Right to Transparency, which is calling for reform of Ireland’s family law system, regards this as an important development in opening Ireland’s private family courts to greater public scrutiny.

However, it says the obvious question is what is happening in the courtrooms where nobody is watching? 

Following yesterday’s publication by justice minister Jim O’Callaghan of 103 fully anonymised reports of private family law proceedings, the organisation says the initiative provides compelling evidence of why the in camera rule requires fundamental reform.

Led by Dr Carol Coulter and established by the Department of Justice, the new three-year Family Law Reporting Project reported on private family law proceedings between March and June 2026 as observed by the project’s authorised researchers and reporters.

While protecting the identities of children and families its stated purpose is to increase transparency and public understanding of how family law decisions are made.

However, Right to Transparency says accounts it receives from victim-survivors suggest there is not a consistent experience across the family courts, particularly in cases involving allegations of domestic abuse, coercive control and concerns for children’s safety.

Examples of the numerous accounts of cases it receives include children continuing in 50:50 arrangements despite disclosures of alleged abuse; mothers reporting threats of imprisonment for failing to force older children to attend access they strongly resist; and cases where serious allegations of violence against a parent coexist with continuing disputes over access and custody.

Right to Transparency founder Síle Ní Dhubhghaill said: “The Family Law Reporting Project demonstrates exactly what transparency can achieve. For the first time in years, we will have independent observers entering private family courts and allowing the public to understand what actually happens there.

“But if independent observation is valuable in those courtrooms, why isn’t that principle applied throughout the system? What is happening in the courtrooms where nobody is watching?”

Right to Transparency was founded by survivors, advocates, frontline professionals and legal reformers and is concerned that the absence of independent scrutiny could mean that consistent standards are not being applied across the system. It feels that a recent High Court judicial review illustrates why that scrutiny matters.

In that case Mr Justice Simons examined the conduct of a District Court family law hearing in which extraordinary language had been used. The judgment records references to the “sainted mother”, both parents being described as “bad parents”, a reference to the child having to deal with “this shit” and the mother being described as “an absolute nightmare” and “one of the worst”.

Judge Simons concluded that the “intemperate and vulgar language” reinforced the objective appearance that adverse views expressed during the hearing were not merely provisional. In addition, the District court judge and the expert engaged in a process of co-decision making, with the judge asking for the assessor who compiled the Section 32 report for their opinion on what should be done.

Right to Transparency feels that in the above case had the matter not reached judicial review, such conduct may not have been subjected to meaningful independent scrutiny.

Right to Transparency is calling for reform of the in camera rule while maintaining strict anonymity and privacy protections for families, alongside greater access for accredited journalists and appropriate stakeholders.

The organisation is also calling for consistent practice standards across family courts and greater accountability in how domestic abuse, coercive control and the voice and safety of children are addressed.

Síle Ní Dhubhghaill said: “The Family Law Reporting Project should be the beginning of transparency, not its limit. Families can be protected without protecting a system from scrutiny. Privacy for families and accountability for the courts are not mutually exclusive.

“The Project shows us the value of opening the doors. The next step is ensuring meaningful scrutiny becomes part of the family justice system itself.”