The article states that it is in children’s law where the most significant developments will occur, especially in relation to shared parenting. There will be a “presumption of shared parenting”, although perhaps there is confusion as to how this will be reflected by judges in deciding the cases before them. The courts have been directed to look at issues in terms of what is best for the child rather than any “rights” a particular parent may claim to have. However, as is said, that is pretty much the situation now so how the new shared parenting ideals may work out in practice is debatable.

Is that an accurate, if brief, description of the new concept of shared parenting? That it is essentially a concept and something that should be borne in mind when a court is asked to decide a case. Surely that should be the case now. That two parents are better than one is very much the thinking anyway, so it will be interesting to see if the new recommendations make any practical difference.

Link
Family Justice Review

Of that number of 3.6m, the vast majority live with either a “hazardous” or a “dependant” drinker while about 350,000 reside with a parent who has a drug problem, and these households also account for the majority of inquiries into child abuse.

Addaction also looked at the measures that can be taken to help these problem families and, while criticising the cost and effectiveness of rehabilitation programmes and the lack of training amongst some social workers, the charity did feel that some measures could prove more effective.

These include sending a drug or alcohol worker into the home to work with the parent on their issues. Also, it mentioned its own Breaking the Cycle programme which looks after addicted parents and also makes sure that their children are fed and attend school.

The numbers given by Addaction seem massive, 3.6m children affected is a huge figure though it would be interesting to find out how they determine how a drinker is “hazardous” and who is “dependant”. What level of drinking does that involve?

Link

It is expected that 240 children will be affected in this way in 2012, compared to just 27 in 2007 and is likely to rise further in future years. The judge said that 65% of children born in London in 2010 had at least one foreign parent, so international family litigation is clearly a growing area. His report indicates that most cases in Europe involve children taken to or from Germany and Poland and relations between social workers in both England and Poland are often fraught with it being difficult to establish who has jurisdiction.

Lord Justice Thorpe also alleged that Italy and Poland did not have a judge that British authorities could talk to on the matter, while he also said there had been difficulties with courts in India, Egypt and Mexico. Is it a growing problem in your experience and could more be done by way of international action to try and prevent the problem occurring? We’d like to know what you think.

Link

The study was for the Family Justice Council and was conducted by Professor Jane Ireland who was herself often used as an expert witness in family law cases. She found in her research that 20% of “expert witnesses” used – often psychologists or psychiatrists – were not actually qualified as such and that a further fifth of cases saw people compiling reports in fields that were beyond their knowledge and qualifications. She also found that an overwhelming majority of the “expert witnesses” used were no longer working in current practice but were “professional expert witnesses”.

As a consequence, Professor Ireland says that a review of the expert witnesses used in family proceedings is urgently needed. Surely she is right and her research highlights a scandal. How many children have been affected by the testimony given by “experts” who were not qualified to give their advice to the court? If you have views feel free to post them on here!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2114173/Scandal-unqualified-experts-advise-family-courts-Decisions-care-thousands-children-routinely-flawed.html

The General Synod of the Church of England has said that, from next year, the cost of a wedding ceremony in a C of E church will go up from 296 to 415 in a bid to standardise costs while funeral service fees also go up, from 102 to 160.

The fees have caused some controversy within the Synod with some feeling it wrong to try and get more money out of people during these uncertain economic times. They say it sends the wrong message and could even act as a deterrent to those intending to commit themselves to marriage.

Could this news mean that more people will opt for a registry office wedding than a church, or even forgo marriage altogether? When the cost of a registry office do is closer to 100 than over 400, maybe so. The Rt Rev John Packer, the Bishop of Ripon and Leeds justified the increases, saying they would bring the price closer to the reality of the costs and said there had been confusion caused by different parishes charging different prices.

He said that in most cases mediation is a more sensible alternative to court as it is, on the whole, quicker, cheaper and less confrontational, therefore more easily allowing compromise.

A change in the rules means that couples who are separating must complete a mandatory assessment to see whether mediation would be a better option for them. The government, for its part, has increased its spending on the service, by two-thirds to 25m a year. It is part of a commitment generally to see people and also businesses take up alternative dispute resolution for any issues that occur, using the courts very much as a last resort. Do you support the stance the government is taking? Surely it is right to say that mediation should be encouraged and that couples should avoid court action if at all possible.

South Yorkshire police data, following the Freedom of Information request, reported almost 1,000 children going missing from foster care and residential homes last year and officers warn that councils are failing to get a grip of the problem with many keeping hugely inaccurate figures as to who is actually in their care. Two councils in the Yorkshire region admitted that they did not keep complete records and some others said that they kept a record of missing episodes rather than children.

Though many go missing in order to see friends or family who are regarded as unsafe by the relevant local authority, those who do run away increase the likelihood of their becoming involved in drugs, crime and possible sexual exploitation. Police say that about 1,000 is spent on trying to trace every child who goes missing, so millions are spent in this way each year.

It s not a well publicised issue but important in terms of crime and, as mentioned above, the possibility of sexual orientation. What can local authorities do to keep the children under tighter control? Human rights legislation may become an issue if they are restricted on where they can go and who they can see. Hard to see a satisfactory conclusion to this one, but if you have any answers let us know!

Under the proposals, the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support service (Cafcass) will be incorporated into the Family Justice Service to provide court social work functions but that will not happen until 2015, meaning there will be a potential three-year vacuum. Ultimately the aim is to have a single family court along with specific judges rather than the current system which has been accused of failing children and their families.

There are concerns over the plans and whether they are still feasible in the current economic climate and there are worries, specifically over legal aid cuts which will theoretically mean more people going to court without legal representation. It is argued that this will add to court time and the changes will mean there are fewer family lawyers available to assist.

Are you an advocate of the changes or do you foresee problems ahead too? Please contribute to the discussion.

The website directgov sees record numbers of people logging on to search for the word “divorce” or other related terms in the first few weeks of a New Year and it is widely recognised to be a time, soon after Christmas, when people re-evaluate their lives with some deciding on a different path.

However, in cases where couples are committed to a life apart, the government is stressing that the whole procedure could be made less painful and potentially less expensive if they choose mediation rather than court.

Justice minister Jonathan Djanogly said that by taking this route rather than going through the courts, the couple can keep control of their own situation and can work constructively towards an outcome that satisfies both parties. He said that potentially mediation is quicker, cheaper and more amicable and is particularly suited to those marriages where children are involved as it can allow the parents to think constructively about the long term future of the children.

The mediation process requires both people sitting down together with a qualified mediator and discussing their issues in an effort to find solutions, rather than putting their future in the hands of solicitors and ultimately a judge. New rules mean that those who contest the terms of separation now have to consider mediation before deciding to go to court and the government has shown its intention by increasing spending on mediation for family disputes by two thirds to £25m annually.

Jane Robey, the CEO of National Family Mediation, said that January was statistically a time when many couples choose to end their relationship due to factors such as having to be together for an extended time at Christmas and dreading the New Year. She said it was positive news that from now on, more couples than ever will have the chance to seriously consider mediation and how it can work for them.

Source: http://www.justice.gov.uk/news/press-releases/moj/newsrelease060112a.htm