Jim O'Callaghan: Balancing Privacy and Family Court Reform

I move, Cathaoirleach. And the first thing I want to do, having moved the amendment, Cathaoirleach, is I want to thank Deputy Gogarty for his motion. I welcome the fact that in the House we're having this debate on family law transparency, child welfare, and indeed reform of the in-camera rule. I think the first thing that needs to be acknowledged is that family disputes, and particularly family law proceedings, are difficult and very traumatic for those involved, particularly for children and victims of domestic violence. I suppose the reason why they are so difficult and traumatic is because they are emotional, they are personal, and they deal with very sensitive issues in persons' lives. I also recognise that litigation to resolve those disputes can itself be very challenging for the litigants involved in this. It's also very challenging, however, for the judges who have to reach a determination based on the evidence that's presented before them in the family law proceedings. At the outset, can I say respectfully, Cathaoirleach, I think as legislators and policy makers, we should all repeat the desire that if people can, people who find themselves in family law proceedings, if they can, they should seek to reach an amicable resolution in respect of those proceedings. There's a huge advantage in parents, partners being able to reach agreement on issues such as access to children or custody of children, and indeed maintenance, because they retain control over the resolution that's achieved. If there isn't agreement on those issues by the individuals involved in the litigation, necessarily what's going to happen is that the court is going to impose its settlement. Now, withstanding the efforts of the court to try to reach the best solution that it thinks appropriate, it's always the case that an agreed resolution is better than an imposed resolution. I want Deputy Gogerty and colleagues to know that I'm fully committed to reforming the family justice system through the implementation of the Family Justice Strategy 2022-2025. This is an ambitious programme on reform, and significant progress has been made in promoting transparency and greater understanding of the family justice system. Several key actions under the strategy are highly relevant to the motion that Deputy Gogerty has put forward, and I'll address each of these in turn, as well as the amendment proposed by Deputy Gibney as well. The first thing I want to do is the in-camera rule, which has been referred to by Deputy Gogerty in his motion. At the outset, we know from the Constitution that there's a requirement that justice be administered in public. Consequently, transparency and promoting a greater understanding of the family law system is critical to maintaining and building trust in it. But I think we also need to recognise at the same time that those who find themselves before the courts seeking a resolution to their family justice disputes, they need to be assured that they will have privacy and that their children will be protected and maintained. And as committed to in the Family Justice Strategy, and as mentioned by Deputy Gogerty, I commissioned a review of the operation of the in-camera rule in family law proceedings. I published it in May 2025. It sets out 21 recommendations, which I'm considering. Deputy Gogerty has made a number of suggestions, including for the introduction of stand-alone legislation on the in-camera rule. I want him to know I'm giving consideration to not only legislative change, but also to a broader range of measures that could be promptly introduced, such as improving awareness and training for parties, legal professionals and members of the media on the operation of the rule. Deputy Gogerty mentioned about permitting attendance and reporting by accredited journalists and legal bloggers. I'd like to remind him that family law proceedings concerning child custody, access, guardianship and childcare matters allow attendance and reporting from specified persons under statutory provisions, such as Section 40 of the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004, provided that the anonymity of the parties is preserved at all times. I think everyone in this House would agree with me that it is important to preserve the anonymity of individuals, particularly children, who are before the family law courts. I acknowledge that improving awareness and understanding of the operation of the in-camera rule is integral to informing future reforms in the area. In that context, I commissioned the establishment of the Private Family Law Reporting Project under the leadership of Dr Carol Coulter. This three-year project will observe a representative sample of cases across different court jurisdictions and geographical areas, and I believe it will enhance transparency. It's also important to acknowledge the Child Law Project, established in 2012, which attends childcare proceedings that would otherwise be held in private in order to conduct research on childcare law. The Child Law Project, commissioned by the Department of Children, independently observes and publishes anonymised information about in-camera childcare proceedings. I just want to deal now with another contentious issue, which is the role of expert reports. These are reports sometimes referred to as Section 47 reports. Another key action in my family justice strategy is to review the role of expert reports in family law proceedings. That review, published in June 2024, sets out 20 recommendations. Earlier this month, in fact I think it was about two or three weeks ago, I published the judicial guidelines on the commissioning, preparation, content and usage of expert reports in family law proceedings. I launched them along with the Chief Justice. These aim to promote consistency and best practice in the use of welfare reports in private family law proceedings. In parallel, a Voice of the Child working group is progressing the development of the Voice of the Child report template and guidelines to ensure consistency. This group is also establishing a children's court advocate pilot project. Work is also underway to establish a panel of family law assessors, which will address concerns such as lack of regulation and inadequate training or accreditation in respect to the provision of reports. The third issue I want to deal with is training, working group and family justice strategy. In response to Deputy Gowdy's point regarding the need for clear education and training, I want to highlight that there has been significant progress. The strategy established a working group in July 2024 and is reviewing existing training and developing effective relevant training programs for family justice stakeholders such as the GRD. Also, there is the 2025-2026 implementation plan for the third national strategy on DSGBV, which is a relevant part of that as well. It outlines mandatory DSGBV training for those working in family law. One of the issues suggested by Deputy Gibney in her amendment is that judges would be provided with bench books. My own view in respect to that amendment is that that would be probably an interference with the separation of powers under the Constitution for the government to start intruding on the independence of the judiciary by providing them with bench books, guiding them on how to administer justice in the courts. The Judicial Council supports judges with comprehensive training programs and in the development of appropriate materials such as bench books. A training working group was established in July 2024, comprises membership from key government departments, state agencies and legal professional bodies, including the Judicial Council. Can I just look at the Family Courts? The Family Courts Act was enacted by the Oireachtas in 2024. It is a key component of my strategy and contains a number of provisions designed to make the family court process more focused on the needs of children as well as user-friendly, safer and less costly. Earlier this month I published the implementation plan for the Family Courts Act which will deliver on these aims. Can I also just say in respect of two other issues raised by Deputy Gogerty, in response to his point on providing clearer guidance to parents, improving information and awareness is a key priority under the strategy. The court service has made significant progress through its Family Law Information Hub which provides accessible plain language guidance to help families better understand the system. Also in terms of the Deputy's call for strengthening statutory oversight of TUSA, it's important to note that as an independent agency, TUSA is independent in the performance of its functions. It has a very difficult task to perform as I'm sure everyone will agree. The framework in place for the governance and oversight of TUSA is comprised of relationships of oversight direction and reporting between the Minister for the Department of Children and TUSA. Also there's a range of formal arrangements in place between the Department of Children and TUSA. In addition, TUSA services and individual social workers are also subject to multiple levels of oversight. So to conclude, can I thank the Deputy for bringing this motion on these important issues. I am working in respect of the areas that he has highlighted in the motion, in particular the in-camera rule and indeed the section 47 reports. But can I just conclude by saying what I said at the outset. I know it may be difficult in family law proceedings for people who, you know, they're difficult proceedings. They're not like ordinary civil court proceedings, whether they're commercial proceedings or proceedings between entities that don't have any emotional involvement. Family law proceedings are very emotional. They're very contentious. But it is important that people recognize that they can seek to control the outcome of them by reaching a resolution themselves in respect of access and custody. Because ultimately that's what the court's going to do.