Paul Gogarty (Dublin Mid West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

5. To ask the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice and Equality if there has been progress in removing the in camera rule in the family courts, subject to protection of identity, in order that media reports can be carried out in the interests of transparency; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [54521/25]

Paul Gogarty (Dublin Mid West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The most recent time I raised this matter last June, I criticised the current state of Ireland's family court system and highlighted delays, poor facilities and, in particular, a lack of transparency due to the in camera rule. In response, the Minister acknowledged the widespread public frustration with the family law processes. He said that the full removal of the in camera rule was unlikely due to the need to protect children's identities, but that reform was on the way via the family law implementation group working on this issue. He also said we need better environments for hearings and to find a way for the child's voice to be properly heard. Can the Minister please outline the progress made?

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The primary principle must be that justice should be administered in public. However, there are exceptions to it. The in camera rule is one of them, which applies generally in family law proceedings. As the Deputy knows, it does not preclude newspapers or journalists attending in courts where family law disputes are being heard, but it does preclude them from publishing the identities of individuals. I am pleased to say we have seen some progress in the area. Greater reporting is now taking place in respect of what is happening in the family law courts. We frequently see on a Monday in one of the newspapers that there is a weekly report of a family law case proceeding there.

As I said, research was commissioned and published by my Department on the operation of the in camera rule in family law proceedings, and that report contains 21 recommendations. A number of the strategies that have arisen on foot of that report include the publication of the review of the role of expert reports in the family law process too. The Deputy may be aware this issue is quite contentious and is one that is coming within my consideration of family law strategy. I would like to see the lifting of some of the in camera rule restrictions. Many people who have been before the family law process have expressed their concerns about it. An excellent report was produced by academics recently. It was commissioned by my Department and provided to me. It outlined a lot of general dissatisfaction with the operation of the rule. I have not been able to get recommendations together as to how we should proceed in terms of changing the law. Work is ongoing in the Department in this respect. It does take time, consideration and consultation with parties to assess how we should move on. The work, though, is ongoing and I hope to be in a position to have further information for the House in due course.

Paul Gogarty (Dublin Mid West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We do need to shine more light on these situations. In family disputes involving children, people will sometimes attempt to alienate the kids. The Minister referred to reports. In relation to section 32 and section 47 reports, we have had cases where people have almost treated parental alienation as a proven case when it is not. It is almost like a cult. Immersion therapy is recommended, where children are taken away from their mother for months on end. This is often used as a form of coercive control by a partner who has no real desire to spend time with the children but is using it as a way to punish and control their former partner. In some cases, it has been alleged by a number of people I have met that the judges have said expert Y is very good and they have taken their view. There is no scrutiny or transparency in this regard. It needs to be brought out into the open to protect children. Otherwise, they will be the next generation of abuse cases.

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy is right that the term and concept of "parental alienation" is highly contested and contentious. It is the case with virtually all family law disputes that they become very contested and contentious. I want to try to ensure that when it comes to a family law dispute involving a child there is a mechanism in place to ensure the voice of that child is heard. The system at present probably relies too much on the production of the reports we spoke about a few moments ago. There is a level of dissatisfaction in respect of those reports and I think some of that dissatisfaction is understandable. I need to try to identify another mechanism whereby the voice of the child can become apparent or heard by the court. It is obviously easier in circumstances where there is a teenage child who is able to express their own views to the court, but when it comes to children under the age of ten it gets much more difficult and, as the age declines, it is sometimes virtually impossible to decipher what is in the best interests of the child. It is something we have to keep working on.

Paul Gogarty (Dublin Mid West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I believe it is important to keep the pressure on and to keep working on this issue. In many instances, these so-called experts are not actually qualified, and in many instances they are actually being paid by one parent to produce the report because the other parent cannot afford to have a similar report. It is not a fair situation and the more the media are able to shed light on the situation and the more scrutiny put on it, the less likely it will be that these types of cases will occur in future.

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Just to let the Deputy know, in terms of the recommendations of the review I referred to a few moments ago, one is that we produce guidelines on the commissioning, content and use of welfare reports. The Chief Justice has established a judicial committee to develop guidelines on the commissioning, content and use of welfare reports.

It is being chaired by Ms Justice Nuala Jackson of the High Court and is being supported by my Department. It is expected to conclude its work shortly. We need to ensure, if reports are being produced for a court, that we are satisfied that they are based upon arcane expertise that is of benefit to the court. All courts are dependent upon getting expert evidence. In some cases, it is appropriate that there is expert evidence to assist the court in deciphering what the wishes of the child are, what the voice of the child is, how the child should be heard and what the child is saying. I can understand why that may be necessary in certain circumstances, particularly for younger children. It is absolutely essential that the system retain confidence in that. That is why I am waiting for the proposals from Ms Justice Nuala Jackson.