Lawyers welcome Norgrove report into family justice
Share
Lawyers and family law campaign groups have widely welcomed the family justice review aimed at tackling the “shocking delays” in the family justice system.
Former mandarin David Norgrove, who chaired the report released today, said that family justice is under “huge strain” with cases taking far too long and children waiting well over a year for their futures to be settled.
The review aims to “improve the system so that it is quicker, simpler, more cost-effective and fairer whilst continuing to protect children and vulnerable adults from risk of harm.”
Among the proposals welcomed by lawyers is the streamlining of services for separating families, aimed at making it easier to reach agreement without court intervention, the employment of specialist judges, and having a bespoke timetable for resolving each child’s case.
However in a move which angered fathers’ rights campaigners Norgrove ruled out giving equal parental access to a child. He said the main focus should be the welfare of the children and the not the rights of the parents.
Head of family law at Manches Jane Craig welcomed the advancements.
“The emphasis on providing parents with information on how to manage their separation and minimise conflict in the best interests of their children is greatly to be welcomed,” she said.
David Allison, chair of family lawyers’ association Resolution, was equally delighted by the progress, but warned that reforms are at risk from legal aid cuts.
“The Family Law Review is a watershed moment for family law, something that has long been in need of reform. But at the same time, the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill will remove legal aid provision for the vast majority of family law cases, meaning that some of the most vulnerable families, and their children, will struggle to access the professional legal advice and support they need – even if the processes are simplified,” he said.
Kingsley Napley family law partner William Healing added: “Norgrove is right. Our approach to family justice is currently too adversarial, too complex and too focused on parents, often at the expense of what is right for children. No doubt many will criticise him for following a cost-cutting agenda and threatening lawyers’ age old roles, but actually many of his proposals have merit.”
The 225-page Family Justice Review, commissioned jointly by the Ministry of Justice, the Department for Education, and the Welsh Assembly Government, can be accessed here.
View results 10 per page | 20 per page
Readers' comments (16)
Anonymous | 3-Nov-2011 6:44 pm
An opportunity missed to address the difficulties experienced by unmarried fathers in obtaining parental rights and access to their children, often leading to distress to the child.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 3-Nov-2011 9:29 pm
“The one great principle of English law is to make business for itself”. Understanding his quote will bring you closer to the truth about UK legislation. The quote was made by Charles Dickens.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 4-Nov-2011 10:34 am
I think the needs of the child have been lost in favour of the rights of parents and this seems to recognise this in some way. The desire of parents to have equal access can mean that instead of having one home, children are moved between two so while parents have their own home the child is passed between the two with arrangements made usually to serve the parents schedule rather than the child's. At the end of the day it is not the child's fault that his/her parents cant work out their differences and salvage their relationship. There is much research now out there about the long term effects on children of broken homes and divorce and as a general rule this damages children far more than ever imagined. When you have a child their needs and rights immediately become your priority and if the 'spark' in your relationship has gone - which is too often the reason for family breakdown - that is not reason enough to inflict the devastation of divorce and all that means in terms of life chances for your children.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 4-Nov-2011 10:43 am
I am gobsmacked that responsible fathers are not being given some legal rights to shared custody?! It is simply too easy for a mother to deny a father access - why is this in the interest of the child?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
David Thomas | 4-Nov-2011 10:53 am
No surprise that the Lawyers are still happy, with the exception of Legal Aid cuts. The lack of reform being offered here is nothing more than pouring oil on hot coals. All smoke but no real fire.
I hope the Government chooses a different path, and seeks to reform the system from the top down, and the ground up, and join it in the middle.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Alan Edwards | 4-Nov-2011 11:12 am
Translation: Lawyers welcome further inaction over Fathers rights since this is were the money is.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 4-Nov-2011 1:18 pm
In the 21st c how can we justify enshrining gender inequality into the Law? Men and women are either equal or they're not. Having the sexes equal in Employment Law yet unequal in Family Law is as illogical as it is unfair. Contact with both parents is a right of the child; to deny them contact with their father and paternal grandparents after divorce is monstrous. Norgrove states that "enshrining such rights in law could slow down already lengthy and expensive custody cases." Are we to sacrifice the rights of our children just to speed things along? The best way to avoid custody cases is do what the French do and split children's time equally between both parents when couples split. Arguments are rendered pointless and everyone knows what will happen should they split. Norgrove's proposals will act as an incentive to divorce for some women. Why should they work at a relationship or compromise when they know they'll get the children, and the house and money that goes with them?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Judy | 4-Nov-2011 1:33 pm
In an ideal world seperated parents would sort out their differences in consideration of any children but all too often Fathers come up against unreasonable and manipulative Mothers. You cannot reason with an unreasonable person that is why the Courts are so busy! Mothers know they can get away with more or less anything. Can anyone tell me the last time a Judge
jailed or issued a community hours sentence to a Mother who has breached a Court Order?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Aaron | 4-Nov-2011 1:37 pm
Comment to Anonymous at 10:34:
I have two children who for many years have lived with me as well as with their mother (my ex-wife) as ordered by court. They are very happy children who are doing exceptionally well in school and all other aspects of life (as commented on by many, not just my view). It is very upsetting to read generalised statements such as those by Anonymous, which could have devastating effects on children loosing a parent, when I see the proof every day that this argument is rubbish. I always suspect that the people putting this argument forward do not have childrens' interest in mind, rather they are simply serving their own selfinterest of keeping the children to themselves.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Andreas Eleftheriou | 4-Nov-2011 2:01 pm
David Norgrove is damaging the lives of many children by condemning them to a future wih limited or in most cases no access to their fathers love and nurturing. Our society is broken and will break further if we do not invest in our children the love, education and attention they require to grow into adults that society can be proud of. To do this the fathers role cannot be diminished further but embraced by our government as the catalyst to change our societies further demise. This is 2011 not 1945 when the bigot post-war view was spread that women should return to minding the house, bearing and raising children as nature intended to make way for men returning from the front-line. David Norgrove had some leverage in initiating change of this poisoned view but chose to maintain the persecution of fathers and their children. I prey the government ignore his report, recognise the link between 'Broken Britain' and 'Fatherless Families' and change the archaic rules the Family Justice system has, that is destroying our society, by preventing Fathers from being Fathers!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment