Family Law Transparency, Child Welfare, and Reform of the In Camera Rule: Motion [Private Members] Dail Éireann — 2026-04-29 ============================================================ Paul Nicholas Gogarty (IND), Dublin Mid-West As I pointed out earlier, fathers have been shown to be damaged under the current flawed system, and I have been very sure to mention this aspect, but the system has hurt mothers a lot more. It is unfair, opaque and needs to change. I mentioned Dr. Charlotte Proudman, one of several advocates in the UK. Her research found that the secrecy and gender bias in family courts in England concealed poor practice and a lack of accountability. There is no reason to believe it is not the case here that there is a systemic gender bias that needs to be addressed. As I mentioned at the outset, no matter which parent has the issue and who is telling lies and who is telling the truth, the main issue is the harm being caused to children. This has been first and foremost in my thinking, and this is why we need transparency. I had submitted some parliamentary questions to try to get the up-to-date situation in respect of the rollout of reforms the Minister mentioned. It is clear that he has done a considerable amount of work over the past 18 months. I do hope the work on experts will show significant improvement. I reiterate, however, that there is sometimes a confirmation bias even among experts. It depends on their background, their training, and the guidelines given. We have to be absolutely certain that what goes forward is going to work. We need transparency shone on this area. I thank, first and foremost, my Opposition colleagues from all groupings for their support for this motion and for sharing their experience, knowledge and practical suggestions to add to the wording. I also thank members of the cross-party committee I am on that is seeking the reform of expert reports, the in camera rule and other relevant issues pertaining to people suffering in the system. Go raibh maith agaibh go léir. I thank the Minister too for his thoughtful contribution. In discussions, I always find that he is a thinker and that he does not get into points scoring. He tries to look at things rationally and reasonably. I do again acknowledge the work he is doing in relation to the reform of family law pertaining to experts, as I mentioned earlier in the context of the parliamentary questions, and the issue of transparency. I want to reiterate and make clear, however, that as far as the families and women are concerned and as far as the best interests of children are concerned, more needs to be done and faster. It is great that the Department has accepted all the in camera review's recommendations and work has begun on establishing the regulated national panel of court assessors, which will replace the ad hoc unregulated, and what I would say is a damaging and dangerous, system currently in place. Even if this works out as we would all like it to, which it may not, it still needs scrutiny and transparency. We can take an overview over a period but shining a light often only works if it is available immediately. Hence the need to change the in camera rule. Reference was made to a new private family law reporting project which works in tandem with the likes of the child law project, going back to 2012. It does so, however, in my view and that of some others, by creating a centralised and, for want of a better term, curated reporting mechanism. It is designed to produce anonymous reports and summaries and to contribute to national data which may inform policy changes. That is all well and good but it is not opening the courts to broader public scrutiny in itself. The Minister did, of course, mention that under the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004, as amended, that specified persons, including bona fide journalists and researchers, may already attend family law hearings and publish their anonymised accounts. The model currently being followed here, however, basically still inserts a gatekeeper. Attendance is restricted and reporting is controlled, so in working practice, only a small number of specialist reporters might regularly cover cases. The proof is in the pudding. I have not seen too many reports out there in the media. I do not want to reference names but I will just use one name in the context of this debate. We often see reports about Judge Nolan in the media. That is the way it should be. I am not making any comments on the integrity of his judgments. He is a great judge. I am just saying that he is often mentioned in the media but we do not hear about the family law courts too much. Hence the alliance of mothers----- --- Source: Houses of the Oireachtas. Licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). The Official Report is revised after first publication; the fetch timestamp below identifies the version quoted. Record URI: https://data.oireachtas.ie/akn/ie/debateRecord/dail/2026-04-29/debate/main Retrieved: 2026-09-21T01:01:08+00:00 Sitting date: 2026-04-29