Written evidence from the Greater Family
Panel (FC 11)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
- The Service provided to the Family Proceedings Courts over
the past two years by Cafcass has deteriorated. Interim arrangements
introduced by the President of the Family Division have had some
limited effect.
- Additional funding granted to Cafcass by the
DOE appears to have no impact on the service offered to the FPCs.
- The reduction in the number of family solicitors granted legal
aid contracts and the poor service offered by Cafcass in public
law cases, leads the courts to believe that the best interests
of children will not be served, neither will their wishes and
feelings be available to the courts.
- The initial indications are that the new mediation facilities
offered to parents in private law proceedings are proving helpful
in reducing both the number of reports require to. be written
by Cafcass and the number of contested hearings before the courts.
- The changes to the Children, Schools and Families
Act 2010 regarding openness in Family Proceedings has had no impact
on FPCs.
- Government should consider other methods of informing the
public about the work of Family Courts. The public need to know
how the courts work and the issues that arise and what factors
are taken into consideration in the decision making process. Family
Court Open days are an alternative method of educating the general
public.
INTRODUCTION
This submission is made on behalf of The Greater London Family
Panel (GLFP).
The GLFP is made up of 500 family magistrates serving at the eleven
Family Proceedings Courts in Greater London. It is the biggest
Family Panel in the country.
It deals with in excess of 2,400 applications a year
covering both public and private law cases. This constitutes approximately
8% of the family applications made in the UK and Wales.
WRITTEN
EVIDENCE
(i) The effect of Cafcass's operations on
court proceedings, and the impact on the courts of the sponsorship
of Cafcass by the Department of Education
1.1 The service provided by Cafcass across London
has been varied since the crisis caused by the Baby Peter case
and before.
1.2 Inner London Family proceedings Court at
Wells St was the first to experience the Duty Cafcass Officer
arrangements for first appointments in public law cases as directed
under the Presidents Interim Guidance. This worked well and magistrates
were very much assisted in their decision making by the advice
of experienced Officers, although they could not act as Guardians
ie they would not see papers until the morning of the case, could
not meet with the child in the case. They might see the parents
in the case on the morning of the hearing.
1.3 The experience of the other 10 FPCs in Greater
London was different. Assurances were given by Cafcass that the
duty scheme would be phased in at the five other main Family proceedings
courts sitting at Brent, Stratford, Croydon and Richmond Magistrates'
Courts and Barnet County Court. The South West London FPC sitting
at Richmond was the last to receive this service in March of this
year but only to find that before it was properly up and running
the Interim Guidance was modified to provide a Guardian at all
first hearings.
1.4 Following the President's further Interim
Guidance that at all first hearings Guardians should be present,
this does not happen on a regular basis at any of the London FPCs,
and the fall back arrangements that the duty officer scheme would
be available also has not supported this further PIG.
1.5 Family justices sitting at the outer London
FPCs would say that the duty scheme worked in part. There were
good and experienced officers who would be prepared to give robust
advice, and others who would sit on the fence and not give definitive
advice. These early decisions made by the family proceedings courts
are very difficult especially when the application involves the
separation and removal of a child from their family. These decisions
often set the direction of the whole case. If a child is removed
where later it was not considered necessary, the child may be
parted from their family for months causing severe distress, great
trauma and damage to the child.
1.6 The direction from HHJ Altman the DFJ for
London advised that if courts wanted to prioritise a case the
bench should make a direction for a date by which a Guardian should
be appointed. This was rarely effective. No explanations were
given by Cafcass.
1.7 Cases are delayed because of the late appointment
of a Guardian particularly when it is considered that the Guardian's
analysis and recommendations are vital and direction dates for
filing are put back.
1.8 When analysis and recommendation reports
are made they are usually of high calibre, focused and very helpful
to the court in decision making.
1.9 Crucially, Cafcass management failed to communicate
effectively with the Greater London FPCs, despite the London Justices'
Clerk for family, being available and the Greater London Cafcass
Liaison Committee being an important conduit for discussion and
communication.
1.10 Even with the additional funding from the
Department of Education (formerly DCSF), the courts did not perceive
any improvement in the system, although the courts are led to
believe the backlog in the allocation of Guardians has been reduced
to a minimum.
(ii) The impact on court proceedings and access
to justice of recent and proposed changes to legal aid
2.1 The courts find that the number of solicitors
available to represent the child have reduced dramatically. This
is as a result of the planned reduction of the legal aid contracts
awarded to a limited number of family solicitors. In London where
there is a great deal of complex work involving all races and
cultures it is a concern that the already limited pool will become
so small and over worked. And in a climate when Cafcass are not
providing a full service, the best interests of children will
not be served nor will their wishes and feelings be made known
to the court.
2.2 In private law matters, the courts are seeing
more and more parties representing themselves. This delays the
court process and places an enormous burden on the Legal advisers
who have to ensure the proceedings are even handed especially
when one parent is represented and the other is not. Parents fail
to file and serve documents as directed which also delays proceedings.
(iii) The role, operation and resourcing of
mediation and other methods in resolving matters before they reach
court
3.1 The Greater London Family Panel cannot comment
on the resourcing of mediation only the effects.
3.2 Initial indications regarding mediation are
very positive. Cafcass will have made the initial safeguarding
checks before parents' first appointment at court and a recommendation
for mediation after seeing both parents at the first appointment
may be made. If mediation is successful, no Section 7 report is
then needed, taking pressure off Cafcass.
3.3 Mediation has diverted a number of contact
cases away from the courts. This is very encouraging. However
there will always be a small minority of cases where parents will
never agree any arrangements between themselves even with intensive
input from a mediator and will result in the matter being decided
by the court.
(iv) Confidentiality and openness in family
courts, including the impact of the recent changes in the Children,
Schools and Families Act 2010
4.1 There has been no impact on the local FPCs
to the recent changes brought in by the Children, Schools and
Families Act 2010. Initially one or two reporters appeared at
court, but after this flourish at the beginning, reporters have
left the FPCs alone.
4.2 The press have always had access to the FPCs
with permission of the court, but have rarely chosen to exercise
this facility. It is the reporting restrictions that discourage
them from attending court.
4.3 An overall view of the publication of anonymised
reasons is that, in principle, this is right provided that the
anonymity of the family is maintained. However the vehicle for
doing so currently is somewhat flawed.
- (a) the general public is unaware of the
website Bailii;
- (b) the reasons as they stand are mixed and
varied. Some of the early publicized reasons gave so much information
that anyone in the community would have been able to identify
the families and others contained no information which makes their
publication meaningless; and
- (c) it is currently unclear with whom does
the responsibility rest for the drafting the anonymised reasons.
Similarly there is no indication of the cost implications of such
an undertaking.
4.4 Alternative approaches can be made to "open"
up family courts, for instance, Family Court Open Days. London
held the first such specific Family Court Open Day in Oct 2009
which was successful and achieved its aim of informing the public
of the work of the FPCs, demonstrating the types of cases, based
on actual events and the matters that are taken into consideration
by the courts your hard work in when coming to a decision.
September 2010
|