DOCSLIB.ORG

Family Justice Review Final Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Family Justice Review Final Report Family Justice Review Final Report November 2011 Family Justice Review Final Report November 2011 Contents i Foreword by David Norgrove, Chair of the Family Justice Review ......... 3 ii Executive Summary ..................................................................................... 5 iii List of recommendations .......................................................................... 26 1. About the Family Justice Review ............................................................. 37 2. The family justice system.......................................................................... 40 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 40 Why change is needed ............................................................................................ 41 The child’s voice ...................................................................................................... 45 A Family Justice Service.......................................................................................... 49 Judicial leadership and culture................................................................................. 63 Case management................................................................................................... 71 The courts ................................................................................................................ 72 Workforce................................................................................................................. 79 3. Public law ................................................................................................... 91 The problem of delay ............................................................................................... 91 The role of the court................................................................................................. 94 The relationship between courts and local authorities ........................................... 101 Case management................................................................................................. 103 Local authority practice .......................................................................................... 112 Expert witnesses.................................................................................................... 117 The representation of children ............................................................................... 126 Alternatives to conventional court proceedings...................................................... 129 4. Private law ................................................................................................ 133 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 133 Making parental responsibility work ....................................................................... 134 A coherent process for dispute resolution.............................................................. 150 Divorce and financial arrangements....................................................................... 172 5. Financial implications and implementation........................................... 179 Family Justice Review Final Report – November 2011 | 1 Annex A – Terms of Reference ................................................................... 182 Annex B – Panel biographies...................................................................... 184 Annex C – Analysis of consultation responses......................................... 185 Annex D – Estimated costs of the family justice system.......................... 203 Annex E – List of data gaps......................................................................... 205 Annex F – Pre-application protocol for mediation information and assessment ................................................................................. 207 Annex G – Helen Rhoades evidence in relation to shared parenting ...... 215 Annex H – The revised process for divorce............................................... 225 2 | Family Justice Review i Foreword by David Norgrove, Chair of the Family Justice Review The range and depth of responses to our interim report shows again people’s strength of feeling about family justice as well as the commitment of all who work in it. On behalf of the panel I want to thank the many who responded so thoroughly and thoughtfully to our consultation. We found general agreement with our diagnosis: a system that is not a system, characterised by mutual distrust and a lack of leadership, by incoherence and without solid evidence based knowledge about how it really works. The consequence for children is unconscionable delay that has continued to increase since we began our work. The average care case in county courts now takes over 60 weeks and many take much longer – an age in the life of a child. These delays contribute to the 2 years 7 months it takes on average for a child to be adopted. With 20,000 children now waiting for a decision, delay is likely to rise further. Many of our recommendations are unchanged from the interim report. Others have changed as a result of the consultation and our own further work. But the thrust is the same. We see a need for stronger leadership and coordination of the organisations and people involved in family cases and have proposed structural changes designed progressively to achieve this. We aim to strengthen the voice of children. We recommend changes in legislation, regulations and processes in public law aimed at putting the needs of children first and with tighter attribution of responsibility to the different actors in a case. And in private law we recommend a series of changes aimed at helping more people to sort out their affairs for themselves while protecting the interests of their children. We are though fully aware that changes in structures, rules and processes will not by themselves measure up to the scale of the strains and problems we diagnosed in our interim report. Much of the improvement for children will have to come from change in the way people choose to work, from change to the culture of family justice, and from change to the culture of delay. Here all the dedication to family justice can harm children, not help them. Having read dozens of replies to our consultations I was struck by the way in which almost every group thought things would be better were they allowed to do more, including judges, magistrates, social workers and expert witnesses. Hardly anyone thought they themselves should do less. There is no doubt an element of self-protection in this. But it often comes at least as much from a belief that other people are not doing their jobs for children as well as they should be done. The reality of course is that time and money spent on one child means less time and money available to help another. We heard in evidence of enormous expenditure on some individual cases (over £300,000 on residential assessment in one). But the point applies to all. Dedication to achieving the best possible result for one child comes at the hidden expense of another whose case is delayed or whose social worker has to come again to court when they might have been working to help another child to remain safely with their birth family. Family Justice Review Final Report – November 2011 | 3 Distrust of other parts of the system is not always well founded. Prejudice against care as an option for children and distrust of local authorities are fuelling delays in the system. It is of course right that we endeavour to keep families safely together but we must also be quicker to recognise when this is not possible. Research shows that the majority of maltreated children who are looked after by authorities will do better in terms of their wellbeing and stability than those who remain living at home. Courts need to recognise the limits of their ability to foresee and manage what will happen to a child in the future. They must also learn to trust local authorities more. In private law we of course believe strongly that most children benefit from a relationship with both parents post separation. The question is how best to achieve this. Shared parenting should be encouraged where this is in the child’s interests. In our view the best way to achieve this is through parental education and information combined with clear, quick processes for resolution where there are disputes. We are aware that some will be disappointed by our decision to recommend against a legal presumption around shared parenting and to step back even from the recommendations we made in this respect in our interim report. The evidence we received showed the acute distress experienced by parents who are unable to see their children after separation. This is an issue we know countries around the world try to tackle, and fail. Our conclusion was reached reluctantly but clearly. The law cannot state a presumption of any kind without incurring unacceptable risk of damage to children. Progress depends on a general social expectation of the full involvement of both parents in the lives of their children before separation, not on changes in the law. Again, I wish finally to thank my fellow panel members for their huge and creative commitment. And on their behalf and my own I thank most warmly Jodie Smith and the secretariat for their knowledge, thought, judgement, graft and patience. It has been a pleasure to work with you all. 4 | Family Justice
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Lord Chief Justice Delegation of Statutory Functions
    Delegation of Statutory Functions Lord Chief Justice – Delegation of Statutory Functions Introduction The Lord Chief Justice has a number of statutory functions, the exercise of which may be delegated to a nominated judicial office holder (as defined by section 109(4) of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 (the 2005 Act). This document sets out which judicial office holder has been nominated to exercise specific delegable statutory functions. Section 109(4) of the 2005 Act defines a judicial office holder as either a senior judge or holder of an office listed in schedule 14 to that Act. A senior judge, as defined by s109(5) of the 2005 Act refers to the following: the Master of the Rolls; President of the Queen's Bench Division; President of the Family Division; Chancellor of the High Court; Senior President of Tribunals; Lord or Lady Justice of Appeal; or a puisne judge of the High Court. Only the nominated judicial office holder to whom a function is delegated may exercise it. Exercise of the delegated functions cannot be sub- delegated. The nominated judicial office holder may however seek the advice and support of others in the exercise of the delegated functions. Where delegations are referred to as being delegated prospectively1, the delegation takes effect when the substantive statutory provision enters into force. The schedule is correct as at 12 May 2015.2 The delegations are currently subject to review by the Lord Chief Justice and a revised schedule will be published later in 2015. 1 See Interpretation Act 1978, section 13. 2 The LCJ has on three occasions suspended various delegations in order to make specific Practice Directions.
    [Show full text]
  • "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]
  • There If Often a Fine Line Between Reporting Crimes and Encouraging Criminals
    Media Law: Keep Your Distance: There if Often a Fine Line Between Reporting Crimes and Encouraging Criminals By Duncan Lamont The Guardian September 20, 2004, p 10 An angry father perched on a Buckingham Palace ledge in a Batman suit may have seemed a bit of a laugh but the stunt raised some potentially uncomfortable legal issues. For a start, Batman (Jason Hatch) could easily have been shot. His sidekick, Dave Pyke (dressed as Robin), was following him up the ladder when an officer pointed a handgun at him and shouted "Come down or I will shoot". So down he came. Metropolitan police commissioner Sir John Stevens pointed out that the alarms and CCTV had operated and that if it had been thought that Batman was carrying a bomb "he would have been shot". Terrorists may now have noticed that silly clothes seem to gain the wearer free access to both Parliament and royal palaces. Thankfully, the media were not reporting shootings but providing the very oxygen of publicity that Fathers 4 Justice craved. The Daily Mirror boasted last week that its reporters were at the group's weekend summit (which apparently turned into a foul-mouthed drinking session). And they would have been aware that this was not merely boasting - Hatch is due in court later this year concerning a demonstration on Clifton Suspension Bridge in Bristol. The Daily Mail was also in the know and printed 12 photographs, showing the protesters from the moment they jumped the railings and propped a ladder against the side of the building, to Hatch's eventual descent, six hours later, in a cherry picker.
    [Show full text]
  • OPENING up the FAMILY COURTS – WHAT HAPPENED to CHILDREN’S RIGHTS? Julie Doughty? Introduction
    J. Doughty: Family Courts – what happened to Children’s rights? 10 CIL 1 OPENING UP THE FAMILY COURTS – WHAT HAPPENED TO CHILDREN’S RIGHTS? Julie Doughty? Introduction The principle of open justice underlies public accessibility to courts and accountability of decision-making through publicity and freedom of infor- mation. This is modified in family proceedings, especially where children are involved and we shy away from the idea of ‘trial as a public spectacle’.1 In the leading early 20th century case upholding the principle even in mat- rimonial disputes, matters affecting children were excepted as ‘truly pri- vate affairs’.2 However, the law is now in the process of being reformed to bring family courts more into line with other types of courts in England and Wales. The consultation process that led to the changes included com- mitments to take the views and interests of children and young people into account. Not only do these commitments remain unmet, but the proposed changes pose a number of new challenges to children’s rights and welfare. In December 2008, the Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor, Jack Straw, announced to Parliament that court rules would be changed to allow representatives of the media to attend family court pro- ceedings, as of right, which they had previously been unable to do.3 This announcement coincided with the publication of Family Justice in View: Ministry of Justice Response to Consultation.4 The decision on media atten- dance came as some surprise to observers, because it contradicted an
    [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]
  • Every Father Is a Superhero to His Children: the Gendered
    bs_bs_banner POLITICAL STUDIES: 2013 doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9248.2012.01008.x ‘Every Father is a Superhero to His Children’: The Gendered Politics of the (Real) Fathers 4 Justice Campaign Ana Jordan University of Lincoln Fathers’ rights groups have been characterised by some feminist academics as part of an anti-feminist ‘backlash’, responding to a perceived crisis of masculinity through a problematic politics of fatherhood aimed at (re)asserting control over women and children.This article analyses the construction of gender and masculinity/ies within fathers’ rights groups, specifically,the UK-based pressure group, (Real) Fathers 4 Justice.The article explores the construction of power-laden gender identity/ies within (Real) Fathers 4 Justice and, in doing so, contributes to understanding the logic and implications of fathers’ rights perspectives. The analysis is based on in-depth interviews conducted with members of the group.The qualitative case study is used to explore critically the (gender) politics of fathers’ rights. It is argued that the interviewees (re)construct multiple masculinities: bourgeois-rational masculinity, new man/new father masculinity and hypermasculinity.These masculinity frames intersect with broader constructions of gender and need to be understood in evaluating the perspectives of fathers’ rights groups which are complex in terms of their implications for gender politics broadly conceived. Overall, it is argued that each of the masculinity frames can be problematic, as they reinforce existing gendered binaries. Keywords: pressure groups; fathers’ rights; masculinities; gender politics; social movements This article critically interrogates the politics of fathers’ rights from a feminist perspective, analysing the gendered (and heteronormative) logic underpinning fathers’ rights perspec- tives.The identity of ‘father’has always been political as power-laden gendered identities are implicit within constructions of fatherhood.
    [Show full text]
  • CONTACT DETAILS Mrs Baljeet Basra Professional Standards
    CONTACT DETAILS Mrs Baljeet Basra Professional Standards Manager ILEX Professional Standards Ltd Kempston Manor Kempston Bedford MK42 7AB Tel: 01234 845776 07792 774937 Email: [email protected] ILEX Professional Standards Ltd company registration number: 6712409 CILEx company registration: RC000850 Page 1 Page 2 CONTENTS PART 1 – Introduction ………………………………………………………………………….……… 5 PART 2 – CILEx, IPS and CILEx members ……………………………………………………… 13 PART 3 - Regulatory objectives & better regulation principles…………………………… 31 PART 4 - Qualification scheme……………………………………………………………………… 51 PART 5 - Entity regulation……………………………………………………………………………… 75 PART 6 - Outcomes focused regulation………………………………………………………… 147 PART 7 - Compliance with s.112 & s.145 Legal Services Act 2007…………………… 175 PART 8 - Enforcement arrangements…………………………………………………………… 183 PART 9 - Indemnification arrangements………………………………………………………… 193 PART 10 – Compensation arrangements……………………………………………………… 205 PART 11 – Delivery of the scheme ……………………………………………………………… 211 Page 3 Page 4 PART 1 - INTRODUCTION PART 1 INTRODUCTION Page 5 PART 1 - INTRODUCTION PART 1 – INTRODUCTION THE APPLICATION 1. The Chartered Institute of Legal Executives (CILEx) is an approved regulator under the Legal Services Act 2007 (the Act). In accordance with the Act CILEx has separated its regulatory functions from its representative functions by delegating its regulatory functions to ILEX Professional Standards Ltd (IPS). 2. CILEx awards rights of audience to Chartered Legal Executives and Associate Prosecutor members; and rights to conduct litigation to Associate Prosecutor members. 3. This application is made, in accordance with rules issued by the Legal Services Board under Part 3 of Schedule 4 of the Act, by IPS to the Legal Services Board (LSB) for approval to amend its regulatory arrangements for CILEx to grant rights to conduct litigation to Chartered Legal Executives; and rights of audience to Chartered Legal Executives who obtain rights to conduct litigation.
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluation of Specialist Domestic Violence Courts/ Fast Track Systems
    rri Evaluation of Specialist Domestic Violence Courts/ Fast Track Systems Dee Cook Mandy Burton Amanda Robinson Christine Vallely March 2004 Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank the representatives from all five sites of the Crown Prosecution Service, the Police, the Magistrates’ Courts Service, Witness Service, Derby City Partnership, Leeds Inter-Agency Partnership, Cardiff Women’s Safety Unit, Standing Together, HALT, ADVANCE, Eaves, West Yorkshire Probation Service, Wolverhampton Criminal Justice Support Services Co-ordinator and The Haven. This study could not have been completed without the cooperation and efforts of CPS staff and prosecutors who, on top of their already busy schedules, assisted with data collection. We are very grateful to all those at the agencies listed above for their time and their views. We should also like to thank our research assistants Jasmin Tregidga, Anna Clancy, Kulbir Kaur and Angela Morgan for their work in coding and entering the data from the CPS files. List of Abbreviations and Common Terms ABH – it is an offence under s.47 Offences Against the Person Act 1861 to assault occasioning actual bodily harm. Advocates/advocacy support: Through victim support workers Bail – Period of adjournment. Can be imposed by the Court and the Police. Can be conditional or unconditional. Bindover – specify a sum of money over a specific period of time that requires defendants to keep the peace CJU – Criminal Justice Unit. This is a term that applies to both the Police and the CPS office that deals with a particular Magistrates Court area. CJS – Criminal Justice System Cracked trial – This is a case, which has been set down for trial, but the case has been terminated on the day of trial.
    [Show full text]
  • Protocol and Good Practice Model: Disclosure of Information in Cases
    2013 Protocol and Good Practice Model Disclosure of information in cases of alleged child abuse and linked criminal and care directions hearings October 2013 Association of Chief Police Officers Association of Directors of Children Services Association of Independent Local Safeguarding Children Board Chairs Crown Prosecution Service Department for Education HM Courts & Tribunals Service Local Government Association President of the Family Division Senior Presiding Judge for England and Wales Welsh Government Contents 1. Parties .............................................................................................................. 3 2. Scope ............................................................................................................... 3 3. Aims and Objectives ........................................................................................ 4 Part A: Disclosure into the Family Justice System ............................................... 5 4. Local authority request to the police for disclosure .......................................... 5 5. Notification by the police to the local authority of the existence and status of criminal investigation ........................................................................................ 5 6. Voluntary disclosure by police/CPS to local authority and into the family justice system .................................................................................................. 6 7. Family court proceedings: orders for disclosure against the police and/or the CPS
    [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]
  • Supporting the Introduction of the Single Family Court – Changes to the Family Legal Aid Remuneration Schemes
    Supporting the introduction of the single Family Court – Changes to the family legal aid remuneration schemes Response to consultation Published: 29 January 2014 Supporting the introduction of the single Family Court – Changes to the family legal aid remuneration schemes Response to consultation carried out by the Ministry of Justice. This information is also available at https://consult.justice.gov.uk/ Supporting the introduction of the single Family Court Summary of responses Contents Chapter 1: Executive summary 3 Chapter 2: Response to consultation 5 Chapter 3: Equality Statement 7 Annex A: Response to Consultation 9 Annex B: Revised Family Legal Aid Scheme Framework 15 Annex C: Other issues/suggestions made in response to the consultation 21 Annex D: Glossary 23 1 Supporting the introduction of the single Family Court Summary of responses 2 Supporting the introduction of the single Family Court Summary of responses Chapter 1: Executive summary Introduction & Case for reform 1.1 Currently, the family legal aid payment schemes use tier of court as one of the proxies for case complexity, with remuneration for legal aid services made on the basis of the tier of court in which proceedings are heard or disposed, with higher rates being paid in the higher levels of court. In 2014, County Courts and Magistrates’ Courts will cease to hear family proceedings. Instead, the new, single Family Court (FC) will become the national court for most family proceedings in England and Wales. Judges capable of sitting in the new FC include lay Justices, District Judges, Circuit Judges and High Court Judges. A full list is contained in s31C of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 (inserted by Schedule 10 to the Crime and Courts Act 2013).
    [Show full text]
  • Courts of England and Wales "English Court" Redirects Here; for the Royal and Noble Court, See Court (Royal)
    Courts of England and Wales "English court" redirects here; for the royal and noble court, see Court (royal). Her Majesty's Courts of Justice of England and Wales are the civil and criminalcourts responsible for the administration of justice in England and Wales; they applyEnglish law, the law of England and Wales, and are established under Acts of theParliament of the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom does not have a single unified legal system—England and Waleshave one system, Scotland another, and Northern Ireland a third. There are exceptions to this rule; for example in immigration law, the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal's jurisdiction covers the whole of the United Kingdom, while in employment law there is a single system of Employment Tribunals for England, Wales, and Scotland (but not Northern Ireland). Additionally, the Military Court Service has jurisdiction over all members of the armed forces of the United Kingdom in relation to offences against military law. The Court of Appeal, the High Court, the Crown Court, the magistrates' courts, and the county courts are administered by Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service, an executive agency of the Ministry of Justice. Supreme Court of the United Kingdom Main article: Supreme Court of the United Kingdom The Supreme Court is the highest appeal court in almost all cases in England and Wales. Before the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 this role was held by the House of Lords. The Supreme Court is also the highest court of appeal for devolution matters, a role previously held by the Privy Council. Judicial Committee of the Privy Council Main article: Judicial Committee of the Privy Council The Privy Council is the highest court of appeal for a small number of Commonwealthcountries, colonies and the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man.
    [Show full text]