Preparation for Mediation: Course by Families Need Fathers

Preparation for Mediation Training Course

Description:

This course will provide you with all the information you need to know about mediation services. It is a full 1-day event run by Kirsten Naude, National Director of Services for National Family Mediation, and Jackie Norton, chair of the National Family Mediation Professional Practice Committee.

Cost:

The course is available FREE to all FNF members, and is £35 for non-members. Non-members can join FNF and attend the event for free.

Course Date and Location:

24th March 2012, 10am – 4pm
NCVO, The National Council for Voluntary Organisations
Regent's Wharf
8 All Saints Street
London
N1 9RL

Course Leaders:

Kirsten Naude

Kirsten is currently the Director of Services at National Family Mediation (NFM) and ran the well received workshop at FNF’s last Volunteer’s Conference. Her role encompasses overseeing business management, development and professional practice in 50 family mediation services delivering in over 200 locations across England and Wales. She has also delivered Judicial Awareness Raising Programmes about the Separated Parents Information Programme (PIP) and Family Mediation to Judges and Cafcass teams across the country. Kirsten regularly deputises for the CEO of NFM at Family Mediation Council meetings, Family Mediation Steering Groups run by the Ministry of Justice, Round Tables with Government Ministers and other high level events. Kirsten is also co-project managing the Kids’ Turn UK Pilot on behalf of NFM with Relate.

Jackie Norton

Jackie Norton is a family mediator, supervisor and trainer based in the north of England. Each week, she helps families negotiate their own agreements. With twelve years experience, she finds this method helps parents feel in control of their own decisions and empowered to help their children through a difficult time. Jackie has been training new mediators for National Family Mediation for the last six years and chairs the NFM Professional Practice Committee. She is also a Professional Practice Consultant to seven different family mediation providers.

Course Outline:

10:00 Introduction

10:05 Aims and objectives

10:15 About National Family Mediation

10:30 Family Policy Landscape (Handout incl.)

- Pre-application protocol

- Legal aid access

- Tips for negotiating the process

10:45 What is Family Mediation? (myths, process etc)

11:00 Costs

11:15 Pros and cons of going to mediation vs. proceeding to court
(Handout incl.)

11:30 TEA

11:45 What to expect in an introductory meeting: Client A
(Roleplay to include member of audience - case scenario)

12:05 What to expect in an introductory meeting: Client B
(Roleplay JN and KN - case scenario)

12:25 Discussion

12:45 LUNCH

13:30 Mediation Session
(Roleplay - continuation with case scenario)

14:30 Discussion

15:00 TEA

15:15 Suitability (Case Study Handouts incl.)
(Group exercise)

15:30 Discussion

15:45 Q&A

16:00 CLOSE

Course registration and further information

If you would like to register for this course or require further information, please email chiatulah.ameke@fnf.org.uk or call 0300 0300 110 (extension number: 102).

Paedophiles should be allowed to adopt.... PC gone mad!

Story in today's Telegraph:

Rules which bar sex offenders from working with children are ‘unfair’ and even convicted paedophiles should have the right to adopt, a leading legal academic has said.

Our view: No. Not at all... thankfully, we can't believe that the current Government would put the human rights of paedophiles above the welfare and safety of children. We're against 'unreasonable' state interference. Where there is proven risk, the state should intervene.

We're against the trend which seeks to view all adults as potential paedophiles, and in particular seems to feel it necessary to vet separated parents where no history of concern has existed... but this is manifestly different.

A Home Office spokesman said: “It is safe to say that the vetting review will not be considering allowing paedophiles to adopt. It wouldn’t exactly go down well with the public." Quite... and nice to see decisions taken based on common sense. Oi vey!

Giving divorced fathers more rights could be dangerous?

An article in the Daily Telegraph today cites Ken Clarke saying 'Giving divorced dads more rights could be dangerous'. He also suggests that it places judges in too difficult a situation to ask them to set out the times that children spend with each parent following separation.

Dealing with the first point, the Government has vowed to give children the right to a presumption of a meaningful relationship with both parents following separation. If there is risk of harm to the children from one or other parent, the court will still consider this. What we're hopefully moving from is the perverse situation where a parent has to justify why they should see their children, to a situation where the other parent has to justify why they shouldn't.

Why peverse? Parents are routinely being CRB checked when they approach the courts. The greatest risk doesn't come from parents though, but step-parents and new partners of parents but these are not 'vetted' by the state. Neither are parents 'vetted' following conception or the birth of a child... so why when they separate. If we're going to have precautionary measures and heavy handed state involvement in the decision as to whether people are allowed to parent, it's a short step to needing a license before conceiving a child (the principles of the state deciding who is suitable are no different).

An industry has grown up around paranoia and unreasonable state interference in family life. Two years ago I was at a conference where the head of the National Youth Advocacy Service said that of all referrals to their contact centres, 75% of parents end up with unsupervised contact. Of those 75%, how many children were unnecessarily restricted from seeing a parent in the natural setting of home? How many were left with an assumption that their parent may be unsafe? What harm to a child from this? The child's and parent's liberties are removed, often without any evidence being heard... read on!

There's a disparity in law. When parents first go to court, the judge is highly unlikely to make an order as to contact unless the primary carer agrees or until oral evidence is heard at a later hearing (which may not happen for months... e.g. also following a CAFCASS Investigation and Report). This limitation wasn't introduced by statute but by precedent (Family Law Reports (1995) 1 FLR 495 heard by Wall LJ):

"The guiding principle remained the application of the welfare test to the practical facts of the case. The fact that the need to re-establish contact was in the interests of the child did not mean that the court would necessarily make an offer for interim contact. The elementary question had to be asked as to whether it was in the child's interests for there to be an interim order for contact pending a final determination of that question. The greatest care had to be taken in making an interim order and without hearing oral evidence, to ensure that it was in the interests of the child and that the order did not prejudice the issue. It was difficult to envisage circumstances in which an interim order for contact could properly be made where the principle of contact was genuinely in dispute and where there were substantial factual issues relating to a child which were unresolved without the court hearing oral evidence or having the advice of an expert such as a court welfare officer."

This delay is unacceptable, and there are often occasions when the judge hears the primary carer will only agree to any contact if it is in a contact centre (on occasions prompted to this course by their solicitor... and yes, I've heard a solicitor do this when there were no risks of harm being alleged, simply the mother was anxious at their child being away from them). It's hard to maintain a natural relationship with your child in a sterile environment where half the toys are broken and where strangers are viewing your every move. Such restrictions of family life are justified where there is a genuine risk of harm... but the restrictions are imposed on the grounds of an untested allegation, and remain in place for months due to the courts' and CAFCASS's inefficiency and poor case management. It's only a year since we've seen CAFCASS reports take 40 weeks. To add insult to injury for the falsely accused parent, they often have to pay to use the contact centre (and I've heard of costs of £140 per session).

Bear in mind the court assumes there is a primary carer, and the other parent must prove themselves. A child has two parents, and the days when one was a distant bread winner while the other was the live at home carer are gone, but not in the thought process of the judiciary.

Where there are allegations, the First Hearing and Dispute Resolution Appointment should have proper time allocated to it to give respondents the opportunity to answer allegations. These hearings may be limited to a matter of a few minutes where the respondent has no time to defend themselves before the restrictions are applied. The brevity of this first hearing does not serve child welfare, and only adds to the risk of delay and injustice.

On to the second point that Ken Clarke makes, of it being hard on a judge to allocate time between the parents. This is the judge's job in such cases where parents cannot agree, or where one parent is opposed to the concept of contact. Where judges fail to do their job, children lose contact with one parent. 3million children have lost contact with a parent following separation, which is why the Government is looking at reforming the law.

People assume that contact breaks down for serious reasons. In many cases, it doesn't.

I've seen one bizarre case where a child decided they didn't want to go to stay with their father. The reason was that the father took the child to see their grandparents, and the child found this boring, and wanted to play on their X-Box instead. The mother saw this as an opportunity to encourage the child not to attend contact. The CAFCASS Officer took the view 'what can we do if the child doesn't want to go?'. I was with the father when the officer said this, and asked what would happen if the child said school was boring? Would the Officer shrug their shoulders, or question whether the mother was exercising parental control in the child's best interests by allowing the child to do whatever they wanted. A child's wishes and feelings must be considered, but decisions about their lives sometimes need to be taken by adults, who are mindful of their needs. Sometimes, that includes explaining to a child the importance of other people's feelings. Where we don't do this, we end up with a fractured society where 'rights' have no connection with responsibilities.

Other cases where contact broke down often involve a 'contact' parent saying no. Whether it be to wearing inappropriate clothing, or staying up all night, or any number of normal disagreements which parents and children have.

A close friend of mine had a row with her daughter over what her daughter was wearing. She rang me, quite distressed, when she overheard her daughter's friend had run her toothbrush around the toilet bowl and her daughter laughing. Children and teens can do unpleasant things. At times they can be selfish, and at times, they will fall out with one or both parents. The sad thing is, when parents are separated, and when one parent remains hostile and judges sit on their hands, this can lead to a complete severing of the child's relationships.

Most people have a child who says 'I hate you' at some point in their life. For the non-resident parent, a natural part of the child's pushing against a boundary can see the cessation of all contact. The courts are there as a final line of defence to safeguard a child's relationships, and if the job is too hard for some judges, or Ken Clarke, they should do something else. It's a crying shame that Ken Clarke is still defending a legal system which has failed millions, and simply isn't fit for purpose.

Gender Wars? Nonsense - Family Law Reform and Opposition

The Government is proposing changes to family law to ensure that children benefit from a continued, meaningful relationship with both parents following separation.

Already we're seeing commentators attempting to draw battle lines between "mothers' groups and fathers' groups" as if only men support the changes, and women will naturally be opposed. It's a fallacy.

I know most of the groups that have been campaigning for shared care. Despite historic names, their memberships are made up from grandparents, mothers, step-parents of both sexes, and yes... fathers. The largest UK fathers' charity has had a woman as its chair for the last couple of years. Their offices are and have been staffed by men and women, and the women are no less passionate or dedicated to the campaign work and the reasons behind it.

Research is conclusive that children are disadvantaged when deprived of a father figure, and sadly, our family justice system has failed to safeguard children's welfare, and reflect parenting in the modern age. It is because of this failure that change is needed. We also know that society as a whole suffers from polarised as opposed to shared parenting. Teenage depression, delinquency, pregnancy, drug abuse are all linked to the reduction in the role or removal of the father.[1] Is this because men are more important parents than mothers? No, but the role and importance of fathers and the consequencial impact of loss has grown considerably. It's a matter of common sense (although one supported by research) that when you deprive a child of a significant attachment figure, the child suffers harm.

Since 1970s, the level of father involvement in intact families has increased nine fold. The level of father involvement in childcare averages just 15 minutes less per day... 15 minutes [2], yet when a couple separates, the children's relationship is often reduced to alternate weekends, and only this year, official figures confirmed 20% of children of divorce see that relationship severed completely.

Who led the concern about the number of children losing contact with a father? Maria Miller MP.

In 2009 I started a campaign to reform relocation related family law. While it was invariably mothers relocating with children (as 90% of children have mothers as primary carers), our arguments were based solely on child welfare rather than the rights of one or other of the genders. Two of the most vocal supporters for reform were from the UK's leading international family law firms... and were women. The MP who chaired the talks at Westminster was a women. At those talks, the representatives of the charity Reunite and the Centre for Social Justice were... women. To imply it is only men in super hero costumes who have been arguing for legal reform is a fallacy.

Bob Geldof wrote the foreword for our Parliamentary Briefing Report, and the press seized on his words 'The court is entirely informed by outdated social engineering models and contemporary attitudes rather than fact, precedent rather than common sense and modish unproven nostrums rather than present day realities. It is a disgraceful mess. A farrago of cod professionalism and faux concern largely predicated on nonsensical social guff, mumbo-jumbo and psycho-babble. Dangling at the other end of this are the lives of thousands of British children and their families.' [3]

His condemnation made the front page of the Mail and Telegraph, but the views of the Managing Partner of The International Family Law Group were no less damning:

'How can we, in the English legal profession, have gone so wrong, have failed so many children, have inadvertently engaged in gender discrimination almost 2 generations, have fallen so out of step with many other countries and, most of all, failed to acknowledge trends in parenting patterns, especially in international families, over the past 40 years?' [4]

The people in favour of family law reform and shared parenting care about child welfare. Those opposed, care about control, the protection of an industry which mainly serves itself, or are informed by personal experiences which are largely historic and bear little relation to modern family life.

Those opposed quote a small number of Australian studies, but if you read the detail of those studies, you'll find most are not opposed, and all admit to having relatively small and therefore unreliable sample sizes. Do these opponents point at the many other countries that now favour shared parenting... no. I've seen it written that a presumption of shared care has lengthened court proceedings in Australia, but those articles and blogs fail to mention that Australia's 'Less Adversarial Trial Scheme' which was intended to reduce the adversarial nature of proceedings was insufficiently resourced.

Those opposed state that each case must be judged on its own merits, but fail to point out that our system of family law makes outcomes a lottery based on the individual opinions, abilities and in some cases prejudices of the individual judge who hears the case. The 'wide ambit of judicial discretion' ensures inconsistency. I've seen cases, many cases with nigh on identical circumstances having entirely different outcomes. There has to be guidance, and detailed guidance, and the rights of the judiciary to independence should not trump the rights of children and families to consistent justice.

Reform of Family Law isn't about mothers or fathers winning or losing, but updating the law to reflect parenting in the current millenium, to give the best opportunities to children, and the greatest benefit to society as a whole.

It's time to have a sensible debate and outcome, and not one based on a battle of the sexes, protecting an industy, or a rigid adherence to out-of-date traditions. It's time everyone grew up, and put the welfare of children first.


1. Shared Care Research - The Custody Minefield.
2. Equalities Commission 2008
3. 'Moving country but losing the child: Reform and Resolution of Child Relocation Law and Practice' - Ann Thomas, managing partner of the International Family Law Group.
4. Family Law: Relocation - The Case for Reform - The Custody Minefield

Government Response to the Family Justice Review

Today the Government has announced that children and families in England and Wales will benefit from major reforms to the family justice system which will tackle delays, streamline processes and rebuild trust.

In response to the recommendations made by the independent Family Justice Review Panel, Ministers have outlined their plans to reform the system to help strengthen parenting, reduce the time it takes cases to progress through the courts, and simplify the family justice system.

The major reforms are outlined below:

Shared parenting for the best interests of the child:

• The changes in education and the introduction of parenting agreements which the Review recommended will help ensure better recognition of the joint role of parents within wider society.
• The Government also accepts the need to clarify and restore public confidence that the courts recognise the joint nature of parenting. We will therefore make a legislative statement emphasising the importance of children having an ongoing relationship with both their parents after family separation, where that is safe, and in the child's best interests. The Government is mindful of the lessons which must be learnt from the Australian experience of legislating in this area, which were highlighted by the Review and led them to urge caution. We will therefore consider very carefully how legislation can be framed to ensure that a meaningful relationship is not about equal division of time, but the quality of parenting received by the child.

Speeding up care and adoption cases by reforming the Public Law System and increasing transparency. The Government has already begun to publish data on the timeliness of court cases so we can see where delays are occurring. We will introduce legislation at the earliest opportunity to enable a six month time limit to be set and wherever possible we expect cases to be completed more quickly, while retaining the flexibility to extend complex cases where this is genuinely in the child's interest.

Simplifying the family justice system to help separating couples reach lasting agreement speedily, if possible without going to court. The Government will make it mandatory for separating parents who propose court action to resolve a dispute about their child to have an initial assessment to see if mediation is something which would be suitable instead, to help them agree on the arrangements for their child. We estimate that we will spend an extra £10m a year on legal aid for family mediation taking the total to £25m per year (although we have placed no upper limit on this figure). We will also examine how to give the Courts more robust enforcement tools to combat failure to comply with judgments.

Driving culture change and better cross-system working through the establishment of a new Family Justice Board, accountable to Ministers, made up of senior figures representing the key organisations who play a role within the system and who will have a clear remit to improve performance.

Other key commitments in the Government's response are:

• To consider how Parenting Agreements could be used to emphasise the need for parents to consider how the child can maintain a relationship with other close family members, such as grandparents.
• To reduce expense and delay caused by the excessive use of expert reports, strengthening their quality and ensuring only essential reports are commissioned
• To reduce the amount of time spent by Judges and Courts scrutinising care plans, focusing instead on the core or essential components when making care orders.
• To bring court social work closer to other court services by transferring Cafcass sponsorship to the Ministry of Justice;
• To create a single family court across England and Wales, with a single point of entry, to simplify the system and make it more accessible for families using the system.

The full Government response can be accessed here

A victory for common sense and children

The Children Act 1989 is to be amended to give children the legal right to a relationship with both parents following separation. A working group including Tim Loughton, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Children, Jonathan Djanogly, Justice Minister, and Sarah Teather, Minister of State for Children and Families are to come up with proposals within 2 months concerning how the law should be changed.

The Office for National Statistics estimates that 3.8million children in the UK live without a father.

We have argued for some time that depriving a child of one parent places them at risk of emotional, developmental and psychological harm. Our reports into leave to remove and shared care gave examples of the many expert studies which have supported our views. You can read some of that research here.

Our respects to Tim Loughton MP, who has consistently spoken out over many years in support of protecting children's relationships and safeguarding child welfare. Our thanks too to the coalition Government on making good their promises.

We have a Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister who start cabinet meetings later in the mornings to enable them to take their children to school. Society has changed, and perhaps now, our family law will reflect parenting in the new millenium.

Please read our own Proposed Amendments to the Children Act 1989

New Content

As part of our 2012 plans to continue to make family law more accessible, we're building key legislation into a smartphone format to enable parents, grandparents and lay advisors to access family law information wherever they are.

Now available:

The Children Act 1989 Part I
The Children Act 1989 Part II
The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction
The Brussels II Revised Regulations
The UK/Pakistan Protocol

...more will be coming as we continue in our plans to build a comprehensive family law information hub. Next on the list is completing publishing of the remaining parts of the Children Act 1989 in a smartphone format. Parts I and II were our priority as these are the sections which are of particular relevance to private family law proceedings.

New guides have also been added:

Recovery Orders
Emergency Hearings
Tips when attending Court
The First Hearing and Dispute Resolution Appointment

...currently being written is a guide on Finding of Fact and Split Hearings

Opening our New Support Forum

At The Custody Minefield, we get many enquiries by phone and email, on a wide range of topics related to family law.

Some six months ago, I considered setting up support forums at The Custody Minefield. A call on Christmas Eve from a desperate parent and the offers of support by a highly experienced team led me to decide the time was right now as the development work on the forum had been carried out in the Autumn.

Our Team
The offers of support have come from highly experienced advisors, who collectively have answered more than 10,000 posts on other family law advice forums. Myself, I was a moderator and advisor on one of the UK's leading charity's forum for 4 years. We know what we're letting ourselves in for, and have the experience to provide the support which people need, but we'll be doing things a little differently.

Other forums often fulfill a number of roles. Discussion about the organisation and its objectives and administration, general chat, self-help, debate, lobbying and campaigning. We want to provide a forum with one single purpose... providing support in a timely and targeted manner.

Our Service Standards
The forum has been designed in such a way that the support team instantly get taken to new posts, so that no question gets left unanswered. We have a system of 'traffic lights' which instantly draw attention to new posts. Users can find their own questions with ease to check on answers, and our intention is that every question gets answered within 24 hours. Whether we will achieve this goal is dependent on demand, but we'll constantly review our performance, and will increase the size of the support team if needed. The support team, as well as having substantial experience of forum management and administration are all experienced McKenzie Friends with experience of all levels of court.

Something New
We're not seeking to compete with other organisations, simply that The Custody Minefield's guides were viewed more than 275,000 times last year and we want to increase the level of support to our visitors. We already answer many questions by email, and by creating forums, we can provide a more structured support service. There's a need, which we intend to meet.

Structure
Having experience of forum advice, and with the opportunity to build the forum from scratch, we've had the opportunity to consider a design and structure which we believe to be ideal.

The forum has been divided up into specialist areas, and against each are guides so that as well as posting questions, the forum users have instant access to information. We'll be adding more guides over the coming year and several are in production now.

Forum users' anonymity will be protected, and users are encouraged to use pseudonyms and not post information which may identify their children. We'll also ensure that all users are treated with respect.

For the New Forum User
Not everyone has experience of forums, and we appreciate some people are technophobes. To help, we have two guides to help, the first being a Guide to Registration, and the second being a Getting Started Guide. More will be created based on what our forum users tell us they need.

Beliefs
Our team all ascribe to the belief that no child should be denied a meaningful relationship with both parents so long as there is no risk of significant harm. Assisting parents and the wider family to secure arrangements which secure the children's welfare is a primary goal.

We care. This was the reason why The Custody Minefield was set up 6 years ago. With the Government's intention that legal aid will be withdrawn from the majority of cases, there is need for more support. According to the Government's own impact assessment, it's likely some 53,000 cases will lose legal aid. A safety net is needed, which we want to provide.

We're known for having ambitious goals, whether it be on lobbying, or getting support information out to many thousands of parents. We're also known for innovating.

Opening Date
The forums are open for registration from 6th January 2012. After registration, accounts will be activated within 24 hours.

Testing
Please bear with us during the beta-testing phase. The forums have already been extensively tested, but as with any new software, we expect the odd bug. There's an area on the forums where users can report any bugs they find, and where we can let you know that they're fixed.

Registration Fees
Initially, the forums will be free during the beta-testing phase. Depending on usage and demand, it may be necessary to charge a fee in the future, but this will be a modest amount sufficient to cover costs and ensure we have the right people behind the scenes to deliver the service that you'd expect from us. If we do decide to charge a fee, we'll give at least 7 days notice to all existing users, and publicly on both this blog and on the main website.

Where to find our forums
We recommend you visit www.thecustodyminefield.com/forum.html where you'll find the guides on registering and getting started.

2011 Review and some of our 2012 Plans

It's been another busy year! Our guides were viewed 276,588 times in 2011... up 255% on 2010.


2011 - What We've Achieved - Completed Projects

10 New Smartphone Guides

• Mediation
• The Pre-Action Protocol for Mediation Information and Assessment
  
• Dyslexia and the Courts
• Section 91.14 Orders
• Seek and Find Orders
• Courts and Judges
• Instructing and Using a Solicitor
  
• Writing a Skeleton Argument
• Writing a Position Statement for Court
• Writing a Statement for Court - Contact and Shared Residence cases
  

3 New Smartphone Based Case Law Summaries

• Parental Alienation Related Case Law
• Section 91.14 Related Case Law
• Wishes and Feelings Related Case Law

2 New Kindle Based Case Law Reference Books

• Leave to Remove Case Law (full text of 7 judgments)
  
• Internal Relocation Case Law (full text of 11 judgments)
  

2 New forms in Word Format

• Form FM1 - For Mediation
• Brussels II - Section 41 Certificate - where parents wish to make UK made contact orders enforceable in other European countries (excluding Denmark)

2011 - Updated Content

• We had the new court forms up quicker than HMCTS
• We've updated our Leave to Remove guides and case law sections following the review of Payne v Payne
• We produced new guides taking into account new processes for mediation
  

2011 - Work in Progress

• A new, updated kindle book on Leave to Remove
• A new, updated kindle book on Internal Relocation
• Support Forums - fully built... entering beta test phase on January 6th 2012
• A new smartphone guide on Appeals

2011 - Lobbying Successes

• After almost 2 years of lobbying, speaking at Westminster, our report to Parliament supported by Sir Bob Geldof, and two Early Day Motions... in June 2011, Payne v Payne was finally reviewed by the Court of Appeal. Payne v Payne is now viewed as 'useful guidance' rather than binding precedent, and not applicable where parents share care.

2011 - Family Justice Review Consultation Responses

• We submitted our own initial response to the Family Justice Review's consultation, then teamed up with the charity Families Need Fathers in response to the Review's interim report.
  

2012 - Plans (so far)

• Completing the 4, ongoing projects - launching the two new book titles, publishing our Smartphone based Appeals Guide
• Support Forums going fully live
• New case law resources
• A new and updated guide to Shared Residence - moving to kindle format
• Quick Guides - Applying to Court
• Webinars for the charity Families Need Fathers
  
• Additional smartphone based guides on various aspects of the legal process in family law.

We've a couple of other surprises too for later in the year... keep up-to-date with new content, updates and releases, follow us on twitter @TCMFamilyLaw and visit www.thecustodyminefield.com

According to the Government's own impact assessment, 53,000 cases are likely to lose legal aid if their plans go ahead. We'll be ready to fill the information void.

Judicial Modernisation - Ryder's in the Storm

In November 2011, and following the Family Justice Review announcing their recommendations, Sir Nicholas Wall, President of the Family Division of the Courts announced that Mr Justice Ryder was to be appointed to oversee judicial modernisation "in recognition of the importance of judicial leadership in relation to making the court process more efficient while ensuring all parties' rights are properly protected".

Mr Justice Ryder is highly capable. The Northern Circuit's presiding judge, he described himself to an associate of mine as 'not the youngest ever high court judge, but the second youngest'. Undoubtedly a rising star, and intelligent.

The Family Justice Review had proposed the creation of a Family Justice Service, sponsored by the Ministry of Justice, to tackle 'shocking' delays in family court proceedings and to improve inter-agency collaboration. It should not come as a surprise that the judiciary are opposed to this. Sir Nicholas has put forward an alternative proposal that there be a Family Business Authority headed by the judiciary:

The authority is the operational decision-making part of the HMCTS Board for family justice issues. “Its terms of reference and makeup reflect the constitutional guarantee that the Framework Agreement (between the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice) provides for judicial independence.”

The judge said he acknowledged that judicial independence was “something of a war horse which is often wheeled out inappropriately….. but here it is a matter of very significant constitutional importance”.

The creation of a Family Justice Service would see the management of cases move from an independent judiciary to a Government Department. The Family Business Authority would see the judiciary retain control, and is the option favoured by Mr Justice Ryder and the Judicial Studies Board.

In the 1989 Children Act, the Government made clear that delays in deciding arrangements for children were harmful. More than 20 years later, the Family Justice Review acknowledged that shocking delays exist and that inter-agency working is inefficient. The judiciary have attempted to manage inter-agency working via local Family Justice Councils which are chaired by the judiciary. Why is modernisation required? The Family Justice Councils and judiciary have failed to ensure that our system of family justice adequately safeguards child welfare.

The Family Justice Council was established in 2004 with the aim of stimulating better and quicker outcomes for families and in the family court service. The council's key roles are to:

• Promote an inter-disciplinary approach to family justice
• monitor how effectively the system delivers the service the Government and the public need and,
• advise on reforms necessary for continuous improvement

Sir Nicholas Wall is protective of the Family Justice Council. “We should also, in my view, be wary of creating additional discussion forums in family justice. There have been too many to count, not all of which have added any value despite the cost of their creation and operation. The exception which proves the rule is the Family Justice Council.” We agree that for there to be improvements, another committee or quango is unlikely to be of assistance when the system requires a centralised, top down management structure which has control of all resources required to fulfill its objectives.

Can Mr Justice Ryder succeed where the Family Justice Councils and his predecessors have failed? We believe he faces a task made impossible by the constitutional structure and self-interest of our family justice system. Why? Four reasons:

1. Judicial independence and the fiercely protected individual judge's wide ambit of discretion in how cases are determined. Ryder has previously proposed there be more central guidance. This in itself defeats the judiciary's argument that judicial independence is sacrosanct. You cannot straddle two boats sailing in opposite directions. We agree with Ryder that there needs to be greater consistency, but doubt this can happen when each judge is 'king in their own court' which we believe to be a fundamental reason for the inconsistencies we currently see. In what 'Business Authority' does every individual member of staff have automonomy in their day to day work. In what business can middle to senior management only be sacked if voted out by both Houses of Parliament.
   
2. A Family Business Authority has nothing to do with business and cannot be an authority when it does not control budgets, resources, and where there is little effective monitoring of performance. Any successful business also has independent auditors and direct accountability to shareholders who can hire and fire.
   
3. CAFCASS are accountable to the Department for Education. Her Majesty's Court Service is an agency of the Ministry of Justice. The Family Justice Council is an independent body sponsored by the Judicial Office. Judges carry out a mix of criminal, civil and family work, each of which has separate divisions and heads.
   
4. I doubt the Family Business Authority will objectively tackle resourcing. There are seemingly too few judges, their holidays are too long and salaries too high, with a District Judge in the Family Proceedings Court earning £102,921; a Circuit Judge earning from £128,296; a High Court Judge earning £172,753; and a Lord Justice of Appeal earning £196,707. Compare this with an MP who earns £65,738; a Minister who earns £134,565; and our Prime Minister who earns £142,500. Could there be more judges, on a lower salary?

Our High Courts don't open until 11th January, close on 5th April and re-open on 17th, are closed for another week in June, close again for 8 weeks in the summer and break up on 21st December.If Mr Justice Ryder wishes to create capacity in the courts, cut judicial holidays to 6 weeks a year. This alone would increase capacity in the High Court by 13%.

We need specialist and dedicated family judges focused on family work. The President of the Family Division of the Court appears unconvinced of this.

Sir Nicholas has said that he is doubtful about judges having an unvarying diet of family work and “My personal view is that for the circuit and district benches, a mixed diet of family with crime and/or civil is the best way of keeping sane, particularly with the enormous pressure of work under which the bench has to operate.” No doubt the CAFCASS Officer or Social Worker or Family Law Solicitor would like the same choice but most retain their sanity without the benefit of 13 weeks' holiday a year or a salary greater than David Cameron's or the variety of work that the judiciary seemingly need. Is a High Court Judge's work more demanding than that of the Minister of Defence with responsibility for our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, or George Osbourne's in the current economic crisis?

Sir Nicholas says there needs to be cultural change, but his attitude to the needs of the judiciary is demonstrative of the problem. Who does our current structure serve... the public or the practitioners? If a structure doesn't work, and management fails, there needs to be a new structure and new management.

What is more sacrosanct, judicial independence, or succeeding in providing an efficient service which safeguards child welfare which should be the primary purpose of the family justice system before any consideration as to tradition, protectionism, or ivory towers. What is a constitution for?

Can Mr Justice Ryder modernise the judiciary and deliver us an efficient Family Business Authority? Perhaps the kindest way to answer is that the best man for the job was chosen, but without the necessary powers, and faced with the culture and protectionism of his peers, we can't see how he can.