Michael Healy-Rae (Kerry South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 164: To ask the Minister for Justice and Equality if his attention has been drawn to the link between child abuse and domestic violence; if he will ensure that the best practice principle of protecting the child through the protection and support of the non-abusive parent is acknowledged and reflected in any new child protection structures and in any review of family law and domestic violence legislation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [38051/11]

Michael Healy-Rae (Kerry South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 165: To ask the Minister for Justice and Equality if he will progress the review and reform of domestic violence legislation as soon as possible so that it includes the extension of safety orders to dating-type relationships; if he will remove the length-of-cohabitation requirements for barring orders when the applicant has a sole or greater interest in the property; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [38052/11]

Michael Healy-Rae (Kerry South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 166: To ask the Minister for Justice and Equality his views on whether there should be a better system, when domestic violence cases go to court, in which children involved in these cases should have the opportunity, in a proper way with professional persons, of giving evidence which would be vital in assisting a judge in making a determination as to how they should proceed in adjudicating on the case; his views on whether we are neglecting the health, safety and well being of our children by not ensuring that such a provision would be strictly enforced and adhered to; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [38053/11]

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I propose to take Questions Nos. 164 to 166, inclusive, together.

There are already specific provisions in place in the Domestic Violence Act 1996 which provide protection to children. In particular, in an application for a safety order or a barring order the court may grant an order to an applicant where it is of the opinion that the safety or welfare, including both the physical and psychological welfare, of the applicant or a dependent person (a child of the applicant and the respondent or either of them) requires it. A health authority may also apply for a safety order or a barring order in relation to an "aggrieved person", including a child.

The Programme for Government commitment - to introduce consolidated and reformed domestic violence legislation to address all aspects of domestic violence, threatened violence and intimidation, in a way that provides protection to victims - will be progressed as soon as possible having regard to the need for consultations and the need to dispose of urgent legislative matters in my Department under the EU/IMF Programme of Financial Support for the State.

I am considering making suitable measures available for applicants who are or have been in relationships but who may never have cohabited with the person causing the risk. While there are already measures available under section 10 of the Non-Fatal Offences against the Person Act 1997, the criminal threshold of proof applies in those cases. Accordingly, I am considering whether persons in non-cohabiting relationships may be included in the category of people who may apply for a safety order.

In relation to the cohabitation requirements to obtain a barring order, it should be noted that there is a constitutional impediment to removing that requirement entirely where the respondent has any interest in a shared property. This is because the order may have the effect of restricting the property rights of the respondent. However, I will give full consideration to any measures which may enhance protections for an applicant while respecting the respondent's constitutional rights.

In advance of wider reform, I introduced reforms to domestic violence legislation by means of the Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2011. That Act removed the minimum required period of cohabitation before one of a cohabiting couple may apply for a safety order (previously, the applicant was required to have resided with the respondent for at least six of the previous twelve months) and gave equal access to the protections of the Domestic Violence Act to opposite-sex and same-sex couples (the relevant provision previously referred only to couples "living together as husband and wife"). The 2011 Act also widened the scope of section 2 of the 1996 Act, which specifies who may apply for a safety order, to enable a person to obtain a safety order against a person with whom they have a child in common. This is the only exception to the general rule that the protections available under the Domestic Violence Acts are for the benefit of persons who have lived together in the same household.

The Children Act 1997 makes comprehensive provisions for the giving of evidence in civil proceedings by children, by means of television links and through intermediaries, and the admissibility of and weight to be given to such evidence. I can assure the Deputy that operation of the law in these areas is reviewed by my Department on an ongoing basis.