Alexandre Pallares was trusted to care for babies. When ordinary playroom clutter frustrated him, the childcare worker grabbed a 19-month-old boy and drove him face-first onto toy bricks. The Spanish national then allowed the child's parents to be told that their son had simply fallen. CCTV exposed what actually happened.

19 monthsAge of the child placed in his care.
CCTVEvidence that overturned the false account.
21 monthsImmediate custodial term.

Normal toddler play triggered a violent response

On 22 October 2024, Pallares was working at a Giraffe creche when he became frustrated by toys and boxes on a playroom floor. The child was not misbehaving. He was engaged in ordinary play.

CCTV showed Pallares grab the 19-month-old, upend him and force him face-first onto a Duplo brick. The child's forehead and cheek were bruised, with the shape of the bricks visibly indented in his skin. Judge Elva Duffy described the attack as fast, furious and completely outside any normal response to frustration.

Pallares later pleaded guilty at Naas Circuit Criminal Court to assault causing harm. A separate child-cruelty charge relating to the same incident was taken into consideration. This file distinguishes the concluded assault conviction from that associated charge.

The first story was that the child fell

At 11.36am, the boy's mother received a call telling her that her son had lost his balance and fallen onto Duplo. She was told that a doctor was unnecessary and that the child remained in good form. When both parents collected him later, a manager reportedly told them that such things happened at that age.

Pallares had not immediately reported what he did. The court heard that he falsely claimed to have comforted the crying boy and brought him to a kitchen for an icepack. The parents learned the truth two days later, after the creche reviewed CCTV because management suspected a separate supervision problem involving Pallares's mobile phone.

After arrest, Pallares tried to attribute his account to nervousness and translation difficulties. Judge Duffy rejected that explanation: the original story was a falsehood and a self-serving attempt to avoid consequences.

A qualified childcare worker in a position of trust

The court heard that Pallares held childcare qualifications from Spain. He had worked at the creche for about a year during an earlier period and returned in June 2024. His role placed him in direct care of babies who could not protect themselves or explain what had been done to them.

That trust was an aggravating feature at sentence. Detective Garda Padraig Murphy also told the court that Pallares showed no emotion or empathy during interview. The defence said he had no previous convictions, entered an early guilty plea, lost his childcare job and recognised that he would never work with children again.

Pallares brought €5,000 to court as a gesture of remorse. Judge Duffy directed that it be offered to the parents or, if they declined, to Barnardos. The reviewed reports do not state which recipient ultimately received it.

A family's loss of trust

The boy's father described the CCTV as something that haunted him and intruded into both social and professional life. He said the attack had caused lasting damage to the family's ability to trust people in positions of care.

The court heard that the child experienced anxiety and night terrors and developed a fear of adult men. His father also criticised the response of the creche and Tusla, describing a lack of concern and willingness to help. Those criticisms were part of the victim-impact statement; the located reports do not publish findings by Tusla or another regulator on them.

Sentence, nationality and residence limits

On 9 October 2025, Judge Duffy imposed three years' imprisonment and suspended the final 15 months. The immediate custodial term was therefore 21 months. The suspended portion requires two years of Probation Service supervision after release and compliance with conditions aimed at addressing his offending behaviour.

The final court report explicitly identifies Pallares as a Spanish national. His barrister said that he wished to remain in Ireland and was working in a restaurant after losing the creche position. The reviewed sources do not state his arrival date, immigration permission or any later residence or removal decision. EU nationality alone does not establish an enforcement outcome, and none is inferred.

Chronology

  • Earlier period: Pallares works at the same creche for approximately 12 months; exact dates were not reported.
  • June 2024: he returns to work at the creche.
  • 22 October 2024: Pallares assaults the 19-month-old boy and a false account of an accidental fall is given to the family.
  • 24 October 2024: the parents are told about the assault after management reviews CCTV.
  • Before sentence: Pallares pleads guilty to assault causing harm; the child-cruelty charge is taken into consideration.
  • 9 October 2025: Naas Circuit Criminal Court imposes three years with the final 15 months suspended and two years of post-release supervision.
  • 6 August 2026: no later appeal or altered disposition is located in the record check.

The taxpayer-cost boundary

The Irish Prison Service reported an average 2024 cost of €99,072 per available, staffed prison space, excluding capital expenditure. Applying that system average to the 21-month immediate term produces a nominal benchmark of €173,376.

This is arithmetic, not a Pallares-specific invoice. It assumes the full immediate term and a constant annual rate. It does not adjust for custody already credited, remission, release arrangements, inflation or the actual prison days served. The suspended 15 months are excluded.

The figure also excludes the Garda investigation, CCTV review, prosecution, legal aid, court hearings, Probation Service supervision, any Tusla or regulatory work, and services required by the child and his family because reliable case-level allocations were not published. Their real State-resource footprint is unknown, not zero.

Questions for public accountability

  1. What safeguarding and supervision checks applied when Pallares returned to the creche in June 2024?
  2. Why did the child's family initially receive a false accidental-fall account, and who authorised the reassurance that medical attention was unnecessary?
  3. What did the creche and Tusla do after the CCTV established the assault?
  4. What controls now prevent Pallares from returning to childcare work in Ireland or elsewhere?
  5. What case-specific costs arose across policing, prosecution, imprisonment, supervision, regulation and victim support?

Sources

Record checked: 6 August 2026. The 9 October 2025 sentence is the latest located outcome. No later appeal or altered disposition was found. Spanish nationality is explicit in the final court report. The €173,376 figure is a conditional system-average benchmark, not a case invoice.