Madam, - As a solicitor working in the Family Law area, I take grave offence at the letter from Mary T Cleary which you printed so prominently last Monday. One insensitive advertisement from one solicitor does not give her the right to damn all lawyers working in the family law field, nor does it give you the right to print such rubbish prominently.
When people marry, they enter a legal contract, and the only way to end that contract is to do it through a court, as laid down by the Oireachtas. People can act for themselves in court if they want to, but most people use solicitors and barristers to do this. The client instructs the lawyer, and it is the client's agenda that determines the atmosphere of the legal proceedings in court. Cases can be settled at any time, and do not have to be fully heard in court, but it is the client who decides that. To suggest that lawyers deliberately destroy the lives of children is a nonsense.
It is well known that family law work is stressful for practitioners, and some will avoid it altogether for that reason. Recently a solicitor had to be protected by gardaí because of threats to his life after acting for the mother in a family law case. In this context, the printing of such a simplistic letter from Ms Cleary is a dangerous act, because it sets us up as easy targets for aggrieved spouses. The trouble with one-agenda people like Ms Cleary is that they fail to see the wider picture in their efforts to seek the limelight. - Yours, etc,
MUREDACH DOHERTY, Lower Beechwood Avenue, Ranelagh, Dublin 6.
Madam, - Derval Sugrue (January 17th) is mistaken when she says "there are no winners or losers when a marriage breaks down". She may be excused for this because separation settlements imposed by law are obscured from public knowledge by the "in camera" rule.
With a Constitution that requires the State to protect the institution of marriage (Article 41.3.1°), one might expect that married partners would have some legal protection from external attack on their partnership, but this is not so. A third party lover simply does not exist in the eyes of the law. He or she is not required by law to attend court or to provide a statement of means, notwithstanding cohabitation with the deserting spouse. He or she does stand to benefit collaterally when the family assets are divided on the basis of "no fault".
He or she is clearly a "winner". - Yours etc,
DAVID ORR, Passage West, Co Cork.