I thank you for allowing me to raise this important matter. I raised it previously by way of parliamentary question, on 8 February and on the Adjournment on 17 May. Regrettably, nothing has been done in the meantime. The Government is nevertheless proceeding to put divorce legislation on the Statute Book and is doing so in the full knowledge that this will further exacerbate a situation which has already become well nigh intolerable.
From the standpoints of both personnel and resources, family law hearings are in a state of crisis. For family law clients, justice is both delayed and, therefore, denied virtually on a daily basis. Family law business has expanded since the passage of the Judicial Separation and Family Law Reform Act, 1989 and the new business triggered by this legislation was simply grafted on to the existing workload without any commensurate increase in funding.
In the 1988-89 legal year, the year which preceded the introduction of that Act, there were 68 applications before the Circuit Court for divorce a mensa et toro, to which judicial separation now corresponds. In the 1993-94 legal year, there were a staggering 2,806 judicial separation applications under the 1989 Act. What does the Minister imagine the situation will be when the divorce legislation is used?
In Limerick, local Circuit Court Judge Kevin O'Higgins was recently presented with 80 family law cases to resolve on a single day and a similar number in Ennis. He sits until 10 p.m. each night in an effort to reduce the waiting time for justice. Like every other Circuit Court judge however, he is swimming against an ever rising tide.
Family law clients, who are mostly women, suffer cruelly during these extended waiting periods. Many are literally living in dread and feel if they apply for a barring order, it will not be granted. Those who are not living in physical fear often are suffering great mental cruelty and distress. Many have been forced to flee to the relative safety of women's refuges. Many have inadequate resources and, both they and their children, are living from hand to mouth. That is not all.
Because of the pressure of business, judges are forced to make the impossible choice between brief and hurried hearings or intolerable delays. In many cases hasty judgments are made after the briefest hearing.
It would be an abuse of language to describe the physical conditions of many courthouses outside Dublin as appropriate for family law cases. Most Circuit and District Court venues outside Dublin do not have adequate space or facilities to accommodate family law clients. On many occasions, opposing spouses are left seated opposite each other on benches in cold and draughty corridors. Adequate facilities for consultations between lawyers and their clients are the exception rather than the rule in most venues. Many Circuit Court houses have insufficient lighting, leaking roofs, ill fitting windows, inadequate heating and many do not even have basic toilet facilities. It is small wonder that the Law Reform Commission in its consultation paper on family law hearings described the entire system as "a sad parody of justice".
This Government recently asked the people to show their sympathy for those in dead marriages by voting in favour of divorce. Where is the Government's sympathy for people in dead marriages who have to wait for as long as three years to get into court for a judicial separation hearing? What about sympathy for those aggrieved family law clients who have to make do with a slot machine system of justice because of the pressures to which judges are subjected? What about sympathy for those who have to wait a minimum of one year for a family assessment when a district justice seeks one in order to determine custody? What about sympathy for those family law clients who consult their lawyers in the open air in all weathers or, alternatively, in a crowded hallway, a few feet away from where the other party is consulting his or her lawyer about the same business?
Unless we hear tonight that the Government has definite proposals to address this unchristian and unconstitutional position in terms of accommodation, facilities and personnel then the verbal commitments so freely given by the Government to the most vulnerable in society will be exposed as hollow rhetoric.
