Madam, - The treatment of separated fathers by the family courts, in particular in regard to access rights to their children, is an issue which has been ignored for many years. John Waters (Opinion, January 16th) is one of the very few journalists trying to highlight this matter; for his pains, he has often been accused of being over the top. At a time when a great many previously hidden abuses and denials of rights are being addressed, the silence on this matter is quite extraordinary. Not only journalists but statutory bodies have failed, to say nothing of the arms of Government and political parties.
One may ask whether the Equality Authority, often very vocal in other things, has anything to say on a question where the lack of equality between fathers and mothers is so striking. The cowardice of politicians is quite craven. Has any politician raised the matter in the past 10 years?
Mr Waters is right when he says that, a generation hence, the neglect shown in this regard will be seen as incomprehensible. Some time ago the removal of the in camera rule was mooted but even this small measure has apparently been long-fingered. I believe that the whole matter must become an issue for the next general election and the question should be put to political parties as well as to individual candidates. - Yours, etc,
DAVID WALSH, Rockfield, Maynooth, Co Kildare.
Madam, - I am horrified by the way in which John Waters's description of social workers is so far removed from my experience of social workers and my observations on the way the child care systems works.
Without doubt, there are some issues to be resolved in relation to family law, custody disputes and the relationships between parents and children, particularly when the care and custody of children is contested between parents. But John Waters misrepresents the work of HSE social workers involved in child protection work. He describes social workers as "deranged automatons operating this evil system" and portrays them as operating completely without accountability.
I am not aware of the "K" case to which Mr Waters refers. In any event, social workers cannot discuss any particular case to protect the identity of families and children and out of respect for an ethical code of practice. But I would like to make clear that the use of language such as "deranged automatons" does little to help anyone and insults the intelligence of readers and the practice of professionally trained social workers, employed by the State to investigate matters that no one else will explore.
Mr Waters refers to a case conference; I take it, then, that he is aware that social workers do indeed operate under accountability. Before any child can be taken into care, a social worker must justify this recommendation to the HSE team leader, to the principal social worker, to the child care manager, to the local child protection case conference and then to the courts. Case conferences are usually attended by a variety of people who may know the children, including nurses, doctors, school principals, parents and family relatives.
Before approving a proposal that a child be removed from the care of parents, those who attend a case conference usually ask what else has been tried to keep a family together. And finally, the decision to seek a court order for a child's removal into care is a decision of last resort, because social workers believe that it is best to keep families together wherever possible. - Yours, etc,
DECLAN COOGAN, Senior Social Worker and Family Therapist, Communications Co-ordinator, Irish Association of Social Workers, Dublin 2.