The role of family law reporter does not involve criticising court decisions, as alleged, writes Carol Coulter.
In his column yesterday John Waters made a number of very serious allegations about my views and my role as family law reporter for the Courts Service, including the allegation that I was promoting what he regards as child abuse.
It is difficult to imagine a more serious allegation to level against a parent and a person with professional responsibility for reporting on family law. Not only does he question my suitability as a parent and impugn my professional integrity, he also brings into question the independence and integrity of the Courts Service family law reporting pilot project.
Waters maintained that at a recent conference I was "pressing" for children to choose between their parents and give evidence against them in court in family law proceedings. He also stated that I "appeared to criticise a judge" for not consulting children in such a case and accused me of "fundamental ignorance of what the family law system is there to do". All of these statements are totally without foundation.
He based his comments on media reports of a recent conference organised by One Family, a conference he did not attend. Nor did he do what a professional journalist wishing to comment on what transpired there would do - inquire as to what was said. Had he asked me what I had said to the conference I would have told him, and he could have avoided misrepresenting me. But clearly he had no interest in establishing the accuracy of his claims.
The conference was devoted to the topic of the role of children in divorce proceedings 10 years after the introduction of divorce, and this was the theme I was invited to address. It heard contributions from a number of speakers, none of whom said children should be asked to give evidence against their parents, and included an account of recent developments in European law in this area. I spoke about the Courts Service pilot project and my most recent work.
As those who were present can attest, I outlined the remit of the Courts Service project and then described 11 recent cases I had attended in which custody of, and access to, children was a major issue.
As is clearly stated in my recent report (available from the Courts Service and on its website, www.courts.ie), the Courts Service pilot project involves preparing and publishing reports of family law proceedings, collecting judgments and presenting statistics and trends. It does not involve criticising any decision of any court or any judge. Nor does it involve either criticising or defending the family law system as a whole, or making any policy proposals relating to family law. It is my task to report what I find, based on a representative selection of cases, not to seek to either endorse or undermine any particular agenda, including that espoused by Waters.
At the conference I stated a number of facts either already well-known or drawn from my attendance at family law proceedings. I started by stating the fact that no structure exists in the Irish family law system for obtaining the views of children about arrangements concerning their lives. In this situation different judges adopt different approaches. Some talk to children, usually older children, in their chambers. Some do not. Some use the services of professionals such as psychologists, who prepare reports that are provided for in legislation instead of, or as well as, talking to the children. I expressed no view on the different approaches adopted by different judges.
In one of the 11 cases I referred to, involving an eight-year-old and a four-and-a-half-year-old child, psychologists' reports were prepared in earlier proceedings, which contributed to both parents having equal access to the children. I was not present at these earlier proceedings, but attended the later hearing, which resulted in a substantial reduction in the access previously enjoyed by the father.
Describing this case, I pointed out that the views of the children had not been obtained. I also mentioned the fact that the previously prepared reports were not referred to at this hearing. I gave similar information about the process in the other 10 cases. All this information is factual. These cases will be reported more fully, but of course without any information that could identify the parties, in my next report, for the purpose of continuing to inform the public about what happens in family law cases.
Contrary to what Waters stated, at no stage did I advance any view on the approach taken by this or any of the judges in any of the cases. It would be entirely inappropriate for me to do so. Nor did I advocate any policy in relation to obtaining the views of children in family law proceedings.
Waters seems to have the view that I adhere to a certain agenda in relation to family law, implying that taxpayers' money is now being spent, through the Courts Service, to advance it. This suggestion, if true, would bring into question the independence of the Courts Service project. It is totally without foundation.
Indeed, I am mystified as to what John Waters thinks this agenda is. If this is indeed his view, he should tell us what this suspected agenda is, and where I have expressed my support for it.
If he can advance no evidence of such an agenda, I hope he will desist from seeking to attribute one to me and, by implication, to the project in which I am engaged.
It is of vital importance that there be comment and debate on family law and its operation. But this should be based on facts and stated positions, not on untruths, personal attacks, misrepresentations, unsubstantiated suppositions and innuendo.