Anne Rabbitte (Galway East, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

We support the Bill in principle as it seeks to establish greater consistency in the appointment and management of the guardian ad litem, GAL, service. We have, however, some concerns about some shortcomings in the Bill and are unclear on whether it complies with the Children Act. We will be bringing forward amendments on Committee Stage.

One of the core requirements under the children's referendum was for the voice of the child to be heard in all court cases affecting the child's interests. In cases where a child is too young or otherwise unable to express his or her views to the court, a guardian ad litemis appointed. This person professionally assesses what he or she believes is in the best interests of the child. The GAL becomes the voice of the child.

There are major shortcomings in this Bill. It simply does not vindicate the rights of children to be heard in court proceedings involving them and, if enacted, will represent a retrograde step in terms of how family law cases are conducted. At present, the court has broad discretion in terms of how much the child and GAL are consulted, meaning that the court can take into account the varying needs of children and allow for a greater role for a guardian ad litem. A GAL can be appointed as party to proceedings, giving considerable leeway to guardians ad litemwhere they believe the court is not protecting the interests of the child adequately. This is vital to protect younger or more vulnerable children.

The Bill will see the child's role in the proceedings downgraded greatly, and he or she will be relegated to being a witness. A GAL will now make a singular report to the court on the interests and views of the child, even though a case can go on for many months, during which time the views and interests of a child can change greatly. The Government must outline how this Bill is not just a mechanism for cutting back on the costs involved with the GAL system.

The Bill proposes downgrading the status of a GAL to be a witness to the case, meaning that he or she will need to be called upon to give evidence, for example, by the judge. It leaves considerable ambiguity as to the degree of involvement of the guardian ad litemin cases. A witness could also be called in for evidence and then asked to leave the court, removing the possibility to brief the child on what is happening during the court case. This is very worrying, and it is unclear how this satisfies the requirements under the Children Act, which clearly sets out that children have their own interests and are not simply an add-on to the interests of their parents or guardians.

Section 25 of the Child Care Act allows the child to become a full party to the proceedings, if that child so wishes. Section 26 of the same Act allows a guardian to be a full party, allowing the GAL to increase his or her role if he or she feels that the judge is not adequately addressing the interests of the child. Will these provisions be protected under the new Act?

A solicitor, Gareth Noble, has expressed his concerns that the Bill will leave behind children who are not capable of expressing their own views to the court, as it reduces the weight assigned to the assessment of guardians ad litem of the child's best interests. He has stated that the Bill "has had no input or consultation from lawyers acting on behalf of the interests of children on the front line".

At present, there is little clarity or consistency around how guardians ad litemare selected and appointed. The Bill seeks to address this by creating a new service that would manage the contracting of guardians ad litem. It is not clear from the Bill, however, how these guardians ad litemwill be selected or whether there will be any professional or educational requirements for them. This will be under secondary legislation, which will accord entire discretion to the Minister as to how guardians ad litemwill be selected. Clear parameters as to the professional requirements for guardians ad litemshould be set out in this Bill.

See this speech in context