Even if that is so, and especially the sensitivity of the matter in terms of the family and the publicity it has engendered, is it not likely that the lawyers for AGS or Tusla or whatever part of the State apparatus was involved will seek an order that the matter is held in camera and/or an order banning publicity, that is unless they decide that they want to disclose something in the public ether?I understand the requirement to hold family court cases in camera.
However I'd argue that this case is more concerned with trying to get to the truth as to what caused the raid on the house, the removal and detention of the children, rather than whether or not the treatment of the children was merited.
In other words the plaintiff case is more about the legality of the procedures employed by the state, rather than whether or not the treatment of the children merited their forced removal and detention.
Given what Ms Kavanagh said in her video, it seems family cases can drag on for a very long time and the parent is up against a formidable State apparatus. Also they could seek to drag it out until the thing is forgotten in public discourse.
There is still a lot we don't know.
Obviously, legal expertise will be required in the matter.