Ms June Tinsley:

Thank you, Chairman. Overall, Barnardos supports many aspects of this progressive Bill as it finally gives legal recognition and clarity to children being raised in different family types. This is long overdue, because the current legal framework is outdated and fails to recognise the diverse ways of conceiving and raising children. The child-centred focus is evident throughout much of the Bill and we certainly welcome that. In the interests of brevity, my presentation will concentrate only on some aspects of the Bill.
We are certainly pleased to see that parentage is viewed more widely than the genetic make-up of the child. It removes the legal uncertainty experienced by many parents who do not have a genetic link to their child yet provide the security, love and encouragement that a biological parent would provide.
However, we do have concerns about the Bill's consequences for birth registration procedures, which are not explored in the legislation. Will the birth certificate record biological details, including the use of donor material? Will another parentage declaration certificate be issued stating who has been assigned parentage? This has implications for establishing the child’s surname, for example, in cases in which he or she is being raised by a same-sex family.
It is great to see that in part 3 legal clarity is being given to those families who become parents through assisted reproduction and surrogacy, and the use of donor material in these methods. For too long these families have been living in legal limbo. However, Barnardos is concerned that the Bill does not provide guidance regarding the recording of donor material. It is denying the child’s right to know who his or her biological parents are. Denial of access to such information repeats the mistakes of the past whereby some adopted people were denied access to their records.
Access to donor information can be fundamental to a child's overall development and health, especially when medical issues arise. Ireland must regulate this sector and establish an official register of donors whose information can then be passed onto donor-conceived people at a later date.
Another worrying proposal, under head 13, is that the surrogate will be the legal mother until the court assigns parentage based on the application received, and such an application can be made up to six months after the birth of the child. This timeframe is not in the best interests of the child, as the surrogate will not be caring for the child, yet any important decisions to be made regarding the child’s health or welfare rest with the surrogate. At the very least, one of the intending parents should also be granted parentage upon the birth of the child to ensure consistency in the care and decision-making relating to the child’s welfare.
With regard to guardianship, Barnardos is pleased that the Bill strengthens the rights of some unmarried fathers who satisfy the cohabitation clause. It correctly recognises and values the commitment of fathers to their children. However, we do support some of the concerns raised by Treoir regarding non-cohabiting fathers. Head 32 mandates the court to ensure that decisions regarding guardianship, access or custody are made in the best interests of the child and to ensure their voices are heard. This is something Barnardos has long campaigned for and echoes the commitment in the Constitutional amendment. Unfortunately, the Bill does not indicate how the court should examine these aspects. Barnardos believes this is where the role of family assessments, including the use of guardians ad litem, should be undertaken. They should be given due consideration to allow the court to assess the whole picture of what the child’s life is like and what effect their decision may have on the child.
The Bill allows for the child to have multiple guardians, each of whom has the right to make day-to-day decisions, such as where the child should live, consent to medical treatments and decisions about their education. The current wording of the Bill means that fractious guardians will have to regularly revert to the court over details of the child’s life. This is not in best interests of the child and could delay significant decisions being made, as well as having cost implications for everyone involved. The Bill should not create a situation in which children could end up as pawns between multiple fighting guardians. There has to be some recognition of the ability of a parent who looks after a child for a majority of the time to make reasonable decisions on the day-to-day care of the child.
With regard to Parts 8 and 13, Barnardos believes that some aspects of the Bill could be strengthened. These include assessing all couples for their suitability for mediation prior to the lodging of an application for guardianship, custody or access. Engagement in mediation can lead to faster resolutions of cases and is more cost-effective. However, if any domestic violence or child protection concerns are present, these cases should be dealt with within the court process.
Capturing the voices and wishes of the child will be diluted if head 58(1)(b) is unaltered, as it allows any person to compile a social report regarding the welfare of a child. It also permits these people to become guardians ad litem. Guardians ad litemshould be professionals with the required expertise and training to talk to children about highly sensitive and difficult situations. Barnardos has long called for greater regulation and transparency with regard to guardian ad litemservices.

The legislation and forthcoming regulations must be compiled in close collaboration with the Department of Children and Youth Affairs and build on the guidance of the Children's Act advisory board.