Divorce became law yesterday. But support services for those seeking divorce, and information on the workings of the family courts, remain sadly inadequate, writes Carol Coulter

ONE OF the most important pieces of social legislation in the history of the State came into operation yesterday, after over two decades of debate and two constitutional referendums.

Before the most recent referendum, when the electorate voted by the narrowest of majorities to allow the introduction of divorce legislation, the Government assured the electorate of its concern to strengthen the institution of marriage and the family generally. It would do all possible to minimise the negative effects of divorce on the family, and especially on children.

There is a widespread consensus that mediation, rather than litigation, minimises the stress to those involved in marriage breakdown, and is of particular value where children are involved. Under the legislation a solicitor must provide a certificate to the court that he has drawn his client's attention to a list of counsellors and mediators.

HOWEVER, all this need mean in practice is that he or she hands the client a list provided by the Incorporated Law Society, or the booklet just published by the Department of Equality and Law Reform on services for marriages in difficulty.

This booklet contains the addresses of 89 counselling centres and just two mediation centres, in Dublin and Limerick, to which the Department allocated £300,000 this year. Waiting lists for these services are up to nine months long - hardly an encouragement to people to try to resolve their problems with minimal recourse to litigation. And a centre in Dublin or Limerick is not much good to someone needing mediation in Donegal or Waterford.

The Law Society list contains the names and addresses of the two State-funded Family Mediation centres and 16 other mediators, ranging from the service provided by the AIM Meditation Service to private practitioners. Six of them are in Dublin.

The Department has advertised for mediators, and hopes to establish a register of private mediators which it can recommend, with financial for those eligible for legal aid. However the Minister told The Irish Times yesterday that the mediators' profession was a new one, and it would be a number of years before properly qualified mediators become available in any numbers.

Private mediators are unregulated at the moment, and their fees can vary widely. The Institute of Mediators runs a register of trained mediators, but there is no legal obligation people calling themselves mediators to register with it and there is nothing to stop anyone setting up as a mediator, advertising in the Golden Pages and charging what they like.

AIM, which has one centre in Dublin, has trained mediators, charges £20 a session and deals with between 40 and 45 clients a month, according to Marie-Therese Naismith of its mediation service. "It's all we can manage with our resources," she said. "We're booked up for three months."

Mediation, if it was widely available, would undoubtedly greatly reduce both the stress and cost of litigation. For example, four or five sessions with the AIM mediation service would cost under £100, compared with the £100 an hour charged by leading solicitors for sorting out matters like property and provision for children.

But that fact alone must cast doubt on the eagerness of the legal profession to promote it. Why should a solicitor in private practice encourage a client to seek mediation, if that drastically reduces his own work, including hours in court? Yet the legislation places the onus on the solicitor to promote mediation; there is nothing in it to encourage the litigants themselves to seek mediation.

There is no State marriage counselling service, though £900,000 was allocated this year to services like Accord, the Catholic marriage counselling service. Accord has 57 centres around the State, including 11 in Dublin. There are 32 other counselling centres, according to the Department booklet. With almost 90 centres, the Government grant is spread fairly thinly, leaving them still dependent either on charitable donations or fees from clients.

But what is most disturbing to those involved in the practice of family law is the lack of research into the results of the huge changes in social legislation which are taking place. A Department of Justice spokeswoman told The Irish Times the workings of the legislation would be "kept under review". However, it is hard to see how this can be done as there are no written judgments and no transcripts in the vast majority of family law cases.

HE only way family law practitioners can know about the operation of the legislation and likely judgments is from their personal experience and that of their friends. Members of the public who find themselves faced with marriage breakdown are entirely dependent for their expectations on the state of their solicitor's knowledge.

Politicians and policy-makers have no way of knowing, for example, the number of family farms which are divided up as a result of marriage breakdown, or the number of times joint custody of children is awarded to both parents, because there is no mechanism for the keeping of records. This means that the discussion of marriage breakdown and, now, divorce, takes place in an information vacuum.

This derives from the ruling that family law cases be heard in camera, and not be reported. Few people would want family law cases to be reported like other court cases. However, a number of judges, and the Law Reform Commission, have taken the view that the existing rules are too stringent and inhibit the development of law as well as public debate. They have argued that some way of reporting such cases without identifying the parties, or admitting legal researchers to family courts, should be allowed.

At things are, one of the most important pieces of social legislation introduced in the State is operating without any possibility of public scrutiny of judicial decisions. The only way we will know whether or not it is working well is when - and if - those with grievances arising from these decisions try to draw attention to their plight.