McDowell believes the District Family Court is "an intellectual
and legal slum … the worst court to decide children's welfare"

There follows a true verbatim extract taken from the speech by Deputy Mr.
McDowell, former Minister for Justice, during the Dáil debate of 26
May, 1988 on the Child Care Bill, 1988. 

The evidence is overwhelming that the District Court is failing to respect the rights
of Families and in his speech Mr McDowell explains why this is to be expected and
his reasons why the District Court is a totally inappropriate venue for Family Law hearings.

Of particular note are his quotes stating,

"I should like the Minister of State to tell me how a court of limited
jurisdiction can decide, effectively, on a child's whole future on the basis
of a half an hour in some unheated, half ruined building, erected in the
19th century and which is totally unsuited to its purpose.

The simple fact is that the District Court is the worst court to decide
these issues.

It is in many respects, despite the best efforts of its members, the
district justices, an intellectual and legal slum into which we push more
and more work, irrespective of the fact that we know we are not giving it
the facilities to deal with it."

Despite this and him having been Minister for Justice, Mr McDowell
allowed the District Court to continue to be the court of first instance for
the vast majority of applications concerning aspects of family law.

Only fathers who have hundreds of thousands of euros of the family's assets
at their disposal can afford to have their right to protect their children vindicated
in the appropriate venue of the High Court.

Far from being now an age where children's protection is paramount, the
record shows that as recently as twenty years ago children's lives were
considered so precious that matters relating to their welfare could only
properly be dealt with in the High Court.

When the Guardianship of Infants Act was introduced by Charles Haughey, then
Minister for Justice in 1964 he pushed through contentious aspects of the
Bill by promising the assembled TDs that they should have no fears as he guaranteed
"the Bill would only ever be dealt with in the High Court”.

In 1981 that promise was revoked when the idea of the District Court being
given jurisdiction under the Guardianship Act for the first time was
introduced by Gerry Collins, Minister of State at the Department of Justice.

This decision was again greeted with vociferous opposition by many TDs who
saw the Bill as providing “justice on the cheap”. The bill was pushed
through on the basis that it "should result in a significant contribution
towards the provision of cheaper, speedier and more convenient access to
justice"!

Minister Collins stated, "I am satisfied that the procedures can and must
remain simple, thus preserving the District Court in particular as a forum
where disputes can be brought to a speedy and just conclusion, with the
minimum of formality and expense. I am also satisfied that the lower courts
are fully competent to handle the more substantial issues both of law and of
fact which will fall to be dealt with by them as a result of the proposals
in this Bill."

This has not turned out to be true. Matters relating to the welfare of
children are dealt with in a summary fashion, in line with the other
business of the District court.

In fact Michael McDowell argued eloquently that this would happen when
he prophesised in 1988 - whilst debating the merits or otherwise of the
District courts as a venue for dealing with children - what has become reality
- that Families would be processed through a Court which has little regard for
the niceties of Law, such that virtually every decision made by the District 
Court would be found to be unlawful and overturned by Judicial Review if a
parent had the strength and money to do so. (Thus providing more work and
money for the legal profession of course)

The points he made then are so well put that they are quoted below in full.

START QUOTE

Mr. McDowell: "I have thought long and hard about this and have viewed on
many occasions what has and has not gone on in the District Court, and what
are or are not the training and experience qualifications of district
justices. They are in criminal cases confined to exercising summary
jurisdiction in limited matter. The District Court is one of summary
jurisdiction fundamentally, which means that decisions are made quickly,
promptly and in a hurry and made with a view to getting on with the next
business. That is summary justice and anybody who disagrees with that is
deluding himself or herself. To give to a court dealing with offences such
as no lights on bicycles or the exact remit of the permits of street traders
or the smallest matters such as parking fines — those are some of their more
elevated functions — the power of deciding yes or no over matters of huge
consequence to a child is indefensible.

Which Deputy will say that he or she knows of a District Court which has
time to spend two days deciding the fate of a child? What District Court is
organised to allocate two or three days to the decision as to what the
future of a child demands? What District Court is organised to receive child
psychiatric evidence? What District Court is organised to lay aside the TV
licenses and to allocate its judicial brains to deciding what a child needs
most of all? We all know well in our hearts that no District Court is
organised to do that. It is in many respects, despite the best efforts of
its members, the district justices, an intellectual and legal slum into
which we push more and more work, irrespective of the fact that we know we
are not giving it the facilities to deal with it. For instance, if it cannot
deal with a complex case of larceny, where someone will go to jail for two
years — and it cannot deal with that case because larceny is not a minor
offence on the criminal side — why should it decide where a child is to
spend from two to 16 years of age? If it can only deal with minor cases in
criminal law, how can it decide major matters in relation to a child's
upbringing and welfare?

Much more importantly, I wish to remind the Minister and the Minister of
State that the only function of the District Court is that it is a court of
local and limited jurisdiction under the Constitution. It has no right to
make far-reaching decisions about the welfare of a child. Upper class
children, and those who have the services of lawyers who will act for
nothing, get a High Court judge to exercise wardship jurisdiction over them.

That happens in the High Court on one front but we are making a jurisdiction
for the District Court — the poorest of courts in terms of resources, the
most overstretched in terms of its time, availability and commitment, the
most undertrained and underqualified of our courts, with the greatest of
respect to its members — to make the most dramatic and far-reaching
decisions, especially for the poorest of children. That is an indictment of
us because we think we can give to a minor court of summary jurisdiction
far-reaching decisions about children whose interests require to be
protected. The District Court ... will fail in its duty to the children
because it does not have the resources, expertise, time or inclination to do
what is necessary in the interests of those children. Above all — unlike the
High Court — it is a court of limited jurisdiction.

I should like the Minister of State to tell me how a court of limited
jurisdiction can decide, effectively, on a child's whole future on the basis
of a half an hour in some unheated, half ruined building, erected in the
19th century and which is totally unsuited to its purpose.

As a group they [family lawyers] are just like other lawyers; they will
complicate many simple issues and fight others which perhaps should not be
fought. The simple fact is that the District Court is the worst court to
decide these issues." END QUOTE
Deputy Mr.McDowell during the Dáil debate of 26 May, 1988 on the Child Care Bill, 1988

Roger Eldridge,
Chairman. National Men's Council of Ireland