Mr. Keith Walsh:

It really depends and it varies greatly from district to district. The structure of the District Court is that every county has its own district, so we have approximately 26 districts. Each District Court judge is not really answerable to the President of the District Court; he or she is completely a law unto himself or herself. A specialist court system would allow more of a whip in terms of that, to some degree, or certainly a degree of consistency. How the voice of the child is heard differs from case to case. In Dolphin House, there are three judges presiding today who are dealing with access and custody issues. Depending on which judge, there might be three different views on how the voice of the child can be heard. One way that the voice of the child can be heard is through the evidence of the parents. Another way is an expert report and yet another way is the judge speaking to the child in chambers. The latter is the least used method, in my experience, because of the time involved and the lack of training. District Court judges are far more likely than Circuit Court judges to hear children in chambers. Circuit Court judges really do not get involved in that, whereas District Court judges would. The referendum and Article 42A is about hearing the voice of the child but the most important thing is that the welfare of the child is to be paramount in any proceedings involving custody, access or guardianship and also adoption matters.

If there is a dispute about what is in the best interest of the child's welfare, and if the parents' evidence will be very different, one needs to bring in an expert. It is quite difficult to hear the voice of the child without an expert. In the District Court, what has happened is that there are many constitutional, legislative imperatives on the judge without any resources. The experts are simply not available to do the reports.