Very little is known about what happens in the family law courts, except by those who work in them or are unfortunate enough to be before them.
And even they know little about what is happening in cases they are not involved in. Proceedings are held in camera with only the barest data – such as how many custody applications are made, or protection, safety or barring orders granted – gathered by the Courts Service.
We do not know for instance, how many custody disputes require expert reports, how many disputes over access involve domestic violence, what type of custody arrangements are ordered, what types of orders different judges make, or how many are appealed.
And because it is a system none of us hears much about and fewer of us ever think about, those who do end up needing it, often at the most difficult times of their lives, have little idea what to expect and even less how to navigate the family justice system.
What we do hear anecdotally is that proceedings are often unnecessarily adversarial, too drawn-out, too reliant on experts with varying qualifications, often heard by judges without specialist training, in cramped buildings and at the end of long days where the judge has already heard up to 80 other cases.
[ Family law system to be overhauled with children’s interests ‘paramount’Opens in new window ]
Families in recent weeks have described to The Irish Times how their experiences of the family law courts have left them feeling “devastated”, “traumatised” and “broken” by a system some said was “chaotic”, “inhumane” and “not fit for purpose”. Most felt their children’s voices were not properly heard in proceedings that would arguably have the greatest impacts on them.
Calls for radical change date back to 1996, when the Law Reform Commission was among the first to call for an overhaul of the family courts – echoed over the years by academics, senior members of the judiciary, parent and children’s rights charities, and the Child Care Law Reporting Project (CCLRP) which provides anonymised reports on childcare proceedings involving Tusla.
It is perhaps a pity then, albeit understandable, that publication on Wednesday of the first national family law strategy and announcement of a Family Court Bill by Minister for Justice Helen McEntee received relatively muted response.
They both matter, enormously, to the thousands of families and children whose lives are so dramatically affected in the hands of the family-law courts. The child-welfare, mental health and financial implications of the decisions made in them cannot be over-stated.
The legislation will see the establishment of a dedicated family-court divisions within the court system, the completion of a new dedicated family court complex and provision for dedicated family-court judges hearing cases in dedicated family courtrooms.
The strategy, with nine central goals, is wide-ranging, ambitious and identifies the “voice of the child” as the most important in all proceedings involving them. It includes times-lines and an oversight body, but lacks costings for an expensive raft of promises.
Among its suggestions is that the limits of the in camera rule be “explored” to ascertain whether reports, judgments and trends could be shared among legal practitioners, and, a project similar to the CCLRP be conducted in private family law proceedings.
Alongside her at Government buildings Minister for Social Protection, Heather Humphreys, announced changes to the maintenance system which she said would “put more money” in single-parents’ pockets – the vast majority of whom she acknowledged were mothers whose children are at greatest risk of poverty. This includes that maintenance will no longer be included in the means test assessment for the One Parent Family Payment. This measure has been costed at €10 million.
The promised reforms, if delivered, could have a transformative impact on how families and children at the most desperate times in their lives, fare in our family justice system. Crucial will be mechanisms to monitor whether reforms happen.