Time: Family Law Reform, Advocacy, and Child Welfare

Time is critical in a child's life, and in resolving parental disputes. Long court cases and uncertainty cause stress, depression and other illnesses which can impact on both parents and children (not to mention work and finances, the wider family and the public purse).

The timely resolution of parental disputes was one of the key principles upon which the Children Act was based. yet almost a quarter of a century later, court cases simply take too long.

A Case in Point

Why am I blogging about this today? Another case where a raft of contradictory allegations are unexpectedly dropped into a case at the last minute, alluding to child abuse over years which was never mentioned in earlier proceedings or applications. Given the nature of the allegations, contact is stopped until the allegations can be investigated. CAFCASS have announced they are unable to report for three months. Thoughts of supervised contact are delayed until statements are submitted and future hearings listed, which delays things by at least another month. Supervised contact might be agreed at the next hearing (dependent on the cramped judicial timetable, availability, and in the absence of the CAFCASS report), and then booked, carried out, and reported on... all of which creates further delay. The hoped-for judicial continuity hasn't happened. The Circus has come to town again!

As often happens, there is no independent evidence of abuse. Without going into details, all evidence actually suggests a very happy child, with no behavioural or emotional issues, and allegations are based upon the word of the party who could have raised these allegations on numerous occasions in the past, but didn't. The accuser places themselves in the somewhat surprising position of having sent their child to contact for a long period of time despite 'seemingly' believing abuse was taking place. Forgive me for being a little suspicious... I have little doubt it will be found that there are no welfare concerns when investigations are concluded, but also that there will be no sanctions for false allegations having been made.

...so back to the Children Act 1989, at section 1(2):

In any proceedings in which any question with respect to the upbringing of a child arises, the court shall have regard to the general principle that any delay in determining the question is likely to prejudice the welfare of the child.

How is it that a three month delay, before CAFCASS can report, is acceptable? Why can't CAFCASS report within 7 days. Their resources won't permit it, I know... but the same amount of reporting will still be done by them, the same amount of time spent on meeting parents and writing reports. The delay is caused by their backlog of cases, which needs resolving, and means no officer can be allocated for weeks. 

The problem is we don't expect cases to be resolved quickly. We become used to delays, and it becomes acceptable that the child's welfare will suffer. That's the reality of this case and for this child and many others. The delays are accepted with shrugged shoulders. It's acceptable for child welfare to suffer. 

Broken contact and false allegations, perhaps being two of the most vicious forms of emotional/psychological abuse, aren't treated as domestic violence. Again, a shrug of the shoulders, and a view (with experience) that such things are common in family law cases.

Arguably, our acceptance, the court's acceptance, CAFCASS's acceptance invites the problem to continue, unaddressed.

While understanding allegations need investigating, and that at times the court needs to take a cautious approach, the harm caused to children from a sudden change to the status quo (the cessation of contact) would be mitigated by better case and resource management. Unnecessary delays cause children unnecessary harm. The delays cause harm to both parents (even those who raise false allegations). Also, long cases are arguably more expensive for the public purse, courts and welfare services... but we're used to this situation... shrug.

CAFCASS have previously been censored by the President of the Family Court when cases averaged 40 weeks until a report was prepared. The President should not need to give the CEO of CAFCASS another rollicking. The DfE should be better managing, targeting and improving performance and resourcing.

In the past quarter of a century, we've become used to these failings. Maybe it's time everyone stopped shrugging their shoulders and applied the paramountcy principle to this area too!

The Early, Inquisitorial Approach

In 2012, Mr Justice Ryder (now Lord Justice Ryder) announced that as part of judicial modernisation, the judiciary would take a more inquisitorial approach (see the Fourth Update). I've seen a number of cases in 2013 which were resolved at the first hearing and dispute resolution appointment. I've seen near identical cases take 18 months to resolve. Why the difference?

In the cases resolved without delay, both parties were litigants-in-person, and the judiciary took that recommended inquisitorial approach, questioning both the alleged and the accuser at the first hearing. Cases involved cessation of contact and allegations, but the courts took a firm approach and gave adequate time for both parties to be heard at that first hearing. This wouldn't be achieved in a 15 minute or half hour timetable which is commonplace elsewhere. 

The opinion that litigants-in-person delay proceedings isn't always true. What delays proceedings (aside from poor case management) is insufficient time being allocated to hear evidence at early hearings. Such time, if allocated, needn't place an additional burden on the court, but can and does reduce overall court time when more cases can be resolved on the day by negating the need for further directions hearings and a drawn-out contested/final hearing. 

The courts are using a more inquisitorial approach when parties are litigants-in-person. Arguably, this presents the court with an opportunity for speedier resolution of cases, since the judge will hear oral evidence from the parties from the outset. Where litigants are represented, such an occurrence may not happen until a final/contested hearing (months into proceedings). In early hearings, the advocate acts as a barrier to hearing evidence directly from the client. Hearing and observing the parties is an important part of evidence... so why delay it?

I've little doubt that many litigants wind themselves up as delays cause them to become more stressed. They 'up the stakes', and at times allegations related to historic matters breed, and appear out of thin air during the long pauses in proceedings. 

When the court hears oral evidence at the first instance, directly from the parties, it then has a greater opportunity to make a final order without further delay. This is where the inquisitorial approach can have marked advantages over the adversarial system which remains commonplace in private family law. 

Among the judiciary, there is interest in change. Sir James Munby has now taken over the reins for judicial modernisation following Ryder's appointment as a Lord Justice. The role of the judge as the referee while litigants and their counsel slug it out has been questioned by Lord Judge himself:

'The traditional model of the judge as a passive arbiter, holding the ring between the protagonists, allowing the parties to adduce whatever evidence they wish and however relevant it may be to the ultimate outcome of the case or not, will change.'

We hope that the inquisitorial approach will be consistently applied regardless of whether the parties are represented, and where one or both parties are represented, from the moment the parties first walk into court. This is not a radical idea... it merely takes the preferred approach in public law for a fully inquisitorial system rather than that which exists in private family law... the adversarial fact finding environment... and rolls it out to apply regardless of whether parties are represented. Within that, we would hope for less cross-examination of parties by advocates (at a final hearing), and more instances (ideally universally) where the judge questions the litigants directly (from the outset).

Just imagine an alternative system (which isn't so different from that we're starting to see)...

Statements with evidence are required when the C100 and C7 forms are filed (which should strip at least a month out of court proceedings regardless of whether matters are resolved at the FHDRA). Documents to include a warning that future allegations relating to historic matters will not be accepted unless included within the parents' first statements.

The first hearing and dispute resolution appointment to be held within 21 days of the application being made (and 7 days granted for the respondent's statement), to provide the court with 14 days to assess the evidence on paper.

Litigants to be provided with a paper-based statement template (with a link address where one can be downloaded as an MSWord document). Simple headings included such as:

• Brief History
• Child's Circumstances
• Concerns
• Requests to the Court

From a pre-hearing reading of those statements, a judge allocates sufficient time for the first hearing and dispute resolution appointment.  If CAFCASS involvement is needed, an officer is requested and appointed to the case, to be present at that first hearing. Counsel may accompany their clients and make submissions, but the clients will be directly questioned by the judge at that first hearing, and the responses of the litigants form part of evidence. If a welfare report is required, this should be conducted within four weeks of the FHDRA, and if there needs to be supervised contact to form part of investigations, this to be started within 7 days of the FHDRA.

Radical? I would have thought more radical would be the system we have, where unacceptable delays are commonplace, child welfare is harmed by delay, and unnecessarily drawn-out proceedings put strains on the public purse.

Staying contact - not for children of the low paid, disabled or unemployed

Glued to our home page until election day! Remember, remember, 12th of November...

Last night's (14th November 2013) vote in the House of Commons saw the Government protect its coveted bedroom tax, and in doing so, irreparably harm their manifesto commitments to support shared parenting. The consequences for children of separated parents is likely to be severe.

The bedroom tax affects many people, but today I am focusing purely on the impact on children of non-resident parents and children whose parents share care and need housing benefit.

The consequences for these children and parents is likely to be severe.

Many parents need housing benefit. They may be low paid, unemployed or disabled. If these are non-resident parents, they will see their benefits cut to pressurize them into moving to a one bedroom property or bedsit. Consider too, that even resident parents, where residence is shared, may have this restriction on their accommodation.

The big question... will CAFCASS deem this accommodation to be unsuitable for staying contact?

Not long ago, Lord Freud advised parents affected by the bedroom tax to buy a sofa bed for their children when they stay as the tax would mean they no longer have a bedroom. A parent responded, asking if it was appropriate for his two sons and daughter to share a single bed. The Minister didn't have an answer.

Is it right, that a child's right to family life will be protected if you are wealthy, but not if you are poor, low paid or disabled and on benefits?

The Coalition promise of shared parenting being introduced in law is all but dead. The Children and Families Bill has had that wording removed. A 'presumption of meaningful involvement' for both parents has seen the word meaningful removed, and even now, the presumption of any involvement is being opposed in the House of Lords.

The case for both parents having a full involvement in their children's lives... being parents, having their children stay in their homes... children considering the parent's house as their home... children having a bedroom and their 'own space' is fully supported by child welfare research.

David Davies MP recommended the parents of these children, disabled, on low income, or unemployed, be put in chains for not being able to afford a bedroom for their children. Easy for 75% of MPs to have a withering view of the less fortunate, when they themselves are millionaires. John Major commented last weekend that the Government was at risk of being out of touch and elitist. It is out of touch and elitist.

Dame Shirley Williams, stalwart of the LibDems admits the bedroom tax is a 'mistake'. Charles Kennedy, previous leader of the LibDems voted against the bedroom tax at the party conference, but then abstained when it mattered. Nick Clegg too abstained. Poor Nick seems to have over-applied the yellow colour of his party, as a streak down his back. The ex and current LibDem leaders were joined in this display of poor memory by Vince Cable and another 19 LibDem MPs. How can you know what they stand for, when they themselves don't seem to know?

The United Nations have criticised the bedroom tax. A spokesman on Radio4 said the tax represents a "danger of a retrogression in the right to adequate housing" in the UK and has been designed "without the human component in mind". They recommend its suspension.

The Coalition has handed a powerful weapon to the hostile resident parent who seeks to interfere with children's relationships with the other parent. Court measures to counteract this, defined in case law in cases such as A v A and D v D are now made impractical for the marginalised in society.

Broken contact will increase, parental alienation become easier to manipulate, and the court's options be reduced.

The greatest perversity is that Ian Duncan-Smith founded an institute, the Centre for Social Justice, and their research  found fatherlessness to be a primary cause of Broken Britain. A few years later, IDS introduces a policy which pours petrol on the fire.

Today's Guardian headline, that the LibDems joined Labour in opposing the tax, is a joke. Only two MPs did. Amazingly, John Hemming, the MP who Chairs the 'Justice for Families' campaign group was not among them. He tells opponents that people affected by the bedroom tax can rent out their spare room. For non-resident parents, one wonders how acceptable this would be, for an unveted stranger to be in the house, with the children or parent sleeping in the living room (or should the children and lodger share?). It appears Mr Hemming isn't considering the reality for families affected by a policy he supports, or proposes an arrangement jeopardising child safety.

Only two of John Hemming's fellow LibDem MPs opposed the tax last night, while the rest ignored the majority opposition to the tax expressed at the LibDem conference. One has to question who this man and the rest of the LibDem MPs (bar two) represent. Not their party or his campaign group!

John Hemming does not trust social workers. He believes them to unreasonably interfere in family lives, and sever child/parent relationships. Bizarre then, that he'd seemingly empower them to find thousands of parents' homes to be unsuitable for children to live in. He seems a man with confused agendas.

Andrew George and Tim Farron were the only two LibDem MPs who consider child welfare, and vote with their conscience. Andrew George said:

"The spare room penalty/bedroom tax victimises the most marginalised in our communities, it undermines family life, it penalises the hard working low paid for being prepared to stomach low paid work, it masks the excessive cost and disruption caused to those disabled people who have to move from expensively adapted homes and is Dickensian in its social divisiveness.

I hope that those Ministers who live in multiple spare room mansions and who strenuously oppose the Liberal Democrat "Mansion Tax" will be prepared to look the victims of this policy in the eye. Even where those affected are prepared to move to up root themselves from a long standing family home to a smaller property they tell me they can't find anything within 20 - 30 miles. So to escape the bedroom tax they would have to move many miles from their community, their work place, local school, family and social networks, church etc. and re-establish themselves in a place which they may consider to be completely alien. Or of course they could choose a property in the private sector and cost the taxpayer more!"

I couldn't agree more.

So the unemployed, disabled or low paid non-resident parent has another choice. They can move further away from their children, making contact even less likely. It makes involvement in schooling almost impossible. So much for the DfES research which shows children benefit from both parents being involved with the school.

There is another argument put forward that welfare cuts have to happen. Sure they do, but there is an opportunity cost in any decision. I would point out that Iain Duncan-Smith, the Minister who came up with the bedroom tax, is also responsible for £140million being wasted on the Universal Credit System. That money would pay 10,000,000 weeks of bedroom tax.

Consider too, that the decision to cut the upper tax rate, and decision not to introduce a mansion tax is made possible by the Government forcing children of the marginalised to sleep on floors, or in the worst cases, out of one parent's life completely.

Some MPs didn't vote at all, and I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. The ones who did break their promises, are listed below.

Remember both parties made manifesto commitments to support shared parenting. Please don't vote for these named MPs again. It's not a party political matter, but a child welfare matter, and a matter of trust and priorities.

Not so much 'NONE OF THE ABOVE', but 'NONE OF THE BELOW' come election time.

Conservatives

• Adams, Nigel, Mr
• Afriyie, Adam, Mr
• Aldous, Peter, Mr
• Arbuthnot, James, Rt Hon
• Bacon, Richard, Mr
• Baker, Steve, Mr
• Barclay, Stephen, Mr
• Baron, John, Mr
• Bellingham, Henry, Mr
• Benyon, Richard, Mr
• Beresford, Paul, Sir
• Bingham, Andrew, Mr
• Binley, Brian, Mr
• Blackman, Bob, Mr
• Bone, Peter, Mr
• Bottomley, Peter, Mr
• Bradley, Karen, Ms
• Brady, Graham, Mr
• Bray, Angie, Ms
• Three line Aye
• Bridgen, Andrew, Mr
• Brine, Steve, Mr
• Burns, Conor, Mr
• Burns, Simon, Mr
• Burt, Alistair, Mr
• Byles, Dan
• Cameron, David, Rt Hon
• Carswell, Douglas, Mr
• Cash, William
• Chishti, Rehman, Mr
• Chope, Christopher, Mr
• Clappison, James, Mr
• Clark, Greg, Mr
• Clarke, Kenneth, Rt Hon
• Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey, Mr
• Coffey, Thérèse, Ms
• Collins, Damian, Mr
• Colville, Oliver
• Cox, Geoffrey, Mr
• Crabb, Stephen, Mr
• Crouch, Tracey, Ms
• Davies, David T C, Mr
• Davies, Glyn, Mr
• Davies, Philip, Mr
• Dinenage Caroline, Ms
• Djangoly, Jonathan, Mr
• Dorrell, Stephen, Rt Hon
• Doyle-Price, Jackie, Ms
• Drax, Richard, Mr
• Dunne, Philip, Mr
• Ellis, Michael, Mr
• Ellison, Jane, Ms
• Ellwood, Tobias, Mr
• Elphicke, Charlie, Mr
• Eustice, George, Mr
• Evans, Graham, Mr
• Evans, Jonathan, Mr
• Evennett, David
• Fallon, Michael, Mr
• Field, Mark, Mr
• Freer, Mike, Mr
• Fuller, Richard, Mr
• Garnier, Edward, Mr
• Garnier, Mark, Mr
• Gibb, Nick, Mr
• Gillian, Cheryl, Rt Hon
• Glen, John, Mr
• Goodwill, Robert, Mr
• Gove, Michael, Rt Hon
• Grant, Helen, Ms
• Gray, James, Mr
• Grayling, Chris, Mr
• Green, Damian, Mr
• Griffiths, Andrew, Mr
• Gummer, Ben
• Gyimah, Sam, Mr
• Hammond, Stephen, Mr
• Hancock, Matthew, Mr
• Hands, Greg, Mr
• Harper, Mark, Mr
• Harrington, Richard, Mr
• Harris, Rebecca, Ms
• Hart, Simon, Mr
• Hayes, John, Mr
• Heald, Oliver, Mr
• Heaton-Harris, Chris, Mr
• Hendry, Charles, Mr
• Herbert, Nick, Mr
• Hinds, Damian, Mr
• Hollingbery, George, Mr
• Hollobone, Philip, Mr
• Holloway, Adam, Mr
• Hopkins, Kris, Mr
• Howarth, Gerald, Mr
• Howell, John, Mr
• Hunt, Jeremy, Rt Hon
• Jackson, Stewart, Mr
• James, Margot, Ms
• Javid, Sajid, Mr
• Jenkin, Bernard, Mr
• Johnson, Gareth, Mr
• Jones, Andrew, Mr
• Jones, David, Mr
• Jones, Marcus, Mr
• Kelly, Chris, Mr
• Knight, Greg, Mr
• Kwarteng, Kwasi, Mr
• Lancaster, Mark, Mr
• Lansley, Andrew, Rt Hon
• Latham, Pauline, Ms
• Leadsom, Andrea, Ms
• Lee, Jessica, Ms
• Lee, Phillip
• Lewis, Brandon, Mr
• Lewis, Julian, Mr
• Liddell-Grainger, Ian, Mr
• Lidington, David, Mr
• Lopresti, Jack, Mr
• Lord, Jonathan, Mr
• Luff, Peter, Mr
• Main, Anne, Ms
• Maude, Francis, Rt Hon
• May, Theresa, Rt Hon
• Maynard, Paul, Mr
• Mccartney, Jason, Mr
• Mccartney, Karl, Mr
• Mcintosh, Anne, Ms
• Mcpartland, Stephen, Mr
• Mcvey, Esther, Ms
• Menzies, Mark, Mr
• Miller, Maria, Ms
• Mills, Nigel, Mr
• Mordaunt, Penny, Ms
• Morgan, Nicky, Mr
• Morris, David, Mr
• Mosley, Stephen, Mr
• Mowat, David, Mr
• Mundell, David, Mr
• Murray, Sheryll, Ms
• Murrison, Andrew, Mr
• Neill, Robert, Mr
• Newmark, Brooks, Mr
• Newton, Sarah, Ms
• Nokes, Caroline, Ms
• Nuttall, David, Mr
• O'Brien Stephen, Mr
• Ollernshaw, Eric
• Opperman, Guy, Mr
• Ottaway, Richard, Mr
• Paice, James, Mr
• Parish, Neil, Mr
• Patel, Priti, Ms
• Penning, Mike, Mr
• Penrose, John, Mr
• Perry, Claire, Ms
• Phillips, Stephen, Mr
• Pickles, Eric, Rt Hon
• Pincher, Christopher
• Poulter, Daniel, Mr
• Prisk, Mark, Mr
• Pritchard, Mark, Mr
• Raab, Dominic, Mr
• Randall, John, Mr
• Redwood, John, Rt Hon
• Rees-Mogg, Jacob, Mr
• Reevell, Simon, Mr
• Robertson, Hugh, Mr
• Roberston, Laurence, Mr
• Rosindell, Andrew, Mr
• Rudd, Amber, Ms
• Ruffley, David, Mr
• Rutley, David, Mr
• Sandys, Laura, Ms
• Scott, Lee, Mr
• Selous, Andrew, Mr
• Shapps, Grant, Mr
• Shelbrooke, Alec, Mr
• Shepherd, Richard, Mr
• Simpson, Keith, Mr
• Skidmore, Chris, Mr
• Smith, Henry, Mr
• Smith, Julian, Mr
• Soames, Nicholas, Hon
• Soubry, Anna, Ms
• Spelman, Caroline, Rt Hon
• Stanley, John, Rt Hon Sir
• Stephenson, Andrew, Mr
• Stevenson, John, Mr
• Stewart, Bob, Mr
• Stewart, Iain, Mr
• Streeter, Gary, Mr
• Stride, Mel, Mr
• Stuart, Graham, Mr
• Sturdy, Julian, Mr
• Swayne, Desmond, Mr
• Syms, Robert, Mr
• Tapsell, Peter, Mr
• Timpson, Edward, Mr
• Tomlinson, Justin, Mr
• Tredinnick, David, Mr
• Truss, Elizabeth, Ms
• Turner, Andrew, Mr
• Tyrie, Andrew, Mr
• Uppal, Paul, Mr
• Vaizey, Edward
• Vara, Shailesh, Mr
• Vickers, Martin, Mr
• Walker, Charles, Mr
• Wallace, Ben, Mr
• Wharton, James, Mr
• Wheeler, Heather, Ms
• White, Chris, Mr
• Whittingdale, John, Mr
• Wiggin, Bill, Mr
• Williamson, Gavin, Mr
• Wilson, Rob
• Wollaston, Sarah, Ms
• Wright, Jeremy, Mr
• Yeo, Tim, Mr
• Young, George, Sir Rt Hon

LibDems

• Norman Baker (Lewes)
• Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed)
• Tom Brake (Carshalton & Wallington)
• Jeremy Browne (Taunton Deane)
• Malcolm Bruce (Gordon)
• Paul Burstow (Sutton & Cheam)
• Lorely Burt (Solihull)
• Sir Menzies Campbell (Fife North East)
• Alistair Carmichael (Orkney & Shetland)
• Edward Davey (Kingston & Surbiton)
• Don Foster (Bath)
• Stephen Gilbert (St Austell & Newquay)
• Duncan Hames (Chippenham)
• Sir Nick Harvey (Devon North)
• David Heath (Somerton & Frome)
• John Hemming (Birmingham Yardley)
• Martin Horwood (Cheltenham)
• Simon Hughes (Bermondsey & Old Southwark)
• Mark Hunter (Cheadle)
• Norman Lamb (Norfolk North)
• Michael Moore (Berwickshire, Roxburgh & Selkirk)
• Tessa Munt (Wells)
• John Pugh (Southport)
• Dan Rogerson (Cornwall North)
• Bob Russell (Colchester)
• Sir Robert Smith (Aberdeenshire West & Kincardine)
• Andrew Stunell (Hazel Grove)
• Jo Swinson (Dunbartonshire East)
• John Thurso (Caithness, Sutherland & Easter Ross)
• Steve Webb (Thornbury & Yate)
• Stephen Williams (Bristol West)

2013 - Is this the year of the fatherless child?

A while ago, Iain Duncan Smith was quoted in the Telegraph on the subject of fatherlessness in society, and how the legal system had failed a third of children who had lost contact over the last 20 years. It's wrong to lay the blame solely at the doors of the courts. Successive Governments haven't treated the issue seriously or with sufficient thought.

Over 2,000 years ago there was a judgment given, where Solomon faced a bitter custody dispute. Not much has changed in the years since. Human nature doesn't change. People behave badly. People get caught up in disputes, and anger, revenge, spite and a long list of other unpleasant human emotions come to the surface. As one sage judge said on the issue of fact findings and allegations (we do love Mostyn's judgments) 'if parents were behaving well, they'd probably still be together'.

The Government is naive if it believes that mediation alone is a panacea to fatherlessness or will soak up the mess left by legal aid cuts. Lay advisers and members of the legal profession see the full ambit of unpleasantness in the courts. I've seen a number of extremely unpleasant cases recently, where before matters had gone to court, one parent was fabricating evidence to stitch up the other, then calling the police or social services. The Jeremy Kyle world sadly exists, and isn't limited to the working classes.

I agree that adversarial family law fans the flames of parental hostility, but it's naive to think that it's the cause of parental hostility, or that the carrot without the stick is sufficient to resolve many parental disputes. Statistics suggest that 10% of separating parents go to court, while a further 30% fail to agree any arrangements (lacking the court's involvement). Could it be that fatherlessness may be reduced by more parents accessing the courts? Could it be that an imperfect system is better than no system at all?

Where is the support for parents who cannot afford a solicitor, whose numbers are to be swelled by tens of thousands next year once legal aid goes? What access to justice for them?

45,000 are to lose legal aid. Courts are closing. Court delay more likely due to inexperienced litigants in person eating up court time. The Government's plans are likely to save some money (if only from the reduced legal aid bill). Has any consideration been given to replacing that support, and giving parents the depth of knowledge they need to make informed decisions should mediation fail? What we saw yesterday was a useful links page to third sector organisations, but nothing in practical terms to support parents whose ex-partner says 'no'. Nothing to support those falsely accused whose world is at risk and who need legal advice. Nothing to support those who come home and find the house empty and their children gone... and the list of more complex but fairly routine scenarios goes on.

...and consider what a falsely accused parent faces, which will become worse next year. The accuser receives Government funded legal representation. The accused not. No equality of arms, and I fail to see how their right to a fair hearing is protected. Consider the risks... loss of children, loss of home, and findings made that destroys their character... all judged on a subjective balance of probability in a court under pressure, and where the accused lacks the legal guidance afforded to their alleged victim. No checks and balances. Will the prospect of free legal aid encourage false allegations?

On a good note... consider the benefit to Government statistics... we'll see headlines that Government policy has led to more successful findings against perpetrators of domestic violence... 

The cost to society could be many times greater than the short term financial savings that the Government hopes for. We know that fatherlessness is linked to higher incidences of crime, teenage pregnancy, poor mental health, addiction, lower performance at school and other societal ills. Such are the findings of Iain Duncan Smith's Centre for Social Justice. Will mediation fix Broken Britain? Will the Government's new app, which is little more than a useful links page, give parents the tools they need to safeguard their children's relationships? No. Not for many. Not for thousands.

Can those third sector organisations deliver the support that's needed? Will they have the resources to meet demand? Could you fit 1000 parents in your local pub for a monthly support meeting?  Are there sufficient numbers and sufficiently knowledgeable volunteer advisers to offer support to 45,000 parents next year?

We hope the Government has something else up their sleeve, but we found nothing on that app, and have seen nothing in their publications to suggest they have meaningful support for the parents who find mediation doesn't work, and where a solicitor is unaffordable.

Is the Government's policy to hope that thousands of years of human nature can be reversed overnight? Surely the biggest social gamble in my life time. I may be being harsh, but they may be being criminally negligent.

Mediation can work, but there also needs to be access to justice where it fails. Access to justice is about to become harder. I wonder how many parents won't approach the courts because they simply don't know how to, lack the necessary information and feel overwhelmed.

On a good note... consider the benefit to Government statistics... we'll see headlines that fewer parents are resorting to the courts...

What we may see next year are the ranks of fatherless children swelled by those whose parents no longer qualify for legal aid, and a hopeless situation for those whose parents face false allegations. Broken Britain perpetuated, or made worse by this Government due to a mix of poor advice, wishful thinking and a lack of planning and resources.