153 / 346
INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY OF IRELAND
GAZETTE
Vol. 77. No. 6.
July/August 1983
Family Law —,
Coping with the Growth
S
ome interesting statistics on the number of Family
Law cases were given in the Dail last June by the
Minister for Justice in a series of Replies to Questions
from Dr. Michael Woods. The statistics are set out on
page 166. It should be noted that, while the trend is
clearly on the increase, the latest figures are artificially
reduced by the impact of the recent Court Clerks' dis-
pute.
Two obvious conclusions may be drawn from the
published figures. Firstly, that Family Law cases are on
the increase, and. secondly, that the Courts dealing with
these types of cases must be geared to cope with the in-
crease. Now that the changes brought about by the
Courts Act 1981 are fully operational and the District
and Circuit Courts are the primary Courts dealing with
Maintenance, Barring and Guardianship cases, the
question must be asked whether those Courts will be
able to cope, without adversely affecting the handling of
other types of cases.
In recent years, the administrative efficiency of the
Dublin Circuit Court has been the subject of well-
deserved praise - due in no small way to the President of
the Circuit Court. Mr. Justice Neylon - with civil actions
coming on for hearing within
weeks
of notice of trial
being served.
Howe v e r, the Circuit Court in Dublin is already
feeling the administrative strain of the new Family Law
jurisdiction. One fully-fought Family Law case can be
expected to last two to three days. What then happens to
the number of civil actions which could be disposed of in
the same period of Court time? The same query applies
equally to the Dublin Metropolitan District Court and,
perhaps in a lesser way, to every Circuit and District
Court in the country.
In their very nature. Family Law cases must receive
priority in the Court listing system. There is, therefore,
an immediate need for the appointment of several new
Circuit Judges and District Justices - primarily for the
Dublin area but, if required, movable on an 'ad hoc'
basis, to deal with such cases in other parts of the
country.
In the longer term, serious consideration must be
given to the establishment of a "Family Court", which
could be based on the present Circuit Court structure,
which would have jurisdiction at first instance in all
Family Law matters, to be serviced by Circuit Judges
who would soon become "specialised" in such cases and
who would, in turn, have a specialist back-up staff to
assist them.
There is, of course, another possible way of dealing
with the growth of Family Law cases, which take up so
much of the time of our Courts - that is by the provision
of a Family Conciliation Service, which would assist the
parties to an irretrievably broken-down marriage
amicably to resolve their differences. At a recent Family
Law Symposium in Sligo, the Minister of State at the
Department of Justice, Mrs. Nuala Fennell, strongly
supported the setting up of such a Conciliation Service
on the lines of the now well-established prototype, the
Bristol Family Court Conciliation Service. The Minister
rightly made reference to the reality that, whereas the
role of each party to a broken marriage may have ended
as a marraige partner, their respective roles as parents
continued. How often must the obvious be reiterated
that the Courts' system of adjudication on Family Law
disputes, by its very nature, gives rise to confrontation
rather than conciliation - resulting more often than not
in mutual dissatisfaction and unhappiness, with innocent
children the ultimate sufferers? How much better for
trained conciliators to resolve with the parties
themselves the issues of custody and access to children,
maintenance and property entitlement - with agreement
so reached being -given subsequent sanction by the
Court. Ag r e emen ts reached amicably and rationally are
more likely to be honoured in spirit and in fact than
imposed solutions, following a bloodletting session in
Court.
•