Evidence submitted by Mrs Justice Bracewell
I agree with the submissions of DJ Chrichton who
has been a key player in supporting and implementing the Family
Resolutions pilot schemes which have judicial support and enthusiasm.
It was unfortunate in retrospect to change the
name from Early Interventions to Family Resolutions, although
there were sound reasons for doing so. This change caused misunderstanding
in that supporters of the Early Interventions project wrongly
concluded that a different scheme was being piloted and that the
aims and ethos of the Early Resolutions project was being abandoned
in favour of some less effective scheme.
There are differences between the two schemes:
1. Early Intervention as practised in Florida
USA is compulsory, whereas Family Resolutions is not. The reason
is that primary legislation would be required to make the pilots
compulsory and the inevitable delay in passing legislation would
have prevented the start of the pilots, which were urgently needed.
However, in practice, the lack of compulsion should not be detrimental
because in the pilot areas there is a clear expectation among
the Judges, legal advisors, court staff and welfare organisations
that the normal procedure involves participation in the scheme.
Litigants are unlikely to protest about a system which will give
the best chance of satisfactory resolution at the earliest opportunity.
Judges are enthusiastic in promoting the pilot
scheme in expectation of compliance. Upon conclusion of the pilot
scheme, there will be evaluation in order to determine whether
primary legislation is required.
2. The Florida project uses standard templates
for parenting plans which have been devised by the courts and
child experts. A parenting plan is presented to all parents who
cannot agree, and they are required to adhere to it pending further
negotiation and resolution of the problem. This format works well
in Florida but there have been concerns within the steering committee,
of which I am a member, that such a rigid approach might not suit
the diverse and multi-ethnic families with many different styles
of parenting in this jurisdiction.
3. The Steering Committee has been well
aware of the Early Interventions and Florida project which have
underpinned discussion and planning for the pilot schemes. In
no sense has there been any abandonment of the Early Interventions
initiative—rather an adaptation.
4. The Family Resolutions project has not
been produced in-house by civil servants. There has been judicial
input throughout and the result is a team effort.
5. There is a misconception in some quarters
that CAFCASS have hijacked the pilot schemes when there should
have been the commission of an independent management agency which
would have retained the project originators of Early Resolutions.
In the time scale it would not have been feasible to use an independent
organisation to train and provide the teams required. CAFCASS,
despite the pressures on their service, demonstrated that they
could and would provide the officers who were enthusiastic about
the pilot schemes and who would be proactive in resolving disputes,
as opposed to reacting by providing reports ordered by the courts
as has occurred to date.
Hon Mrs Justice Bracewell
High Court Family Division
19 November 2004
| 
