Search Results for: legal aid green paper

Legal Aid Green Paper Published

Difficult to work out from the rather sketchy news reports how this will impact on family law apart from ‘massively’. More info from the Guardian here and the green paper itself is available in all its 224 page majesty here. I will post again when I have digested it, but headlines appear to be:

  • no funding for private law children except where there is d.v., forced marriage or a risk it might ‘go public’
  • more stringent means testing
  • 10% across the board cuts to lawyers fees
  • codification of fixed fees for experts at 10% less than the LSC standard rates

Happy times.

Oh, and in a nice touch, these proposals for cutting the support available to broken families are open for consultation until February 14th. Somehow, I don’t think many of Ken’s Valentine’s will be signed with kisses at the bottom.

Green Paper On Legal Aid Initial Observations #4: Private Law Children Cases

I write this on the train to the FLBA conference in Leeds. I have typed and lost it several times and have resolved to post it before it once again disappears into the ether. You will therefore have to excuse any jerkiness, repetition or overlong sentences. I wanted to post and so I post in the knowledge it is imperfect but heartfelt.

Pa 4.101 of the Green Paper reads as follows:

In the Government’s view, the issues at stake in these cases are extremely important, and the very emotional nature of the subject matter, and the personal circumstances of the individuals involved, will often make it difficult for them to present their own case. We recognise that families must have a practical means of taking part in proceedings brought by public authorities that affect the integrity of the family unit. We do not consider that there are viable alternatives to legal aid. We therefore consider that legal aid funding is justified.

This for me is significant. This section of the text sets out the rationale for continuing legal aid in public law children cases, but what I am struck by is that the thrust of this paragraph is applicable to private law cases as much as it is to public law cases. The emotional nature of the subject matter, the personal circumstances of the individuals involved in private law cases often make it difficult for parents to present their own case in any dispute where there is a risk that they will lose contact with their children or that they will be taken from their care. This is no less so in private law disputes where cases frequently involve domestic violence, mental health, substance abuse, poverty and intergenerational problems with parenting and relationships – and where the practical consequences are as serious for some parents and children even if the potential legal consequences are less so (when compared with adoption orders) – a child’s relationship with one parent can be regulated by the court, but it is significant that it can be effectively destroyed or terminated at the will of one parent if there is not access to private law proceedings, whereas a child’s relationship with one or both parents may be legally and effectively terminated only as a consequence of public law proceedings. The Green Paper purports to aim to redefine the scope of legal aid so as to continue to protect the vulnerable, but in respect of parents in private law proceedings I think it signally fails. Continue Reading…

Green Paper on Legal Aid Initial Observations #3: What About Enforcement?

See previous posts here and here.

At pa 4.14 it is said that the following are at the highest end of a spectrum of objective importance:

‘cases where the individual’s life is at stake, or they are at risk of serious physical harm. Also of high importance are cases where the individual’s liberty is at stake and cases where the individual faces intervention from the state in their family affairs, which may result in their children being removed from their care.’

So I wonder what the position will be in respect of enforcement of orders made under the children act? On the face of it these will be outwith the scope of public funding, unless the d.v. test is met. Committal obviously involves potential loss of liberty, and enforcement orders quasi criminal sanctions in the form of community punishment (unpaid work) – the seriousness of which is reflected by the fact that the amending sections of the act were drafted on the basis that the criminal standard of proof would apply. Surely public funding ought to be available for such matters? Often resistance to a contact order may be in the context of alleged domestic violence in which case funding may well be forthcoming for the respondent to the enforcement application if not the applicant, but what happens when a court has determined that allegations are not made out but the mother (it’s usually but not always the mother) continues to resist? No public funding for either party I think.

I wonder if we will get clarification on these issues prior to February when the consultation closes?