The planned changes in the reporting of family law cases, detailed in today's Irish Times, are long overdue and must be welcomed.
There have been many changes, economic and social, in Irish society over the past two decades, but none as great as those involving the family. There has been a raft of legislation reflecting changing social mores. Illegitimacy was abolished by the Status of Children Act. Barring and protection orders were introduced through the Domestic Violence Act. Legal separation, including the division of property, maintenance of dependent spouses and children and custody and access issues were provided for in the Family Law (Judicial Separation) Act. Following the seismic constitutional referendum on divorce, people can now divorce and remarry, and divorces often involve the complicated redistribution of family assets, including pensions.
These issues are being decided every day in the courts. Hundreds of thousands of families have had their affairs regulated in some way by the courts, or by negotiation between lawyers. But all this has taken place behind closed doors. The so-called "in camera" rule in all family law cases not only results in the suspension of the constitutional norm that justice takes place in public and is reported. It also means that information about what happens in these cases cannot be made available to anyone. This includes health boards and others concerned with the welfare of children, and tribunals considering the professional conduct of lawyers and other relevant professionals. This whole area of law, affecting the most fundamental issues in most people's lives, is hermetically sealed from any public scrutiny.
In all fields of human activity mistakes occur. But in most, they can be identified and corrected. However, in the area of family law the only way of correcting a suspected mistake at an individual level is through the expensive appeals process. There is no way at all of identifying or correcting a pattern of mistakes, if they occur. Furthermore, individuals facing litigation do not know what to expect. In this situation rumour and anecdote abound and can be countered only by the release of comprehensive information.
This does not mean that the private affairs of individual families should be made public. On the contrary, those involved in the traumatic business of family law must be assured that their privacy is fully protected. But the way in which our courts deal with such issues must be open to public scrutiny and debate. It will be up to the Courts Service now to reconcile these two imperatives.