Debate contribution: Family Court System
Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on .
- MLA
- Mrs Naomi Long
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 2 June 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Family Court System
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4981106
Read the official Assembly record
Text
The legal framework governing the rights of parents and children vests in the Department of Finance rather than in my Department. My Department is responsible for the operation of the justice system and the courts. I am committed to taking whatever steps I can to improve the operation of the family justice system. I continue to prioritise action to improve outcomes and the experience of families involved. Together with the Minister of Health, I continue to develop tools, under the private law early resolution action plan, to support parents to resolve disputes outside the adversarial court environment and to aid the earlier resolution of disputes that do come before the courts. I am taking steps, under my recently announced enabling access to justice programme, to ensure that we are effectively supporting the most vulnerable and using resources to best effect. That includes revisiting eligibility and merit tests for the provision of legal aid to ensure that resource is focused on greatest need and risk of harm. It also includes introducing bespoke delivery models to provide specialist tailored support and advice to vulnerable groups, including victims of domestic abuse involved in family proceedings. Scoping work is in train to consider the potential to increase the transparency of family courts whilst ensuring that safeguards are in place to protect the privacy of the children and families involved. I recently discussed that matter with the Lady Chief Justice. Her office is giving the matter further consideration, and I hope to be in a position to advise as to next steps in the near future.
261 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.02 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.82).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.02 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.82 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.02 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.53 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.33 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.12 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.02 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:43 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.