Madam, - As organisers of the conference on divorce and children to which John Waters refers his piece "Not in the child's best interests" (Opinion, April 2nd), we feel compelled to respond to the inaccurate impression conveyed both of the conference proceedings and of the substantive issues addressed.
First, as chairperson of the conference, and having listened to all of the presentations in full, I must dispute the impression given that Dr Carol Coulter was taking any particular stand on the child's right to be heard or the provision of a guardian ad litem service. In her measured and informative presentation, she set out to relate the current approach of the courts in seeking to elicit the perspective of the child.
As such, she laid a firm basis for the other presentations which focused on how best to improve children's outcomes in divorce. At no point did Dr Coulter suggest that judges should routinely seek the child's views on the matter. In fact, of the speakers at the conference, she was the least prescriptive of all on this point.
Other speakers, however, did outline the various ways that children's voices can and should be heard, drawing on national and international evidence. They stressed that the right of the child to be heard in cases concerning his or her welfare is enshrined in international and domestic law (particularly in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child).
A guardian ad litem representing the interests of the child in disputes between parents is likewise provided for in legislation passed by the Oireachtas (Section 28, Guardianship of Infants Act, 1964 as amended by section 11 of the Children Act 1997) though the relevant provision has, 10 years after its passing, not yet been brought into operation.
Thus, a child whose interests may be affected significantly by a decision of a court has a right (if of sufficient age and understanding) to have his or her perspective considered by the judge. This does not mean that the child's wishes will necessarily determine the outcome of a case. Nor does it require that the views of parents should be ignored or overridden.
Most importantly, the existence of a right to be heard does not require, as Mr Waters suggests, that the child be compelled to make a decision between its parents in custody disputes or that the child be forced to give evidence against one or other parent. Rather, it seeks to support children in custody disputes to ensure that both their parents and the court hear what they think of arrangements that are being made about where they will live and with whom, after their parents divorce.
It seeks also to ensure that such views are considered as one element - though one very important element - of the evidence on which, in the final analysis, only the judge hearing the case can decide. The presentation by our Scottish speaker, Rachael Kelsey (and available on our website www.onefamily.ie) highlighted how such an approach can have very positive outcomes for all concerned.
The aim of our conference was to inform the debate on children in divorce and to help ensure positive outcomes for children in such situations. It is disappointing, therefore, that a misleading and simplistic impression of the very serious and important issues involved has been presented in your paper. - Yours, etc,
Dr FERGUS RYAN, Chairperson, One Family, Lower Pembroke Street, Dublin 2.