Dr. Sarah Fennell:

Following on from what Ms Baldwin said, we need to draw a distinction between public and private law cases in terms of the variety of mechanisms to hear the voice of the child because what is commonly utilised in public law proceedings is the guardian ad litemprocedure which is not activated in family law proceedings. It is on the Statute Book but it never commenced. That was confirmed a number of years ago in the High Court. There are a variety of mechanisms to include a guardian, depending on the nature of the case, in terms of public or private law. Section 47 reports, as we traditionally know them, are available. They can sometimes now be referred to a section 32-type report. Sometimes the reports are used interchangeably. They are different sections within the Act.

There is also provision to join children as parties to proceedings or to allow children to have their own independent legal representatives. Those two mechanisms are used quite rarely. The other mechanism would be that a judge would hear a child in chambers. That is dependent on the particular judge. Judicial guidelines from the High Court to guide judges in that respect are in place but it is left to the discretion of the individual judge as to whether that is appropriate or not. I can only speak from my own experience, which would be primarily in the Circuit Court or High Court. It is the section 47-type reports that are most commonly utilised and involve private law cases. In the public law cases, it tends to be the guardian ad litemprocedure. Judges may speak with the children in question in cases involving special care orders where teenage children are often be detained. We must be careful because that in itself raises constitutional and procedural issues in terms of the balancing of rights.