Family Justice Review Final Report

A total disgrace. Just listening to the various people on talk-ins yesterday proved the public anguish and revulsion at this review. It was interesting to hear many ladies also saying that they thought the system unfair. Question time covered it for all of 5 minutes - Theresa May said she would prefer that the report had recommended equality. She went on to say how the government will be considering this when debating in parliament. Lets see if the rhetoric matches the actions. In the meantime, we need to keep the pressure for change going.

I also watched question time, who advises these people they all repeatedly used the term custody, it hasn't been used in legal circles for over twenty years, there was a very good program on Radio 5 yesterday morning, the callers were a lawyer those who help on support sites and groups the head of F4J and ordinary people, it was so one sided the host Nicky Campbell had to play devils advocate because the report was trashed by every caller.

The host put it very well, he said the politicians are all holding their finger up waiting to see which way the wind will blow which is very true.

Some seem to be blaming the children`s act as being two old (1989) and too focused on the needs and welfare of the child, i must be from Mars because and correct me if i`m wrong surely the first "need" of any child is to have a mother and a farther, it may be an old fashioned notion but the role of a mother is not the same as a farther but both are very necessary for a childs welfare and development.

Phoenix1963 wrote:

A total disgrace. Just listening to the various people on talk-ins yesterday proved the public anguish and revulsion at this review. It was interesting to hear many ladies also saying that they thought the system unfair.

The BBC's Radio 5 Live discussed this yesterday, which proved to be a very interesting discussion, it is probably the most one sided call-in programme I've ever heard.

Your Call - Do Dads Need More Rights?

dukey wrote:

The report basically suggests that to put mum and dad on an equal footing would cost litigants more money the tax man more and take longer than it does now.

The report suggests that right now proceedings can often take a year or more, but offers no reason why it takes so long, the simple answer is the time it takes for reports and the time it takes to get hearings, simple there are too few experienced judges and courts are under undue financial pressure.

The report says they aim to cut down the time it takes to maybe six months, how will that happen you can wait almost six months for a single hearing in some parts of the country right now.

From what i can see the only real action that is to be taken is to withdraw public funding, so no more legal aid, will this speed up the process? nope it will make it all so much worse, do solicitors think it will help no, do the judges no, does anyone, well not many, mainly a small number who`s ex`s abuse the legal aid system.

The problem with the report is that the key recommendations cannot be faulted. Parents on an equal footing – excellent, proceedings to take less than 6 months – now you’re talking, cut down on costs to the public purse –nice one.

The problem I see is that the Children Act was supposed to put the parents on an equal footing by focusing on the child.

Reducing the time that cases take to go through the system would rely on effective representation for all people and, crucially, more resources for the Court Service. How many people on this forum have had to wait months for a hearing date? Why does a CAFCASS officer have difficulty turning up at court never mind reading the papers or contacting the parents? It’s all about funding.

Cutting back on funding? I refer to my previous point. Less public funding will lead to more litigants in person which will use more court time and resources. There is no more funding for the courts to counter this effect so the situation will get worse.

There is also a recommendation that financial cases should be resolved within a year. Good luck with that. Some pension providers take 6 months to provide a CETV.

Charles

As our own experiences of the Family Courts have been excellent, it makes hard reading to see that this is not the case for so many now, and nor will it be in the future. I don't understand why it suggests that putting mother and father on an equal footing would cost litigants more money, and am appalled that this even comes down to costs! Surely a child having both of their parents fully in their lives is not something anyone can, or should, put a price on? I'm not saying that fathers should spend thousands in the Courts, because I am an advocate of the LIP, as I believe, through our own experiences and being a complete and utter novice to the Law and Court systems, that being a LIP was what helped my husband's cases more than anything. To compare, he got contact in 1 hearing, enforced the contact order in 2 hearings and got residence at the Directions hearing. A total of £600. My stepdaughter's sibling's father however, got legal aid for his contact case, had a solicitor and barrister and it's taken 2 years for him to get decent contact!! Of course I don't know the statistics, and I'm not sure withdrawing legal aid will help the situation as the report suggests, but I do think that LIP's seem to fair better in the family courts than those represented by Solicitors. Maybe this is something the government should consider, to encourage fathers to go LIP?

This report fails to recognise the importance of family after separation, despite suggesting that it does.

I wonder whether we should all have a brain storming session on how we think the report should read, and then start an e-petition with our ideas!!!

A fantastic idea Misstish!

Thanks, I do have them occasionally! I just think that as we all have different experiences, but have all been in, or are in, the same boat, its a pretty good representation of the family court system