I move:

That Dáil Éireann:

notes that:

— family law proceedings concerning child custody, access, guardianship and childcare matters, continue to be heard otherwise than in public under statutory provisions including, Section 27 of the Guardianship of Infants Act, 1964, and Section 29 of the Child Care Act, 1991;

— the recently published book entitled "Justice for Birth Mothers – The Fight Against Forced Separation in Modern Ireland", documents numerous experiences of women who report feeling disempowered, unheard and unable to challenge decisions made behind closed doors, illustrating the broader impact of secrecy and silence on vulnerable families;

— such secrecy in the decision-making process also affects men, and can contribute to a sense of injustice and exclusion;

— the Review of the Operation of the In Camera Rule in Family Law Proceedings, published in 2025, found widespread confusion among parents about what they may lawfully discuss, and reported that many feel isolated, silenced and unable to seek support;

— few of the recommendations of this long-delayed review have been implemented, and its conclusion that family law proceedings should continue to be held in private has been overtaken by real world developments in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, where accredited journalists and legal bloggers may report on family law proceedings subject to strict anonymity protections;

— international best practice, informed by sustained advocacy and research by legal experts, including Dr Charlotte Proudman, increasingly favours controlled transparency with strong anonymity safeguards rather than blanket secrecy, particularly in cases involving allegations of domestic abuse or parental alienation;

— the lack of transparency surrounding alleged abuses of the system, groupthink, incompetence, under-resourcing and poor decision making, ultimately impacts children most of all;

— the In Camera rule has left children exposed to emotional harm, re-traumatisation, and unsafe contact, creating conditions linked to severe distress, post-traumatic stress disorder, depression and suicidal thoughts; and

— the constant additional conflict and negativity caused by the lack of transparency, and related poor decision-making, can hinder their emotional, social and cognitive growth;

further notes that:

— investigative reporting and academic research have highlighted concerns regarding the use of unregulated or insufficiently accredited court appointed experts, including in cases involving allegations of parental alienation; and

— concerns have been raised about Tusla's role in family law cases, including inconsistent implementation of expert recommendations, and instances of non-compliance with court directions;

acknowledges that the transparency reforms in England and Wales, including the Family Court Reporting Pilot and its subsequent national rollout, have been independently evaluated and shown to:

— increase public understanding of family court processes;

— maintain full anonymity, with no known breaches;

— provide clearer information to parents through transparency orders; and

— improve scrutiny of professional practice; and

calls on the Government to:

— initiate stand alone, specific legislation, to replace the current blanket In Camera rule, with a modern transparency framework that:

— permits attendance and reporting by accredited journalists and legal bloggers;

— mandates full anonymisation of children and family members; and

— provides judicial discretion to restrict reporting, where necessary for child welfare or safety;

— amend the statutory provisions requiring private hearings in child related family law cases, including:

— the Guardianship of Infants Act, 1964;

— the Child Care Act, 1991; and

— the Courts and Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2013;

— introduce statutory transparency orders in all child related family law cases, clearly setting out what may be reported and how anonymity is protected;

— establish a regulatory framework for court appointed experts, including minimum qualifications, accreditation and oversight, and ensure that contested or unvalidated theories are subject to clear evidential standards;

— strengthen statutory oversight of Tusla, to ensure timely compliance with court directions and consistent practice in child welfare cases;

— create clear education and training pathways for An Garda Síochána in relation to family law matters, including domestic abuse, coercive control and contested expert evidence; and

— provide clear guidance to parents on their rights and obligations under any new transparency system, including how they may seek support and engage with accredited reporters, without breaching court rules.

As the Minister may know or have inklings of, the family law system is harming our children. If we do not take serious action, what is going on today will be perceived in the years to come as State-sanctioned child abuse. There is something seriously wrong with the courts, with Tusla, with experts and, above all, with the in camera rule. There are so many stories I could tell the Minister today if I had the time. Many of them are contained in a recently published book entitled Justice for Birth Mothers: The Fight Against Forced Separation in Modern Ireland . Many other people have also contacted me directly with their experiences of group think and lazy decisions by members of the Judiciary, revolving-door barristers with varying levels of interest and the absolute reliance on court-appointed so-called experts. These stories make numerous allegations but without scrutiny and transparency, they remain hearsay.

Let us start with Tusla. We are all aware of the recently reported failures to protect children in its care but in family law courts where parental disputes arise, there is an equal failure by Tusla to provide necessary supports and protections. Justice for Birth Mothers: The Fight Against Forced Separation in Modern Ireland contains 357 references to Tusla. There are good, kind and conscientious people in the agency but it paints a picture of a collective and structural influence that is often malign.

A story from Clara illustrates this. Clara fled to Ireland after testifying against a dangerous criminal. Gardaí wrongfully arrested her on more than one occasion and removed her children three times handing them to Tusla. In court, she proved that some of the most serious claims made against her were simply false. She said that she had proved in court that Tusla lied in sworn affidavits. She said that judges tell Tusla to get its house in order but that nothing changes and that Tusla blocks children from speaking to verify the truth. She said that some lies are disgusting and easily disproven but Tusla keeps them hidden and that she did not know how these social workers could sleep at night. We need a radical overhaul of Tusla. It is dysfunctional - not because there are about 50,000 referrals when we take out multiple referrals for children but because it is not organised properly and not adequately resourced. I hope the promised review will overhaul things but I fear it will be too little, too late.

Then, of course, there are the court-appointed experts. Family law cases are by their nature adversarial. Parents will lie. Some parents will weaponise their children. Parents will make true claims, serious claims and false claims. The reality is that despite policy efforts to encourage mediation, family court cases have increased in number. This means the system can often be overloaded with long delays. This has meant that expert reports are used more often, which can actually escalate conflict rather than resolve it. I refer to the 2024 review of the role of expert reports in the family law process from the Department of justice. It mentions how experts are commonly sourced through word of mouth instead of through a formal panel, that verification of qualifications is informal and inconsistent and varies by judge and that challenges to expert recommendations were shown to occur in only 10% to 20% of cases according to interviews with the Judiciary. That means that eight or nine out of ten times, the so-called expert makes recommendations and he or she is not challenged in court. The review notes that every judge interviewed described extra reports as extremely useful and central to the decision making in private family law disputes. This makes these experts hugely powerful. Experts have been accused of making allegedly skewed decisions for money at the end of the day and the judges must take reports at face value.

Personal testimony is very powerful so I will take time to read a collection of stories about experiences. I got a message from a father who describes how his life changed in 2018 when his partner suddenly left with two young daughters and accused him of emotional abuse. Despite there being no evidence, he spent months without contact and endured repeated allegations, Garda investigations and blocked access. Each time he was cleared, new claims emerged leading to long gaps without him seeing his children. When access resumed, the girls showed fear and distress shaped by their mother. After years in court, he eventually secured shared custody but his relationship with his youngest remained strained. He highlights the severe harm caused by what he describes as deliberate alienation and calls for better awareness among professionals.

Another man who shared his story moved to Ireland and remained an involved father, but after his arrival his contact with his son was steadily reduced. A single, very positive visit from his perspective later became the basis for removing all access, with no specialist evaluation. Years of proceedings ultimately left him with no meaningful relationship with his child. He was dependent entirely on the child, a very young child, initiating contact, which was unlikely without external support. To be clear, men do suffer in this system. It is important to note that but, as the other stories will show, the balance is massively skewed against women.

Let me quote a passage from Justice for Birth Mothers :

(Amy's troubles began when she reported to Gardaí that her children were being sexually abused by their father. A court expert was appointed who wrote a report recommending that the children be handed to the father. He accused Amy of parental alienation and recommended that she have no access to the children at all).

"I went into it very naively, thinking the assessor would hear what I had to say and what my children had to say. The opposite happened. The court expert told me he was a psychotherapist. He gave himself a number of different [professional titles] ... He ignored the sexual abuse and the domestic violence.

He recommended that custody be removed from me and given to their father, the man my children named as their abuser. Supervised access was run by a for-profit business charging more than two hundred euros a week. If I could not pay, visits were cancelled.

He came to every court case and charged for each appearance. I have paid him around twelve thousand euro. I do not know what he received from my ex-husband."

Here is another story from the book:

(Erica's troubles began many years ago when she reported child sexual abuse to Gardaí. Over time she succeeded in preventing the family court from giving custody of her children to the father, who was the perpetrator of that abuse. In her most recent court appearance, however, a judge accepted a court expert' s claim that she was guilty of parental alienation and ruled that custody be given to the father. Erica appealed but could not secure free legal aid in time. She was forced to borrow twenty thousand euros from family, friends and her local credit union to hire a private solicitor).

Erica stated:

I eventually did get a barrister, and she would just turn up that morning, and my solicitor would fill her in on details. It was so obvious she never spoke to the barrister before that. When it became really serious, she absolutely let me down. It was like having no representation.

Here is yet another story, from somebody who contacted me directly:

I was labelled as "bitter because I didn't have money". The expert told me he wrote what my ex told him. He wrote on a report that my ex said I had issues with alcohol [she does not] but when I asked had he any proof he said no. I gave him proof in the form of a recording of my ex saying I didn't have a problem. But he refused to listen. I asked him was he accusing me of PA [parental alienation] and he said where did I say that then went and wrote it specifically [in his report]. Lied on the stand in court. Stood with my exes legal team despite supposedly being independent. And multiple meetings with my ex and phone calls but I wasn't afforded the same.

He dismissed my child when bringing up inappropriate behaviour said she got it wrong. The only other person he discussed the case with [believe it or not] was with the woman my ex had an affair with who [had] walked out on her own family. He dismissed 1 child's learning issues said they were a performance I made her put on, despite a report from an OT.

He made kids stand under a tree and told to bond with [your] father or be brought back. This is despite being told by the children my ex had told them he was getting bailiffs to drag me out of the house and frightening them. He [was] completely dismissive of domestic abuse.

Even when this expert [was] presented with proof my ex was not being alienated and he was lying about access he still spun a total lie that I was alienating him.

This is Sophie's story:

(Sophie reported that her teenage daughter had been sexually abused by her father. The case went to the family court where a court expert accused her of parental alienation. Custody of the children was given to the father. She has not seen her children since early 2022).

"I despise all of them. If I had to pick an organisation that is the worst it is the family law courts. It is the people in them. They are liars. They have no honesty.

The in-camera rule needs to be lifted. There is no justice. Your basic human right is being violated, and it is hidden by the in-camera rule.

People commit perjury every day in the family law courts and nobody outside knows. I have seen social workers commit perjury. I have proof of it. I have an admission of perjury from [one] ...

We see how these experts facilitate false accusations in the court system and that many parents have been denied access to their children as a result. We have heard stories of alienation in the general sense, but we have also heard about cases, especially concerning women, of those who have been wrongly accused of parental alienation, with one social worker in the system, a cult-like devotee of Gardner's discredited theory of parental alienation syndrome, who has consigned numerous children to prolonged stays with narcissistic and abusive parents under so-called immersion therapy. Some would say that man deserves a special place in hell, but he is not the only expert who has caused pain. Of course, again, it is all hearsay, because we have no reporting due to the in camera rule. It provides shelter for abusers.

I am aware that the 2024 report made recommendations, and some things are coming online. I hope this positive feature will help but we still know that, even if we have the new panel of assessors, with the new scrutiny arrangement, we still have to have transparency and scrutiny regarding the decisions being made because even the most qualified people make mistakes. We have seen this with judges and we see it everywhere, which brings us back to the in camera rule.

No doubt the Minister referred to the report on the operation of the in camera rule in family law proceedings, by Drs. Parkes, Burns and McCaughren. This report was comprehensive and based on multiple interviews with many stakeholders. It found the in camera rule is inconsistently understood and applied in Ireland. The report emphasised that while privacy is essential, the rule creates a striking absence of public knowledge about what happens in family courts. This lack of transparency undermines public confidence. The report states the current operation of the in camera rule is an impingement on young people's lives, especially when it prevents appropriate information sharing with those supporting the child.

As I understand it, there are steps to address this specific area, but in general terms very few of the recommendations of the long-delayed review have been implemented in full, or even partially. We have no new primary legislation, no automatic access to redacted orders for certain professionals, such as those in foster care, schools and support services. This requires legislation to be implemented. There is also no statutory right for parties to request transcripts. Ironically, this slow and piecemeal progress – I have to give the Minister credit for speeding things up a bit – now presents us with an opportunity. Incredibly, and despite all the evidence, one of the conclusions of the report on the in camera rule was that family law proceedings should continue to be held in private. A kind of halfway house is suggested, but it is not the abolition of the in camera rule.

Like the Minister, I believe that if new evidence comes to light, conclusions must change. My understanding is that the evidence from across the water is overwhelming. The English and Welsh legal system recently had a sea change in how the family courts were reported on. Pilots were set up that removed the in camera rule and allowed accredited journalists and legal bloggers to report on family law proceedings, subject, of course, to strict anonymity protections. This system has been found to work, with ongoing protection of anonymity, and as a result it has now been rolled out extensively, including through a pilot in Northern Ireland. The open reporting provisions in this system, which is one of the closest to our own legal system, mean there is a presumption that a transparency order protecting the anonymity of children and their families is granted unless there is a legitimate reason not to do so. Therefore, the system is totally different. It is a case of assuming you can report on matters and that names are going to be protected, and of having trust in the journalists. I am aware that the Minister is talking about having a regulated accredited-journalist system, but any journalist who meets the criteria should be able to report. Where they do not, there would be prosecutions. We have to assume the right to report first and foremost in a democracy.

The president of the family division in England, retired judge Sir Andrew McFarlane, said the following about the system there:

The establishment of the open reporting provisions in all family courts in England and Wales is a watershed moment for family justice.

He also stated:

There have been no known breaches of anonymity of children, and the aims of the pilot, to increase public understanding and awareness of the Family Court, are being realised.

My understanding is that there are 23 court areas in Ireland at District Court level, with those districts subdivided into the eight Circuit Court regions. Surely we could pilot a scheme in Ireland that could be initially rolled out in several of these areas.

I hope the reason the recommendations have not been implemented is not fear of a backlash from the Judiciary. We know that Dr. Charlotte Proudman in the UK, for example, was trolled online and called a bitch. She was got horrendous abuse from members of the Judiciary who did not like her involvement in the case in question. There was a collective effort by many people in the UK. Dr. Proudman comes over here regularly and is a keen advocate of the removal of the in camera rule. She got dog's abuse. It is highly unfair.

I believe members of our Judiciary are more civilised. I believe people are in favour of transparency, so let us bring in that transparency, pilot it and can fix any errors as they arise.

The time for secrecy has ended; the time for meaningful action is now. It is time to do the right thing and shine a light on the system. We need to remember we are trying to put the best interests of children first. Even if 80% of the allegations are hearsay and false, that means 20% are true. Shining a light on bad decisions and putting scrutiny on something leads to improvement. We need to shine a light and I call on the Minister to do the right thing.

I thank Deputy Gogarty and his staff for putting this motion together. It seeks to reform how our family law system operates, not by removing protections for children but by modernising a system that is too secretive, too closed and too unaccountable for the level of power it exercises over families. Family law cases are sensitive, but sensitivity cannot continue to be used as an excuse for blanket secrecy.

The in camera rule, as currently applied under the Guardianship of Infants Act and the Child Care Act, has created a system that operates almost entirely beyond public view, lacks transparency and is doing harm. Under the current system, proceedings are held fully in private, reporting is almost entirely prohibited and parents are often unclear about what they are legally allowed to say. When a system operates without transparency, it operates without accountability. When there is no accountability, mistakes are not corrected and they are repeated. That is not good enough for families, and it is not good enough in the context of child welfare. Parents are telling us the same thing again and again. They feel silenced, disempowered and excluded from decisions that affect their children. Many of them leave family courts confused, distressed and fearful of speaking out even when they believe serious errors have occurred. That completely undermines confidence in the system.

This motion recognises that parents must be protected from unjust exposure but they must also be protected from institutional silence. The motion also directly relates to concerns we have raised consistently in this House about Tusla. Tusla exercises enormous power within family court proceedings. Its assessment and recommendations carry decisive weight, yet its actions are largely shielded from scrutiny by the in camera rule. In recent years, we have raised concerns about inconsistent decision-making, delays in implementing court directions, poor communication with families and an imbalance of power between the State and parents. These issues are extremely difficult to change when everything happens behind closed doors. Secrecy does not protect Tusla from criticism; it prevents improvement.

The family law system exists to protect children, but protection requires oversight. Where there is no scrutiny, poor decision-making can persist, groupthink can develop and under-resourcing becomes normalised. Parents raise concerns about children repeatedly experiencing emotional harm, trauma and long-term mental health impacts. Children suffer when systems are hidden from view. This motion is about ensuring that child welfare outcomes improve. It is not about opening courtrooms to the public.

The motion also raises legitimate concerns over the role of unregulated or weakly regulated experts. Court-appointed experts can have enormous influence, yet standards, accreditation and oversight are inconsistent. If expert evidence is to shape decisions about children's lives, it must be properly regulated, evidence-based and accountable. This is responsible reform.

Ireland is falling behind. England, Wales and Northern Ireland have already moved away from blanket secrecy by allowing accredited journalists, legal reporters and controlled reporting with strict anonymity protections. The evidence shows no breaches of anonymity, increased public understanding and improved accountability. The motion simply asks Ireland to learn from what already works. It does not call for open courts or unrestricted reporting. It proposes replacing the blanket in camera rule with controlled transparency, strong and enforceable anonymity protections, judicial discretion to restrict reporting where necessary, transparency orders that clearly define what may be reported, regulation of experts and stronger oversight of Tusla's compliance with court direction. This is balanced and proportionate reform.

We have huge difficulties regarding areas in respect of which reform is still needed. I wrote to the chief superintendent in west Cork in recent days about a young child. We have been working with her parents. The child, who is 15 or 16 years of age, has been in continual communication with some kind of paedophile in the UK who is in his late 30s. There was huge upset in the home, obviously, which led to the child being taken into foster care for the time being. One of the parents is very distressed as a result of their daughter being violated by this gentleman. The laws do not seem to be able to protect them or put a stop to what is happening. The person in the UK seems to be protected by laws that Irish lawmakers cannot seem to cover. That is not something that has happened in the past week or two; it has been going on for a number of months.

I move:

To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and substitute the following:

"notes that:

— family disputes can be difficult and traumatic for those involved, particularly for children and victims of domestic violence;

— litigation to resolve those disputes can itself, despite the best efforts of judges, courts officials, and legal representatives, be very challenging for those involved;

— family law proceedings concerning child custody, access, guardianship and childcare matters allow attendance and reporting from specified persons under statutory provisions, including Section 40 of the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004, provided that the anonymity of the parties is preserved at all times;

— the Family Justice Strategy 2022-2025, aims to create a family justice system that works better for everyone engaging with it, but particularly for those who need additional supports and protections, such as those affected by domestic violence or vulnerable parents and children; and

— the Government announced in April 2026, the Implementation Plan for the Family Justice Act 2024, which will deliver significant reforms to the family justice system, and ensure that the family courts are more user-friendly, less costly, and place the needs of children at the centre of family law proceedings;

acknowledges that:

— transparency and promoting a greater understanding of the family law system is critical to maintaining and building trust in it, and at the same time, those who seek the assistance of the Courts in resolving their family justice disputes need to be assured that their privacy, and that of their children, will be appropriately maintained;

— there has been significant progress in family law reform, including:

— the establishment of a Family Law Reporting Project, which aims to enhance transparency for the public about private family law proceedings, and build confidence in the judicial determination of private family law disputes, while continuing to ensure the privacy of those proceedings for children and families;

— the detailed examination being undertaken by officials on findings and recommendations from the Report on the Operation of the In Camera Rule in Family Law Proceedings, including a comparative review of the Transparency Project and the use of Transparency Orders in England and Wales;

— the publication of the Judicial Guidelines on the Commissioning, Preparation, Content and Usage of Expert Reports in Family Law Proceedings in 2026, which aims to promote consistency and best practice in the use of welfare reports in private family law proceedings;

— the ongoing work being undertaken by officials in the Department of Justice, Home Affairs and Migration, to progress work on establishing a panel of family law assessors, and the panel will address a number of issues identified in the Review of the Role of Expert Reports in the Family Law Process, including lack of regulation of experts and lack of adequate training or accreditation;

— the establishment of a Children's Court Advocate Pilot Project, which will apply to all applications for guardianship, custody, and/or access, test a new way of hearing the voice of children in private family law cases, and provide regulation of assessors and consistency of practice; and

— the establishment of a Family Justice Training Working Group in 2024, to review existing training needs for those working within family justice and to develop effective and relevant training programmes; and

resolves that:

— good progress has been made in respect of the Family Justice Strategy 2022-2025, and promoting transparency and a greater understanding of the family justice system;

— improved awareness and understanding of the operation of the In Camera Rule is integral to informing future reforms of the area, and the establishment of the Family Law Reporting Project will play a key role in this regard; and

— monitoring and measuring the impact of these reforms will determine their effectiveness and inform any further policy or legislative developments required.".

I thank Deputy Gogarty for tabling his motion. I welcome that we are having this debate on family law, transparency, child welfare and reform of the in camera rule. The first thing that needs to be acknowledged is that family disputes and particularly family law proceedings are difficult and traumatic for those involved, particularly for children and victims of domestic violence. The reason they are so difficult and traumatic is that 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 be very challenging for the litigants involved in it. It is also very challenging for the judges who have to reach a determination based on the evidence that is presented before them in family law proceedings.

I say this respectfully. As legislators and policymakers, we should all repeat the desire that where possible people who find themselves in family law proceedings should seek to reach an amicable resolution in respect of those proceedings. There is a huge advantage in parents and partners being able to reach agreement on issues such as access to children, custody of children and, indeed, maintenance because they retain control over the resolution that is achieved. If there is not agreement on those issues by the individuals involved in the litigation, necessarily the court will impose its settlement. Notwithstanding the efforts of the court to try to reach the best solution that it thinks appropriate, an agreed resolution is always better than an imposed resolution.

I want Deputy Gogarty and his colleagues to know that I am fully committed to reforming the family justice system through the implementation of the Family Justice Strategy 2022-2025. This is an ambitious programme of 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 Gogarty has put forward. I will address each of these in turn as well as the amendment proposed by Deputy Gibney.

First, I will deal with the in camera rule which is referred to in the motion. The Constitution requires that justice be administered in public. Transparency and promoting a greater understanding of the family law system are critical to maintaining and building trust in it. At the same time, we need to recognise that those who find themselves before the courts seeking resolution to their family justice disputes need to be assured that their privacy and that of their children will be protected and maintained.

As committed to in the family justice strategy and as mentioned by Deputy Gogarty, 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 am considering. Deputy Gogarty has made a number of suggestions, including the introduction of stand-alone legislation on the in camera rule. I am giving consideration to not only legislative change, but also 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 Gogarty mentioned permitting attendance and reporting by accredited journalists and legal bloggers. I 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 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, enhance transparency.

It is important to acknowledge the Child Law Project, which was established in 2012 and 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 now want to deal 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 of preparation content and use of expert reports in family law proceedings and launched them along with the Chief Justice. They 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 under way to establish a panel of family law assessors, which will address concerns such as lack of regulation and adequate training or accreditation in respect of the provision of reports.

The third issue I want to deal with is the training working group and family justice strategy. In response to Deputy Gogarty's point regarding the need for clear education and training, I wish 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 programmes for family justice stakeholders, such as the Garda. There is also a 2025-26 implementation plan for the third national strategy on domestic, sexual and gender-based violence, DSGBV, which is a relevant part of this. It outlines a mandatory DSGBV training for those working in family law.

One of the suggestions by Deputy Gibney in her amendment is that judges be provided with bench books. My own view in respect of that amendment is that this would probably be an interference with the separation of powers under the Constitution for the Government to start intruding on the independence of the Judiciary by providing it with bench books guiding it on how to administer justice in the courts. The Judicial Council supports judges with comprehensive training programmes and the development of appropriate materials, such as bench books. A training working group was established in July 2024, which comprises membership from key Departments, State agencies and legal professional bodies, including the Judicial Council.

I will now 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 being 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.

In response to Deputy Gogarty's point on providing clearer guidance to parents, improving information and awareness is a key priority under the strategy. The Courts Service has made significant progress through its family law information hub, which provides accessible, plain language guidance to help families better understand the system. As regards the Deputy's call for strengthening statutory oversight of Tusla, it is important to note that as an independent agency, Tusla is independent in the performance of its functions. It has a very difficult task to perform, as I am sure everyone will agree. The framework in place for the governance and oversight of Tusla is comprised of relationships of oversight, direction and reporting between the Minister for the Department of children and Tusla. There are also a range of formal arrangements in place between the Department of children and that agency. In addition, Tusla services and individual social workers are subject to multiple levels of oversight.

To conclude, I thank the Deputy for bringing this motion on these important issues. I am working in respect of the areas he has highlighted in the motion, particularly the in camera rule and the section 47 reports. However, I will conclude by saying what I said at the outset. I know it may be difficult for people in family law proceedings, which are difficult proceedings. They are not like ordinary civil court proceedings, such as commercial proceedings or proceedings between entities that do not have any emotional involvement. Family law proceedings are very emotional and contentious, but it is important that people recognise that they can seek to control the outcome of those proceedings by reaching a resolution themselves in respect of access and custody. Ultimately, that is what the court is going to do.

Míle buíochas leis an Teachta Gogarty as ucht an Bhille seo a thabhairt os comhair na Dála. I welcome and thank the Alliance of Birth Mothers Campaigning for Justice for all the work it has done on this issue in recent years.

One of the most difficult cases that regularly comes into my office is when a child is taken from their family or parents. That is because the act of forcibly separating a child from a parent is probably one of the most damaging things a State can do, if it is done in the wrong situation. It has an enormous impact on the child and will last with them for the rest of their lives. It also has a harrowing impact on a parent.

One of the worst nightmares that could ever face any parent is having their child forcibly taken away from them by the State, especially when you look at what is happening with Tusla. The nightmare was heightened by what we saw on "RTÉ Investigates" just last week. Many children who are in very difficult circumstances and are taken from their parents often find themselves in a situation where they are exposed to rape, sexual exploitation, grooming by drug gangs for the sale of crack cocaine and even killed. The idea that your child would be taken from you is a nightmare of epic proportions in the first instance, but then for them to be given to an organisation that is itself mired in controversy because of the disasters befalling so many children is horrendous. I do not know how I would feel if it happened to my own child. I imagine it would be all-consuming in terms of the stress, pressure, anger and frustration that I would feel.

The other aspects of why these cases are so difficult is because it is difficult to determine what the truth is in such situations. Both parents are so emotionally invested in the situation that some parents will do anything to make sure the child is not taken off them. I have dealt with many mothers and some fathers who have been shockingly aggrieved at what has happened to them. One of the issues that has come through is that their voices regarding those grievances are not being heard and that the in camera rule is stifling their ability to seek help or support.

One aspect of this is many parents ring me and say that they do not know whether they have the right or ability to speak to me as their TD and converse with me about what is happening to their children because of the in camera rule. Some parents have said they are even afraid to talk to the Garda about their experiences because of the in camera rule. It is nearly seen as a complete block of communication for an individual who is probably in one of the biggest nightmares a parent can be.

Tusla has taken children from mothers off the back of false information in the past, and that is absolutely factual. It has had to apologise in certain cases and it has had to return children to those parents. Tusla has placed inaccurate information on mothers' files in certain situations. It has wronged birth mothers on many occasions. The system is failing those mothers especially and they have nowhere to go. I have raised these cases in the Dáil Chamber many times.

At the heart of this is the necessity for women and mothers to be listened to and for their grievances to be addressed, and that is not currently happening.

We need to amend the Child Care Act 1991 to provide HIQA with the necessary powers to sanction Tusla when it fails to meet the statutory obligations.

One of the major problems with the in camera rule is that it prevents accountability. It massively reduces the ability to have public scrutiny of judicial decision making. Most people in the general public would be blind to what is happening in these courts on a daily basis. Some families would go so far as to say that, in their experience, the rule is a gagging order in many ways. There is a necessity for the Minister to seek to reform this system because it is radically broken, extremely damaging to children and phenomenally damaging to parents.

I want to make a brief reference to some of the elements that came from the "RTÉ Investigates" programme on Tusla last week. In all of the discussions, it is sometimes forgotten that there are many good workers in Tusla doing the very best they can for children in extremely difficult circumstances. I know of many good workers who are regularly getting burned out. Young people come out of college with all of the necessary zeal and energy to tackle very difficult situations, but because of the pressure they are being put under, they are becoming burned out and leave the sector after a while.

One of the reasons we have a shocking mismanagement of Tusla is because, in many ways, the Minister for children is absent without leave. When we have a housing crisis in this country, we have a housing Minister who is regularly questioned and has to be responsible and accountable for what is happening in housing. When there is a crisis in the health service, the Minister for Health is questioned regularly and held responsible for what is happening. However, when there is a crisis in Tusla, the Minister for children is invisible. The only critique I have from the RTÉ show last week is that there was no reference to the Minister. The strategy of the Minister for children when these crises arrive is to be hidden from sight and inaccessible for questioning and accountability. One reason Tusla is falling apart is because we have an absentee Minister for children.

The response of the Tánaiste to last week's programme on Tusla was to say that everything was getting better and the special emergency arrangements were reducing in number. He boasted that special emergency arrangements were being closed, as if the Government was proactively seeking to end the practice. The truth is very different. The truth is that special emergency arrangements were closed down not because extra capacity was put into the system, but because documents were falsified. Some five special emergency arrangements were closed because they were referred to the Garda National Vetting Bureau. The Government was putting extremely vulnerable children into special emergency arrangements that are being referred to the Garda National Vetting Bureau. That is a national scandal and the Government used it as an excuse to say it was fixing the problem in the system.

The Government has said that the number of special emergency arrangements is falling. Again, this statement is disingenuous, which is just a fancy term for "not telling the truth". The reason the number of children in special emergency arrangements is falling is because the number of unaccompanied minors coming into the system is falling. Those unaccompanied minors who are coming into the system are now being sent to the International Protection Accommodation Services, IPAS, for age verification, as the Minister will know. They are being signposted to a different location, as such.

However, the number of Irish children in special emergency arrangements has increased in the past year. The number of children in this country that the Government is exposing to rape, sexual exploitation and becoming drug mules is increasing in real time. That is a national scandal. The Government has said this will be sorted out. The waiting list for the regulated residential sector in this country is 50% of all of the children. These are the children who are in situations where they cannot be put into ordinary foster families. Their situations are very serious. They need residential places, but the waiting list is so long that they make up 50% of all of the children in the sector. This problem is going nowhere fast because there is a lack of investment in locations and a lack of management. There is a mismanagement problem at the heart of the system.

Is it any wonder that mothers and families are living in fear when Tusla seeks to take their children from them and they go into a legal system that has a complete lack of transparency and openness and where their voices are not heard? Is it any wonder that those mothers are living in fear as a result? The Minister has the opportunity to leave a legacy that opens up the process, with voices being heard, children being protected and there being scrutiny and accountability.

I welcome the opportunity to have a debate on family law transparency and the need to prioritise child welfare at all times and to discuss the reform of the in camera rule. I thank Deputy Gogarty for bringing this to the Dáil because these issues are raised weekly, if not more regularly, with me in my capacity as Chair of the justice committee. These issues also come to my constituency office.

The remarks of the Minister tacitly acknowledge the general consensus that progress in terms of reform of family law and the implementation of the Family Courts Act has been far too slow. The Free Legal Advice Centres, FLAC, have told us that family law is the single biggest area of unmet legal need in the State and pointed to a sharp rise in queries from people who were representing themselves, with a high proportion involving family law disputes. This highlights the difficulty many face in accessing legal representation in family law courts. The Minister will know that I have raised with him the crisis in civil legal aid a number of times, which has direct consequences for family law, in particular those seeking legal representation. These issues have not been addressed. It seems that the discussion just goes on and on.

The Family Courts Act 2024 introduced much-needed reforms of the family law system, including the creation of dedicated family District, Circuit and High Courts, yet no new family courts have opened to date and there has been little progress on the purpose-built law complex on Hammond Lane. The latest response to a parliamentary question I received from the Minister suggests that construction will not start until 2027. This is a far too familiar story when it comes to projects under Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael. Progress is slow. The family courts building was first announced in 2014 and was originally expected to be operational by 2017, yet we are now being told it will be 2027. I have met a number of people at the busiest family law court, Dolphin House in Dublin, who told me the experience was horrendous. It is an outdated and overcrowded building that is not fit for purpose.

People have articulated very well the problems the in camera rule presents and the need for it to be reformed. I want to report that our committee has heard from numerous victims and survivors of domestic violence, as well as others, who have experience of the family courts. They pointed out that the in camera rule severely limited accountability, prevented them, as they saw it, from sharing their experiences and left them silent, isolated and unsupported during family law proceedings. Others have argued that the in camera rule has shielded perpetrators from scrutiny and limited public accountability. Essentially, it has allowed harmful behaviour or litigation tactics that have exacerbated that harmful behaviour to go unchallenged behind closed doors. Measures such as more anonymised judgments would increase transparency.

Following the publication of the review of the operation of the in camera rule in family law proceedings last May, which found widespread confusion, inconsistent application and a lack of transparency in family law proceedings, changes needed to be implemented as a matter of urgency. The Minister described the changes as critical, yet as far as I am aware, few if any of the recommendations have been implemented to date.

Having spoken to people who have come through the system, again acknowledging survivors of domestic violence, they feel absolutely silenced by the rule. I believe the recommendation that litigants in domestic abuse and coercive control cases should be able to seek the permission of the court to lift the rule to waive anonymity should be implemented as a matter of urgency.

Another area of family law which has been widely criticised is the use of so-called experts in family courts. That needs to be addressed. Concerns about the use of expert reports include inconsistent expert quality, sometimes bias, high cost, delays and reports that assessments can lack transparency or robust standards. I know the Minister has launched new judicial guidelines, which are welcome, but consideration should also be given to ensuring minimum qualifications, independence and accountability for anybody who deems themselves to be a family law expert.

I want to repeat my commentary in respect of Tusla, which I have made on a number of occasions. I agree with the previous speaker who said there are many very hard-working, dedicated and committed people working for Tusla but the organisation, as a whole, continuously falls short of the standards we should be demanding. Tusla has charge in many instances of the most vulnerable children in our society and there are far too many cases of children in Tusla care who not only did not receive the support they deserved and that we should expect as a society but who have actually come out harmed as a result of their interaction with Tusla. Somebody has to take charge and ensure those deficiencies are fixed.

As my party spokesperson on children, I am really glad to have the opportunity to speak on this motion, particularly about the importance of the voice of the child in court proceedings. This is an issue I have been raising with the Minister, Deputy Foley, repeatedly and I am glad to get the opportunity to raise it here this morning. The Minister of State will be aware of the new service being established for guardians ad litem , GALs, a system that will regulate them. That is welcome and GALs have no issue with it. Where issues have arisen and where they have flagged concerns is twofold. The first is their independence. They will go in with Tusla under the same Department. The second is the fact that there will be no guaranteed legal representation for the GAL in court proceedings. GALs are not legal experts. They will be in courtrooms where Tusla will have legal representation and where the parents, if they are there, will have legal representation. The GAL has the most important job of all, being a voice for the child, yet they will stand in a court of law without legal expertise. That is of no benefit to the child who is at the centre of court proceedings. It is really concerning.

Judge Simms, who appeared on the "RTÉ Investigates" programme last week, was in here last month with GALs. I hosted them in the audiovisual room, so they could outline these issues. It is hard to take anything positive from the "RTÉ Investigates" programme last week but one tiny positive was seeing the powerful advocates that the GALs were on that programme. When they were in here last month, one GAL set out a case that I want to read into the record:

I was a GAL for three siblings; they had been in care in different foster families for three weeks while Tusla tried to find them a permanent foster family...

Tusla found a potential foster family that I was able to visit, the foster family were delighted to be able to offer a place for all three siblings.

I went to court the next day, when I got into the court Tusla solicitor announced that this foster family was now approved, but was only approved to take two of the [three] siblings, the youngest would have to go somewhere else, another foster placement in a different county and a different province.

I consulted [there and then] with my solicitor, and they agreed that [we] would lodge a section 47 application. This specifically asked for the Tusla foster care committee to present to the judge the reasons why they only approved [two of the three siblings]...

My solicitor called me to give evidence to the judge.

Because they had met them, the GAL could say that the foster family had fully committed to taking all three. The GAL was able to tell the judge how capable and committed these foster parents were, having visited them in their own home, and that their children were now adults and that they had lots of support and plenty of space. The court adjourned for the evening.

The next morning, the GAL said that

Tusla told me and the others that they had ... decided to approve the foster family for all three [children], due to the issue being raised ... by the GAL and the lodging of an application.

Result was these three children can grow up together and continue [to care and look after each other].

The GAL said that "If I was not independent and not provided with [the] ability to have the ... conversations with this foster family and to consult with my solicitor 'in the moment'. This outcome would never have been possible." They would not have had the ability to bring the application under section 47 and the children would have been separated in two different families in two different parts of the country that evening.

I cannot understand why we would remove the guaranteed legal representation for GALs. There is no GAL looking for legal representation willy-nilly. They look for it so they can be the best voice for the child in the court proceedings. Nobody can tell me why that is being removed. It will do no favours and provide no support for children in our State.

I thank Deputy Gogarty and the Independent Technical Group for bringing forward this important motion. Family law is not working to protect the children of this State. Children are not only failed by family law, they are all too often put in harm's way. That means the State is facilitating harm to children. The system is massively skewed against women and children but I acknowledge that it impacts men as well. It ignores domestic violence and threats to kill, and forces children to continuously meet those who have already abused them. I have case after case where this is happening, and it has happened for years. I am glad the Minister is facing up to this but we need to do it much quicker than it has been done. It really says an awful lot for the Ministers who have come before him. The experts making these decisions work without oversight and without accountability. There is no transparency and no scrutiny.

The horror stories coming out of the family law courts can only be described as State-sponsored cruelty. What are we going to tell these children when, as adults, they ask why we, as legislators, did not intervene to stop the harm that was being done to them? Are we going to tell them it was too complex?

The use of experts in family law cases needs to be dealt with by regulations rather than by guidelines, given the serious concerns that have arisen to date and the need to ensure the highest standards in terms of how the justice system works. Minimum standards of training are required for those who work in the area of family law, as recognised in the Government's Family Justice Strategy 2022-2025. It is now 2026 and such standards are overdue to be introduced across all professionals, including legal professionals and civil and public servants operating in this area.

I acknowledge the Minister's intent but the lack of transparency is striking. By excluding the public and limiting reporting with the in camera rule, we have created a system that operates largely out of sight. Justice must not only be done but it must be seen to be done, as we know.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on these very important issues. The reality is that State is failing vulnerable children. A lady contacted me in my clinic on Monday. She was in foster care the majority of her life. For a short period when she was 17, she tried to go back home and rebuild a relationship with her mother but this did not work out and she went back into residential care. When she turned 18, she was told there was no aftercare service for her. For the majority of this young lady's life she has been in care. Now at 21, she has been homeless for three years. I could not believe it when talking to this young woman on Monday that for her whole life, she has been in foster care, residential care, and now in homeless accommodation, with no support. The State has abandoned this young woman. If someone does not step in and provide aftercare and help for her now, what is going to be her future?

The treatment of children and young people shows that the system puts rules, regulation and bureaucracy ahead of children. How can that be right?

The system - from the courts to the care system - is not designed with children and young people at its core, as they should be. We do not need to look any further than the special emergency care arrangements for proof of this. We are talking about children being placed in unregulated, unsuitable bed and breakfast accommodation, hotels and rental accommodation. How in the name of God is that right in this day and age? Deputy Kerrane has described these as modern-day mother and baby homes. She is correct because they are. It is a case of out of sight, out of mind for these children.

People come to me who have come out of treatment and are in recovery. They cannot get access to their children because they do not have suitable accommodation. They do not have a home. Their children are being left in foster care although Tusla say they could go with their parents or mother if they had a home.

I thank Deputy Gogarty for the opportunity to talk about child welfare, in particular in relation to Tusla. We all saw the harrowing documentary from "RTÉ Investigates" last week in relation to the failures of Tusla to protect some of our most vulnerable children. I commend the makers of this programme for an excellent piece of journalism. We got to meet Max in this documentary. He was sleeping in an underground car park at a Tusla premises in Naas, County Kildare. He left the care system last October after spending almost his entire life in Tusla's care. Now he is sleeping in one of its underground car parks. This is not right. Max is a product of a failed care system.

When Tusla has no beds available it outsources the placement of children to private companies under what are known as special emergency arrangements, SEAs. These arrangements mean that children are accommodated in care facilities provided by private operators, including rented apartments, bed and breakfast accommodation, hotels and houses. These are unregulated and they are not open to independent inspection.

I worked with vulnerable children in a previous job. I have constantly raised concerns about unregulated settings, in particular the fact that they are not investigated and looked into. Max's story is not unique. Last year 1,100 children in Tusla's care were placed in unregulated special emergency arrangements. This is an increase of 675 children on the number who were placed in these settings in 2023. Last year, 56 children under the age of 12 were placed in unregulated special emergency arrangements. I do not know how this has been allowed to happen. That is despite the concerns of some judges who have ordered that children would not be placed into these unregulated settings. Last month Judge Conor Fottrell severely criticised profiteering by private operators providing unregulated placements for the most vulnerable children. He described it as "wrong" and "shameful". I wholeheartedly agree. The Government is paying millions to these private operators to keep the system going. It is time the Government took full responsibility for its actions.

I would like to bring up a very specific issue that was raised with us at the autism parliamentary group yesterday. I will not go into the complete detail, but it is about real failings that surround child protection and child welfare. This relates to the most vulnerable children who do not have a voice, namely, those who are non-verbal. In the near future people will hear about - and we will deal with - failings in the criminal justice system. Training and guidelines are required for the Garda. Agencies must ensure we have the necessary child welfare protections. At this point in time we are absolutely falling down. As Deputy Kerrane says, it is utterly crazy that at the same time the Government is going to undermine the independence of the guardian ad litem , the voice of those most vulnerable of children in court settings who in many cases have been failed for far too long. We need to have at least somebody there who is not in the employment or under the direction of a Minister or Department and has an element of freedom to represent the child. That should be the sole focus.

Like Deputy Mark Ward, I commend the work of "RTÉ Investigates" in relation to the brutal case of Max. He was subject to a special emergency arrangement in a hotel and went missing for two and a half hours. He was sleeping in a car park open to all sorts and abused within that setting. I accept we are talking about very complex cases but we are also talking about cases that have been made more complex by the lack of early intervention. The State is paying something like €2,000 per child per week to unregistered, unregulated SEAs. Last year there were 170 SEAs. There are now 70. It is still too many but that is an improvement. I also hear from Tusla front-line staff that SEAs cannot be operated at the moment, understandably so.

I thank the Deputy.

The fact is that Tusla does not have the correct residential or special care facilities. At the moment, even if we are not using SEAs, we are using inappropriate settings.

We are moving to the Labour Party.

None of this is good enough. The Minister for justice and other Ministers need to get a handle on this because we have failed for far too long.

I wish to share time with Deputy Sheehan and Deputy Ahern.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

First, I compliment Deputy Gogarty and his colleagues for bringing this forward. This is an extremely important topic. To a degree, we probably need to get to a political consensus on it. I believe that the Minister can travel this journey with us. He is probably committed to a certain amount of reform in this area. I read what he said last year and prior to that in relation to this. I hope his goodwill towards it is very real. I accept that it is a tricky area and it will take some time but I believe and hope that he will be the Minister to deal with this.

Like others, I also compliment "RTÉ Investigates" on its programme. It certainly provided a level of knowledge to people and did it in a very real way. The review that reported in 2025 demonstrated what parents and guardians feel as regards being confused, isolated, silenced and completely confused as to what they can and cannot discuss. It is glaringly obvious that this has to be dealt with. We need clear information, clear knowledge and clear guidelines on how we deal with family court issues.

I do believe the Minister is committed to it but few of the recommendations have been implemented. However, the report ultimately keeps the in camera rule, which creates a very confusing outcome. While we can agree with many of the recommendations, it still comes down in favour of that. This cannot continue in the real world. The world has changed from where we are in terms of the legislation that was brought in in relation to this, whereby information now comes out in a different way. We need to ensure that there is controlled transparency, with strong anonymity safeguards, rather than blanket secrecy. The impact on families and children has been huge. There has been emotional harm which has traumatised and retraumatised them. As legislators we finally need to deal with this in 2026.

I have been saying this for some time. One of the most key points is that we need to deal with the issue of court-appointed experts. Without a shadow of a doubt, this is an area that needs a complete overhaul as regards minimum standards, minimum requirements and qualifications. In many cases judges just take the opinions of experts as factual and are guided by them. These people are being paid. It is an industry. The standards are not there. It is too defining a role to leave it in such a laissez-faire way. It is unacceptable.

I urge the Minister to deal with this issue because it is life-changing for the families and children involved and it is completely inconsistent. There is also inconsistency in how Tusla implements recommendations. Ultimately, we need to change the in camera rule and permit the attendance of journalists. We need fully anonymity for families and we need judges to have discretion in respect of restrained reporting. We also need complete regulation of experts and training for members of An Garda Síochána.

I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate. There is clear evidence of the need to reform and change the in camera rule. In practice, the rule restricts evidence and protects perpetrators rather than victims. It has created a culture of secrecy that shields abuse and effectively acts as a gagging order. While in theory it protects privacy, in practice it often prevents public accountability and hinders supports for vulnerable people through its misapplication.

In the Minister's amendment, he mentions that a detailed examination is being undertaken by officials and also mentions findings and recommendations from the report on the operation of the in camera rule, including a review of the Transparency Project and the use of transparency orders in England and Wales. When is the Minister going to take action on foot of recommendations for reform, including the introduction of transparency orders? The independent research report was published almost a year ago. We need a commitment to transparency as a priority rather than just an acknowledgement that the Minister values it. On the specific issue of transparency orders, the reply I received to a parliamentary question sidesteps the question and says that officials are examining developments in England and Wales. We need an indication that such orders are being actively considered for Ireland. There is a clear gap and we need a structured transparency regime such as that provided by transparency orders. There is a notable emphasis throughout on privacy as opposed to transparency. It feels like the groundwork is being laid to push back against the deeper reforms that are necessary. It has become internationally accepted that the blanket enforcement of in camera rule-style procedures in family law matters is unacceptable. We need to at least see a pilot on changes to the rule.

Women have come to my clinics and tell me that the in camera rule is a cloak of invisibility for the failings of the family courts. I have been contacted by women who have been threatened by judges with the Dóchas Centre and having their children removed from them for non-compliance with contact orders. When they try to challenge these decisions or explain, they are shot down and often told that it is the woman the father has a problem with and not the children. The comments are made in cases where the father is accused and sometimes convicted of domestic and sexual violence against the mother. While the in camera rule is in place, there is no accountability for the manner in which some judges and barristers treat women in court.

I support the amendment Deputy Gibney is going to move. We need access to relevant case law on the Bench. Australia's National Domestic and Family Violence Bench Book provides a good example. We need to introduce something like that here.

As the Minister knows, family law remains one of the most overlooked and under-resourced areas of our justice system. The attitude to family law is epitomised by the huge site earmarked for the headquarters of the new family law courts back in 2014 that has been lying vacant and waterlogged on Hammond Lane in Smithfield for years. Planning permission was granted in 2024 and it might be completed by 2029, if we are lucky. None of these delays have anything to do with environmental law or judicial reviews, by the way. This is just a failure by Government to prioritise family law. In the meantime, our existing family law courts, which are spread over multiple different venues, are overcrowded, dilapidated and lacking in privacy and spaces suitable for dealing with the tragic and sensitive disputes at play.

I welcome this motion and thank Deputy Gogarty for proposing it. It is a worthy objective to seek more transparency and clarity in our courts system for the benefit of all court users. The notable thing about this campaign for reform of the in camera rule is that it has been led by survivors. It is grounded in the lived experiences of women and children who have experienced intimate partner violence, abuse and coercive control and who are trying to navigate a decrepit family law system that is failing them.

Our system does not always manage to achieve the best outcomes for children, who are at the heart of many of these disputes. Attempts at reform in this area are welcome. Accessibility is vital in our justice system. Even the name of this rule, the in camera rule, is archaic and outdated. I welcome the Department's announcement of plans to retitle the rule into plain English to ensure that it is understood by all family court users, not just those with a legal or Latin degree. That is really simple but very important. Let us just call it "the privacy and transparency rule". It is vital that this rule, as long as it still exists at all, be clearly and consistently defined and understood and that its operation does not impede parties accessing support services outside the court. Of course, we should always be encouraging, in every way possible, the resolution of family disputes outside the confines of our courts.

There are many other pressing issues in our family courts at the moment. These include the need for a statutory agency to pursue child maintenance. I welcome the child maintenance guidelines that were issued earlier this year. These will help parents to decide and come to an agreement on the appropriate level of maintenance outside of the courts. However, as the Law Society has recommended, we still need an agency to assist in bringing court applications to determine maintenance where disputes arise and an agency to act as a collecting agent for maintenance payments and to engage in the enforcement of maintenance and the collection of arrears. I reiterate my support for the motion.

I support this motion and Deputy Gibney's proposed amendment. At its core, it is about something very simple and that is whether justice in our family courts is visible, whether it is accountable, and most important of all, whether it is fair to the people who depend upon it the most. Right now, those who have depended upon it and been failed by the system are very clearly telling us that it is not. We have built a system that operates behind closed doors justified in the name of privacy, but what the research and lived testimonies have shown us is that secrecy is not protecting people in the way that it should. That secrecy is isolating and compounding trauma. The 2025 review of the in camera rule makes that very clear. Parents do not understand what they are allowed to say. Many feel silenced. Many feel that they cannot even seek support. When people feel shut out of a system that is making life-altering decisions about their children, trust will inevitably collapse. We also know from research that there is widespread concern about the lack of transparency, inconsistency in decision-making and barriers to accessing support.

I wish to acknowledge something that brought this home in a very real way for all of us on the justice committee last week, when Margaret Loftus appeared before the committee and gave one of the most powerful testimonies that many of us have heard. She spoke at length about what she was put through in search of justice. Everybody in the House should watch her testimony. If the Minister has not seen it, he should go back and have a look. When she was asked about the one thing she would change in the system, her answer was simple - she said she would change the in camera rule. She said it was having a detrimental impact upon victims of domestic abuse and is no longer fit for purpose. That stopped me in my tracks and I hope it would stop anyone else. When somebody who has lived through what she has lived through, as well as so many other survivors, tells us that the rules that are meant to protect them are actually silencing them, we have to listen and break that silence. Her experience alone is a damning indictment of where we are, but it is also reflected in so many other testimonies and lived experiences.

I commend Deputy Gogarty on his motion and the strong and sustained support that he and his office colleagues have given many families affected by the issues being discussed here today.

As a psychologist working in mental health services, I have seen the fallout when family conflict becomes destructive, entrenched and entangled in the labyrinthine and secretive family courts system. I have supported people whose mental health was weaponised against them and whose distress was treated as evidence that they were unsafe, unstable or unworthy of contact with their child. Sometimes, their distress was stoked and heightened by the system itself to a point that brought them to a psychological brink. I have also seen the devastating impact when children are drawn into adult conflict and, in effect, set against a parent. It is important to say that these patterns can affect both mothers and fathers. Abuse, coercive control, emotional harm and risks of any kind must always be taken seriously, and so too must the harm caused by false allegations, diagnosis or vulnerability used strategically in the courts system. For a parent who is pushed out of their child's life, the torment is hard to describe or even imagine. The daily grief of knowing that your child is growing up and needing your love and relationship while you are powerless to reach them can break people.

I am particularly concerned about court reports that can shape decisions about where a child lives, how often a parent sees them or whether a relationship even survives. Concerns persist about delay, inconsistency and whether authors always have expertise in child development, attachment, trauma, domestic abuse and complex family dynamics. In some cases, they clearly do not have this expertise. A poorly considered report can do enormous damage. It can harden a narrative about a parent that is incomplete or simply wrong. Once it takes hold, it is almost impossible to undo. Privacy remains paramount, but privacy cannot mean parents are left alone in a closed system, unable to speak, get support or understand decisions of such magnitude. We need a careful, humane and accountable family courts system, one that upholds, wherever safe and possible, a child's right to a healthy ongoing relationship with both parents, as well as the parent's right to fairness and due process. It must recognise abuse, coercive control and where conflict is intensified by the court process. Above all, it must not add to the trauma of the children and families it is supposed to protect.

I welcome this debate, and the motion put forward by Deputy Gogarty. I have provided two points within the amendment which I have tabled to the motion. The first one is around a bench book, which essentially is a manual for judges to help them with the specifics of family law. The Minister spoke about the unique nature of family law and how difficult it can be. That is essentially what this is. On the Minister's comments around the separation of powers, that is not the intention of this amendment. Of course, I recognise the role of the Judicial Council in providing those bench books. I would never be suggesting that the Government would write such a bench book. All I am suggesting is that it be provided for.

The second point in the amendment is one that I wish to emphasise, which is the establishment and maintenance of a family helpline. One of the issues with our family court system is that so much of this ends up in the courts. If we better resourced and informed the public on the structures that should be available to them or are sometimes and intermittently available them to prevent them from ever entering the courts system and, instead, assisting them, as the Minister suggested, with finding solutions around maintenance and custody that can be done outside the court system, it would relieve the pressure on the courts system. It would provide families with less adversarial solutions to the crises that they find themselves in. All of this and all the changes that we heard suggested today must be backed up with consistent funding. The Family Courts Act should assist in resolving many of these issues, but only if it is matched with funding.

It really struck me that, until Deputy Kerrane spoke this morning, I did not see the voice of the child present in this debate. Thankfully, it has appeared since then. The voice and rights of the child should be what this debate is channelled through. It is what any amendments, motions, law and policy should be done through. We know from research and, indeed, from lived experience that when we centre and foreground the rights and voice of the child, everybody else's rights are met. That is what we have to keep focused on in any of this.

I thank Deputy Gogarty for the opportunity to address this most serious issue. I thank the Minister for the pending reforms of the family court system. It is overdue and most welcome. I commend Anna Kavanagh and Dr. Finbar Markey who have done tremendous work, both supporting and documenting the plight of parents trying to navigate a complex and oftentimes inhumane system. I am sorry I missed the other contributions this morning. I am bilocating with the Joint Committee on Disability Matters. Following on from Deputy Gibney in relation to the fiscal resourcing, what is critical to all of this is a resource of empathy. That will boil down to the recruitment and possibly the relocation of personnel with empathetic skills par excellence in this most complex area. It is not enough to add trauma on top of trauma.

The starting point is the child-centred piece. I refer to four Ps - prioritising the person over procedure and the person not to be a pawn. To this end, I must flag the most serious issue of safeguarding and independent advocacy. It is something that is quite relevant and inextricably linked to the work of the Joint Committee on Disability Matters and the Joint Committee on Children and Equality. In phase one and phase three in 2027 and 2029, respectively, the reform must include the recognition of harm against non-verbal or disabled children as a serious safeguarding crime. There must be disability-informed safeguarding protocols and training across all agencies involved in carrying out the continuum of care during and after the family court process.

I wish to make a couple of suggestions. These have come forward from parents whom I have had the privilege to meet and hear from. The first is the automatic appointment of an independent advocate or guardian ad litem in any legal process involving a non-verbal or severely disabled child. I am linking my comments specifically to the joint committee work because there is a very timely overlap. I reference Frederick Douglass, who said, "It is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men." I will briefly refer to Tusla. Many Members have probably gone to that topic before me.

This is relevant to an interaction with a parent as recently as yesterday. We have approximately 100,000 referrals. In the absence of accurate data regarding repetition as to the number of revolving-door incidents, this distils down to 51,000 children. I met a mother yesterday, purely by chance, at a committee meeting being held to discuss another matter. The incident struck all of us who heard about it. The woman in question has two daughters. Between them, they have been the subject of 32 referrals to Tusla in four years. This is linked to a domestic violence case. The referral cases have been closed because they do not meet certain criteria. There absolutely needs to be a root-and-branch reform of the system.

Data, in this instance, is linked entirely to families and children. There is also a link to housing policy. Take the example of Meath County Council and those presenting for emergency housing accommodation. It took three years, but I kept asking for a breakdown of the presentations. I discovered that the primary reason for presentation is marital breakdown.

I take this opportunity to link with what Deputy Gibney said in the context of the prevention, mediation and family resource centres. I acknowledge the increased funding for family resource centres, but Tusla is at the beginning, the middle and the end of all of this. Fiscal resourcing is necessary but empathy is absolutely critical. I trust the Minister to work with all stakeholders, including the recently formed cross-party committee, to ensure the child is prioritised and mothers and fathers are supported. If this does not happen, lifelong trauma will ensue, and the body bares the scars.

Aontaím le go leor rudaí a bhí ráite sa Teach seo, go háirithe an méid a bhí le rá ag an Teachta Toole ag an deireadh faoi na príomhrudaí ag tús shaol na bpáistí sa tír seo. Is é sin t-am nuair is gá dúinn cabhair, infheistíocht agus rudaí mar sin a chur isteach le go bhféadfar cabhrú le daoine. Gabhaim míle buíochas leis an Teachta Gogarty for proposing the motion and giving us the opportunity to have this debate.

When parents walk into a family court, many of them are often already at a very low point in their lives. They are dealing with separation, fear, stress and uncertainty about their children's future. I welcome the work the Department has done. I also welcome the commitments the Minister gave earlier. I trust that the Department will take all aspects of this matter under consideration, particularly in relation to how the pilot scheme in Northern Ireland is going ahead. Wales and England have their own schemes.

The 2025 review of the operation of the in camera rule confirmed that too many parents leave the family court feeling silenced, confused or powerless and do not understand why they are not legally allowed to talk about their cases. That cannot be healthy in any modern democracy or system of law.

England and Wales have introduced controlled transparency, and, as mentioned, there is a pilot scheme in Northern Ireland that allows accredited journalists to observe and report on proceedings. Studies have shown that those reforms have not led to children being exposed. In fact, those studies found that the reforms have improved understanding and scrutiny of and confidence in the system. I welcome that the Minister is examining this, but sometimes, as with any aspect of Government, one of the biggest frustrations relates to speed. It is very easy for people to say "Just do it now", but there is a lot of backlog that will have to be gone through in order to ensure that it is done right. I ask that it be done as quickly as possible. I understand that the Minister wants it to be done right and does not want it to have to be revisited. I acknowledge and welcome that.

I also welcome the phased implementation plan that is due to begin in 2027 and the commitment in the programme for Government to modernise family justice services and put children's welfare at the centre of proceedings. Democracies cannot operate behind closed doors. A judicial system that operates largely behind closed doors will struggle to command full public confidence. Where there is no visibility, inconsistency, poor decision-making and a lack of resources can grow unchecked. It is the same with many of the matters we discuss. When members of the public cannot see exactly what we are doing in this House and do not understand the decisions we are making, that does not add to confidence among them and it creates mistrust. That is why I welcome many of the proceedings that have taken place and how much more open we have been in our State.

We need stronger standards regarding and oversight of court-appointed experts and clearer training pathways for An Garda Síochána. One of the things I will continue to push for is more investment in local family resource centres across north Dublin. The people in those centres are doing the work on the ground, they understand what cases involve and they are preventing certain things from happening. Families deserve privacy but they also deserve transparency and accountability. They also need to have confidence in the system.

I trust the Minister and believe that he will examine this matter. Achieving a balance is possible. The other countries to which I refer are showing that this can be done. There are studies and data which show that it is beneficial. We must, as other Deputies mentioned, show political will and catch up.

I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute on behalf of the Government and the Minister for Education and Youth and our Department. I welcome the commitment given by the Minister for justice, Deputy O'Callaghan, to enhance transparency and public understanding of the family law system and ensure that the right of children and parents to privacy is upheld.

In relation to open reporting, in The Operation of the In Camera Rule in Family Law Proceedings, recommendation 9 proposes introducing a right for accredited members of the media to attend all family law hearings and a right to communicate with parties on an anonymised basis. This approach is similar to the recent developments in England and Wales under their open reporting provisions. Expanding upon the In Camera report, officials in my Department are conducting an in-depth international comparative review, including on the transparency project on the use of transparency orders in England and Wales. This will form part of my Department’s ongoing examination of the report’s recommendations and their feasibility in practice.

As the Minister mentioned earlier, attendance and reporting by specified persons in family law proceedings is provided for under statutory provisions, including section 40 of the Civil Liability Act 2004, as amended, provided that the anonymity of the parties is preserved at all times.

I note the important role the media plays in attending to and reporting on cases, supporting transparency and raising awareness of these important issues. The establishment of the private family law reporting project earlier this year will further promote transparency in family law proceedings. This project will contribute to greater confidence and trust in the family justice system and will better inform family law policy and reform. It is expected that this project will produce key information for the Department to support the ongoing development of family justice policy and legislation. The Minister will receive the first volume of case reports later this year.

I acknowledge that family disputes are difficult. I strongly sympathise with the difficult experiences that many children and families face during family breakdowns. The Minister for justice remains committed to the ongoing reform of the family justice system to improve the rights and protections of children and families.

As part of the family justice strategy, the Department of justice undertook a public consultation and independent research in respect of parental alienation. The findings of both were analysed and, on foot of them, Department officials developed a policy paper on how best to address the issue. Despite the highly contested nature of this concept, there was consensus in the public consultation that the means to address parental alienation lie in improvements to the Irish family courts and the family justice system. Reflecting this, the policy paper puts forward six recommendations to address parental alienation. These are also linked to actions outlined in the family justice strategy. One of the recommendations in the policy paper suggested that a review of the expert reports in family law be undertaken. That review was completed and published in 2024.

The debate today has called on the Government to establish a regulatory framework for court-appointed experts, including minimum qualifications, accreditations and oversight and ensuring that contested or unvalidated theories are subject to a clear evidential standard. In June 2024, the Department of Justice published a wide-ranging review of the role of expert reports in the family law process. Significant progress has been made in advancing the 20 recommendations contained in that review.

The Minister, Deputy O'Callaghan, already referred to the work of the voice of the child working group. By way of further detail, this group was established in 2024, with membership comprising both statutory and voluntary stakeholders in the family justice system. It was established in line with the commitment in goal one of the family justice strategy, namely, supporting children. The group is progressing a number of the recommendations in the review of expert reports, including the development of a voice of the child report template, and guidelines are expected to be published in the coming months which will ensure consistency of approach by experts in supporting children to have their voices heard; and the development of the children's court advocate pilot project, which will be established in two locations, Waterford and Clonmel. The pilot will apply to all applications for guardianship, custody, and access. The service will be free of charge and will trial a new way to hear the voices of children in private family law cases. It will help regulate assessors and ensure consistency of practice. Running alongside the project will be a comprehensive evaluation to assess its effectiveness in achieving its aim of improving how the voice of the child is heard and considered in private family law proceedings.

As the Minister mentioned, the implementation plan for a new family court system was published earlier this month. The Family Courts Act 2024 will introduce important changes to the delivery of family justice in Ireland. These changes will include full-time specialist judges assigned to deal with family law within new family court divisions, each run by a new principal judge, and the possibility to provide divorce applications at both District and Circuit Court level.

The implementation plan sets out a clear, three-phase approach. Phase 1, beginning in January 2027, will see the rollout of three pilot locations, comprising a family district court, a family circuit court, and a family high court. Judges with specific expertise in dealing with families and family law matters will be assigned to these first court locations on a full-time basis. Phase 2, expected from January 2028, will build on this by adding additional family court divisions to those operational from phase 1. A staggered commencement may involve certain processes coming online at different times, allowing for training and digital capacity to be established as needed and to learn from the results of the evaluation process. Phase 3, expected from January 2029, will lead to the full implementation of the Act.

On behalf of the Government and the Minister for justice, in particular, I thank the Deputy for bringing forward this motion and the considered debate we have had in relation to these issues. One of the most important aspects of the family justice system is to ensure we have a system that is as child-focused as possible. We must also make sure that this is the case for all children, whatever abilities and challenges they may have, and mention was made by other Deputies of those who are non-verbal. It is important in this context to make sure that we understand the family law courts and the challenges there, and that in any and all changes made to the regulations we ensure that the voice of the child is a hugely important component of the decisions being made. I know the Minister is acutely aware of that perspective and has given due consideration to all the aspects of it but it is something we have to be very mindful of as we build more expertise into the courts system to better provide for families. We want to make sure all children are heard through that process.

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-----

That is the Deputy’s time up.

-----podcast and recently published book.

I would like to see more transparency in the interests of the children and to pilot what is already happening in the UK.

I welcome this motion from my colleague, Deputy Gogarty. I hope it receives cross-party support.

There are many problems with the in camera rule in the family court. It is something we in Aontú have raised consistently for a long time. The cross-party group has formed in the Oireachtas seeking reforms. This is very welcome and indeed it is good to see Government backbenchers as part of that group as well.

Deputy Gogarty cited the example of Britain and the pilot system it introduced to remove the in camera rule and how it is working. This is something we should look at seriously. We have a situation which not only prohibits journalists from reporting on the horrors unfolding in the courtrooms, it also leaves people feeling like they cannot talk to gardaí, or their solicitor in some cases. There is an entire attitude where people feel a significant fear around talking about their situation. There is also a situation where judges themselves are often scathing in their assessments, sometimes in relation to Tusla, and are not having their remarks publicly heard. It is a significant thing that in some cases judges are scathing of Tusla and those remarks and assessments go unheard.

The problems in Tusla, which have been well-highlighted by my colleague, Deputy Tóibín, over many years, are extremely serious. The inside of courtrooms get much greater insight into these problems than we do, but the in camera rule prevents us as policy and law makers from getting a proper understanding of what is happening and how we can fix it. The secrecy around family law cases creates a breeding ground for corruption. Margaret Loftus, a wonderful woman from Mayo, spoke to "Prime Time" earlier this year about the abuse she experienced at the hands of a member of An Garda Síochána. She spoke last week to the justice committee and asked how many gardaí have barring orders against them. The answer is we do not know, because of the in camera rule. That is a shocking revelation.

She was asked about her experience of family law courts. The family law court outlined that she should be ashamed of herself and go home and apologise to her children. She was told that if the judge had jurisdiction over the Central Criminal Court, she would throw out the charges. This is a woman who endured sustained, brutal attack lasting an hour and a half, when she was put against a wall and kicked repeatedly, and left huddled with her children. She was speaking under Dáil privilege at an Oireachtas committee last week and said she could not go into any detail about what happened to her because of the family law courts and the in camera rule. Not only this, but any evidence she herself gave in the family law courts could not be used in the criminal courts. This evidence would be disregarded, which is extraordinary. This woman’s own evidence which was used in the family law courts was precluded from being used in the criminal courts. She could use the evidence but would have to get permission, which is really quite incredible. Margaret Loftus has said the in camera rule needs to go, as it is having a devastating effect on survivors and victims of domestic abuse.