Judge describes family court as 'cold and cruel'

A District Court judge has described the Family Law Court system as a "cold, crude and cruel" environment.

A District Court judge has described the Family Law Court system as a "cold, crude and cruel" environment.

Judge Mary Martin called for urgent reforms, including special training for judges and more information for the public on what goes on in such courts.

Judge Martin, who was launching an art exhibition in Nenagh by a group of north Tipperary women victims of domestic abuse, said she would like to see a "one-stop-shop" of support services for victims in the midlands.

She also hoped reports of domestic violence could be responded to through the 999 telephone emergency service, a system that had proved effective in England.

READ MORE

Judge Martin said she had yet to meet a person in her own district in the midlands who wanted to be in a court such as the Family Law Court.

"I acknowledge that it takes huge courage and determination to make it so far in a system that is a cold, crude, cruel environment."

There were no winners or losers in such courts. If children were involved judges were asked to be Solomon, needing to act as mediators, imposing some semblance of structure and being therapeutic in their approach, she said.

Family law warranted its own expertise. "That's why I think that there is a need for judges to be trained in a specific family law module. It's the one area where you have to get in and dirty your hands; you don't have to do that in an assault, larceny or a road traffic violation.

"I have seen broken bones on women and children, dreadful marks and bruises, physical and mental scars. The sadness of the women believing that they are to blame, that they caused the problem or deserved this ill-treatment; the stories of the broken homes, broken bodies, broken minds, broken lives of these women and their children are very hard to listen to. I am in the legal business 33 years, and I still find it hard to comprehend.

"Domestic violence is very prevalent in this country, and men find it hard to understand that they do not have the right to hit, control, rape, abuse physically, sexually or mentally or manipulate their partners."

Child victims of domestic violence had been given scant recognition and were discouraged from openly talking about the problem.

Efforts by parents to protect their children from domestic violence, or knowing about it, was seldom in the child's long-term interest, as there was strong evidence that children were often deeply affected by direct or indirect exposure to family violence, she said.

Victims taking steps to escape domestic violence may have had to negotiate with up to 22 agencies for the services they require.

"Effectively, a victim, when at their most vulnerable, is required to negotiate a range of services that would intimidate and paralyse any strong healthy person. The miracle is that so many victims have successfully negotiated the terrain. The reality is that many others have returned to lives of violence."

A problem-solving mechanism was badly needed for clients who were unable to deal effectively with bureaucratic, non-user friendly treatment and social service organisations and structures.

What went on behind closed doors would continue behind closed doors unless people were faced with the reality and consequences of their actions.

While all family law proceedings were heard behind closed doors to protect the privacy of the parties and their children, it was important to place the problem of the "in camera" rule and its shortcomings in its social and historical context, to note its advantages and limitations, and to question the wisdom of it.