Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendments Nos. 1, 4 to 13, inclusive, 52, 55, 59 and 60 are related and may be discussed together.

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

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 10, to delete line 26.

This series of amendments, including some related technical and consequential amendments, provides for the substitution of the provisions relating to the mechanisms of the making of family court rules and for certain practice and procedural matters in the family court divisions.

While it was originally proposed when the Bill was published that there would be either a specific family law rules committee or family law subcommittee I now consider that simpler and less expansive arrangements for the making of family law rules of court would be much more appropriate. Stakeholder consultations with the Courts Service in particular have supported this approach, not least because it would better align with the guiding principles in the Bill in being just and expeditious. The alternative arrangements I am proposing in these amendments are, as has always been the intention, directed at ensuring there will be consistency in approach to the making of family law rules right across the family court jurisdictions. They should also ensure family law rules will be given appropriate attention by the currently established rules committees.

What I am doing by way of these amendments is replacing the provisions in the original Part 6 of the Bill dealing with establishment of a specific family law rules committee or family law rules subcommittee and substituting them with alternative provisions. The new Part 6 of the Bill makes provision for the addition of family court judges to each of the existing rules committees. Significantly, there will also be a new family courts practice and procedures committee that will comprise the principal judge of each of the family court divisions, as well as officials from the Courts Service who can recommend the making of particular family law rules to the established rules committee. The presence and the participation of Courts Service officials in particular in this new committee will facilitate matters relevant to the statutory functions of the Courts Service being part of the considerations of the making of family rules courts. Schedule 2 and the Long Title are amended, as appropriate, to reflect the amendments that are being made.

Pa Daly (Kerry, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As the Minister said, we are mostly dealing with technical amendments here and we will support this Bill. Legal reform and the construction of a dedicated family law court for Dublin are important but any credible family law plan must go further with supports and maybe the Minister should take a White Paper approach to the whole Bill. Not every issue before the courts can be addressed at the point where relationships are breaking down, but significant resources can be allocated to reduce the harm that can be caused to children. There are a number of difficulties with lengthy waits for court dates in some parts of the country, where it can take up to a year for contested cases to be heard. This is a lifetime for parents and for children given how quickly children are developing. The cases are often adjourned with no resolution and there is deep frustration then on behalf of some of the participants. Holding proceedings in a different building or room from the other courts sittings, and the criminal law list in particular, is also very important.

In developing the new court system or the new court buildings that are going to be constructed it is important for the Courts Service to take into account the needs of the local community and of town centres in particular. For ten years now there has been an alternative proposition to construct a courthouse for Tralee in another part of the town. Not enough consideration has been given to the overall effect on the town centre. While I appreciate a court that has not been refurbished in over 40 years needs some incremental works to bring it in line with the needs of a modern court building there has been a logjam and because of all the investment set aside for prisons in the 2024 budget and the Hammond Lane complex the other courthouses that need refurbishment have been left behind. There is an opportunity in Tralee because An Post is moving from the town centre to an industrial estate and there is space available. I do not see any TDs from Kilkenny, but a great job was done there seven or eight years ago on reopening the courthouse. Part of it was refurbished and there was a new section. There is not going to be a new courthouse in Tralee until at least 2027. In the meantime, if you are in a wheelchair and need to access the court building it cannot be done. There are no plans to ameliorate that situation over the next four years, which is the earliest point a new courthouse on the other side of town can be constructed. I am asking the Courts Service and whoever is going to be in government after the next election to take into account that it is possible to keep services in the centre of town - because there is no plan B if the existing court building moves – in Edward Street or Ashe Street and not move them outside of town. Another café closed in Tralee town centre this week and there is a problem with footfall. I am aware it is not just that as there are difficulties with rates, rents and all the usual struggles small businesses cope with but any town centre worth its salt needs to keep services in town centre locations and I urge the Courts Service and governments to bear that in mind and take a decision that takes into account the common good of the whole town centre. There is no point in talking about a town centre first plan unless we deliver it by dealing with the services in an appropriate way.

As I said, we will not be opposing the passage of the Bill, but there is an awful lot of work to be done in addressing the lengthy delays I mentioned as people wait for court dates, the lack of family law solicitors in some parts of the country, especially under the legal aid scheme, and the ongoing impoverishment of some participants, especially single parents who are not receiving maintenance with the consequential delays.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I too welcome any efforts made to reform the family law courts. Courthouses like those in Clonmel, Tipperary and Nenagh do not have the facilities for separation of families from criminal law, so they are all in the one building. That does not make for good, pleasant or easy management for anybody, but most importantly for the family.

The Minister will say I am always critical but I welcome that the Clonmel Garda station, which was bundled, along with one I Cork I think, with the new child and family courts has been unbundled and we are making some progress in Clonmel. The town has been waiting for a Garda station for 70 years. It was first raised here by Séan Treacy, God rest him, 60 years ago. The Clonmel station was bundled in with family law courts, but they are two different items altogether. There is no comparison. Direct funding to build and deliver and people to do that can be got for Garda stations but not for court buildings. They are not the same people. The architectural ambience and everything else is different. That was a welcome development.

There are lots of issues in the family courts. The fact that children are being separated and children go missing in State care must, surely to God, cost the Minister sleepless nights. The Minister, Deputy O’Gorman, says Tusla and its actions do not cause him any loss of sleep. We had a case in Donegal last week where a mother was acquitted by a jury after a ten-week trial. She was acquitted of accusations she was sexually abusing her child. The children were taken and separated. It went on for ten weeks and has been going on for years. She had lived in a terribly violent relationship and then became victimised by the State. Fortunately, a jury, which is the ultimate in our courts – trial by your peers – cleared this woman, but what about the damage done to the children?

Ongoing damage is being done to children across the State from being taken into care. I met foster parents here last week and I support them as well but all is not well with the family law courts. While NGOs of all shapes and sizes are getting more than €6 billion in funding, the Minister, Deputy O'Gorman, defunded the Child Law Project, the only watchdog adjudicating on what was going on in family law. He did not like its reports because they were rightly critical of what is going on in the children's courts and with Tusla so he defunded the group. How could he be so biased in his opinion? I would love to be able to say I do not have a sleepless night when one child goes missing, never mind a large number of children in State care. We saw the case in Cork when the university did the investigation. Children in State care were being trafficked and used in brothels. As a grandparent of young children, it is sickening and revolting. There are many issues that need to be sorted and this Bill does not address many of them. It is time that we did. While I know it is not in the Bill, I plead that funding be restored to the one watchdog that was safeguarding children.

Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am around long enough to remember when courthouses were the responsibility of local authorities, which did not really want them. Courthouses were run down because of the lack of finance and resources going into them. There are many things we could vote against or criticise but this is constructive and positive. It is important to separate out family courts. This is a very good start. We have been waiting far too long. We know the background to the proposed building on Hammond Lane. This is most certainly a start. We need to see it expanded to other areas. Even if only interim arrangements are made in other areas, it is important to have that separation because it is daunting for anyone to have to go into a courthouse. When family court issues are separated out, it is a far better experience for people who are going to find the experience difficult anyway. We will be supporting this legislation.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I warmly welcome this Bill and thank the Minister for her determination in bringing it this far. The Ceann Comhairle can take a lot of credit for allowing the discussion that brought about this situation to take place. Legislators cannot legislate, even for the courts, unless they can discuss the legislation in the Legislature. I therefore thank the Ceann Comhairle for allowing that debate to take place in the House to highlight the needs. It is hoped the Bill will be a landmark Bill that addresses issues of unfairness where parents - mostly mothers but some fathers as well - find themselves and their children severely disadvantaged as a result of the system that was operating heretofore. It is reassuring to know that we have come this far and that a review of the in camera rule is also now taking place. That will be very important because Tusla and other agencies have not been able to get involved in certain matters on the basis of the in camera rule. Any family issue arising in court that is covered by the in camera rule cannot be discussed by Tusla in a public arena. Tusla cannot intervene and has often been wrongly blamed for a failure to exert itself. I give all credit to everybody who made it happen. It will be a great leap forward for fairness in the family law courts. While it might not solve everything, at least it will bring society and the House to a point at which we can see fairness and fair play being administered all around. We hope that we will not see situations where children are removed from their parents in an aggressive way in order to comply with rules created as a result of section 32 or section 47. In many cases, such decisions were not allowed to be challenged. The legislation the Minister has produced, for which she is to be congratulated, will go an awful long way - I hope it will go the entire way - towards protecting parents and children while, at the same time, ensuring that the law is enforced.

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I support the Bill. It is very important that we have proper facilities and that family court proceedings, which are often difficult, can be carried out with dignity and respect for those involved. I support the Bill.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I congratulate the Minister on having achieved such unanimity.

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

I thank the Ceann Comhairle. I think there is unanimity. I thank colleagues for the general broad support for the Bill. As I have said many times before, the overall objective of the Bill is to make sure that we can, insofar as possible, make what is often the most difficult time a family will go through that little bit easier by putting in place these structures, making our family courts more accessible, more affordable and, where possible, less adversarial. That is the overall objective of the Bill.

I will respond to some of the points raised. For this Bill to be enacted is one thing but in order for it to be implemented, resources and structures will be needed. I have already started that work by expanding our courts system, particularly our Judiciary. There are 31 new judges in our system who were not there three years ago. Only in the last week, I received approval for 20 more additional judges. With those judges, we are already seeing a reduction in times and backlogs in our District Court, Circuit Court and High Court, including in cases involving family law matters. It is important that these 20 additional judges, their supporting staff and continued investment in our modernisation programme and capital programme be put in place before we can fully enact and stand up this legislation.

On investment in infrastructure, we have an overall capital budget for our courts of €67 million annually. The new government, whatever form that may take, will need to look at further expanding this under the national development plan, NDP, to make sure that further projects can be included as we expand our family courts and our courts in general. We need to make sure that we have space for the additional judges I have mentioned and that we continue to expand and improve access to justice. The project at Hammond Lane is progressing. It has obviously been a significant challenge and it is still that hole in the ground we all drive past regularly. However, it is progressing and moving through the different stages. I am absolutely confident that we will see building works starting as soon as possible.

In tandem with this legislation, the family justice strategy is really important. A number of elements of this are already progressing. Work is under way on maintenance and on making sure that maintenance orders can be effected. That requires a number of different measures. The Minister, Deputy Humphreys, and I have been working to progress the recommendations. We recently introduced reports on the voice of the child and the welfare of the child. Again, we need to make sure that there are proper structures and oversight, that these reports are paid for and that the burden is not on the families. To Deputy Durkan's point, we also need to ensure there is a way to make a complaint if unfairness is perceived or if issues arise. A review of the in camera rule is already under way, as are many other measures that I hope will complement the family courts structure, support it and make sure that families going through this really difficult time are supported.

I again thank colleagues for their support. These amendments in particular are to make sure that the rules of court are set out in the most efficient manner possible, that our judges are part of the various different committees and that the courts work effectively with them should any issues or concerns arise.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendments Nos. 2, 3, 14, 48 to 51, inclusive, 53, 54 and 61 are all related and may be taken together.

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

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 11, between lines 6 and 7, to insert the following: “ “Act of 2024” means the Health (Assisted Human Reproduction) Act 2024;”.

These amendments are to take account in the Family Courts Bill of certain family law related matters in the Health (Assisted Human Reproduction) Act, particularly to proceedings under the Act related to parentage for children born through surrogacy. The President signed the Act into law this year and it contains a number of provisions to enable intending parents of children born through surrogacy, both in the past and in the future, to apply to the High Court for a parental order to have their parentage of the child established through the courts. The Health (Assisted Human Reproduction) Act 2024 currently provides that applications for parental orders may be made in the general courts as there are no family court divisions as of yet. These are family law matters so I am making amendments to that Act to include relevant proceedings under the Act within the definition of family law proceedings in the Bill, thus providing that applications for parental orders will be made in the relevant family court divisions once established.

The provisions in the Bill related to the in camera rule are also extended to surrogacy proceedings under the Health (Assisted Human Reproduction) Act. The amendments will ensure only those parts of the Health (Assisted Human Reproduction) Act that relate to parentage and guardianship will come within the ambit of the family courts and that proceedings on other matters such as those related to human tissue retrieval and storage will continue to be dealt with in the general court jurisdictions. Any necessary amendments have also been made to the Long Title of the Bill resulting from these amendments.

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

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 12, between lines 12 and 13, to insert the following: “(z) the Act of 2024;”.

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

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 20, to delete lines 27 to 29 and substitute the following: “(4) In performing a function under subsection (1) or (3), the Principal Judge of the Family High Court shall consult with the Family Courts Practice and Procedure Committee.”.

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

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 31, to delete lines 13 to 20 and substitute the following: “(4) In performing a function under subsection (1) or (3), the Principal Judge of the Family Circuit Court shall—

(a) consult with the Family Courts Practice and Procedure Committee, and

(b) ensure, in so far as is practicable, having regard to the nature and type of proceedings before the Family Circuit Court, that there is no conflict between the practice direction to be issued and practice directions that have been issued or, as the case may be, are to be issued by the Principal Judge of the Family High Court under section 13 and the Principal Judge of the Family District Court under section 42.”.

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

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 45, to delete lines 1 to 8 and substitute the following: “(4) In performing a function under subsection (1) or (3), the Principal Judge of the Family District Court shall—

(a) consult with the Family Courts Practice and Procedure Committee, and

(b) ensure, in so far as is practicable, having regard to the nature and type of proceedings before the Family District Court, that there is no conflict between the practice direction to be issued and practice directions that have been issued or, as the case may be, are to be issued by the Principal Judge of the Family High Court under section 13 and the Principal Judge of the Family Circuit Court under section 23.”.

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

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 52, between lines 2 and 3, to insert the following:

“PART 6

RULES OF COURT IN FAMILY LAW PROCEEDINGS

Amendment of Act of 1936 (Rules of Court)

51. The Act of 1936 is amended— (a) in section 67—

(i) in subsection (2), by the substitution of “8” for “7”,

(ii) in subsection (3), by the insertion of the following paragraph after paragraph (b):

“(ba) the Principal Judge of the Family High Court,”,

and

(iii) in subsection (9), by the insertion of the following paragraph after paragraph (b):

“(ba) in the case of the Principal Judge of the Family High Court, a judge of the Family High Court,”,

(b) in section 69—

(i) in subsection (2), by the substitution of “5” for “4”,

(ii) in subsection (3), by the insertion of the following paragraph after paragraph (a):

“(aa) the Principal Judge of the Family Circuit Court,”,

and

(iii) in subsection (9), by the insertion of the following paragraph after paragraph (a):

“(aa) in the case of the Principal Judge of the Family Circuit Court, a judge of the Family Circuit Court,”,

(c) in section 71—

(i) in subsection (2), by the substitution of “5” for “4”,

(ii) in subsection (3), by the insertion of the following paragraph after paragraph (a):

“(aa) the Principal Judge of the Family District Court,”,

and

(iii) in subsection (9), by the insertion of the following paragraph after paragraph (a):

“(aa) in the case of the Principal Judge of the Family District Court, a judge of the Family District Court,”,

and

(d) by the insertion of the following section after section 72:

“Rules of court in respect of family law proceedings

72A. (1) Rules of court made under any enactment by the Superior Courts Rules Committee, the Circuit Court Rules Committee or the District Court Rules Committee may make specific provision in respect of family law proceedings before one or more of the following (in this section referred to as ‘the Family Courts’):

(a) the Family High Court;

(b) the Family Circuit Court;

(c) the Family District Court.

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), rules referred to in that subsection may, in particular, include rules:

(a) prescribing documentation required for the commencement of proceedings;

(b) regulating pleadings, practice and procedure;

(c) providing for the awarding of costs of proceedings;

(d) providing for the mode of address to be adopted for judges of the Family Courts;

(e) providing for the form, manner and conditions for cases stated to the Family High Court;

(f) in respect of the Family High Court, authorising the Master of the High Court and other principal officers, within the meaning of the Court Officers Acts 1926 to 2014, to exercise functions, powers and jurisdiction in uncontested cases and to take accounts, conduct inquiries and make orders of an interlocutory nature;

(g) providing for such incidental, supplementary and consequential matters as appear to the Committee concerned to be necessary or expedient for the purposes of this Act and the Act of 2024.

(3) In making rules of court referred to in subsection (1), the Superior Courts Rules Committee, the Circuit Court Rules Committee or the District Court Rules Committee, as the case may be, shall have regard to the guiding principles set out in section 8 of the Act of 2024 as well as the proper and efficient administration of justice.

(4) Where the Superior Courts Rules Committee, the Circuit Court Rules Committee or the District Court Rules Committee proposes to make rules of court referred to in subsection (1) or other rules of court applicable to family law proceedings, the Committee concerned shall consult with the Family Courts Practice and Procedure Committee and shall have regard to the views of that Committee in the making of such rules.”.”.

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

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 52, between lines 2 and 3, to insert the following:

Family Courts Practice and Procedure Committee 52. (1) The Principal Judges of the Family High Court, the Family Circuit Court and the Family District Court (in this section referred to as “the Family Courts”) and no more than 2 members of the staff of the Courts Service nominated by the Chief Executive of the Courts Service shall, subject to subsection (4), meet as a committee, to be known as the Family Courts Practice and Procedure Committee, on a regular basis, being not less than twice during any year, with the aim of—

(a) ensuring, in so far as possible, a consistent approach to practice and procedure among the Family Courts, and

(b) considering relevant matters related to the functions of the Courts Service under section 5 of the Courts Service Act 1998 in relation to the Family Courts.

(2) Without prejudice to the functions of the Superior Courts Rules Committee, the Circuit Court Rules Committee or the District Court Rules Committee, the Family Courts Practice and Procedure Committee may propose the making of rules of court by any or all of those Committees in respect of family law proceedings.

(3) A Principal Judge referred to in subsection (1) may request that a meeting of the Family Courts Practice and Procedure Committee be convened in addition to the meetings mentioned in subsection (1) where he or she is of the opinion that a divergence in practice or procedure is emerging among the Family Courts.

(4) Where a request is made under subsection (3), a meeting of the Family Courts Practice and Procedure Committee shall be convened as soon as practicable.

(5) The Family Courts Practice and Procedure Committee shall regulate its own procedure and business.”.

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

I move amendment No. 9:

In page 64, line 16, to delete “Act of 2024;” and substitute “Act of 2024.”.”.

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

I move amendment No. 10:

In page 64, to delete lines 17 to 20.

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

I move amendment No. 11:

In page 65, lines 30 and 31, to delete “, having regard to any practice direction issued under section 13(3),”.

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

I move amendment No. 12:

In page 66, lines 14 and 15, to delete “, having regard to any practice direction issued under section 42(3),”.

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

I move amendment No. 13:

In page 66, lines 28 and 29, to delete “, having regard to any practice direction issued under section 23(3),”.

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

I move amendment No. 14:

In page 68, between lines 2 and 3, to insert the following: “(b) in section 6BA(3) (inserted by section 227(c) of the Act of 2024), by the substitution of “Family Circuit Court” for “Circuit Court”,

(c) in section 6BB(3) (inserted by section 227(c) of the Act of 2024), by the substitution of “Family Circuit Court” for “Circuit Court”,”.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendments Nos. 15 to 46, inclusive, and 56 to 58, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together.

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

I move amendment No. 15:

In page 75, between lines 12 and 13, to insert the following: “(a) in section 2, by the insertion of the following subsection after subsection (1D):

“(1E) A reference in this Act to a justice shall, where the context so admits, include a reference to a judge of the Family Circuit Court.”,”.

Section 83 of the Bill provides for amendments to the Child Care Act 1991 to allow for certain childcare proceedings under that Act to come within the jurisdiction of the family court divisions.

Since the Bill was originally published, there has been ongoing engagement with the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth. That Department has proposed the extension of concurrent jurisdictions for the family District Court and the family Circuit Court in the broad range of care proceedings under the 1991 Act, particularly to enable especially complex cases to be dealt with at family Circuit Court level where considered necessary. The Child and Family Agency, Tusla, would be in a position, in light of the circumstances of a case, to decide the jurisdictional level at which a case should be initiated. The Child Care Act 1991 provides statutory time limits for a case to be brought before a court in the case of certain types of childcare proceedings. Provision is being made to continue to enable matters to be dealt with in the general District Court where no sitting of the relevant family court can be arranged within the time limit. This will protect the interests of the child to whom the proceedings relate. The proposed amendments to this section insert the family Circuit Court and District Court as appropriate as courts where such proceedings can be determined. An additional amendment provides as a consequential of the jurisdictional extension for the term referring to the judge of the court is clarified. The term now encompasses a judge of the family District Court, the family Circuit Court and the District Court, as appropriate. Emergency care orders can continue to be dealt with by the District Court, as they have always been, and where considerable expertise in such matters has accrued.

Consequential amendments are proposed to Schedule 2.

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

I move amendment No. 16:

In page 75, line 25, after “Court” to insert “or District Court”.

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

I move amendment No. 17:

In page 75, line 28, after “Court” to insert “or District Court”.

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

I move amendment No. 18:

In page 76, line 2, after “or” to insert “is”.

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

I move amendment No. 19:

In page 76, line 11, after “Court” to insert “or the Family Circuit Court”.

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

I move amendment No. 20:

In page 76, line 13, after “Court” to insert “or the Family Circuit Court”.

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

I move amendment No. 21:

In page 76, line 15, after “Court” to insert “or the Family Circuit Court”.

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

I move amendment No. 22:

In page 76, to delete lines 17 to 23 and substitute the following: “(f) in section 23—

(i) in paragraph (b), by the substitution of “judge of the Family District Court for the time being assigned to the Family District Court district or a judge of the Family Circuit Court for the time being assigned to the Family Circuit Court circuit” for “justice of the District Court for the time being assigned to the district court district”, and

(ii) in paragraph (c), by the substitution of “judge of the Family District Court for the time being assigned to the Family District Court district or a judge of the Family Circuit Court for the time being assigned to the Family Circuit Court circuit” for “justice of the District Court for the time being assigned to the district court district”,”.

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

I move amendment No. 23:

In page 76, to delete lines 26 and 27 and substitute the following: “(h) by the substitution of the following section for section 23U:

“23U. If the Child and Family Agency believes—

(a) that a person who is arranging or undertaking a private foster care arrangement has not notified it under section 23P, or

(b) that such a person is not taking all reasonable measures to safeguard the health, safety and welfare of the child concerned,

it may apply—

(i) to the Family District Court or the District Court for one of the following orders:

(I) that the child be taken into the care of the Child and Family Agency under section 13;

(II) that the arrangement be terminated and the child returned to his or her parents or guardian,

or

(ii) to the Family District Court or the Family Circuit Court for one of the following orders:

(I) that a supervision order under section 19 be made in respect of the child,

(II) that the child be taken into the care of the Child and Family Agency under section 17 or 18, or

(III) that the arrangement be terminated and the child returned to his or her parents or guardian,

and the Court may order accordingly.”,”.

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

I move amendment No. 24:

In page 76, to delete lines 28 and 29 and substitute the following: “(i) in section 23V, by the substitution of the following subsection for subsection (3):

“(3) If the Child and Family Agency believes that a person who is arranging or undertaking a private foster care arrangement is doing so in contravention of subsection (1) or (2), it may apply—

(a) to the Family District Court or the District Court for an order either—

(i) that the child be taken into its care under section 13, or

(ii) that the arrangement be terminated and the child returned to his or her parents or guardian,

or

(b) to the Family District Court or the Family Circuit Court for an order either—

(i) that the child be taken into its care under section 17 or 18, or

(ii) that the arrangement be terminated and the child returned to his or her parents or guardian,

and the Court may order accordingly.”,”.

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

I move amendment No. 25:

In page 76, line 34, to delete “amended” and substitute “inserted”.

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

I move amendment No. 26:

In page 76, line 38, to delete “amended” and substitute “inserted”.

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

I move amendment No. 27:

In page 77, to delete lines 3 to 5 and substitute the following: “ “(1) (a) Family District Court and the District Court shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine proceedings under Part III.

(b) The Family District Court shall concurrently with the Family Circuit Court have jurisdiction to hear and determine proceedings under Part IV or VI.

(c) The Family Circuit Court shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine appeals—

(i) in proceedings under Part III, from the Family District Court and the District Court, and

(ii) in proceedings under Part IV or VI, from the Family District Court.”,”.

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

I move amendment No. 28:

In page 77, line 9, after “23NP” to insert “or 23W”.

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

I move amendment No. 29:

In page 77, to delete lines 11 to 15 and substitute the following: “ “(2) (a) Subject to section 13(4), proceedings under Part III may be brought, heard and determined before and by a judge of the Family District Court or the District Court for the time being assigned to the Family District Court district or district court district, as the case may be, where the child resides or is for the time being.

(b) Proceedings under Part IV or VI may be brought, heard and determined before and by a judge of the Family District Court or the Family Circuit Court for the time being assigned to the Family District Court district or Family Circuit Court circuit, as the case may be, where the child resides, has resided or is proposed to reside or is for the time being.”,”.

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

I move amendment No. 30:

In page 77, to delete lines 32 to 34 and substitute the following: “(vi) in subsection (4), by the substitution of “The Family District Court concurrently with the Family Circuit Court and the Family Circuit Court on appeal from the Family District Court” for “The District Court, and the Circuit Court on appeal from the District Court”,”.

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

I move amendment No. 31:

In page 77, to delete lines 40 and 41 and substitute the following: “(u) in section 34(1), by the substitution of “Family District Court or the District Court has made an order under Part III or the Family District Court or the Family Circuit Court has made an order under Part IV” for “District Court has made an order under Part III or IV”,”.

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

I move amendment No. 32:

In page 78, line 1, to delete “amended” and substitute “inserted”.

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

I move amendment No. 33:

In page 78, line 7, to delete “amended” and substitute “inserted”.

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

I move amendment No. 34:

In page 78, to delete lines 11 to 14 and substitute the following: “(ii) in subsection (3), by the substitution of “Family District Court or the Family Circuit Court” for “District Court”, and

(iii) in subsection (4), by the substitution of “Family District Court or the Family Circuit Court” for “District Court”,”.

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

I move amendment No. 35:

In page 78, line 15, to delete “amended” and substitute “inserted”.

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

I move amendment No. 36:

In page 78, line 19, after “Court” to insert “or the Family Circuit Court”.

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

I move amendment No. 37:

In page 78, line 27, after “Court” to insert “or the Family Circuit Court”.

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

I move amendment No. 38:

In page 78, line 29, after “Court” to insert “or the Family Circuit Court”.

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

I move amendment No. 39:

In page 78, line 32, after “Court” to insert “or the Family Circuit Court”.

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

I move amendment No. 40:

In page 78, line 34, after “Court” to insert “or the Family Circuit Court”.

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

I move amendment No. 41:

In page 78, line 36, after “Court” to insert “or the Family Circuit Court”.

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

I move amendment No. 42:

In page 79, line 1, after “Court” to insert “or the Family Circuit Court”.

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

I move amendment No. 43:

In page 79, line 5, after “district” to insert the following: “or a judge of the Family Circuit Court for the time being assigned to the Family Circuit Court circuit”.

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

I move amendment No. 44:

In page 79, line 7, after “district” to insert “or the Family Circuit Court circuit”.

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

I move amendment No. 45:

In page 79, line 9, after “Court” to insert “or the Family Circuit Court”.

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

I move amendment No. 46:

In page 79, line 12, after “Family District Court” to insert “or the Family Circuit Court”.

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

I move amendment No. 47:

In page 81, line 8, to delete “Circuit Court” and substitute “Circuit Family Court”.

This is a technical drafting amendment to correct a minor error in the Bill, inserting a missing word. Instead of "Circuit Court", it should read "Circuit Family Court".

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

I move amendment No. 48:

In page 94, between lines 19 and 20, to insert the following: “(a) in section 20(1)(i) (inserted by section 232(b)(i)(V) of the Act of 2024), by the substitution of “Family District Court or Family Circuit Court” for “District Court or Circuit Court”,”.

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

I move amendment No. 49:

In page 95, line 4, to delete “circuit”,” and substitute “circuit”.”.

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

I move amendment No. 50:

In page 95, to delete lines 5 to 8.

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

I move amendment No. 51:

In page 97, between lines 8 and 9, to insert the following: “Amendment of Act of 2024

94. The Act of 2024 is amended—

(a) in section 5—

(i) in subsection (1)—

(I) by the substitution of “Parts 11 and 12” for “Part 12”, and

(II) by the substitution of “Family Circuit Court” for “Circuit Court”, in both places where it occurs,

and

(ii) in subsection (2), by the substitution of “Family Circuit Court” for “Circuit Court”, in each place where it occurs,

(b) in section 115(2), by the substitution of “Family High Court” for “High Court”,

(c) by the insertion of the following section after section 170:

“Circuit Court’s jurisdiction (Part 11)

170A. (1) Subject to subsection (2), a reference in this Part to an application being made to the court shall be construed as a reference to an application being made to the Circuit Court and the Circuit Court shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine proceedings under this Act in relation to any such application.

(2) The Circuit Court for the purposes of subsection (1) shall be—

(a) subject to paragraph (b), the Circuit Court for that circuit in which the applicant concerned ordinarily resides or carries on any profession, business or occupation, or

(b) where the applicant concerned neither ordinarily resides nor carries on any profession, business or occupation in the State, the Circuit Court for the Dublin Circuit.”,

(d) in section 202, in the definition of “Court”, by the substitution of “Family High Court” for “High Court”, and

(e) in section 214, in the definition of “Court”, by the substitution of “Family High Court” for “High Court”.”.

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

I move amendment No. 52:

In page 101, line 20, to delete “Act of 1971” and substitute “Courts Act 1971”.

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

I move amendment No. 53:

In page 101, line 33, to delete “2010.” and substitute “2010;”.

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

I move amendment No. 54:

In page 101, after line 33, to insert the following: “(m) section 66(1)(a), 103(1)(a), 205 or 217 of the Act of 2024.”.

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

I move amendment No. 55:

In page 113, to delete lines 36 to 41.

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

I move amendment No. 56:

In page 114, to delete lines 9 to 22 and substitute the following:“

(b) by the substitution of clause (I) in subparagraph (ii) with the following clause: “(I) pursuant to an order—(A) of the Family District Court, the District Court or the Family Circuit Court on appeal from the Family District Court or District Court under Part III of the Child Care Act 1991, and (B) of the Family District Court or the Family Circuit Court (whether at first instance or an appeal from the Family District Court) under Part IV or VI of the Child Care Act 1991,”.

”.

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

I move amendment No. 57:

In page 114, to delete lines 28 to 41 and substitute the following:“

(b) by the substitution of clause (I) in subparagraph (ii) with the following clause: “(I) pursuant to an order—(A) of the Family District Court, the District Court or the Family Circuit Court on appeal from the Family District Court or District Court under Part III of the Child Care Act 1991, and (B) of the Family District Court or the Family Circuit Court (whether at first instance or an appeal from the Family District Court) under Part IV or VI of the Child Care Act 1991,”.

”.

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

I move amendment No. 58:

In page 114, to delete lines 42 to 51 and in page 115, to delete lines 4 to 32.

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

I move amendment No. 59:

In page 9, lines 13 and 14, to delete all words from and including “to” in line 13 down to and including “committees;” in line 14 and substitute the following: “to make further provision in respect of rules of court in family law proceedings and to provide for the establishment of a Family Courts Practice and Procedure Committee;”.

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

I move amendment No. 60:

In page 9, lines 18 and 19, to delete “the Courts Act 1971,”.

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

I move amendment No. 61:

In page 9, line 32, after “2023,” to insert “the Health (Assisted Human Reproduction) Act 2024,”.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Pursuant to Standing Order 187(3), it is reported to the Dáil that the Long Title has been amended.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Bill has now passed. Congratulations to everyone involved. I thank all the Members for their co-operation.