Inquisitorial judges at heart of family reform proposals
Greater case management by judges is at the heart of the judiciary’s proposals for the modernisation of family justice, published today.
Mr Justice Ryder, the judge in charge of the family court modernisation process accompanying the Crime and Courts Bill, set out his plans to improve the workings of family courts this morning.
The bill currently before parliament provides for a new single family court to replace and simplify existing arrangements. Its launch will provide the vehicle for the modernisation programme.
The aim is for the court to have a new structure, with its work directly managed by the judiciary and where all levels of judge and magistrate are members of the same court, sitting as ‘judges of the family court’. The High Court will remain separate and its jurisdiction preserved.
The plan follows themes set out in a speech given by Ryder last month. These include proposals to manage cases closely, identifying key issues and making sure timetables are followed with parties penalised for failing to comply, and greater scrutiny of experts.
Under the new regime, judges will adopt an inquisitorial approach to family cases, limiting cross-examination by the parties themselves, to deal with the volume of litigants in person expected once legal aid is withdrawn for most private law family cases.
One of the ‘immediate challenges’, the report says, is how to develop effective methods of assisting litigants in person in private law cases while maintaining fairness to all parties. It says that a ‘consistent but firm approach’ will be developed to litigants, whether represented or not, to ensure that issues remain in focus and are addressed within the timetable set by the court, with sanctions including fixed costs being paid by parties for non-compliance.
A private law pathway will be published to describe what a court can and cannot do and how it does it. ‘In a conventional case there may be restrictions on the right of one party to cross-examine another, relying on each party having their say, then the judge identifying further issues and asking questions him or herself,’ it says.
One if the key aims of the changes is to reduce delays in the system, and essential to that will be more effective management of existing judicial resources with more continuity and better listing practices. To better manage public law cases, there will be rule and practice direction changes, known as pathways, relating to the use of experts and a timetable track which will presume that non-exceptional cases can be completed in 26 weeks.
A statement of principles of evidence to use in children proceedings will explain that other than adversarial fact-finding where necessary, the judge’s function in determining the welfare of the child is investigative.
Ryder’s report says that the judge is in control will decide what is to be determined, what evidence is necessary for that decision to be made and how it is to be tested before the court.
On plans for greater openness and transparency of the family justice system, Ryder says that arguments for the confidentiality of proceedings are balanced by arguments for the need for a family court to explain and demonstrate its decision-making.
Ryder’s recommendations were today endorsed by the lord chief justice Lord Judge. He said: '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.
'This process has been tried in the Crown court. Active case management is part of the judge's daily responsibility. IT has produced efficiency in the criminal justice process, without any consequent diminution in the quality of justice administered there.'
But he said that the ambition to reduce delay cannot be achieved by judges alone. 'Huge efforts will be required from the different parts of the system, including in particular Cafcass and local authorities. There will be a measure of shared responsibility for the improvement that we all require.'
Law Society president Lucy Scott-Moncrieff said, 'Effective case-management is vital to reducing delays in the family courts. Judicial continuity, specialisation and leadership are all essential to good case-management.
'Fast-tracking child care cases will help identify those cases which can be finished within the government’s proposed 26-week time limit. Delays also need to be reduced in cases where separating and divorcing couples are seeking the court’s help in making arrangements for their children.'
But she added: 'Achieving these aims without additional resources will be a challenge. The rise in numbers of unrepresented participants following the cuts to legal aid will put enormous pressure on the courts and the family justice system as a whole. There is an immediate challenge to develop effective methods of assisting parents without legal representation in private law cases.'
Comments
Ryder Will Never Address Systemic Family Court Practice Problems
The Ryder reforms are likely to be a case of re-arranging the deckchairs.
The longstanding problems with the Family Court will never change until control over the Court and its cases is taken out of the hands of Judges appointed from the English Bar and out of the control or influence of their colleagues at the English Bar.
The Family Court has a reputation amongst the public, practitioners, politicians, expert witnesses and journalists for administering injustice. Ryder reform plans will bring about change to that reputation.
We need a new system to break up the incestuous organic and social relationships behind the English Bar's system of Barrister's Chambers and appointments to the Judiciary - mainly from its own members.
There is an unhealthy relationship between the Judges, predominantly from the English Bar and their friends and former colleagues at the Bar who appear before them. They in practice control most of what takes place. The problems with the Family Court are systemic and organic. So it is unlikely any judge appointed to deal with the problems will ever go to the heart of the matter.
Solicitor Judges and Solicitor Advocates are a step forward in breaking up this cosy insidious cartel in British justice controlled by Judges appointed predominantly from the English Bar and by the Bar. But that is hardly even a pin-prick on the carbunkel.
We can see from the report in the Gazette yesterday that the claimed high ethical standards of the English Bar are a myth, which go unpoliced by any effective system of regulation:-
"Review slams ‘systemic failures’ in bar’s disciplinary system" Monday 30 July 2012 by Catherine Baksi
http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/review-slams-systemic-failures-bar-s-disciplinary-system?utm_source=emailhosts&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=GAZ+-+30%2F07%2F2012
The Bar Council better start looking at its own ranks before it has any standing to attack the only relatively recent phenomenon the Solicitor Advocates.
The Family Court is and will continue to be a Court whose Judges fail to observe basic principles of procedural fairness and justice. The long abandonment of pleadings means issues are introduced on spec in Court instead of being defined in advance. Litigants can be and are taken by surprise and faced with a litany of invention and accusation introduced "on spec" during the course of a case which they have to try to answer and when least fitted psychologically to do so.
This is at the culmination of a long process during which they have been softened up by unpalatable conduct of some lawyers and when they have been are subjected to considerable stress, not knowing what invention and accusation they may face at the next hearing before the trial.
The position is compounded by the Judges of the Family Court who appear to do nothing whatsoever about improper litigation conduct by the lawyers who appear before them as Officers of the Court and who may be their former colleagues, current friends and social peers.
It is a Court system which rewards the wrongdoer and punishes the victim. Those of the lawyers who fail to observe accepted standards of conduct in Family Court cases and routinely act in contravention of their obligations to the Court and under the rules of Court go undealt with, save to the extent they are rewarded with the outcome they seek by such conduct.
The worst aspects of course are when it comes to children and the false evidence presented by social workers from some local authorities and the consequent cases which some members of the English Bar present. There has long been complaint about these abuses and nothing has been done. Ryder will never address that. The litigants cannot do it - it is the lawyers who do it for them and the Judges who make it all happen. And the Judges just let it go on day in and day out.
The Family Court thus operates and maintains a Cheats Charter. Under the auspices of the Court wrongdoers who play the system and break the rules are rewarded and victims of that wrongdoing punished. The Judges do nothing about sometimes rampant impropriety taking place daily within the walls of their Courts and even under their noses. And nor do other members of the English Bar despite it being their duty to report it.
Regrettably of course it is a self-perpetuating system in that those members of the Bar who do operate unscrupulously and unlawfully may eventually be recruited to the ranks of the judiciary. Not all members of the English Bar behave improperly and likely many or most do not, but one too many do and they are allowed to get away scot free by their colleagues and Judges alike. The public as always pay the price and the lawyers collect.
We could clean up litigation in this country in six months if improper conduct were to be dealt with at source at the time in the Court. With the current social and other relationships between Judges and the English Bar that will of course never happen.
Correction - Ryder Will Never Address Systemic Family Court
This sentence should read:
"Ryder reform plans will not bring about change to that reputation."
Well said, Mr. Miller. The
Well said, Mr. Miller. The whole system is corrupt and court documents and not being properly processed by the courts either. They are being served on people unlawfully. Obviously, court managers and judges are participating in the corruption of the justice system.
Lots of dirty games are being played, as well as he issuance of injunctions to silence whistleblowers.
It is nothing more than a criminal cartel.
CORRECTION The whole system
CORRECTION The whole system is corrupt and court documents and not being properly processed by SHOULD READ The whole system is corrupt and court documents ARE not being properly processed by
Yes, judges "managing" cases
Yes, judges "managing" cases has worked out so well in the County Courts we need more of it!
Interesting observations
Some interesting thoughts there by C Miller and in the article
Having watched a couple of cases in the High Court a few things have struck me about how the litigation was managed. Firstly it was the way that the judges in each case allowed the parties to ramble on without interruption for the whole morning about matters which were not really relevant. I wondered at the time how the judge could possibly make sense of everything. However when the written judgement was issued you could see that the judge had cut through the nonsense and basically made the relevant points of merit for each side. Therefore it seemed to me that the hearings were rather pointless and were just an excercise to let people have their day in court or their say. I suppose the main benefit of a hearing was that the judge could make a judgement of the character of the parties which might have helped in the decision making - but for me it seemed wasteful.
The other thing is the conduct of the parties and case management. I believe the court should be much firmer with the parties which abuse the system. Particularly those who lie in court, breach protocols and do not pay cost orders but carry on litigating unrestrained. It seems to have become almost accepted practice to lie and manipulate your way through proceedings and not pay cost orders.
Finally I think there are issues where one party can prolong unnecessary litigation through the appeal system and get several bites at the cherry when really the Appeal Court should nail things down and deal with all the issues. Having seen one completely meritless case result in around at least 15 separate hearings over four years, there seems to be a problem in the Appeal Court in granting leave to appeal on the grounds of irrelevant procederal points and immaterial errors made by the lower court judge. It would have been as clear as day to Mickey Mouse that the litigation was doomed but leave to appeal was granted on several occasions. Then when the Appeal Court had a hearing on the merits it ruled that the decision was for the lower court and the case was bounced between both courts for years after. Seems to be an ownership issue and as an observer outside the profession I would welcome any comments as to why someone should get leave to appeal when it is refused by the judge at the first hearing, then refused on paper by the AC and finally given when the litigant excercises his right to an oral hearing.
Seems to be that some courts in the High Court can be a vexatious litigant's paradise.
Ryder proposals
Mr Miller, who is I note an intellectual property lawyer, makes a large number of assertions in his commentary. None is supported by any evidence produced by him.
His caricature of the Family Courts system bears no relation to reality. Especially since the last round of "reforms", the vast bulk of cases is currently dealt with either in the County Court or in the Family Proceedings Court. Very many of the County Court Circuit Judges and the vast majority of District Judges are solicitors not barristers. The FPCs have a lay bench supported by a legally qualified clerk. The "insidious cartel" is not involved.
I suspect that the truth of the matter is that Mr Miller personally has had a bad experience and seeks to generalise from the particular.
Ryder Will Never Address Systemic Family Court Practice Problems
Peter Williams calls my description a "caricature of the Family Courts system" [which] "bears no relation to reality".
Mr Williams does not say what his connection is with the Family Court but also does not like seem to like a spade being called a spade. I stand by what I wrote: "The Family Court has a reputation amongst the public, practitioners, politicians, expert witnesses and journalists for administering injustice. Ryder reform plans will not bring about change to that reputation."
Perhaps Mr Williams might like to explain how his wonderful Family Court system could allow either of the two cases mention here [without breaching reporting restrictions] to happen. And perhaps Mr Williams might explain away how it can be that the wonderful Family Court system allows the horrendous other cases which other professionals I know directly involved in the Family Court system have experienced and witnessed themselves.
My first experience of the Family Court system, but not my only one, was in the successful defence of a medical doctor who gave evidence as an expert witness in the Family Court which contradicted the entrenched views of those who support the interests of the drug industry. Another experience in a professional capacity albeit not acting in the proceedings concerned regarded a 7 year-old child taken for adoption on the basis of evidence which was false and important evidence which had been withheld by social workers that they knew and had recorded the family had been the target of 5 years of malicious complaints to social services.
In the case in which I acted, my client was charged by the GMC with serious professional misconduct and presenting misleading evidence to the Family Court. This was following her evidence being described by Lord Justice Sedley in the Court of Appeal as "junk science".
After three weeks of hearings before the GMC involving approaching 400 medical and scientific references and the reports of 5 experts being minutely examined my client was not simply found not guilty. In an unusual finding her defence was found proven to the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt.
The GMC prosecutor's main expert witness, a hospital consultant in a leading hospital, admitted in cross-examination that his criticisms of my client's reports were "quibbling".
The panel stated regarding my client:
"The Panel were sure that at no stage did you allow any views that you held to overrule your duty to the Court and the litigants." "the Panel is sure that in the reports you provided you did not fail to be objective, independent and unbiased." "You demonstrated to the Panel that your reports did not derive from your deeply held views and your evidence supported this." "You largely used what was available in refereed medical journals."
So how can Lord Justice Sedley's remarks in the Court of Appeal be squared with that? And of course those remarks were made when my client was neither present, a party, represented nor given any opportunity to answer.
Nice eh, Mr Williams? The Family Court and all who sail in her seem to uphold a great system of justice.
These kinds of cases can only happen because of the positive actions of the lawyers and the judges - the clients cannot do it by themselves - they need help of the highly paid and highly skilled and educated "professionals" to achieve these kinds of outcomes.
Does that evidence suffice Mr Williams? If it does not, I am quietly confident others can produce far far worse examples, that is if they are not gagged by the reporting restrictions which were meant to be but have not been relaxed in practice. So basically, the Family Court can carry on business as usual as if nothing has changed and ignore what Parliament decrees is the law.
Another Act of Parliament will make no difference. We have seen them before. We also have voluminous tomes of Family Court Rules for decades but they don't seem to make much difference either to whether they are taken notice of or not by the Family Court.
The government underestimates the problems ahead
In theory, many of the things the government are trying to achieve are entirely admirable. However firstly, how many times have we heard governments of different political persuasions argue that the length of care cases need to be brought down – usually by using existing judicial resources more efficiently. In my many years experience as a specialist care lawyer, cases often dragged on far too long without strong management by judges – do you really expect that to change overnight without a huge change in culture? Secondly, if you want to speed up the time care cases take, at a time when more care applications are being made, there will need to be more judicial time made available. Unless judges can indeed spend less time on existing cases, in the absence of additional resources, I don't see how that's possible. Thirdly, I suspect the government underestimates the enormous delay that will be caused by litigants in person. In my experience, courts fall over backwards to help litigants in person – allowing them more time than they would to clients represented by experienced family lawyers. Fourthly, there are often very good reasons why care cases take in excess of 26 weeks. This is not the first-time that a government has tried to impose a rigid time-limit on to cases – it failed last time and will fail again. Lastly, the courts will have to tread very carefully indeed when it comes to restricting hearings and the right to cross examination – especially for litigants in person. Failure to do so will inevitably open up grounds for innumerable appeal cases [you can just hear human rights lawyers rubbing their hands with glee] – which will clog the system up further.
"Another experience in a
"Another experience in a professional capacity albeit not acting in the proceedings concerned regarded a 7 year-old child taken for adoption on the basis of evidence which was false and important evidence which had been withheld by social workers that they knew and had recorded the family had been the target of 5 years of malicious complaints to social services."
Presumably, if the evidence was false, these mysterious people with whom you were involved 'in a professional capacity albeit not acting in the proceedings' were able to adduce evidence to prove its falsity.
As a lowly child care specialist (as opposed to a high-flying lawyer with fingers in many legal pies 'albeit not acting in the proceedings'), I'd come to believe that's what trials are about: proving the truth or otherwise of facts asserted by one party or another. Perhaps things are different in the high-powered world of IP law.
How The Family Court's Cheats' Charter Works
Graeme Harrison writes "if the evidence was false, these mysterious people with whom you were involved 'in a professional capacity albeit not acting in the proceedings' were able to adduce evidence to prove its falsity."
He clearly has no idea of what the Family Court judges allow to go on under their noses.
We have social workers from some local authorities who wait weeks and repeatedly suddenly produce evidence the night before a hearing taking by surprise stressed and deeply anxious parents who cannot think straight to properly instruct their lawyers. We have barristers who still go into court to present such cases on behalf of local authorities. We have judges who just let it all happen. Judges who when it suits them ignore the voluminous rules of the Family Court and when it does not suit then stand on ceremony and let cases like that go ahead - because we don't want to waste the precious time of the Family Court do we.
And of course the parents, if they are represented, are represented by members of the same Family Bar possibly at legal aid rates who will be acquaintances and friends of their opponents. But of course those barristers are not friends or acquaintainces of their dispensible clients who the next day they may no longer have to deal with.
It is a very nice cosy system which causes immense injustice and Ryder's proposals will not touch that cancer unlying the Family Court system.
So Mr Harrison perhaps you might be so kind as to declare your interests. Perhaps you are a member of the extensive Child Protection Industry in this country some of whom make their living ensuring these injustices take place and whose approach is that it is better that 10,000 children of innocent parents are taken into care lest one might be abused. You know the kind of people, zealots like Dr Marietta Higgs who with her colleague sparked an entire false abuse scandal in Cleveland in the 1980s - of should we consider the false abuse scandal in the Orkneys.
Or perhaps we might consider those social workers who routinely accuse mothers of Munchausen's Syndrome By Proxy - a creation of the no discredited Professor Roy Meadow or social workers who without qualifications "diagnose" parents as mentally ill and then instruct a favourite psychiatrist to produce an opinion in support.
Or perhaps we might consider the entirely scientifically barking mad concept of "shaken baby syndrome", the physics of which does not stand up to scrutiny and the unsubstantiated theory of a "triad" of injuries was shown to be false when it was shown by a pathologist at the Royal London that petechial hemorrhage is found in infants who die by natural causes.
But of course it is still goes on and it goes on because of and not despite the Judges of the Family Court and the members of the Family Bar.
Now please tell me there is nothing wrong with the Family Court and that if there is anything wrong we cannot lay the responsibility for it wholly and squarely at the feet of the Judges of the Family Court and the English Family Bar.
How The Family Court's Cheats' Charter Works
Correction - "no discredited Professor Roy Meadow" should read "now discredited Professor Roy Meadow"
Example
The "junk science" case refers to Dr Jane Donegan, who was a witness in a hearing which took place in 2002. The Court of Appeal decision, including Sedley LJ's "junk science" comment, was handed down in July 2003. The report is on BAILII. I'm not sure that this is entirely relevant to 2012 experience. Nor am I quite sure what it proves.
The trial judge had preferred the other side's expert evidence. Maybe he was wrong. That happens. There again, perhaps, he wasn't wrong.
The fact that the GMC subsequently decided to act against Dr Donegan has nothing to do with the Family Courts.
I fail to see how this single case can be cited as authority for Mr Miller's sweeping generalisations. My firm does a considerable amount of Family work, both publicly funded and not. I would not venture to suggest that every case ends in the right, or just, result. It is not my firm's experience, however, that the whole system is corrupt as alleged by Mr Miller. It is far from perfect and the 2013 proposals will make it even worse. Nevertheless, my perception is that the Courts are doing their best and that they get it right more often than not.
Perhaps we should stand the question on its head and ask Mr Miller how he'd decide difficult child care cases with conflicting factual and expert evidence and convince the parties (whether parents, grandparents, children, giardians or local authorities) that their case had been properly and fairly heard and that the outcome, whatever it was, was not the unjust consequence of judicial bias and/or the cosy relationship with the Bar.
How The Family Court's Cheats' Charter Works
Mr Williams is showing extreme bias and a certain lack of professional detachment [his comments Fri, 03/08/2012 - 16:16].
Mr Williams demonstrates that even when the Family Court system gets it completely wrong - and in that case serious injustice was done to the children concerned and their mothers - he is not willing to accept that. And then he expects us to rely on his judgement that the Family Court "... get it right more often than not". Or perhaps it gets it wrong more often? The lack of balance in what Mr Williams says makes it difficult to accept his strongly held personal view.
Of a case which was so strong that the GMC did not simply find the case against "not proven" but most unusually found my client's case proven to the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt, Mr Williams, strangely for a solicitor, errs on the side of the defamatory by saying of the original Family Court trial judge "Maybe he was wrong ... perhaps, he wasn't wrong."
And of course, especially when it comes to children, the Family Court should never get it wrong. So we have to ask - why does it?
He then says of one of the two examples I gave [and they are no different from what other professionals say is their experience of the Family Court] "I'm not sure that this is entirely relevant to 2012 experience. Nor am I quite sure what it proves."
Mr Williams would therefore like to have us think that at some point between 2002 and 2012 the Family Court has dramatically changed. It has not.
All straw-men arguments.
Further the relevance is that the original Family Court hearings [from which that total exoneration of my client in the GMC case arose] exemplify all that is wrong with the Family Court system at all levels from solicitors, to experts, to Counsel, to the trial judge and on appeal.
So when Mr Williams asserts "The fact that the GMC subsequently decided to act against Dr Donegan has nothing to do with the Family Courts" he is making a claim which is directly contrary to the facts - the GMC case only arose because of the routine system of injustice in the Family Court.
But I can understand why he Mr Williams is personally unwilling to accept any criticism of the system his firm earns its living doing a great deal of work in.
Mr Williams then tries to change the subject with "Perhaps we should stand the question on its head and ask Mr Miller how he'd decide difficult child care cases with conflicting factual and expert evidence".
Why? The case I am putting is that the system itself is broken. What is supposed to happen to ensure just and fair hearings does not. The responsibility for that we can lay firmly at the feet of the Judges - they allow some advocates who act improperly to do things they should not and they allow some solicitors who act improperly to do things they should not. Even when it is plainly under the noses of the Judges they do nothing about it. If they did tackle it we could clean up the Family Court in six months. There are no sanctions applied to solicitors or counsel for improper conduct. And the cosy relationships between the judges and the English Family Bar are most unhealthy. The full-time judges are predominantly drawn from the English Family Bar - who are their former colleagues and current friends and social peers. The part-time judges of course are still officially part of the English Bar.
So ask the right questions Mr Williams. You cannot have just outcomes and hearings when the system is run in such a way that is not what happens in far too many cases.
We should stop pretending.
Inquisitorial
In a genuine inquisitorial (truth-seeking) system, judges are trained as judges separately from lawyers, and relevant evidence is not concealed.
Those trained judges are in charge of evidence, and do not let lawyers question witnesses directly lest they pollute the truth with sophistry (trick questions, false arguments etc.).
Until that happens, it is not accurate to say that the Family Court will be “inquisitorial”.
The Family courts will never
The Family courts will never make public the figures of how many cases have been won by parents entering these courts, the whole system, is based on the parents will never win, we have started and we will finish, admit to the accussations and you will get you child/children back, not that they ever will, I aliken it to witch dipping. At the end of the day the system is a Christian law system, judgement day comes to us all and over the years the lives of those that cross the line, the judgement comes sooner than they expect, and their own lives do not turn out a bed of roses
Family forgotten.
Is it absurb to think that Family Court should be of benefit to the family? It seems to me that everyone makes a fine living on the backs of the children who are taken from their families by win at all costs social workers, LA barristers, experts and the like who know they will win because they know the system and know how to manipulate it. The whole system is corrupt. Hearsay, no real evidence required and at the discretion of the Judge! Bring in mediation & support struggling families, not all are like the Connelly monster! Those that are should be dealt with in the criminal court. In criminal court everyone is entitled to legal representation, is evidence based and has a jury. Take the money incentives away from family court, social workers should use their skills to help keep families together. At the rate they are going no children will be left living with their own families, they will have done themselves out of a job.
In criminal courts
In criminal courts representation under legal aid is dependent on your earnings. Most people would not qualify for legal aid at it's current levels. Those people have to either represent themselves or pay for a solicitors. Same as civil courts.
90% plus of cases are dealt with in the magistrates court - so no jury.
Evidence is requried in the family courts as in all other courts. The suggestion that removal of the children is anything other than a last resort is simply not the case.
Think the Family Court is bad? Compare with Court of Protection
I'm sorry that Mr Miller and others have this disgraceful view of the conduct of the judiciary and others in the Family Court. They should all be brought before the court for contempt.And awarded medals for stepping out and saying what is happening. As someone has written, where do the court users come in this?.
But the Family Court has competition. The Court of Protection is supposed to - well protect people, you would think. And who in particular? People who are suffering from menral incapacity, not surprisingly called Patients.
So you've guessed already. What does it do in fact? I'm told in one case alone it allowed three different firms of solicitors to claim or overcharge one Patient a total of £45000. It also has no system in operation to check the certificates in the bills are true.. It simply relies on certificates stating that the bill ia na indemnity one. A fraudsters paradise.
When fraud and overcharging is discovered, what does it do? Nothing.
So which firms behave in such a manner as to bring the whole profession into disrepute? Irwin Mitchell (held by the Court ro have double charged and cahrged overheads as costs for examples) Mishcon De Reya (have a false certificate as to sums paid by their client enabling them to obtain £27 000 overpayment) and Quality Solicitors Wilson Browne ( who claimed , according to a judge, nearly £4000 in excess of their client agreement)
@Celia Nelson Choice,
@Celia Nelson
Choice, stealing money or a childs life, I would opt for the prior, once these courts have done their dammedest and a child disappears from its family, most times never to know the heartbreak, injustice left behind with a family that never stops grieving the loss, hoping and praying the family they are placed with are at least 50% the family that fought and lost in this countries corrupt Family Cour System
Justice
I am not a lawyer nor do I have a reason for "sour grapes", but I have had a lifelong interest in the legal system and its practitioners inc judges, whom I now lump with politicians as the most contemptible hypocrites, the ones for claiming to purvey Justice (laughably "according to Law", which often conflicts with, and then generally overrides, it) and the others for imposing their self-interest by right of feigned "democratic" reform. Justice requires that resounding "equality of arms", but when did the legal profession, in particular, judges, make any attempt to turn that resonance into reality?
Justice for children you might think would be a priority concern, but comments here and decades of press reports show it not to be so: procedural matters for Courts and Local Authorities as well as protection of backs and budgets for the latter often submerge the "paramount" interests of the child. Why on earth, I have long wondered, do children not have, in their own right, free legal representation in cases which involve their most basic rights? Rarely do they have any income or wealth of their own, yet that has never, apparently, entitled them to Legal Aid. Instead, they are dependent upon someone else, either family or institutional, to obtain a solicitor/barrister, who then takes instructions from them which may not be consonant with either their wishes or interests or both. As I understand, such a lawyer is not obliged to consult the children and, for all I know, may rarely think fit to do so. (I base this on a - divorce - case I do know of, where the social worker told the Court that the 2 children, girls 10 and 12, wanted, contrary to the assumed default option, to stay with their father. There was a lot of surprise among the professionals when the judge invited the children into his chambers and returned to rule in their favour, saying they had clearly articulated reasons why staying with their father would in all ways be best for them, including freedom of access to their mother whenever they wanted.) Why do they not have a lawyer to argue their case? The father's lawyer might be subsuming their interest into his ( and the social worker was apparently miffed at the decision).
Why have the promoters of Justice never challenged this, neither lawyers themselves nor the champions of Civil Liberties and Human Rights? Isn't this one of the areas of our famed "Common Law" which the Supreme Court could bring into line with modern expectations for the protection of children without the need for legislation? I do hope you will forgive my treading so critically into your preserves.