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.

Sentiment score: -0.09

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-----

Sentiment score: 0.08

-----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.

Sentiment score: 0.27