Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for allowing me to present to the House on this issue yet again. It relates to the ongoing difficulty in family law cases concerning a concept that is not recognised or supported but is strongly contested, nationally and internationally, by various proponents and opponents. It concerns cases where mothers, and in some cases fathers, are forcibly separated from their children and allowed only under very special circumstances to speak to them over the telephone. In some cases, they have been separated for a number of years, with obvious consequential hardship and stress to the parent or parents and possibly creating serious mental health problems for the child.

It sounds unreal and few people would believe it happens, but it happens under cover of the in camerarule, where anything can happen and cannot be reported outside the court and Tusla cannot intervene because it is subject to the rule as well. It has been used extensively by Mr. Jim Sheehan, whom I have mentioned previously in the House, and a number of members of his cohort. It is a lucrative campaign in the sense that every report costs about €8,000, and that is supposed to be an expert report, although it has transpired that not everyone who makes these reports is an expert or has any competence in the area.

Without any more being said about that, this was taken up by a UN special rapporteur on human rights to the extent she made a recommendation the concept be legislated for, struck off the books and expunged completely from any form of shape or use, along with anything like it, in future family law cases. This will have the effect of at least having a level playing field when such cases are being discussed. It will mean the terrible burden and stress caused to many parents throughout the country will be lifted. It will also mean that when this State and other states legislate to eliminate its use, no other pseudo-concept will be able to be introduced under the radar to do the same job. It is not necessary in law and it is not accordance with the Constitution or the civil or human rights of individuals.

It is sad that in this country, in which we rightly boast about all the freedoms that are available through membership of the European Union and by virtue of living in a Republic, this practice continues. In the first instance, I ask that the legislation be seriously considered in the shortest possible time to address what is a scandal. It is a serious blot on our society that this is allowed to happen, albeit under the in camerarule.

See this speech in context