Review of Family Justice
Insight Contacts
David Pickering
National Head of Family
DD +44 (0)161 603 4983
M +44 (0)7712 661 907
Add vCard View BiographyDate: 10/11/11
The long awaited Review of Family Justice was released today and one particular recommendation is likely to cause heated debate amongst family practitioners and controversy amongst parents of children who are involved in disputes concerning care of their children.
The Final Report into Family Justice prepared by the Civil servant David Norgrave for the purposes of informing future Government policy has been eagerly awaited, and despite a recommendation in the Interim Report produced in March of this year by the same author, that a statement should be inserted into legislation to reinforce the importance of the child continuing to have a meaningful relationship with both parents the Final Review does not include such a recommendation.
In a move that is likely to cause consternation for groups such as 'Families Need Fathers' and ‘Fathers 4 Justice’ who had welcomed the interim reports’ previous recommendation, the Final Review rejected the recommendation on the basis that it would create a misleading impression amongst the public that each case would start with a presumption of shared parenting and put excessive pressure on Judges to set out exactly the length of time each parent should spend with their children. Such a statement, it was thought, would endanger the core principle of the paramountcy of the welfare of the child by placing more importance on the rights of the parent rather than the rights of the child.
David Pickering Head of Private Client and Family at DWF LLP comments that: ' this particular conclusion of the Final Review will disappoint many fathers who are seeking a shared parenting arrangement through the Courts. The authors of the report engaged in a very wide ranging consultation process and concluded that a statement in the legislation that expressly recognised the importance of a child having a meaningful relationship with both parents would create a false impression amongst parents that there is a presumption of shared care.
This would not adequately reflect the fact that it is the welfare of the child that is the key determining factor in each case and not the right of each parent toshare care. It is hoped, however, that the Courts will continue to recognise that it is of great importance that cases are determined in a manner that enables children to develop a meaningful relationship with both parents in the majority of cases. There have been significant improvements in this over the last few years.’
