Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
NEW LEGISLATION IS to be introduced that will allow press access to family law and child care proceedings in court.
The Department of Justice said today that Minister for Justice Alan Shatter “intends to progress the preparation and enactment of legislation which amongst other matters will make court proceedings in family law and child care cases more transparent”.
The legislation will amend the in camera rule to allow press access to the courts in family law and child care proceedings. They will be subject to a strict prohibition on the publication of any material which would lead to the identification of the people involved, and care will be taken to ensure that the best interests of children are protected.
The purpose of the in camera rule is to protect the privacy of the parties concerned and to ensure that their anonymity and that of their children is fully preserved.
However, the department said that it has meant that such cases “are not generally reported and the public, and even practitioners may not be aware of how the law, particularly in relation to children, is being operated and applied in the different courts, before which such issues are heard”.
There is a public perception that undue secrecy is attached to the administration of this area of the law and that there is a lack of uniformity and consistency in the manner in which it is administered.
It is part of the Programme for Government that there be reform in the area of family law and this is one of a number of reforms under preparation.
In July of 2012, the Minister announced that the Government approved in principle a future referendum on Article 34 of the Constitution, which envisages, amongst other reforms the establishment of a unified structure of family courts to hear and determine family law disputes and child care cases.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Family Law badly needs to be reformed and the courts are been used as weapons by both men and women, Mainly women who use their children as a pawn, Let’s hope more change is on the way……
As a father that has spent years fighting for my rights in family court and having been frustrated at decisions seemingly being plucked out of thin air as lunch approaches, with flippant disregard for documented evidence….. I welcome this so long as individual names are withheld.
We need statistics from family courts available to all.
I agree..a judge saying ‘I haven’t really heard the case and I don’t have the time to but am deciding x, if there’s any problem with that, come back in the future’ is unacceptable where children are concerned. How often would that happen if it was reported?
I would be much more interested in judges having to give reasons why they made a judgement , but it’s a very small step forward
I think it’s actually quite significant. The fact that judgments will be in the public domain means that any judgment can be debated along with testimony that we otherwise would not be privy to.
Tomy youve no right to be privy to anyones private buisness
@johnny, when people are not identified your not privy to THEIR business, you are privy to a situation. When a history of these situations is built up in the public domain then we as a country can see if the courts are upholding the values that fit with this country and critique/criticise if that is appropriate.
If you think I’m talking about having something to gossip about, you’re mistaken. Our law system is just that, OURS – being held behind closed doors denies us the knowledge that our values are reflected in our law system.
Would you advocate closed doors for other courts?!
anyone have a good readon why this is necessary?
My thoughts exactly
Yes Johnny , to inform you and me what is really happening behind closed doors. We do not know anything about what is playing out in the real world. Mummy does not always tuck you in , nor Daddy.
The referendum has not even been voted on and already questionable decisions re children’s privacy … No way should journalists be allowed report on Family law or child care cases.
Mr shatter is this legislation really in the best interest of the child ?
if you get screwed over by a bad judge theres very little you can do (as happened a few years ago to a family I know) at least if media can report on it a judges decision might have more scrutiny
People talk about depression, mental health, suicide prevention and then decide to allow a vunerable persons most private personal details be published so that the locals can have a could aul chat about it. The vast majority of family law cases are extremly upsetting and hard on at least one person involved and should be kept as is, Private.
Hang on here. Family courts’ application of law is secretive, inconsistent and not understood by us the citizens. reporting will be tricky but light needs to be shone on this area. This could be a huge reform.
I would be much more interested in judges having to give reasons why they made a judgement , but it’s a very small step forward
This is window dressing BS. ‘Intends to progress’ is not even remotely a guarantee that this will happen. This is pre referendum PR crap aimed at assuaging well-founded fears about the appalling lack of accountability and transparency that the proposed amendment would usher in.
Believe it only when you see it. But don’t vote yes on the back of this meaningless waffle.
So you think that this invasion into someone private matters would be a reason to vote yes?
Agree 100% Miriam , it’s all a ruse , pre-referendum promises like every other referendum before and it will never be enacted into law , i’m in full favour of the diplock courts been opened to public scrutiny but the timing of this stinks to high heaven.
Parents are treated like pariah’s in these secretive courts , the only court in the land where you have to prove your innocence as opposed to a criminal court where the state has to prove beyond reasonable doubt your guilt. Childrens wishes are often manipulated by social workers or GAL’s , psychiatric reports could be written on the back of a used envelope and are taken as sacrosanct by district court judges who’s only interest is boosting their already overly excessive salaries .
To those you say this is a violation of privacy i say stand outside the gates of a family court on any given day and watch as the tears of devoted mothers and fathers flow after their children have been removed for spurious reasons , often on the word of a young egotistical social worker and the quackery of shrink
Its not about invasion into someones private life. Rape cases are sensitively anonymously reported on; there is no reason that family law cases could not be treated the same.
This is about transparency and accountability; in order for justice to be done it must be seen to be done. Secret courts are kangaroo courts, particularly in the lower courts where the vast majority of cases take place.No recording of proceedings are available to the litigants, no written judgements detailing the reasoning of the judge behind his/her order are provided and no anonymised reporting of the cases by independent third parties is allowed. These are all basic features of justice which even potential CRIMINALS are entitled to! If details of a case are publicised the publisher can be jailed in this country, the laws surrounding it are akin to a south american dictatorship.
However I agree 100% Miriam; the timing of this announcement shows that it is cynical PR Hogwash to try and swing a yes vote in the referendum; as the penny is dropping with people that we are being asked to sign a blank check on our children’s rights behind closed doors.
Welcomehttp://static.jrnl.ie/desktop/i/fb-login.png news. Please , jail for anyone or any editor if people are named.
One small step forward.
ALL courts and tribunals should be open to the public and press, even if the names of some people have to be kept confidential (often a pointless exercise when the details are well known locally).
Barry including the rape of children. Do you think childrens names should not be protected.Barry these are peoples personal lives. Some families dont wish to have it public as its no concern of anyone else. These cases should be taken on a case by case basis.
I think you’re confusing anonymity and secret courts.
Alex is correct when he says “I think you’re confusing anonymity and secret courts.” This proposed legislation will not be introduced by this Government. All Governments for the past 20 years have promised same and nothing happens. It is a blantant muse to assuage fears for the administration of the new powers sought in the Childrens Referendum. A clear sign that Yes side is becoming very concerned that their “shoe in” proposal is in big trouble.
At last the country will get too see how badly fathers get treated behind closed doors and there children that are used as bargaining tools against them
I think someone has two accounts : o
Brian is exposed as a donkey !…….straight from the Family Courts.
Nothing to see here, the timing of this announcement shows it to be a cynical referendum PR stunt. Will never happen as it’s a fundamental part of ensuring the corrupt family law industry keeps making cash.
It seem as if some readers do not understand what is happening in these secretive court rooms and during in camera proceeding in general. They did not experience a lying partner getting court orders because s/he is is good liar.
I wonder what their reaction will be during the in camera proceeding of a child care matter if their children was mistakenly taken into care (as has happened) and evidence is to be created against them.
Do they realise that offences, even torture, committed during in camera proceedings is immune from prosecution and the culprits are running free and allowed to repeat what they have done.
Access to reported cases in family law can only benefit practitioners who in turn can properly adviser,clients on the approach being taken by the judiciary on certain very contentious, troubling and sometimes life changing aspects of family law in areas such custody and access of young vulnerable children, adoption, care proceedings, guardianship etc etc and of course the most contentious of all
Division of matrimonial assets on divorce.
In my view it is vital that a body of case law develops in this area of family law especially as there is no “clean break”. Principle in Irish divorce law which permits a former spouse to apply to the courts for additional assets or monies long after the couple are divorced!!!
I look forward to it being introduced sensibly and sensetively.
I would be much more interested in judges having to give reasons why they made a judgement , but it’s a very small step forward
As Alex said earlier “I think you’re confusing anonymity and secret courts.” Governments have been promising this for decades and it will be decades before it does actually happen. This Government has no intention of legislating on this issue. This is a sign of desperation on behalf of the Yes side in the children’s referendum. It proves that they are very concerned that what was once seen as a “shoe in” proposal is now in serious difficutly as the sands are shifting in favour of a big No vote.
Again, yet another copy of the UK system, this was introduced by Jack Straw but has never resulted in Journalists either being allowed into court, or when they were, were not allowed to report any details of what they witnessed.
Another insidious piece of legislation being forced in now is the New Vetting Bill. This allows for “Soft Information” to be kept on people. What we are going to see soon is parents not being legally allowed to hire a babysitter unless they have been vetted. they will have to take a course from a children’s “Charity” or social worker in order to babysit.
Wake up people and see what’s happening!
This hasn’t got anything to do with Enda’ s interference during the week has it
Peter. Couldn’t have said it better myself
I have been and still am a victim of the family court , where the evidence of a Garda wasn’t even heard because it would have meant that a woman would have been barred from the family home a week before Christmas .
I agree on the suspicious timing of the announcement but even it only improves the odds a little of this happening I will take that
Judge Judy……… In-Camera Rule covers, bad judges, bad lawyers and bad social workers. Full transparency needs to happen in the Family Law Courts. Its not about the children, it never was, its a money making racket for the corrupt legal system!!!
Thank God something is being done about this. There is need for a referendum on this immediately. I know of a family law case that has been running in the High Court for 8years. The European Court of Justice has agreed that this is grossly in breach of human rights. All of this needs to be reported on in Ireland. Family law cases in Ireland are currently run without any supervision. In the Hight Court, where nothing gets published at all, there are two judges only looking after family law cases. One judge is constant, the other position is filled on a rota. In my experience cases are allowed to run open ended, at the judges discretion. Massive legal fees ensue, the personal hardship involved in family law cases is dragged out needlessly and there is no consisterncy whatsoever with the judgements. Court Orders are often not upheld, without any repercussions. Zero effectiveness, zero efficiency. We should have zero tolerance of this.
have your say