DOCSLIB.ORG

FLW January 2010

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
FLW January 2010 Family Law Week December 2011 - 1 December 2011 News 1 report, the decision will provide clarity Analysis NEWS for countless couples who buy property together about whether and, if so, how Finance & Divorce Update 23 Jones v Kernott: Supreme Court their original agreements can be Autumn 2011 judgment to be delivered on reinterpreted by a court months or years Mesher Orders in Practice 26 Wednesday, 9 November later on the basis of what might be considered fair. Depending on the Jones v Kernott – Another 29 The Supreme Court will deliver its judgment, it may be that family lawyers helping of the witches' brew? judgment in Kernott v Jones on who specialise in this complex area will be advising clients that living together Wednesday, 9 November. The case was The Proceeds of Crime Act 32 heard in May 2011 by Lord Walker of agreements and declarations of trust are 2002 in Financial Remedy Gestingthorpe, Lady Hale of Richmond, essential if they are not to be prejudiced Proceedings Part 1. if the relationship breaks down." Lord Collins of Mapesbury, Lord Kerr of The Proceeds of Crime Act 37 Tonaghmore and Lord Wilson of 2002 in Financial Remedy Culworth. The judgment in the Court of Appeal can Proceedings Part 2. be read here. One step forward, one step 42 The issue which the Supreme Court will back: Jones v Kernott decide is "whether a court can properly An article by Rebecca Bailey-Harris and 45 infer an agreement by an unmarried John Wilson (Hang on a Minute! (Or is Alternative Methods of Family Dispute Resolution couple, who hold a property in equal Kernott the new White?)), can be read here. shares at the date of their separation, to Cases the effect that thereafter their respective beneficial interests should alter." In C (Children) [2011] EWCA 48 determining the outcome, the Supreme Norgrove Review criticises Civ 1230 Court will review the decision by the G v M [2011] EWHC 2651 ‘damaging delays’ in family (Fam) House of Lords in Stack v Dowden [2007] justice system A Local Authority v PB and P UKHL 17. [2011] EWHC 2675 (CoP) The Family Justice Review panel, under The judgment and Supreme Court's AR v AR [2011] EWHC 49 the chairmanship of David Norgrove, has 2717 (Fam) summary will be published on the announced a package of Jones v Kernott [2011] Family Law Week website as soon as recommendations aimed at tackling UKSC 53 they are available on Wednesday. Family delays in the family justice system and to Law Week will alert all of its email A v B [2011] EWHC 2752 50 make sure that children and families are (Fam) subscribers by email as soon as that has given the service they deserve. The been done. Review can be read here. BJ v MJ (Financial Remedy 51 OverseasTrusts) [2011] EWHC 2708 (Fam) Family Law Week is delighted to The key recommendations are: announce that an article setting out initial thoughts and possible implications of Ÿ D (Children) [2011] EWCA 52 A new six month time limit in Civ 1294 the judgment, written by leading care cases so delays are Cheshire West & Chester barristers Rebecca Bailey-Harris and significantly reduced Council v P [2011] EWCA Civ 1257 John Wilson QC, both of 1 Hare Court, Ÿ Enabling people to make their will be published on the Family Law own arrangements for their Z v Z (No2) [2011] EWHC 53 Week website very soon after the children when they separate, 2878 (Fam) judgment has been released. Re T v T (Occupation and only use courts when Orders, Brussels I and necessary Protective Measures) Alison Hawes, a partner with irwin Ÿ Overhauling the family justice [2010] EWHC 3776 (Fam) Mitchell, empahasised the importance of system so that agencies and the forthcoming judgment. professionals work together A and L (Children) [2011] 54 EWCA Civ 1205 with greater coherence to "In the context of the government saying R (SA) v Kent County improve the experience and Council [2011] EWCA Civ they will not act on the Law Commission 1303 LB of Tower Hamlets v BB 55 Family Law Week is published by GENERAL EDITOR [2011] EWHC 2853 (Fam) Stephen Wildblood QC Law Week Limited W (A Child) [2011] EWCA 56 Greengate House Deputy Editor Civ 1362 87 Pickwick Road Claire Wills-Goldingham A London Borough v O and Corsham Albion Chambers Others [2011] EWHC 2754 SN13 9BY (Fam) Tel & Fax: 0870 145 3935 R (AS) v London Borough of 57 Croydon [2011] EWHC 2091 (Admin) www.familylawweek.co.uk Family Law Week December 2011 - 2 outcomes for children and system for children and children when parents divorce. This is families. families the most comprehensive and far- Ÿ More judges who are reaching review of the family justice These recommendations follow the specialists in family law to system since the Children Act in 1989. independent review panel findings hear cases from start to finish The final review has now been formally that the current system of family justice to ensure consistency and presented to the Ministry of Justice, is under huge strain. The panel confidence in the system Department for Education and the concluded that rising caseloads Ÿ A simplified court structure Welsh Government for consideration. coupled with incoherent organisation making it easier for people and processes are causing damaging using the courts to know The Review can be read here. delays for children and families. It where to go takes on average over a year for an Ÿ More child focus and better outcome in a care case. The backlog of training for professionals to Professional groups welcome cases in the public law system means make sure children's views the key proposals of the that there are around 20,000 children are heard. waiting for their futures to be decided. Family Justice Review Changes to public law (protecting David Norgrove, chair of the Family children and taking them into care) to The Bar Council, Law Society, Family Justice Review, said: deliver more quickly for children: Law Bar Association and Resolution have all welcomed the main proposals 'Our package of Ÿ A six month time limit for all contained in the final report of the recommendations to the cases, save in exceptional Family Justice Review, chaired by Government and the judiciary circumstances David Norgrove. However, all of these will make the current family Ÿ Less reliance on unnecessary bodies have also questioned whether justice system more effective. expert witnesses and reports the vision set out in the Review is We need to eliminate the Ÿ Refocusing the courts on the achievable if the Legal Aid, Sentencing shocking delays in the system. core issue of determining and Punishment of Offenders Bill whether the child should go enters the statute book in its current 'This is why we are into care. form. The Bill has recently completed recommending legislation to its passage through the House of ensure that child protection Changes to private law (arrangements Commons. cases must not be allowed to about children and money following take any more than six months, separation), to create a simpler service By contrast, Families Need Fathers save in exceptional for families who are separating, aimed considered the proposed reforms circumstances. at helping them and their children inadequate to address 'the deep-seated focus on reaching a safe, joint problems at the heart of the family 'We also propose better ways agreement, if possible, without going justice system'. for parents to be helped to keep to court: the focus on their children as The responses are set out in detail they separate, with information, Ÿ A single online and phone below. education and mediation, and help service to make it court action only if all that fails. simpler for people to decide Bar Council and the Family Law Bar Association the most appropriate way The Bar Council and the Family Law 'Every year 500,000 children forward and increase clarity Bar Association (FLBA) have and adults are involved in the of understanding welcomed the key proposals of the family justice system. They Ÿ Use of Parenting Agreements Family Justice Review, contained in the turn to it at times of great stress and a new 'child final report published today. They and conflict. It must deliver the arrangements order' to bring have, however, voiced concerns about best possible outcome for all the together arrangements for its ambitious vision of the future of children and families who use children's care after family justice in the face of drastic it, because its decisions directly separation, focusing on the proposed cuts to family legal aid. affect the lives and futures of all child rather than 'contact' and those involved, and have 'residence' The Bar Council and FLBA have repercussions for society as a Ÿ Increased provision of pointed out that the report is published whole.' mediation to prevent cases as the Legal Aid, Sentencing and going to court unnecessarily. Punishment of Offenders Bill The panel recommend: completes its passage through the The panel declined to recommend a House of Commons almost completely A simpler system to deliver an presumption of shared parenting intact, moving on to the Lords improved service: arrangements. complete with provisions to remove private family law, almost in its Ÿ The creation of a Family The independent panel was appointed entirety, from the scope of legal aid. Justice Service to make sure to review the whole of the family agencies and professionals justice system in England and Wales, Stephen Cobb QC, Chairman of the work together to make looking at all aspects of the system FLBA, said: positive improvements in the from court decisions on taking children into care, to disputes over contact with www.familylawweek.co.uk Family Law Week December 2011 - 3 "The final report of the Family On 16 November, Stephen Cobb QC been in need of reform.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • "No-Fault Divorce"
    BRIEFING PAPER Number 01409, 9 April 2019 By Catherine Fairbairn "No-fault divorce" Contents: 1. The current basis for divorce in England and Wales 2. Owens v Owens: consideration of “behaviour” fact 3. Family Law Act 1996 Part 2 4. Calls for the introduction of no-fault divorce 5. Arguments against the introduction of no-fault divorce 6. Government consultation 7. Divorce in Scotland www.parliament.uk/commons-library | intranet.parliament.uk/commons-library | [email protected] | @commonslibrary Contents Summary 3 1. The current basis for divorce in England and Wales 5 1.1 Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 5 1.2 Fault based petitions 6 1.3 Divorce process 7 2. Owens v Owens: consideration of “behaviour” fact 9 2.1 Family Court: no divorce 9 2.2 Court of Appeal: appeal dismissed 9 2.3 Supreme Court: further appeal dismissed 10 3. Family Law Act 1996 Part 2 12 3.1 Law Commission recommendations 12 3.2 Provision for “no-fault divorce” 12 3.3 Pilot schemes 13 3.4 Repeal of Family Law Act 1996 Part 2 14 4. Calls for the introduction of no-fault divorce 15 4.1 Calls for no-fault divorce by senior members of the Judiciary 15 4.2 Research study 16 4.3 Lords Private Member’s Bill 17 4.4 Previous Commons Private Member’s Bill 18 4.5 Labour Party Manifesto 2017 18 4.6 “Family Matters” campaign in The Times 18 4.7 Resolution campaign 19 4.8 Report of the Family Mediation Task Force 20 5. Arguments against the introduction of no-fault divorce 21 5.1 Private Member’s Bill debate 21 5.2 Coalition for Marriage 22 5.3 Baroness Deech: reform financial provision law 22 6.
    [Show full text]
  • Court of Appeal Judgment Template
    Neutral Citation Number: [2020] EWCA Civ 190 Case No: B4/2019/2369 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM BIRMINGHAM CIVIL JUSTICE CENTRE THE ORDER OF HHJ TUCKER BM15F00007 Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL Date: 21/02/2020 Before : THE PRESIDENT OF THE FAMILY DIVISION LORD JUSTICE PETER JACKSON and LORD JUSTICE HADDON-CAVE - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Re K (Forced Marriage: Passport Order) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Deirdre Fottrell QC, Seema Kansal and Marlene Cayoun (instructed by National Legal Service Solicitors) for the Appellant Jason Beer QC and Alice Meredith (instructed by Staffordshire and West Midlands Police Joint Legal Department) for the Respondent Sarah Hannett (instructed by the Government Legal Department) for the First Intervener the Secretary of State for Justice Henry Setright QC and Jacqueline Renton (instructed by Southall Black Sisters) for the Second Intervener Hearing date : 27th November 2019 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Approved Judgment Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. Re K (Forced Marriage: Passport Order) Sir Andrew McFarlane P : 1. In this appeal the court is required to consider the jurisdiction of the Family Court in respect of two issues related to Forced Marriage Protection Orders [‘FMPO’] made under Family Law Act 1996, s 63A. The first relates to the court’s jurisdiction where the subject of the order is an adult who does not lack mental capacity. The second relates to Passport Orders as part of a FMPO, and, in particular, whether there is jurisdiction to make an open-ended or indefinite Passport Order in that context. 2. The factual background to the application can be stated shortly.
    [Show full text]
  • Ideas of Equity (Pdf)
    Ideas of Equity 00A_PoE_prelims.pmd 1 15/05/2017, 21:45 STUDIES IN SCOTS LAW Series Editor Kenneth G C Reid Editorial Board Alan R Barr Sandra M Eden George L Gretton Volumes in the series 1. Ross Gilbert Anderson, Assignation (2008) 2. Andrew J M Steven, Pledge and Lien (2008) 3. Craig Anderson, Possession of Corporeal Moveables (2015) 4. Jill Robbie, Private Water Rights (2015) 5. Daniel J Carr, Ideas of Equity (2017) 00A_PoE_prelims.pmd 2 15/05/2017, 21:45 STUDIES IN SCOTS LAW VOLUME 5 Ideas of Equity Daniel J Carr Lecturer in Private Law, University of Edinburgh Lecturer in Law, Robert Gordon University EDINBURGH LEGAL EDUCATION TRUST 2017 00A_PoE_prelims.pmd 3 15/05/2017, 21:45 Published by Edinburgh Legal Education Trust School of Law University of Edinburgh Old College South Bridge Edinburgh EH8 9YL http://www.centreforprivatelaw.ed.ac.uk/monograph_series First published 2017 © Daniel J Carr, 2017 The author asserts his moral rights. ISBN 978-0-9556332-9-4 British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the written permission of the copyright owner. Applications for the copyright owner’s permission to reproduce any part of this publication should be addressed to the publisher. Typeset by Etica Press Ltd, Malvern Printed and bound by Martins the Printers, Berwick-upon-Tweed 00A_PoE_prelims.pmd 4 15/05/2017, 21:45 Contents Preface vii Table of Cases ix Table of Statutes xvii Abbreviations xix 1 Introduction 1 2 Historical Understandings of Equity 14 3 Unjustified Enrichment 53 4 Trusts 104 5 Constructive Trusts 134 6 Fiduciary Law 184 7 Conclusion 219 Index 219 v 00A_PoE_prelims.pmd 5 15/05/2017, 21:45 00A_PoE_prelims.pmd 6 15/05/2017, 21:45 Preface This book is an updated version of my doctoral thesis submitted in 2009, and awarded by the University of Cambridge in 2010.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 VIEW from the PRESIDENT's CHAMBERS (11) the Process of Reform: on the Cusp of History Sir James Munby, P
    VIEW FROM THE PRESIDENT’S CHAMBERS (11) The process of reform: on the cusp of history Sir James Munby, President of the Family Division We stand on the cusp of history. 22 April 2014 marks the largest reform of the family justice system any of us have seen or will see in our professional lifetimes. On 22 April 2014 almost all the relevant provisions of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 and the Children and Families Act 2014 come into force. On 22 April 2014 the Family Court comes into existence and the Family Proceedings Court passes into history. On 22 April 2014 we see the implementation of the final version of the revised PLO in public law cases (PLO 2014) and the implementation in private law cases of the Child Arrangements Programme (CAP 2014). Taken as a whole, these reforms amount to a revolution. Central to this revolution has been – has had to be – a fundamental change in the cultures of the family courts. This is truly a cultural revolution. There are many whose contribution to this revolution needs to be recognised and marked. Pride of place must go to David Norgrove, the mastermind of the Family Justice Review. Only those who have worked closely with him will know just how inspired and inspirational his work has been – and continues to be. His achievement has been colossal. It is little over four years ago that the Family Justice Review was set up. In that short time it has reported, it has seen its recommendations accepted first by Government and then by Parliament and then implemented under the collaborative leadership of the judiciary and the Family Justice Board, also chaired by Norgrove.
    [Show full text]
  • President of the Family Division Speech
    SIR NICHOLAS WALL, PRESIDENT OF THE FAMILY DIVISION ANNUAL RESOLUTION CONFERENCE THE QUEENS HOTEL, LEEDS 24 MARCH 2012 1. May I begin, not only by thanking you for inviting me to give this keynote address, but also by emphasising the importance of an organisation such as Resolution both to family Law in general and to the judiciary in particular. I fully appreciate, of course and as your name suggests, that you are committed to the non-adversarial resolution of family disputes and it is an unfortunate fact, I think, that the Family Justice System has been grafted on to the adversarial common law structure, Thus, however inquisitorial we try to be, there are some issues of fact, particularly in public law, which have to be decided adversarially. The threshold criteria under section 31 of the Children Act 1989 is an obvious example, as is the fact of non-accidental injury to a child, which the parents deny. We have not found a different way of dealing with such issues, and the law relating to disclosure of documents to the police militates against frank admissions of responsibility for actions which may, in some cases, be both untypical and momentary 2. Nonetheless. I am acutely aware of the damage which ongoing adversarial litigation can do – particularly to children – and it is therefore very useful for me, as a judge, who has spent much of his working life in the adversarial system, to come to a conference such as this, which advocates a different approach. I am only sorry that I could not be with you yesterday in order to attend your workshops.
    [Show full text]
  • Judicial Diversity
    Cambridge Journal of International and Comparative Law Publication Copyright and open-access policy The Cambridge Journal of International The CJICL is an open-access publication gov- and Comparative Law is an open- erned by our publishing and licensing agree- access publication available online at ment. Any commercial use and any form of <http://www.cjicl.org.uk>. Each volume con- republication of material not covered by the sists of two or more general issues and a spe- cial issue examining the jurisprudence of the applicable license is subject to the express per- UK Supreme Court. mission of the Editors-in-Chief. Editorial Policy Contact information All submissions are subject to a double-blind Cambridge Journal of International and Com- peer-review editorial process by our Aca- parative Law demic Review Board and/or our Editorial Faculty of Law, 10 West Road Team. Cambridge, CB3 9DZ Submissions United Kingdom The journal accepts the following types of manuscript: E-mail: [email protected] (i) Long Articles between 6,000 and 12,000 Web: http://www.cjicl.org.uk words but not exceeding 12,000 words in- cluding footnotes; Typeset in Crimson and Gentium Book Basic, (ii) Short Articles not exceeding 5,000 words distributed under the terms of the SIL Open Font including footnotes; (iii) Case Notes not exceeding 3,000 words license, available at <http://scripts.sil.org/OFL>. including footnotes; and (iv) Book Reviews not exceeding 2,500 words including footnotes. Please visit our website for submission details. ISSN 2050-1706 (Print) ISSN 2050-1714 (Online) © 2013 Cambridge Journal of International and Comparative Law and Contributors This issue should be cited as (2013) 2(1) C.J.I.C.L.
    [Show full text]
  • Transparency in the Family Court: What Goes on Behind Closed Doors?
    24 May 2018 Transparency in the Family Court: What Goes on Behind Closed Doors? PROFESSOR JO DELAHUNTY QC Questions: • Who does the child’s story belong to in the family court? The child, the family or society? • What do the public know about the way family courts make their decisions? • Where and how do we draw the line between confidentiality and press access to the litigation and publication about it? • Is the balance right? • If it is: how do we explain the howls of outrage about “secret courts’ and injustice’ that bleed into public consciousness through social media and some press headlines? • Does the Family Justice System risk falling into disrespect if it does not constructively engage with the public and press? • What next? A History Lesson I have practiced as a barrister for 32 years and been a child protection specialist for about 25 of them. That means I inherited a way of working that operated without mobiles, e-mail, twitter, Facebook etc. Social media (a term not in use) was more likely to mean picking up a scruffy paper in a pub over a pint than the mass explosion of information and views on matters great and small via the world-wide web that we have now. If they got caught up in a child protection case, a parent’s knowledge about what might happen in court as they walked through its doors for the first time would come from the lawyers who worked in the system or anecdote if family or friends had trod the same path before.
    [Show full text]
  • Court of Protection Practice and Procedure 2012 a Comprehensive Guide to Best Practice and Current Thinking
    SPECIAL OFFER CPD BOOK YOUR PLACE BEFORE 5 HOURS 13 AUGUST AND SAVE 10% 40 MINUTES ONE-DAY EVENT Court of Protection Practice and Procedure 2012 A comprehensive guide to best practice and current thinking Copthorne Tara Hotel, Scarsdale Place, Wright’s Lane, Kensington, London W8 5SR Monday 15 October 2012 • £220 + VAT Jordans is delighted to bring experienced Court of Protection practitioners this newly designed conference. The day has been structured to provide you with an update on recent developments so that you are equipped to advise clients quickly and effectively. The conference will feature: 4 A keynote address from the President of the Court of Protection 4 A workshop led by an experienced designated COP judge providing practical guidance on tricky procedural issues Keynote Speaker 4 Best practice advice on dealing with the Sir Nicholas Wall President of the Family Division, Head of deprivation of liberty safeguards on the Family Justice and President of the Court of Protection ground 4 P ractical tips when dealing with cases Chair involving fluctuating capacity District Judge Marc Marin Barnet Civil and Family Court 4 G uidance from an experienced deputy on Centre and Nominated Judge of the Court of Protection the role and scope of a deputy’s powers Speakers 4 The opportunity to enhance your District Judge Gordon R Ashton OBE Nominated Judge understanding of the COP jurisdiction of the Court of Protection and Visiting Professor in Law at 4 T he chance to discuss solutions to Northumbria University common practice issues with
    [Show full text]
  • Society of Legal Scholars Conference 2016 Legislation Or Judicial Law Reform
    Society of Legal Scholars Conference 2016 Legislation or judicial law reform: where should judges fear to tread? Lady Hale, Deputy President of The Supreme Court 7 September 2016 James Lee set me a challenge in his paper on ‘The Etiquette of Law Reform’ at the seminar held last year to celebrate 50 years since the creation of the Law Commissions1: why, he asked, was the Law Commission’s competence a factor against judicial development of the law on pre-nuptial agreements in Radmacher v Granatino 2 (or, he might more pertinently have asked, on witness immunity in Jones v Kaney3) but not similarly a factor in the joint ownership cases of Stack v Dowden4 and Jones v Kernott?5 Although generally a respecter of the judicial motto, ‘never explain and never apologise’, this is a fair question and I shall attempt to give it a fair answer. The wider question is ‘when should a judge feel free to develop, change or reform the law rather than leaving it to Parliament?’ In trying to answer the question, please forgive me for concentrating on the cases in which I have been involved. Recently in the Supreme Court There is a tendency, noticeable among some law students, but not among the members of this Society, to think of Stack v Dowden and Jones v Kernott as family law cases, concerned with discretionary property adjustment when an unmarried couple’s relationship breaks down. They were no such thing. They were property law cases concerned with deducing the intentions of the 1 Ch 29 in M Dyson, J Lee and S Wilson Stark (eds),Fifty Years of the Law Commissions (2016) Bloomsbury; see also Ch 20, Andrew Burrows, ‘Post-legislative Scrutiny, Legislative Drafting and the “Elusive Boundary”’.
    [Show full text]
  • Extended Material Chapter 14: Family Courts
    Dodd & Hanna: McNae’s Essential Law for Journalists, 24th edition Extended material Chapter 14: Family courts Chapter summary Family law, a branch of civil law, includes many cases involving disputes between estranged parents after marital breakdown - for example, about contact with a child, or those brought by local authorities seeking to protect children. A court can remove a child from his/her parents because of suspected abuse or neglect. Reporting restrictions and contempt of court law severely limit what the media can publish about most family cases, to protect those involved, particularly children, who in most instances cannot be identified in media reports. Critics say the family justice system is over-secretive. This chapter examines the main restrictions, including those covering divorce cases. 14.1 Introduction The term ‘family cases’ covers a range of matters in civil law. They have in the past been dealt with by magistrates’ courts, county courts, or the High Court Family Division, with cases transferred between these courts. But a new Family Court began operating in April 2014, amalgamating this system into one, unified court. It operates from existing courthouses, with a role for magistrates and with judges continuing to preside in the most complex cases. The family justice system has critics. Groups such as Families Need Fathers claim that judges are biased in favour of mothers in disputes over contact with children. Other groups say these courts do not do enough to protect mothers and children from coercive, violent fathers. And there is concern that miscarriages of justice could occur when courts approve the removal of children from their parents, such as when there is disputed medical evidence of abuse.
    [Show full text]
  • Family Justice Council Annual Report 2011-12 Contents
    Family Justice Council Annual Report 2011-12 Family Justice Council Annual Report 2011-12 Contents Contents Foreword by the President, Sir James Munby 3 1: How the Council works 5 2: Overview of Activities and Issues in 2011-12 8 3: The Children in Families Committee 9 4: The Children in Safeguarding Proceedings Committee 12 5: The Money & Property Committee 15 6: The Diversity Committee 17 7: The Experts Committee 19 8: Voice of the Child Sub-Group 21 9: The Domestic Abuse Committee 24 10: The Parents and Relatives Group 27 11: The Local Family Justice Councils 29 12: The Dartington Hall Conference 32 13: Challenges for 2012-13 34 Annex A: Terms of Reference 36 Annex B: Membership 37 Annex C: Expenditure 2011-12 and Budget for 2012-13 48 Annex D: Report on Business Plan 2011-12 50 Annex E: Family Justice Council: 2012-13 Business Plan 54 2 Family Justice Council Annual Report 2011-12 Foreword Foreword by the President, Sir James Munby This is the seventh annual report of the Family Justice Council and saw the Council publish several documents setting out valuable guidance on a range of issues. One of the Council’s key functions is to identify issues which require guidance and to consider and propose best practice. During the year covered by this report the Council published: guidance on children giving evidence in family proceedings; guidance on the conduct of Financial Dispute Resolution hearings in financial proceedings; best practice on the use of Multi- Agency Risk Assessment Conferences (MARACs) in family proceedings; a protocol on the service of non-molestation orders, and; guidelines on the use of overseas experts in family proceedings.
    [Show full text]
  • Judicial Cooperation with Serious Case Reviews
    President’s Guidance Judicial Cooperation with Serious Case Reviews Dated 2 May 2017 1. It is apparent that there is widespread misunderstanding as to the extent to which judges (which for this purpose includes magistrates) can properly participate in Serious Case Reviews (SCRs). The purpose of this Guidance is to clarify the position and to explain what judges can and cannot do. 2. This guidance applies to all judges sitting in the Family Division or the Family Court, including Magistrates and, where exercising judicial functions, Legal Advisers. 3. Judges should provide every assistance to SCRs which is compatible with judicial independence. It is, however, necessary to be aware that key constitutional principles of judicial independence, the separation of powers and the rule of law can be raised by SCRs. Background 4. From time to time, judges are asked to participate in various ways in SCRs following the death of a child where there has been contact with Local Authority Children’s Services. SCRs are conducted by Local Safeguarding Children Boards (LSCBs). These are statutory bodies, established by the Children Act 2004, with chairs independent of the Local Authority they scrutinise – usually a senior social work manager from another Local Authority. 5. On occasions LSCBs have written to judges after child deaths to request either an interview or the completion of an Independent Management Review (IMR). An IMR is a detailed review of an agency’s involvement with a child and is one of the principal means of capturing information for use in SCRs. Sometimes LSCBs write with a list of specific questions which they invite the judge to answer.
    [Show full text]