Laws of Love

I see from the BBC website that Mr Justice Coleridge has weighed in to the debate on the changing nature of family life in the UK and the growing legal-aid crisis. The Western Circuit Family Division liaison judge was speaking at Resolutions’ annual conference in Brighton and appears to have given a headline-grabbing speech.

 Thanks to the BBC article and a Resolution News Briefing it is clear that this well-respected figure was not mincing his words.

Practitioners will be pleased to see Sir Pauls’ support for their current plight with him noting that, “the family justice system in this country has been and is being mismanaged and neglected by government”. Equally the Judge is reported as having urged policymakers to, “Stop chipping away at the family justice system and trying to have it on the cheap”.

Coleridge J also drew an ineresting comparison: “There has never been a greater need for the public to have access to a lawyer with speacialist family law and family justice experience than now. They are as vital a commodity in our national life as the local GP. Indeed their tasks are not dissimilar. When a family is going through crisis whether it be medical or psychological or legal, caused by family collapse, the first port of call is and should be the local GP if it is medical, and the local family lawyer, solicitor and barrister, if it is legal.”

Mr Justice Coleridges’ comments will be welcomed by practitioners who are rapidly being forced out of publicly funded family law owing to the growing cuts and an increasingly unprofitable sysyem which, though family lawyers may be committed to, other partners in mixed firms are not prepared to stomach.

The Judge also somewhat self-interestedly referred to the problems faced by the courts due to under-resourcing and the delays flowing from this. This will certainly be familiar to practitioners. Last week I tried to list a 5 day final care hearing and the earliest firm fixture was at the tail end of November - the system simply can not keep up, despite dedicated and expert judges and listing officers, and this is undoubtedly to the detriment of those resorting to the courts in their time of need.

The papers will probably however, attach rather less importance to these comments on the system, than on those made by Sir Paul alikening the threat from the growing number of family breakdowns to the dangers of climate change. The Judge urged the government to address the issue head-on and do something about it, mkaing it plain in the process that the current conservative plans are no answer either, “I am not talking about tinkering with tax rates for married couples. That is irrelevant and ineffectual window dressing”. The Judge also appears to ahve gone out of his way not to criticise single-parent families though we shall have to wait and see how his observations are portrayed in the press.

Finally the Judge urged a re-appraisal of of much current law including that relating to cohabitants, divorce and ancillary relief, noting that the social mores of the country today are totally different to those applicable when the applicable laws in those areas were last addressed.

Will the government act on any of the issues raised in this interesting speech? With the economy going south and the politcal race hotting up, family law - which is far more controversial than criminal law - is unlikely to be at the centre of any manifestos. Still, at least Sir Paul’s comments will add a welcome spotlight on the current mess - assuming that is, that the media give a fair representation of the Judge’s words.

I had an interesting conversation at court today as to the court’s approach to parents who block contact because the non-resident parent doesn’t pay maintenance or CSA.

The conclusion reached in discussions was that actually the court’s attitude tends to depend on the particular judge. In esence there are two views:

a) if the absent parent truly cares for their child they should pay

b) blocking contact due to non-payment is like putting a price-tag on your child

Certainly in my experience which view holds greatest sway does tend to depend on your tribunal. Is this fair? Almost certainly not, however nor is there really one answer that fits all situations. Personally I find it abhorrent when contact is stopped, to the detriment of a child, just because the other parent is not paying. That said, there is a strong argument that non-payment does show a lack of commitment or a failure to put the child first which the court should not simply ignore.

The issue is further clouded by the fact that for those resident parents on benefits, CSA paid by the non-resident parent is received by the state (to make up for benefits paid out), rather than received by the resident parent, also the disastrous state of the CSA / CMEC does nothing to instil any degree of trust etc in the system.  

It’s a tricky issue that probably needs to be dealt with on  a case-by-case basis, however the system does need looking at urgently - trouble is I’m far from confident that there will be any action - far too politically sensitive I suspect!

Well, it’s 1 April, April Fools Day, and what an auspicious day for the national roll-out of the new Public Law Outline for Care Proceedings (full details here) .

This new procedure for conducting care proceedings has been a long-time in coming and has in fact been trialled in some courts for months. One of the trial courts is Portsmouth where I practice so I’ve been dealing with this now for some time.

The three main focusses of the PLO appear to be:

• more work pre-issue (ie before coming to court)
• greater judicial case management
• greater emphasis on efficient proceedings and a weeding out of ’hopeless’ cases 

All these aims are of course laudable, however will the PLO achieve them?

The honest answer is it’s early days and only time will tell. In fact in my area I suspect the PLO will have a limited impact owing to the committed professionals who work locally and have always striven to serve both their clients and the court to the best of their abilities. That said reading the law reports it is plain that in some areas cases are run in the most bizarre and haphazard fashion (without meaning to be harsh, cash-strapped metropolitan authorities seem to have particular difficulties), and for them the PLO should be a useful tool.

On a more practical note however, the PLO standard directions such as the Case Management Order (PLO3) are unwieldy to say the least. As above I applaud the idea - that everyone sets out their issues early and action plans are agreed at the first opportunity - however much extra work is being put on professionals and to a certain extent if decent professionals are involved this should not be needed.

Overall much of what the PLO involves has been best pactice for some time and the ’spelling-out’ now required, appears to be a product of the decline of appropriate professionals in this arena owing to the governments stupidity regarding legal aid reform (about which I am sure there will be future posts!). The PLO is a good idea, it is perhaps just a sad sign of the times that 5 or 6 page orders must be mandatory in order to ensure that people do their job properly - maybe if the government wasn’t so determined to drive committed professionals out of publicly funded family law we wouldn’t have needed yet another initative. 

I thought I should just explain the signifiance of April Fools Day in law, given my decision to start blogging today.

In fact it was on 1 April 5 years ago that I first stood up in court and acted as a barrister. Training involves a 12 month pupillage (apprenticeship) where the first 6 months are spent following somebody more senior around and the second six is spent partially practicing for yourself and partially following around. 1st April is the common date for pupils to enter the 2nd six phase.

So, given that the last 5 years appear to have turned out ok, I thought today might as well be the day I started this blog - let’s hope I don’t prove too much of a fool!

Hello and welcome to a brand new family law blog.

You can read a little about me in the “about me” section (oddly enough!), but I am a barrister practising 90% in family law; and I fancy having a forum to vent my spleen, inform and (hopefully) amuse others with the madness that is practice in family law. As they say, truth is stranger than fiction!

I know there are already several other superb family law blogs (Family Lore in particular), and I could not possibly seek to equal their sage words, but I hope in my own way to add something to the growing body of family law information available both through blogs and websites.

To that end, I shall comment on family law and relationships generally (as well as the odd post on life!), but will also try to give summaries of recent cases and changes. Touchwood in due course the site will also be linked with another new project, www.relationshipslaw.co.uk , however watch this space as if you click there at the moment you won’t find anything!

So that’s my aim, I hope you’ll come back and see what I’m doing as well as commenting and setting me straight if I become too off beam!

Thanks for reading,

Mark