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 4981118
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I understand the Member's frustration, but non-molestation orders are a matter for the Department of Finance and not the Department of Justice. Enforcement in individual cases is a matter for the relevant judge, and, in reaching decisions, the judge will strive to ensure that the paramount consideration of the welfare of the child is not compromised. Breach of a residence or contact order can readily be dealt with through contempt of court proceedings or a summons initiated under general enforcement powers in article 112 of the Magistrates' Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1981, which gives the court the power to fine or imprison. The best outcomes for children will be achieved if parents avoid the type of acrimonious dispute and entrenched relationship difficulties that can lead to the breakdown of contact and residence arrangements in the first place. However, that is not possible in cases such as the Member referred to: those in which domestic abuse played a role. Therefore, it is important that we look forward to the domestic abuse protection orders (DAPOs) and domestic abuse protection notices (DAPNs) and the work that my Department has been doing with PSNI colleagues to scope out how the trials of those are operating in England and Wales. You will be aware of the considerable concerns that the PSNI expressed prior to our going live with that legislation here. We are working with our counterparts in England and Wales to understand better how they are implementing those and what structures are around them to see whether there is something that we can do in that space that may, perhaps, be more useful than an NMO.
272 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: 0.04 (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 (0.89).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- Subject area: Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues.
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.89 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.04 | 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 |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.53 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.40 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.07 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 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.