the document during its annual review “to ensure compliance with Ireland’s children’s rights obligations under the UNCRC”.
“This includes the right to family life, and the right to have their best interest treated as a primary consideration, and their right to have family reunification requests dealt with in a positive, humane, and expeditious manner,” they said.
A spokesperson for the Department of Justice said it had “restructured” the old policy to change the rules for how much a person must earn before they can bring family members to come live with them to match the current cost of living and to align with a scheme for family reunification of refugees under asylum law.
Officials still consider children’s best interests, they said, pointing to a clause in the new policy that mentions “child protection”.
“In the case of children or vulnerable adults, ensuring that no child protection or other concerns arise,” that clause says.
But Martuscelli said mentioning “child protection” is not the same as explicitly agreeing to prioritise children's best interests. It is broad and vague, she said, and can mean different things to different people.
In contrast, the Department of Justice does mention prioritising the “best interests of the child” in its new asylum law – including in the context of how the asylum process should treat children who are on their own here.
Unlike the family reunification policy for immigrants from outside of the EEA, the asylum law had to be in step with the EU’s Asylum and Migration Management Regulation – better known as the EU Pact – which embraces the best interests principle.
So, it is mentioned there a bunch, even in the context of detention. “It is assessed by the member or officer that the detention is in the minor’s best interests,” it says in one place.
Mark Klaassen, assistant professor at the Europa Institute of Leiden University in the Netherlands, said it’s possible that officials of a country never wrote down the best interest principle on paper but adhered to it in practice.
“But it’s telling indeed that, like, first it was there, and now it’s not there anymore,” he said.
When children’s best interests are guaranteed, it means there are kinder procedures that accommodate their needs, said Martuscelli, the academic at Sheffield University.
Both Klaassen and Martuscelli said that leaving it out makes sense in the context of a new policy that takes a harsher view and narrows access to family reunification.
Martuscelli said she’s been reading about Ireland's overhaul of the policies and how they prioritise state interests, which makes it more important to ensure that they won’t come before children’s needs.
Kids with different circumstances and varied layers of vulnerability can be part of these applications, she said. “It can be Irish children, where one parent is Irish,” she said, and it can be immigrant kids who are alone here.
Those with refugee status wouldn't normally apply to reunite with loved ones – unless they formed a relationship with them after they moved here – under the novel family reunification policy document.
Instead, their cases for reunification with family members are assessed under the new asylum law.
The text of that law says that “the best interests of the minor shall be a primary consideration”, in a section about the rights of those granted refugee status – which includes the right to reunite with a family member.
The spokesperson for the Ombudsman for Children said the best interests principle outlined in the new asylum law should in practice apply to decisions on their family reunification cases, too.
It has already flagged concerns with officials about hardened rules that narrow refugees’ rights to bring over close family members, they said.
Under past rules, refugees had one year right after getting status to apply to reunite with close family without having to meet income thresholds laid out in the policy document for reunification of non-EEA immigrants who didn't have refugee status.
But now they have to wait for two years after being granted sanctuary to be able to apply, make a certain amount of money – unless they are a child and can't get a job – and not receive social housing aid or live on social welfare paychecks.
Martuscelli, the academic at Sheffield University, said that adding things like a waiting period of two years for every refugee means the best interests of their kids weren't considered in drawing up those policies.
Prioritising children's needs means closing the space between them and their parents as soon as possible. Especially if they’re younger, Martuscelli said, so they won’t grow up carrying scars of childhood separation long-term.
“We’re talking about child development. If a child is separated from a main carer, this can have very detrimental effects later in life,” said Martuscelli.
Even before the new policies kicked in, parents had said they faced prolonged delays in reuniting with their kids.
Annie Ukegbu applied under the now-retired International Protection Act 2015 to bring over her children back in early May 2025, she said.
The former legislation did not feature the best interests principle as much as the new EU-based law does.
But it still crops up, including at the end of a section on reuniting with a family member who is abroad or a loved one who lives in Ireland but may be undocumented or lack a stable immigration status.
Still, Ukegbu keeps waiting for a decision on her application, even though her kids' situation is precarious, she said.
Ukegbu had wanted to flee Nigeria to seek safety with all four of her kids, but she couldn’t afford the cost, she said recently.
So, she came alone, leaving her kids under the care of a friend because her family is part of the reason why she had to get away, Ukegbu said.
When she first applied for permission to bring her kids to Ireland to live with her, “they [the Department of Justice] stated that I shouldn’t contact them unless I’m contacted or I move address”, said Ukegbu.
When she did move and reached out to let them know, she couldn’t help but ask for an update on the case, too, she said.
“I asked them, ‘Please, what about my children’s application?’ They didn’t say anything about it," she said.
Her youngest child was two years old when Ukegbu escaped. In September, she turns five, she said.
Her friends can’t look after her kids for much longer, she said, and it presses on her mind all the time.
“It has messed me up emotionally and psychologically; I’m always shattered; I’m always worried,” she said.
It almost feels like she’s not really here, said Ukegbu. “Do you understand?”
Just recently, she was Facetiming her nine-year-old boy when the kid burst out crying, asking when he could see his mama again, Ukegbu said.
She took a screenshot even though it kills her to see it, she said. She sends the shot on WhatsApp. It shows a little boy gazing down. His mouth is open. Tears trickle down his cheeks.
They're still thinking about the best way forward, and that might be improving the current system rather than replacing it, said Alan Dillon, Minister of State with responsibility for the Circular Economy.
Some tenants had been disconnecting window restrictors put in to keep people from falling out windows, which are required under building regulations, an email from the building manager said.
Consolidating operations into one main hub would be the dream, says Amy Carey, CEO of Solas Project, but they don't yet know what doing up the vacant building on Cork Street would cost.
