Ms Catherine Ghent:

Absolutely, if one looks at head 5.1 where it talks about informing the court of the child's views and advising the court on what is in the child's best interests, I was disappointed at the absence of advocating on the child's behalf and in order to give proper expression to that it would be required in there.

In respect of head 5.2, the notion that the child's participation would depend on questions a judge would ask, which would be at the discretion of the judge, does not give effect to Article 42A and needs to be considered. One cannot and would not have that limitation in respect of any other party. I did not say that if a child was a party in his or her own right, there would be no question but that those rights applied and the limitation of the role in head 5 and the issues in head 6 would not arise. That is important if a comparison is being made.