Paula Butterly: Valerie's Law, Child Safety First

Thank you, Caiann Comhairle. Minister, first I'd like to thank you for the work that you have done on this Bill, and I would like to acknowledge the relentless work and advocacy of David French and his family in regards to the work behind the Bill. When we talk about laws like Valerie's Law, we're ultimately asking a difficult but essential question. What does justice mean for a child whose parent has committed the most serious harm imaginable, killing the other parent? There's often an instinct in law to preserve parental rights wherever possible, and this is right because the Constitution recognises the importance of family, and the bond between parent and child is one that should never be lightly broken. But we must be clear about one thing. Parental rights are not absolute. They exist alongside and must sometimes give way to the rights and well-being of the child. In situations of domestic homicide, it is simply not acceptable to assume that a perpetrator should always have access to their child. First, we must consider the psychological reality for the child. A child who has lost one parent at the hands of the other is not just grieving, they're dealing with a profound trauma, forcing or even allowing contact in all cases risks reopening that trauma, creating fear, confusion and emotional harm that would be felt not just today or tomorrow, but well into the future. Access in these circumstances is not always a benefit. It can be a source of significant psychological damage. Second, we must look at the nature of the crime itself. The act of killing the child's other parents represents a fundamental breach of trust, responsibility and care. It's not just a crime against an individual, it's a violation that directly affects the child's sense of safety and stability. A person who has committed such an act in many ways compromises their role as a caregiver. Third, there is an issue of power and control. Even limited access can allow a perpetrator to continue exerting influence over the child or over even the wider family. In cases of domestic violence, control does not always end with the criminal act. It can continue through legal processes and claims of parental involvement. The law must be careful not to become a tool that extends that control. Fourth, we must prioritise the best interests of the child as the overriding principle. And this, while it is the fourth point here, it is the most fundamental and important point. This is not a moral claim, it is a legal standard. The child's welfare must always come first, ahead of any entitlement the parent may claim. And in many cases of domestic homicide, maintaining contact simply will not meet that standard. There is nothing to argue that access should never be allowed. There may be rare exceptional circumstances where carefully managed contact is appropriate. But the key point to this is that access should never be assumed or automatic. Instead, it must be carefully assessed, strictly controlled, and only permitted where it clearly benefits the child. Valerie's law reflects this shift in thinking. It moves us away from a system that prioritised parental status and towards one that centres the child's safety, dignity and emotional wellbeing. In conclusion, Minister, we must recognise that in extreme cases, the question is not what the parent is entitled to, but what the child needs in order to heal, to feel safe and to move forward. And sometimes that means recognising that no access at all is the most favourable outcome in these scenarios. So Minister, once again I thank you. Once again, I want to acknowledge the French family for all their efforts. It's quite extraordinary. And to reiterate the point that the child's interest has to always be centre of every argument we make. Thank you.