Mental health professionals are bound by codes of ethics that prioritise do no harm, evidence-based intervention, and the best interests of the child. But when these professionals step into the orbit of Irish family law, they often find themselves forced to contort, dilute, or abandon those principles just to remain involved.
This isn’t just a systems clash. It’s a collision between two fundamentally incompatible paradigms, one grounded in care, the other in control. And too often, the child is the collateral damage.
The Ethical Mandate: Child-Centred, Trauma-Informed, Systemically Aware
In contemporary mental health practice, especially when working with families in conflict, ethics demand that professionals:
-
Maintain impartiality
-
Prioritise safety and psychological well-being of the child
-
Recognise and address trauma, coercive control, and complex attachment patterns
-
Engage in systemic thinking, understanding that no behaviour exists in a vacuum
-
Use validated assessments, clear clinical formulations, and transparent reporting
-
Respect the child’s developmental stage, voice, and capacity for meaning-making
The goal is clear: support the child in navigating conflict without retraumatising, pathologising, or being used as a pawn in adult agendas.
Now contrast that with how the Irish family law system actually operates.
Family Law in Ireland: Adversarial, Unregulated, and Outcome-Oriented
Despite years of promises to reform the family law system, the Irish courts remain deeply adversarial, non-transparent, and disjointed. Key features include:
-
No standardised training for judges in child development, attachment, trauma, or family systems
-
No regulation of expert witnesses; anyone can present as a “family consultant.”
-
No national protocols for Section 32 or 47 reports, custody evaluations, or contact recommendations
-
Lack of enforceable child rights the “voice of the child” is tokenistic at best, silenced at worst
-
Inconsistent/arbitrary rulings across courts depending more on judicial philosophy than case facts
-
Time pressure, capacity issues, and legal tactics dominating over therapeutic concern
The system rewards procedural expediency and persuasive advocacy, not psychological truth. It prioritises closure over complexity. And it routinely demands certainty in situations that are clinically uncertain and emotionally volatile.
This is not a system built to optimise child outcomes. It is a system built to process conflict, often by splitting the difference, silencing allegations, or rewarding compliance.
A Conflict of Roles: When the Therapist Becomes the Problem
Ethical therapists often find themselves in a double bind when involved in family law cases:
-
If they speak truthfully about highlighting coercion, abuse, or emotional harm, they are labelled “biased” or “aligned.”
-
If they refuse to make black-and-white recommendations, they are criticised for “failing to assist the court.”
-
If they maintain boundaries, they risk being replaced by a less scrupulous practitioner
-
If they include nuance, formulation, and caution, their reports may be ignored in favour of those offering simplistic answers or reunification prescriptions
In effect, the system rewards those who perform objectivity rather than those who demonstrate clinical competence.
Case Management Chaos: No Integration, No Oversight, No Accountability
Mental health professionals trying to operate within Irish family law are often left working in a void:
-
No clear terms of reference
-
No inter-agency collaboration
-
No protection for professionals when reports are misused or cherry-picked
-
No continuity of care for children post-litigation
-
No court-based frameworks for trauma-informed, staged interventions
Child contact decisions are often made in minutes by judges with no therapeutic expertise, based on incomplete information and influenced by who has the better barrister, not who is telling the clinical truth.
Ethical Incompatibility in Action: A Case Study (Composite Example)
A mental health professional is asked to assess a 10-year-old child refusing contact with their mother/father. The clinician finds:
-
A prior history of coercive control by the father/mother
-
Emotional abuse of the mother/father witnessed by the child
-
A pattern of enmeshment between the child and the mother/father that’s more protective than pathological
They recommend therapeutic support for the child and careful monitoring of contact, suggesting no forced reunification until the child feels emotionally safe. The court responds by:
-
Ordering immediate unsupervised contact
-
Rejecting the report as “too cautious”
-
Accusing the mother/father of alienation
-
Silencing the clinician in further proceedings
This is not hypothetical. It’s happening weekly in Irish family law courts.
What Needs to Change
The solution is not to retreat from these cases; it’s to demand alignment between ethical clinical standards and family law processes. That includes:
-
Mandatory interdisciplinary training for judges, lawyers, and appointed experts on child development, trauma, coercive control, and attachment
-
Accreditation and regulation of court-involved mental health professionals
-
Standardised national assessment protocols for Section 32 and 47 reports
-
Court-mandated staged interventions, with feedback loops between legal and clinical teams
-
Independent oversight of child welfare outcomes post-ruling
-
Statutory protections for professionals who report accurately and ethically, even when inconvenient
Conclusion: Choose Your Side
Mental health professionals cannot ethically participate in systems that harm children and ignore trauma. If family law in Ireland remains adversarial, opaque, and unaccountable, then true child-centred practice will always be at odds with it.
It’s time for clinicians to stop contorting themselves to fit the court’s comfort zone.
And it’s time for the courts to earn the right to call themselves child-focused.
Brian has spent ten years working as an expert witness in complex private family law proceedings. He has stepped away from doing this work now and refuses any assessment referrals from any Irish family law court for assessments.
I have often been struck by the number of legal professionals in a case representing the mother/father; each of those liars will cite their obligation to advocate for their client – who is not the child or chldren !!