Learning from lessons of the not-so-distant past – lifting the lid on family law

Irish Independent

29-05-2025

As researchers, we were astonished to hear people's experience of the rule, which means family hearings are heard in private, described by various participants as horrific, misogynistic and abusive.
Over the past year we have been working with Dr Kenneth Burns, senior lecturer at University College Cork, on a research study commissioned by the Department of Justice to capture the experiences not only of family members who have direct experience of using the family law courts, but also those of the professionals, whose work intersects with in-camera rule. Judges were also interviewed for this study.
Everyone knows someone whose marriage, for one reason or another (adultery, domestic violence) has not worked out. For some, they have no option but to pursue the legal route.
From the outside looking in, you might think that the couple go to court, get a legal separation or divorce and go their separate ways.
The reality, however, as highlighted by our research, shows that it is not as straightforward as one might think. In fact, as described by some of the participants in the study, the system itself can be quite horrific.
According to some of our research participants, the in-camera rule has a lot to answer for, and in fact has resulted in many people who use the family courts feeling 'gagged', 'silenced' and 'having no voice'.
One participant said that what the in-camera rule actually achieves is 'secrecy not privacy'.
Others described it as a system that lacks transparency where there is little or no accountability for the oftentimes life-changing decisions that are made.
It should come as no surprise then that from the outset of this study, the floodgates opened. Personal stories, some handwritten, from mothers, fathers and grandparents – all desperate for their stories to be heard – was a regular occurrence for both of us.
Some of it was truly unbelievable and mind-boggling. Had we opened a Pandora's box? We dug deep, we found the judgments (some unpublished) only to find that what was contained in those emails and letters, sharing intimate personal accounts, was far from fictitious. In fact, you could not make it up.
We were reminded of the powerful words spoken by the recently deceased Michael O'Brien, when he spoke to the nation in 2009 about his experiences of institutional abuse in one of Ireland's industrial schools. He emphasised the importance of giving voice to the voiceless and the need for people who have endured abuse to tell their stories.
From our previous work in adoption research, we ask ourselves why today are the same words that were all too familiar to us making a resurgence in the family law space? Words such as secrecy, oppressive, silencing, punitive, abusive, misogynistic should have no place in contemporary Irish society.
Indeed, one finding that was highlighted by both professionals and parents is that the in-camera rule has been interpreted so strictly in some cases, that people feel they cannot access crucial supports for fear of breaching the rule. Surely people have a right to reach out for support without fear of retribution?
Transparency, clarity and accountability in both public and private family law should not be obscured by a privacy rule. Put by one survey participant, 'we should by now have moved past the simplistic unworkable 'silence' culture of our Catholic-dominated culture'.
Those affected by adoption were relentless in their pursuit of justice.
It was those who lived and breathed the long-term effects of those systemic injustices that fought for, and facilitated, much needed change in Irish adoption law.
If there is one thing we can attest to from our collective experiences, it is that people should not be silenced.
Surely Ireland's history has taught us that much? The wheel of change turns very, very slowly. In the context of Irish family law, the changes cannot come soon enough.