The veil of secrecy that has surrounded childcare and family law cases in the Courts is, at last, beginning to lift. A blanket ban on the publication of all details in such cases may have been well intentioned at the time. But unintended consequences have resulted in a level of inconsistency in the application of the law; uncertainty and potential unaccountability at official level and, because of a lack of reliable information, damage to public confidence in the courts and the welfare system. Publication this week of details of cases where children were taken into the care of the HSE, without revealing their identity, is an important first step in addressing those shortcomings.
Governments have been reluctant to intrude into matters affecting family life. The collapse of the Inter-party government over the Mother and Child scheme in 1951 set the tone while fear of "the belt of a crozier" continued to influence debate on contraception, divorce, homosexuality and other issues. The physical and sexual abuse of children revealed during recent decades, however, forced a change of mind on official secrecy. Judges also acknowledged that need. Under the Child Care Amendment Act of 2007 provision was made to change the in camera rule, while protecting identities. But necessary regulations were not signed into law. In the meantime, an official inquiry into the number of children who died while in the care of the HSE was denied access to official files. That inquiry recommended the in camera rule be changed because excessive secrecy damaged public confidence in the court system and prevented recognition of the good work being done.
Minister for Children Frances Fitzgerald signed the necessary regulations last year and the Child Care Law Reporting Project was established. Its first report provides an important insight into the complexity and range of the cases dealt with by the Courts. While preserving the anonymity of the children concerned, it provides information on why they ended up in care. It will facilitate an informed public debate on the thresholds for State intervention and the use of alternatives, such as supervision orders, which allow social services to visit families uninvited and check on the welfare of children.
Publication of the details will inform public debate on the kind of child welfare and protection policies that are required, while identifying Court procedures that are in need of reform. The media remain excluded from the family courts. But legislation to provide media access to disputes between couples involving child care and private family law cases is being prepared, as is legislation that will transfer child welfare responsibility from the HSE to a new Child and Family Support Agency. These are positive developments.
