Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

I am delighted to introduce the Family Courts Bill in this House today. Bringing this Bill before Dáil Éireann represents a major milestone on the path to achieving the commitment in the programme for Government to enact a Family Courts Bill to create a new dedicated family court within the existing court structure and provide for court procedures that support a less adversarial resolution of disputes. The Bill has completed its passage through the Seanad. Provisions regarding safety of parties to proceedings, initiation of proceedings in the family District Court, consultation with the Courts Service and limitations on personal cross-examination were inserted during the Bill's progress in that House. These amendments reflect matters raised by stakeholders following the Bill's publication.

Reform of family justice, including enabling access to a courts system that is less adversarial and where possible reduces the costs of dealing with family issues, has been sought for a long time. It is the Government's intention and mine, as Minister for Justice, that a reformed family justice system will be user- and family-friendly and will enable cases to be dealt with more efficiently and in a way that should ensure better outcomes for families and children.

The measures in the Family Courts Bill are supported by the first national family justice strategy that I published along with this Bill at the end of 2022. The family justice strategy is laying a foundation, recognising the many issues that currently exist with the family justice system and the steps needed to begin its much-needed reform. The Family Courts Bill is the keystone and provides many structures essential to this reform.

The legislative changes put forward in this Bill and the development of the family justice strategy were supported by the work of the family justice oversight group. Following the launch of the strategy, a family justice implementation group chaired by my Department was established and is working to implement the nine goals and more than 50 actions contained in the strategy and focusing on developing a strong foundation for a future system which is more child- and family-centred, which supports and protects and is more accessible.

I will now outline the purposes of the Family Courts Bill and provide an overview of the main provisions. The Bill provides for the establishment of a family court as divisions within the existing court structures. There will be a family High Court, a family Circuit Court, and a family District Court, each dealing with family law matters as appropriate to its jurisdiction. Each of these family court divisions will have judges assigned to them on a full-time basis. Their sole focus will be on determining family law cases.

The Bill provides guiding principles for the conduct of proceedings in the family court divisions to make the best interests of the child a primary consideration in all family law proceedings, for proceedings to operate in an efficient and user-friendly manner, and to encourage active case management by the courts. The courts, legal practitioners and parties to family law proceedings will be required to have regard to these principles.

A further aim of the Bill is to enable a greater proportion of non-contentious family law matters to be dealt with at District Court level, where this is appropriate. The Bill, however, does not compel parties to initiate their family law proceedings in the family District Court. The objective is to provide a potentially simpler and possibly more cost-effective pathway for people through the family courts system, where the circumstances of the case deem it appropriate to take the family District Court route. I think we will all have met people who feel their cases could have been dealt with at District Court level which would have cost them a lot less and saved them a lot of time.

A new provision included in the Bill will enable joint applications to be made by spouses or civil partners for judicial separation, divorce or dissolution of civil partnership. At present, one spouse or civil partner must bring proceedings against the other. This change should support the use of mediation and alternative dispute resolution in family law proceedings.

I now turn to the main provisions of the Bill. Part 1 sets out standard provisions relating to the Short Title, commencement, interpretation, repeals and expenses. The Bill will apply to proceedings under the enactments listed in the definition of "family law proceedings" in section 2. Section 3 will enable the Minister to make regulations to prescribe additional enactments for the purposes of the definition of "family law proceedings".

Part 2 provides for guiding principles to help to ensure that the family court system will make the best interests of the child a primary consideration in all family law proceedings and will operate in an efficient and user-friendly manner. The courts, legal practitioners and parties to family law proceedings will be required to have regard to these principles in the conduct of family law proceedings.

Key principles include ensuring that the best interests of every child involved or likely to be affected by the outcome of family law proceedings shall be a primary consideration in the conduct of the proceedings; ensuring that the child’s views are ascertained where practicable and given due weight, having regard to the child’s age and maturity; encouraging and facilitating as far as possible the resolution of issues in dispute by means of alternative resolution methods, such as mediation, except in cases where this would not be appropriate, such as domestic violence cases; minimising the risk to the safety of parties to family law proceedings or a child to whom the proceedings relate, and taking account of cases where the safety of any of these is involved, for example, where domestic violence may be an issue and where alternative dispute resolutions would not be appropriate; promoting and engaging in active case management practices; and conducting proceedings in a manner which is user-friendly for the parties, identifies the issues in dispute, minimises conflict between the parties as far as possible, facilitates agreement being reached on the resolution of the issues in dispute, and is expeditious and likely to minimise the costs of the proceedings.

The introduction of guiding principles for the conduct of family law proceedings provides for a particular focus to be placed on the needs of the families involved in proceedings by the courts, legal practitioners and the parties involved in the proceedings.

Parts 3 to 5, inclusive, make detailed provision for the establishment of the family High Court, family Circuit Court and family District Court, respectively. Each of these courts will have a principal judge and a number of ordinary judges assigned to it.

Judges assigned to the family High Court, family Circuit Court and family District Court will have met certain criteria, including, that by reason of their training or experience, those judges are suitable to deal with matters of family law. Furthermore, ongoing professional training in the area of family law will be required of family court judges.

In order to ensure proper and effective management of these court divisions, the Bill provides that new positions of principal judge of the family High Court, family Circuit Court and the family District Court will be created to manage the business of each of the family court divisions respectively. The principal judges will also be empowered to issue practice directions in relation to family law proceedings in the family court divisions.

The Bill provides for the assignment of the principal judges by the president of the relevant court, having had regard to recommendations regarding the selection process made by the Judicial Appointments Commission.

The Bill also provides that the family court will sit to hear family law proceedings in a different building or room from that in which other court sittings are held or alternatively on different days or at different times from other court sittings, with limited exceptions.

Part 6 sets out the structures for the making of family law court rules. The aim is that these will ensure that the rules in relation to family law proceedings are coherent and applied with consistency across all levels of the family courts.

Part 7 of the Bill provides for amendments to existing courts legislation to include appropriate references to the new family court divisions. I will briefly mention one of the more important provisions of Part 7. Section 59 provides that judges of the family courts shall undertake training required by the principal judge of each court in consultation with the president of the court in question and in consultation with the Chief Justice.

Part 8 includes key provisions of the Bill relating to the jurisdiction of the family High Court, family Circuit Court and family District Court, and provides for the amendment of enactments relating to family law proceedings. This involves provisions extending concurrent jurisdiction in many family law matters to include the family District Court. This will enable families in appropriate cases to have access to the lowest family court jurisdiction.

Section 69 provides that the family High Court may transfer proceedings initiated in that court to a lower family court jurisdiction, where the court is satisfied having regard to practice directions that the lower court is the more appropriate court for the case.

Section 70 of the Bill provides for the family District Court to have unlimited monetary jurisdiction in consent cases. Where a judge of the family District Court is satisfied that the parties have reached an agreement on the subject matter of the proceedings and have consented to the proceedings being determined by the family District Court, the proceedings can be determined at family District Court level without a limit as to monetary jurisdiction.

Section 71 provides that the family District Court may send forward proceedings to the family Circuit Court where there are special circumstances in the proceedings that would make it appropriate for the proceedings to be dealt with by that court.

Section 72 provides that the family Circuit Court may remit or transfer proceedings to the family District Court where it would be more appropriate for the proceedings to be dealt with by that court or if it is considered that the proceedings should have been commenced in the family District Court in the first instance.

Part 8 also provides for the family District Court to have jurisdiction in a wider range of family law proceedings than is currently provided for in legislation. It is proposed that the family District Court will have jurisdiction concurrently with the family Circuit Court and family High Court in judicial separation, divorce and dissolution of civil partnership proceedings, as well as cases taken by qualified cohabitants.

The new jurisdiction of the family District Court in divorce, judicial separation and dissolution of civil partnership proceedings will be subject to a monetary jurisdiction limit of €1 million for the market value of any land to which the proceedings relate. The €1 million limit may be altered by ministerial order, up to a maximum of €2 million. These changes are provided for in sections 81, 85, 86 and 91 of the Bill. Similar changes are proposed in relation to cases under the Family Home Protection Act 1976 and the Family Law Act 1981, as provided for in sections 77 and 79. The monetary jurisdiction limit will not apply where a judge of the family District Court is satisfied that the parties have reached an agreement on the subject matter of the proceedings and have consented to the proceedings being determined by the family District Court.

Part 8 also proposes to increase the monetary jurisdiction of the family District Court in maintenance matters. Section 76 provides that the monetary jurisdiction of the family District Court for payments that can be ordered under the Guardianship of Infants Act 1964 will increase to €500 per week for maintenance and €50,000 for lump sum payments. Section 78 provides that the monetary jurisdiction of the family District Court in relation to maintenance applications under the Family Law (Maintenance of Spouses and Children) Act 1976 will increase to €1,500 per week for the support of a spouse or €500 per week for the support of a child. Section 90 provides for corresponding amendments to the maintenance provisions in the Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Act 2010. The jurisdiction of the courts under the Child Care Act 1991 will be changed by section 83 in certain categories of child care cases. Special care cases will continue to be dealt with at High Court level, by the family High Court.

Part 8 of the Bill amends a number of Acts to allow for joint applications to be made under those Acts for judicial separation, divorce, dissolution of civil partnership and ancillary orders.

Part 9 sets out the detailed rules applicable to attendance at and reporting of in camerafamily law proceedings. It largely restates the provisions of sections 39, 40 and 40A of the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004, as amended by the Courts and Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2013 and subsequent legislation. This part of the Bill now includes provisions at sections 100 and 101 which place limitations on personal cross-examination and to provide for civil legal aid to be made available for the purposes of having a lawyer conduct the cross-examination when such limitations are in effect.

Part 10 contains transitional provisions which seek to ensure continuity in the administration of justice. These provisions deal with family law proceedings initiated before the coming into operation of the Bill and appeals in family law proceedings that were lodged before the operative date. An important provision is section 106, which provides that any order made in family law proceedings by the High Court, Circuit Court or District Court that is in effect immediately before the operative date will be deemed to have been made by the corresponding family court division. The section also makes provision relating to orders made outside the State that have been recognised by the Irish courts.

Schedule 1 sets out the legislative provisions to be repealed by the Bill. Schedule 2 sets out amendments to be made to various enactments.

The general scheme of the Bill was referred to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice for pre-legislative scrutiny in 2020. In 2021, the Chairperson of the committee advised me that the committee had agreed not to undertake further pre-legislative scrutiny and the submissions received by the committee were referred for information and attention as appropriate in finalising the Bill. These submissions were considered during the drafting of the Bill.

It is a difficult but common reality for families to find themselves dealing with the breakdown of a relationship or trying to resolve a custody or maintenance issue. The family justice system as it operates today does not always offer a smooth transition through changes in a family's life. Waiting times to access the courts, multiple journeys to court buildings, as well as overly bureaucratic processes, lack of available information about the system and at times high legal costs add to the already heavy burden of stress on families. This overall objective of this Bill is to improve this situation.

It is important to ensure that children are at the centre of the family justice system. As of 2015, the voice of the child in child care, adoption, guardianship, custody and access proceedings has been enshrined in the Constitution and as such, it is the responsibility of all those working in the family justice system to ensure the voice of the child is heard and considered. Children have a right to have their views heard in these proceedings and for their best interests to be given due consideration. Currently in proceedings, children’s views are heard and their welfare and best interests considered via the commissioning and provision of expert reports produced for the court by assessors. The Family Justice Strategy 2022-2025 committed to the review of the commissioning, content and use of these reports in private family law. My Department completed the review and I brought it to the Cabinet in June this year. I was delighted to be able to secure an allocation of €3 million in budget 2025 to progress the recommendations in the report, including a recommendation to establish a children’s court advocate pilot project. The envisaged role of a children’s court advocate is to support children in their journey through private family law proceedings by providing information and ensuring their voices are heard.

The Chief Justice has established a judicial committee to develop guidelines on the commissioning, content and use of welfare reports, aimed at increasing clarity, consistency and transparency around the report process for all those involved. The funding will also go towards paying for families so they do not have to pay for this themselves.

I also note that a review of the in camerarule is under way. It is important that we look at the potential for abuses to translate into the courts which cannot be seen through the in camerarule. That review is under way at the moment and I hope we will have a report shortly.

Before concluding, I will highlight the important work being undertaken by former Chief Justice Frank Clarke in leading a group examining the future of the civil legal aid scheme, which supports those of limited means to access legal advice and representation in a range of civil law matters. The majority of cases for which advice and representation is provided relate to family law. The group is expected to conclude its work soon and I look forward to considering its recommendations. It is perhaps important to mention that in order to ensure the new courts are working effectively, we need to make sure we have an appropriate number of judges, staff and teams in place. This week, I was pleased to receive approval for a further 20 judges on top of the 31 judges I have appointed in the past two years. In the last year alone, because of those additional judges we have seen an increase in the number of sittings of the District Court, the Circuit Court, the High Court, the Court of Appeal and across all family law matters. We have seen an increase in the number of cases being heard and resolved. I hope the addition of a further 20 judges shows the intention is to ensure this will not just be legislation that gets put into an old system and structure. It will be enhanced by enhanced resources and structures to make sure it works as effectively as possible.

The Family Courts Bill marks a significant step forward in this Government's commitment to overhauling the operation of the family justice system to ensure we have a family court system that puts the family and children at the centre of its work. The development of sensible, comprehensive and sensitive family law proceedings will be central to this new system. I acknowledge and thank the many practitioners, families, members of the Judiciary, departmental officials and others who have worked together to get us to this point.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as an reachtaíocht seo a thógáil ós ár gcomhair. Is Bille an-thábhachtach é agus tá súil agam go n-éireoidh leis agus linn nuair a théann sé go dtí Céim an Choiste, agus ina dhiaidh sin agus muid ag iarraidh a chinntiú gur píosa reachtaíochta é atá láidir go leor agus a sheasfaidh an fód ama.

Reform of the family law system is without doubt long overdue. I wish this legislation well and hope that as it passes through the Houses it will be strengthened to ensure the family law system stands the test of time. It has in the past, but we all understand and have all seen in our constituency offices, communities and families the effects of the family law system. That is why it is vital to ensure we get it right or as right as possible as the world is changing.

Before I address the provisions of the Bill specifically, I will outline the importance of the family law system and the interdependent areas of policy that often determine outcomes for all involved. It goes without saying that family breakdown is always a tough experience emotionally and financially. We hear accounts of celebrity break-ups that can be described as conscious uncoupling, but the reality for most ordinary people is very different, involving abuse, economic pressures and inequality in the roles played. A family law system that works is a vital component of a nation that cherishes children and protects its vulnerable adults. Our system of divorce is not perfect, but it is preferable to the situation that prevails in many other countries, as divorces are no fault by default.

Agreements can be reached before being set before a judge to be ratified, as well as judicially ordered separations. There is no doubt contentious divorces and separations are somewhat chicken-and-egg situations, with the die often being cast before the lawyers, mediators and courts get involved.

At the same time, we should produce a policy of harm reduction, as long and drawn out battles take an immense toll on everybody, especially children, if there are children involved. It can be hard for people to work together to make living apart work and everything must be done to help them. That is why it is vital that our family law legal system helps and ensures a smooth passage inasmuch as possible for those who are no longer living together or in a relationship together.

The inherently adversarial nature of the court system can be a means of creating or exacerbating conflict between parents. This, in turn, makes a functioning caregiving relationship for a child difficult to maintain. Many people are unaware mediation is available as an option. We are aware of it as we point people in that direction but, initially at any rate, many among the public do not understand the system. We have brilliant practitioners in law who do point to mediation as an option in family law cases but much more could be done to ensure that happens. Many key provisions of the Mediation Act, including the establishment of the mediation council, are still to be enacted by the Government. Perhaps it is something that could be done at this stage or, if not, the next Government can ensure it happens as quickly as possible. It is a means of taking the heat out of what can, sometimes, be an adversarial situation or one of conflict in a case involving family law.

As I stated, the Bill does not address mediation. That is dealt with in the Mediation Act. Perhaps I will return to that point at a later stage. However, one issue that certainly does not help is the length of delays. The Minister mentioned an increase in the number of judges that will be appointed. I was elected a long time ago and I remember there was a row in here about the number of judges who were appointed at the time. I think it was four additional judges. Money was the issue, but it is not just a question of money. We forget that people are behind this. If there are not enough judges or court spaces, people must wait for their case to be heard, be it in the area of criminal law or family law. We must properly fund the Courts Service and provide judges so that we do not have the situation that exists at present for family law cases, especially for contested cases. There are delays even for uncontested cases in some counties of 20 weeks - in Ennis, Wicklow, Naas and Carlow - all in the Circuit Court. There are waiting times for contested cases of a year or more in Roscommon, Trim, Limerick and Cavan. There is a wait time of three years in Naas. We cannot have that. That is wrong for any system. It is good that additional judges are being appointed and that we are trying to address some of the causes of delay in this legislation. That message can go out. It is wrong that the situation got that bad. This is a lifetime for children caught up in family law cases, especially given how quickly they grow up, and also for their parents. There is an impact on their lives if the cases are long drawn out when they do not need to be. We have a duty of care to those children. Those cases are often adjudicated with no resolution when they finally come up, which adds to the difficulty. People can wait three years and find there is still no solution. In that time, people can sometimes get further entrenched.

For some families, these decisions are the difference between poverty and stability. I refer to people who are living in poverty while awaiting the family courts to make a decision or grant them an order. In 2016, the cohort in society involving the many households with one adult and one or more children under the age of 18 had the highest deprivation rate in at 50.1%. Lone parents are 2.5 times as likely to experience deprivation as the rest of the population.

The family maintenance review group decided against setting up a unit to enforce maintenance. Delays in enforcing maintenance orders are ludicrously long. They are potentially ruinous for people. As a party, Sinn Féin has made proposals for a child maintenance service to help families. Other parties have done the same. Our proposal, which is highly detailed, was prepared by my colleague, Deputy Kerrane. It is available online. I do not expect the Minister to look at it, as there are many proposals, but at some stage in the future it is worth coming back to the issue to make sure that the service is in place and that it can act to help in family law cases.

Our document outlines, in detail, the importance of maintenance to one-parent families. The document contains a decade-long analysis of the CSO's survey on income and living conditions, SILC, which consistently demonstrates the lower incomes of one-parent families. While there is no single measure that will tackle poverty among lone-parent families on its own, it is well recognised that child maintenance has a key role to play. Research has shown that in England there was a 30% reduction in the poverty gap as a result of child maintenance payments where there was compliance with orders. That is another issue. This research concluded that child maintenance "has a relatively large impact in reducing child poverty for those who receive it."

Our document outlined four issues that arise with the system as it stands. The courts will not issue a summons for maintenance unless the lone parent can provide an address for the non-custodial parent. This is not always known. It can also create even more adversarial clashes if the parent seeking the maintenance order goes searching for the non-custodial parent. It should be relatively easy for the State to track someone down through their PPS number if he or she is in receipt of another payment or working, rather than perhaps putting lone parents in a headlong clash in some cases with the non-custodial parent.

There are no statutory guidelines on the level that should be set for maintenance payments. Instead, they are at the discretion of the court. That issue has been addressed in the meantime since the document was published. I will skip over that.

If the non-custodial parent fails to comply with the maintenance order, it is up to the lone parent to issue enforcement proceedings himself or herself. One of the problems is that if the non-custodial parent fails to appear at court proceedings, a bench warrant is issued but it is rarely acted upon as there is no prosecuting garda involved. That is something we must examine to ensure there are no delays in further proceedings while the warrant remains unexecuted. The Garda Síochána has been good in recent years in this regard in following up unexecuted warrants that are sitting there. In these cases, there is no prosecuting garda, and the warrants are not given the same priority as others. In many cases, lone parents are slow to issue an arrest warrant for the other parent of their children even in cases of non-payment. That is an issue that perhaps requires further concentration.

Taking all of those issues into account, we made proposals on how the system would work. While the child maintenance service should encourage parents to make their own arrangements, this would not be enforced given that the majority of parents would not use such a service because they do not have to do so. In most cases, that is not an issue that arises. In the case of domestic abuse, parental arrangements would not be put forward as an option and therefore, no lone parent would be expected to make any contact with their ex-partner for maintenance. Parents who are willing to arrange child maintenance themselves can avail of assistance from the service, which will provide them with free advice, support and information.

Direct payment is another option that can be used in cases where the non-custodial parent is willing to pay child maintenance but an agreement on the amount to be paid cannot be reached by the parents. This option would allow the service to examine the individual case and calculate the amount to be paid by the non-custodial parent.

On arriving at an amount, and where there is agreement on that amount, this payment would be made directly and taken from the non-custodial parent to the custodial parent. The third option is collect and transfer and would allow the service to calculate the child maintenance payment, collect the payment from the non-custodial parent and pay it to the other parent. This option could be used in cases where the non-custodial parent refuses to pay child maintenance or it may become an option where child maintenance ceases to be paid under the direct pay option. This option would be used automatically in domestic abuse cases.

That is a lot of detail but it is one of the big rows or issues when people come to my office in relation to family cases. It is to ensure the payment for their children is given and how they can act upon that. Given a large number of court proceedings are related to unpaid maintenance, which can see women in court for the fifth or sixth time seeking payment, and the majority of maintenance orders are filed by women, a solution to the problem would free up valuable court time. That is another issue; the amount of court time taken up by issues that could be dealt with by a service or by a more robust system to ensure that maintenance, where due, is granted, paid and transferred.

There are also other matters to discuss. According to One Family CEO, Karen Kiernan, there is a shortage of parenting programmes, counselling for parents or children and child contact centres that are common in other countries. The cost of court ordered assessments is also prohibitively high and the assessors themselves are not formally regulated. A wider White Paper approach to reform should have been taken, and while I acknowledge the family justice strategy, much of its ambition is about, in its own words, signposting other services that people can rely on. Parents coping with stress and depression can impact on the development of their children and there is no doubt family law proceedings can be extremely distressing and difficult for parents. This in turn can have an effect on children and their development, with overall negative economic and societal consequences. Anything we can do to ameliorate that can and should be done.

The many issues involved with family law cases are myriad and complex. It is unlikely that criminal or civil law alone will ever be able to solve them, as they encompass a large amount of economic and social realities. It is also one area of public policy where we can clearly see that misogyny and sexism actively harms men as well as women. Courts usually assume a woman is the caregiver and the man a provider or breadwinner, not recognising that not every relationship is the same and that many men are fantastic caregivers and many women are fantastic providers. We need to look beyond these assumptions, where appropriate, for the case in question.

Turning to the Bill itself, there are some positive developments within it. Making the best interests of the child a primary consideration in all family law proceedings is vital. I also note the review on the testimony of experts. These reports can determine so much, especially where the case is contested. The provision for the establishment of a Family Court as divisions within the existing court structures carries some concerns, especially with regards to the District and Circuit Courts. The Law Society briefing on the matter is instructive, and I quote:

The proposed changes to the District Court will have the effect of placing increasing demands and strain on an already ailing system. In reality, the District Courts are already heavily congested and are not in a position to process judicial separation and divorce proceedings in an efficient way. In fact, the District Courts are already dealing with more family law cases than any other Court.

The briefing continues:

According to the Courts Services Annual Report 2023, the District Courts have dealt with 61,197 cases of family law in 2023. If current Circuit Family Court matters - 5,784 cases in 2023 - are added to this workload, this would put additional pressure on the District Court.

The proposals to assign judges specifically to the Family Court divisions is also a double edged sword. We clearly need appropriately trained judges who can deal with difficult cases, but there may be some merit in allowing them to develop and add other professional strings to their bow as well, lest it become an unattractive proposition for more talented members of the Bench. Both of these areas can be teased out fully on Committee Stage. Finally, the provision to allow for joint applications is welcome as is the use of mediation and alternative dispute resolution. This will obviously apply to more amicable divorces. On the other side, the holding of hearings in appropriate settings to avoid issues where domestic violence has occurred is also important. More needs to be done to improve the interaction between civil and criminal law in respect of domestic violence and family law, whilst also respecting civil liberties.

We have some concerns in relation to the Bill but we will tease them out on Committee Stage and we will not oppose this stage. Hopefully, at the end of Committee Stage and Report Stage, we will have as robust a piece of legislation as we can in relation to this issue. There is one point to make, even at the outset. I noted the Minister spoke to the Circuit Court limit for proceedings up to €1 million, with the potential to increase it by Ministerial order to €2 million. Given the price of houses in the country at the moment, we might need to go from €2 million to more than that because the value of property has gone up. We should do this so the Minister does not have to come back to this in a few years as it is not just the value of the property, but also about savings and whatever. It is a question that can be teased out on Committee Stage.

Is ceist ríthábhachtach í ceist na gcúirteanna clainne agus na hathruithe is gá a dhéanamh. Caithfimid a chinntiú nach gcuirtear aon bhac ann a dhéanfadh dochar don pháiste, don athair nó don mháthair. Caithfear a chinntiú go bhfuil an córas i gceart, gur córas cothrom agus cóir atá i gceist agus go bhfuil an leanbh nó páiste lárnach i ngach uile rud a tharlaíonn sna cúirteanna seo chun nach ndéanfar dochar dóibh. Ba chóir go mbeadh an chúirt chomh héifeachtach agus chomh cothrom agus is féidir. Agus é sin ráite, molaim an Bille toisc go dtosaíonn sé ag tabhairt faoin gceist mhór seo.