Gold Band : Gold Standard?

Posted on | May 14, 2012 | 27 Comments

Excessive Verbosity Warning. Do not go past this point unless you have at least two packs of kendall mint cake and a powerade about your person. 

[UPDATE : Office for Judicial Complaints now investigating Coleridge J - see end 5pm 15 May]

This weekend I listened to Coleridge J talk about his Marriage Foundation at the FLBA Cumberland Lodge weekend. Although Chatham House Rules apply to that event much of what was said has been widely and publicly aired by Coleridge elsewhere in recent weeks, and the material referred to is in the public domain. For those of you who want a bit of background, I have written about the Marriage Foundation before here and here.

At launch time I scoured the Marriage Foundation material for an understanding of why it was said that we should be promoting marriage specifically rather than stable relationships in general. There is a surprising lack of properly referenced evidence supporting the central tenet of the Marriage Foundation, namely that marriage is the “gold standard” through which we can stem the tide of family breakdown (unless you count quotes from Michael Winner). In the First Edition of the MF Newsletter bulleted assertions are set out in smart boxes. But there are few references and nothing that I could see of demonstrating causation rather than correlation. I think I identified the Government Survey that is cited for the proposition that “Cohabiting people are significantly less happy in their relationships than married people, and children are happier when growing up with both biological parents” - but by itself it doesn’t really help us to understand why that may be so. After a false start I tracked down the source of the following soundbite:

“All the evidence we have shows that individuals fare best, both in childhood and in later life, when they benefit from the economic and emotional investments of their natural parents who reside together continuously and cooperate in raising them.”

to a 2008 publication by David Popenoe, retired academic formerly of Rutgers State University (see footnote 15 here). Sadly that link is no longer valid so one cannot place the quote in context. But it is clear from looking at other publications by Popenoe on Amazon that his work relates to US society, in particular absent dads in inner city families and not to the UK where one suspects the sociological makeup of the population may be rather different. Out of fairness to the MF I have ordered this 2009 publication by Popenoe because I am interested to see whether my skepticism about the relevance and validity of that quote to the situation in the UK is valid (the MF material cites the quote as Popenoe 2009 so either that is wrong or the same quote is contained in the book I have bought). I will report back in due course (bearing in mind that I read about one book per annum at the moment). [Postscript - in fact I think the quote is probably from a 2009 article in Social Science and Public Policy here, and if so this does appear to survey a number of western societies including the UK.] Of course what is notable about that quote is that it is cited in support of marriage, but in fact it is supportive of co-parenting rather than the institution of marriage.

Read more

Shared Parenting: Reciprocity and Colin

Posted on | May 10, 2012 | 32 Comments

This is a guest blog post by Melanie Barnes. Melanie is qualified as a Solicitor Advocate and is trained as a mediator.  She has a specialism in child support law and currently sits on the Resolution National Committee for Child Maintenance.  She has a particular interest in international child maintenance and has been actively involved in policy discussions on this issue. She has also been commissioned to write a book dealing with this area of law.  You can find her at @MelCVBarnes.

Shared parenting: reciprocity and Colin

The point is, relationships are difficult enough to manage even where there is a degree of understanding, but when that balance is challenged upon separation, the resolution of conflict can become undeniably hard.  It is therefore no surprise that various governments have tried to address the balance in order to help parents in the transition from parenting together to parenting apart without (a) costing the government money (b) costing them even more money and (c) costing lots and lots of money.  Oh, and stuff about welfare.

Read more

Children & Families Bill

Posted on | May 10, 2012 | 104 Comments

‘Twas Queen’s Speech day yesterday – incase you didn’t notice. Cue much criticism of the Government for not announcing the “Economic Miracle Bill” or the “Job creation Bill”. As if legislation were no more than a fortune cookie. Anyhoo…as anticipated there was a lot of family law stuff in there (not gay marriage tho – sadly). So, thought y’all might like to read the following email from the Ministry of Justice. You can find a bit more info on the Dept of Education website here.

No time to blog properly but 2 thoughts :

1 The email makes no mention of a consultation about the wording of the shared parenting provision, although they are going to consult on the adoption aspects of the bill.

2 The DoE material suggests that “Ministers intend to strengthen the law to ensure children have a relationship with both their parents after family separation, where that is safe and in the child’s best interests.” and that “The Government believes that this will encourage more separated parents to resolve their disputes out of court and agree care arrangements that fully involve both parents.” It may be a daft question, but isn’t there a risk that for every parent encouraged to resolve their dispute out of court (by which I think we mainly mean mums who might decide it’s hopeless to resist contact where otherwise they may have stood firm), there is another parent encouraged to pursue litigation in order to enforce the “right” granted by the legislation (by which I think we mean mainly dad’s who think they are now on a winner)? Just a question.

Now, that email:

As someone with an interest in family justice, we are writing to give you more detail on the Children and Families Bill which was announced in the Queen’s speech yesterday.

This Bill would intend to make it easier for parents to share their caring responsibilities; give families of children and young people with special educational needs or disabilities more choice and control; and support some of the most vulnerable children, including those in care or whose parents have separated.

Content of the Bill
We are determined to provide a simpler system for the provision of education, health and social care for children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities. We recognise that parents continue to face many challenges when their child needs extra support in their education, and even more so when their child has social care and health needs. The proposed legislation would ensure that education; health and social care services are jointly planned and commissioned by local authorities and health services working together. We would also include proposals for local authorities to set out a local offer of all services available to support children or young people who are disabled or who have SEN, and their families across education, health and social care.

The adoption clauses would reduce the time children have to wait for an adoptive placement. It would also see more children placed in stable, loving homes with less delay and disruption and improve their chances of leading full and happy lives. The legislation would prevent local authorities from delaying an adoption by searching for a “perfect match” for a child, particularly a perfect or partial match based on the child’s ethnicity.

With regard to family law, although going to court to resolve disputes about children should be the last resort, the proposed legislative changes in this Bill make clear that parents should work together to reach agreements about their child’s care when they separate. It would also set out that, where it is safe and in the best interests of the child, both parents should be involved with their child’s upbringing as fully as possible. We will consult shortly on how the legislation can be framed to ensure that a meaningful relationship is not about an equal division of time but the quality of time that a child spends with each parent.  The changes we are planning on public law will mean a care proceedings system in which delay is no longer acceptable and where there is a much clearer focus on the child and their needs.

Through proposals on flexible parental leave we aim to give parents more choice and flexibility about how they share the care of their child in the first year, enabling both parents to retain a strong link with the labour market. Extending the right to request flexible working will give all employees the confidence to ask their employer for flexible working without fear of detrimental treatment.

John Dunford’s review of the Office of the Children’s Commissioner stated that there was a continuing need for an independent advocate for children and young people, but that the existing legislative framework was limiting the Commissioner from fulfilling that role effectively. We propose to change the function of the Children’s Commissioner to one of “promoting and protecting children’s rights”, enabling the UK to meet better its obligations as a signatory to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Timing
We hope the Bill will be scheduled for introduction in the second session in the Commons, early in 2013. It would then be carried over into the third session for Royal Assent.

Consultation
All of the proposals in the Bill have already been informed by the views and experience of families and those who work with them. We would like to take this opportunity to thank all those who took the time to respond to consultations and calls for evidence over the last year, including the special educational needs and disability green paper, the consultation on the Family Justice Review proposals and the Dunford Review.

There will be a full public consultation on our proposals on adoption, and calls for evidence as part of the pre-legislative scrutiny process for the proposals in the Bill.

We wanted you to see the main proposals that would be in the Bill now, so that you are aware of what is being proposed. We would like to invite you to continue engaging with us on these matters, and please do get in touch if you have any queries.

I read a real book

Posted on | May 7, 2012 | No Comments

This isn’t really a book review. I’m a little frightened of doing a book review on  piece of fiction. To be honest I don’t feel terribly well qualified (notwithstanding my bachelors degree in English, which my husband still irritatingly refers to as a “Degree in the AB-use of the English Language” after 11 years of marriage). It’s been a long time since I’ve read much fiction, so I’m a little out of touch and likely to gush at any piece of trash I might read, likely to confuse the unfamiliar sensation that is the pleasure of reading with a great book.

And actually I didn’t really enjoy Aftermath – On Marriage and Separation. It isn’t really a book for enjoyment. This much should have been obvious from the title. It’s Rachel Cusk’s seventh novel, an autobiographical one at that. I read a review of it some time ago and ordered it on the spot. It is only now, the pace of life slowed slightly by broken bones and enforced foot elevation, that I have managed to read it. Thankfully it is slender, for if it were longer I would inevitably never have finished it and it would be languishing on the bedside table with last year’s Xmas book, too heavy to pop in my handbag, too dense to face before bed.

I galloped through it, consciously skimming the surface – partly to make sure I didn’t lose momentum and end up with another unfinished book, and also because this comprehensive girl found the classical references a little alienating, one layer of difficulty more than I was prepared to invest. Perhaps I wanted to rush to the end in the faint hope of a happy ending I knew would not be there. It was an uncomfortable and destabilising reading experience particularly because – apart from the obvious absence of divorce in my own life – there was much life experience in this autobiographical fiction that echoes my own. Cusk articulates many of the tensions, complexities and downright contradictions for couples whose roles within the family runs counter to traditional gender roles. It sounds easy, just swapping. But it’s a constant dance of vulnerability and anxiety and self-conscious validation of self and spouse. It’s a daily challenge of our understanding of woman and man, of mother and father, of husband and wife. And yet it’s a daily challenge that we dare not confront in the whirlwind of work and snatched moments of cleaning, of rushing to and from work, of conking out the minute the kids are asleep, of missed moments of intimacy. This book reminded me of all those issues that get lost in the everyday.

It was refreshing to read some beautiful prose. I thought it was searingly beautiful, poetic writing, but I have been so impoverished by reading only reference books, legal commentary and news that I was gorging on it without properly digesting. It reminded me why I should read more fiction, reminded me of faded teenaged aspirations to be a writer. It made me sigh. I should slow down.

Get Your Pink Tape Merchandise Here!

Posted on | May 3, 2012 | 1 Comment

Not really.

But, following on from the conclusion of my first experiment in pink body advertising / performance art, I happened upon this Pink Tape iPhone cover today, and I thought it was kind of cool. Feel free to buy me one for my birthday. But let my husband know in advance, ‘cos he’ll have to buy me a new handbag to match.

PS I probably get about thruppence from Amazon if you actually do buy one ‘cos I has a secret code, innit.

More (Bump &) Grind Required

Posted on | May 1, 2012 | 22 Comments

Written betwixt Paddington and Templemeads last night…

I didn’t hear Sir Paul Coleridge on the Today programme this morning (yesterday), owing to my broken foot (I had to cadge a lift to work with my brother who is allergic to Radio 4. Sadly, I am allergic to Kiss FM but this cuts no ice).

I confess that of the “Marriage Foundation” I know only that which is available via headline – plus a short article in the Evening Standard read on the train en route back from the divorce capital. But such lack of in depth knowledge never stops anyone else from commenting on anything at all, so “What the hell”. And besides, its rude not to complain about the Standard at least once on every visit to the ol’ smoke.

Headline: “Judge: Hello! Approach is fuelling family breakdown”

Apparently, “He told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “In terms of the impact that family breakdown is having on society, nobody has the experience that the family judiciary have”. Pause there. NOBODY. Not the mediators, counsellors, extended family, teachers or – god forbid – the parties to divorces. Carry on.

“He insisted he was not mounting a moral campaign but wanted to set-out the facts in a “non-preachy” way”. Hold. That. Thought.

“He said he wasn’t “knocking” the magazine, but added: “I normally find the people who are in there are in my court within about a year or two.””

Pause there. Rewind. “In terms of the impact family breakdown is having on society, nobody has the experience that the family judiciary have”. Apparently limited to the experience of that portion of society that is displayed in Hello! magazine. I wonder if the experience of the District Judges is quite the same. More Coronation Street than Hello! I suspect, and most of them managing to get in a sufficient pickle to end up falling upon the judiciary without ever having said “I do”.

“We all know, all of us who have been in relationships for a long time, that the only way they are made to work and the only way they become really qualitatively good is by absolutely grinding away at it”. Pause there. Remember that not-preachy thing? Er…I could ask the vexed question of just how far one should persevere with a “difficult” relationship and when it is ok to divorce (how much grinding does one have to tolerate?) – but it’s late, I’m ill informed, and it would be more amusing to snigger at the unfortunate choice of language. Juvenile I know: but a bit of mickey taking is just as key to any healthy adult relationship… Once the kids arrive you have to find something to replace the grinding, right?

Postscript: For those who want to find out about the Marriage Foundation their website is here. There is a useful link to their first newsletter in the centre of the home page. I have previously written about this topic here.

Family Justice Narratives : No. 5

Posted on | April 28, 2012 | 12 Comments

This is the fifth of the Family Justice Narratives. You can find out what the Family Justice Narratives are all about and how to get involved here.

NARRATIVE NO 5 : Anonymous Advice Worker

Use of Independent Social Workers in Care Proceedings

Posted on | April 21, 2012 | 8 Comments

This is a guest blog post by Noel Arnold. Noel is a partner at Philcox Gray & Co in London and sits on the Law Society’s Children Law Sub-committee and the Association of Lawyers for Children’s Executive Committee. The views expressed here are his own and do not purport to reflect the views of any other organisation or individual. Follow Noel on Twitter: @Children_Law.

Use of Independent Social Workers in Care Proceedings

I was fortunate to have been invited recently to the launch event of the publication of an important piece of research and one that is said to be the first of its kind. ‘The Contribution of Experts in Care Proceedings: Evaluation of Independent Social Work Reports in Care Proceedings’ is said to be a first because the role and value of independent social work (ISW) assessments and reports has not been the specific remit of any research project to date. Its aims were to first focus on the work of ISWs and the second to examine the impact of the work of ISWs on courts. In this blog piece ‘ISW’ will refer to independent social work, ‘ISWr to independent social worker and ‘ISWs’ to its plural.

The research team from the University of Oxford was headed by leading senior research fellow Dr Julia Brophy. If you can’t find time to read the entire research report, I can recommend the excellent Executive Summary. In essence the research was undertaken because of a number of concerns expressed from various quarters and over some time, but most recently in the interim report of the Family Justice Review. That report stated at paragraph 4.228 that:

“The Review has heard claims that family courts in public law proceedings are commissioning too many reports from Independent Social Workers. We are clear that Independent Social Workers should only be employed to provide new information to the court, not as a way of replacing the assessments that should have been submitted by the social worker or the guardian.”

Many felt that such comments were misleading as to the reasons why ISWs were instructed in care proceedings. Nagalro in its response to the consultation stated:

“The assumption in the review that the contribution of Independent Social Work expert witnesses duplicates that provided by local authority social workers is highly questionable, as there is a regrettable lack of research evidence on the ISW contribution to family proceedings…”

So now we have the research on ISWs and it tells us this (amongst other things):

• “The reasons why an ISW was instructed to assess a parent where there was evidence of a previous assessment by a local authority was because that assessment had not included this parent, or parent and a new partner; this was the reason in 43% of cases. In these circumstances the ISW does not ‘duplicate’ the local authority assessment, but adds information”

• “In 35% of cases a previous local authority assessment was contested by parents but most (27%) were contested on grounds of content; in just 4 cases (8%) parents contested a local authority assessment on grounds of lack of independence or human rights claims”

• “Findings do not therefore support views that ISW assessments routinely duplicate local authority assessments, adding nothing new. These were not like-for-like assessments: new people, changed/new circumstances were the driving forces”

• “The findings indicate that the independence and the skills of the ISW, and time to fully assess complex parents with a history of non-cooperation or engagement with local authorities are key benefits to the court of ISW assessments”

I agree with and welcome the report’s findings, which largely reflect my own experience of ISW assessments in care proceedings. However, as I listened to the presentations and discussions at the launch event I was interested in what could flow from the research. The findings of the research will likely be endorsed by many ISW practitioner and representative groups but in the words of Carrie Bradshaw, “Later that day, I got to thinking…” could there be even wider use of ISWs in care proceedings or should there be? Read more

Family Court a law unto itself?

Posted on | April 21, 2012 | 27 Comments

By now the press are reporting widely the case of Alas Al-Wray (FD10C00445 LB of Islington v Al Alas and Wray Approved Judgment 19 April 2012). Not many other than lawyers will have the fortitude to get all the way through the judgment, which is extremely lengthy and medically technical. But it is a shocking and very sad story and it is hard to imagine the awful ordeal that these two young parents have had to endure. I briefly saw a BBC interview with them, and they were dignified and brave. I hope very much that they are offered support to integrate their daughter into their family at long last.

I was struck though by a commentary piece by Camilla Cavendish in yesterday’s Times in which Ms Cavendish suggests that this is a case demonstrating how things have gone wrong. Yes, this is a case where things have gone terribly wrong from the perspective of the parents and the child concerned. But is it a case which demonstrates how the system has gone wrong?

Read more

Family Law Awards

Posted on | April 20, 2012 | No Comments

The deadline to submit a nomination for this year’s Family Law Awards is 4 May 2012. Submit your nomination now through the Family Law Awards website.

The awards ceremony will be held on 10 October 2012 at the prestigious London Hilton hotel on Park Lane, Mayfair.

The number of awards available to win this year has almost doubled from 8 to 15. There are now three award categories for barristers and solicitors respectively to reflect their seniority: partner, associate, and young solicitors, and; QC, junior, and young barristers. We have also added another three awards: International Family Lawyer of the Year, Family Law Legal Executive of the Year, and Family Pro Bono Lawyer of the year.

The awards were set up to highlight the important work done by family lawyers whilst bringing the whole profession together for an enjoyable evening.

The shortlist and winners will be chosen by a judging panel made up of the heads of the three family law practitioners’ associations, ie the Family Law Bar Association, Resolution and the Association of Lawyers for Children, along with Family Law editors and publishing executives.