Lets change it for the kids

Natasha13 wrote:
Dear nbm1708,

I have just had a chance to read your thoughts on mediation and possible frusration by one parent who refuses to go and how any new procedures might address that.

These two petitions that is I started address just the building blocks of the process with a view to changing our culture in family law - if we did remove the legal process from the family law context it would only be where there was no risk of significant harm to the child. Where that child is being denied contact with a parent, with whom they have a natural and healthy relationship, the legal process would then kick in, perhaps with the use of lawyers initially or a form which we could submit to the courts to alert them of the problem.

Ther are lots of initial problems with the system, such as lack of speed and lack of legal recognition for the most important parties in any divorce (our children), that these petitions are simply designed to address these very basic issues first of all. Once we have a system that is responsive and savvy, we can go all out and glam it up with sound laws on process!

I hope the above helps; thank you for taking the time to think about these petitions and thank you to all those who signed them and who have contributed to this thread.

Many thanks for that Natasha that does explain abit more and answers a few more questions.

My concerns were really regarding timescales as in my case I only got to see our children a couple of times in five months due to aborted mediation attempts, reneging on solicitor and personal agreed contact and then being stuck in a further three month waiting list for the courts and an interim order. If this waiting time was to be increased yet further it would cause bigger problems note reduce them for nrp's.

I can though see where in normal cases your proposals might help both parents and ultimately the child.

T

I have great sympathy with this argument, but it is full of potential problems.

The implementation of "independent representation for kids of all ages" would result in a system even more cumbersome than today's and hugely expensive. Who would provide this representation - lawyers, whose professional expertise does not, by definition, cover this area, or a vast extension of CAFCASS, an agency already discredited and vulnerable to false theories about child development?

My instinct is that we need a much smaller, more streamlined and less invasive system of family justice.

The greater significance you give to children's views the greater the opportunity for parents and professionals to desert their responsilities. How can you expect a child to understand the far-reaching consequences of their expressed wishes and feelings?

In establishing a system which "is refined enough to really understand children" which theories of child development do you accept and which do you reject?

I'm acting as devil's advocate, obviously, but this proposal raises far more questions than it answers. Consider Thorpe's words,

"Very few family law decisions that are ‘principled’ decisions have a shelf-life of more than one generation. Most principles in family law are actually founded upon social policies or social assumptions made by the judges. Those assumptions as to child development or child help have to be reviewed from time to time."

I agree with you in relation to timescales; this is a big issue that needs resolving and the idea is to have a system that responds fast not in terms of adult perceptions of time, but in light of a child's perception of time, which is by far the most important perception in such cases, as it has a direct impact on the welfare of the child in question.

The problems which plague the family courts are many, to say the least, but in order to make things better, in my opinion things need to be addressed one aspect at a time, at speed but with careful consideration and always with the children in mind.

It's a bit like a big knot that needs untangling - every issue needs to be addressed on its own so that a positive and effective culture can then be put into place, to allow for sound law making and a responsive system to follow.

Dear Forseti,

I agree with your concerns, but if you'll forgive me, these petitions are not about naively promoting one perception or another, nor are they about filling up the current system with more cases.

Rather, the idea is to make sure that children's views are a part of the process as of right. Without their feelings being expressed we cannot begin to explore their needs, which I believe is the most important aspect of any family law case involving children. In my opinion, we need to hear how every child thinks and feels first in order to make our way through the complex maze that involves both parents as well. In essence, it is about acknowledging that every member of the family must be heard, as a basic right and not about automatically superimposing a child's wishes or any other family member's without first hearing the dynamic in full.

Petition: Court Culture is very much about unclogging the system and trying to remove as many conflicts of interest as possible. The system as it stands unfortunately and often against its best intentions, falls prey to these conflicts and often families and their priorities are relegated to the background.

You are welcome to take a look at my website, which has articles and interviews on it and gives a better idea of my own personal view of the system. If you would like to look at it, let me know and I will DM you the link.

bump....

Dear Pipsqueak1,

Thank you for your comment; I agree with you in relation to the infrastructure. The law especially is rather good, thinking specifically about The Children Act 1989 although semantics are not often strong enough to convey what really needs to be done.

Moreover, at its heart, the family justice system's problems are related more to its work culture than anything else.

Thank you for your kind comment at the end of your post.

Dear Elle,

Thanks for the bump - I think this must be a clever strategic move to bring the thread back to life

Sobek wrote:
The law especially is rather good, thinking specifically about The Children Act 1989

How the blazes do you work that one out? The 1989 Act is primarily a public law solution with some private law bits hastily bolted on and bent to fit following the Cleveland Enquiry.

It assumes that children in private law disputes face the same risks as children in public law cases and undermines the authority of parents, replacing it with the state. A glance at this forum shows how much it infantilises parents, rendering them unable to make even the most elementary decisions for their children and handing responsibility for those decisions to unaccountable state employees.

Look at the rise in contact disputes from about 17,000 after the Act to 80,000 now - is that evidence of good law in operation? Look at the decline in shared residence orders, or the confusion between parental responsibility and parental rights.

For some good, detailed analysis of how great a gulf there is between the parliamentary intention and the actual Act as written, have a look at Robert Whiston's fascinating site.