Yet more cuts
I always worry about writing posts condemning budget cuts in family law, but yesterday’s article in The Times, if true, tells of yet further concerning cutbacks.
The alleged proposals are concerning for family lawyers (and family court clients) for three reasons however:
- Closing court centres and cutting court staff can only lead to poorer access to justice. The reality is that outside London and other major urbanisations, it is important to have a local court. Often family clients have extremely limited resources and serious childcare needs. The prospect of forcing parents etc. to travel 30 miles + just because their local court was closed will have serious implications (I’m ignoring the fact that owing to legal aid cuts clients in rural areas may have to go similar distances just to find a specialist lawyer!).
- Equally further redundancies among court staff will only lead to a poorer service at court. Court Service employees are not paid large sums as it is and they are, for the most part, dedicated to their jobs. The system is, sadly, coping with far more work than it is truly fit for, and fewer staff can only lead to greater delays and a higher proportion of cock-ups.
- The article appears to state cuts will be made in “double representation” in public law (Care) cases. The very idea that there is double representation is a fallacy. A wheeze of CAFCASS legal has been for some time that if, in a care case, a Guardian is supporting the Local Authority they do not need separate representation. This is untrue. A Children’s Guardian may well support the plans of a Local Authority but they may well do so for different reasons and arrive at decisions from an entirely different perspective (that of the child), and it is lunacy to say that the court is not entitled to have that differing perspective enunciated by a dedicated representative to make sure the court takes on board what is said.
- The other avenue for “double representation” may be to prevent parents having different represenation if they run the same case. The difficulty is that there are truly very few care cases where parents do run the same argument. Any case in which domestic violence is a live issue (a huge proportion of care cases), is a case where separate representation is needed. Likewise cases involving sexual abuse or non-accidental injury require separate representation (invariably even if both parents admit such acts one will claim they were co-erced by the other). Equally in Care Cases the key decision is usually eventual placement of the child and parents (assuming they are separated), almost always have different strengths and weaknesses and these need to be put forward vigorously.
Ultimately in relation to family law (and particuarly care), it is understandable that the government will feel pressured to cut costs; however it must be realised in Whitehall that family law delivery ‘on the cheap’ will lead to huge injustice (and in Care cases it is strongly arguable wrongful permanent removal of a child is far more serious than a period of wrongful imprisonment). Further, when so many social problems are said to be due to children being given poor / unfortunate parenting, a small cut in the Ministry of Justices budget may well require huge increases in other areas of government activity, not to mention a further loss of social cohesion.
When will it be realised that court staff and family lawyers are, on the whole, dedicated and hard-working professionals desperately trying to ensure the system remains fit for purpose.
October 27th, 2008 at 19:09
Looks like the long term plan is to dispense with the lawerys then, and allow the “experts” to do it all.
In truth, once the child is in corporate care, the chances of getting it back are slim, due to the psychopathic nature of most care workers.
The law states, the child must remain in its natural family, if at all possible, but the opposite is true, due to the teachings of Kinsey and co, who by the way, see no harm in abusing children.
I had to do a lot of research to find the origin of that thinking.
That coupled together with the eugenics movement in USA , we have the present situation.
I know 3 lawyers who were threatened that their children would also be removed, if they did not play ball.