Ms Karen Kiernan:

The issue of assessments to court is key. Currently, we have voice-of-the-child reports that are done by child view experts for which there is a level of regulation and control. There are difficulties with that. There is no regulation whatsoever of section 47 child welfare reports. There is nowhere for parents to go. We have had parents report to us very serious concerns about their assessors and there is nothing they can do. There is no professional body they can go to. There is an interesting case in the UK at present on this and the qualifications of someone doing these reports. There is a significant requirement on the State to regulate, at a minimum, people who can do them but ultimately, to pick up on what we said and what Barnardos staff are saying, a lot can be done outside of court for a much lower cost. That is what we do, day in, day out, in One Family. We can have people come to realisations and agreements and they do not have to go down the court route, or they get ratified in court.

Trinity College Dublin and University College Cork, UCC, are doing research for us at present on access for infants in separated families. They are saying that their voices need to be heard. We are not hearing the voices of children who are much older than that. There is no system. If someone cannot afford to pay, it is not happening. We are not vindicating children's rights under the Constitution at present and that is very problematic. Ultimately, each family and each child are different. We need somebody skilled who is able to look at that situation and listen to everybody. Children cannot hold the responsibility of picking whether they get to see a parent or not. They can be consulted but they cannot make that decision unless they are much older. There has to be a system around to do that. We proposed a model in our submission to the family justice oversight group around a family law services model, which would complement what will be done in the courts. It will not be as successful as it should be unless these things are done.

Assessments and the quality and timeliness of information that goes into court are key. I definitely sense a reluctance on the part of the State to regulate, fund or support any kind of reporting on families. Yet, that is what is ultimately needed for the success and closure of cases, which means happier families and less trauma. Our systems are causing adverse childhood experiences. The separation may not do so but the trauma and process families have to go through are causing adverse childhood experiences, which people like us and Tusla need to look at and count to see how traumatised a child is. The State is complicit in creating these situations, unfortunately. There is so much that can be done. If child maintenance could be removed from the family law arena, there would be more resources to do that bit of it properly. Only what has to go to court should do so. Some 80% or 90% of this should be done outside of court. That is across all family law issues, not just maintenance but access, custody, guardianship, etc.