The final report of the Family Justice Review published last week describes delays in public law as scandalous, with care proceedings taking on average over a year to complete and private law cases an average of 32 weeks - delays which risk incalculable harm to already vulnerable children and families. It castigates a system which is not just failing children and families but also the professionals working within it.

Family Justice Service

The report proposes a new Family Justice Service to address lack of co-ordination, poor leadership and inadequate case management, all of which impact on the welfare of children. The Law Society supports improved direction and co-ordination but institutional change can be expensive and time-consuming. Its success risks being undermined without proper resourcing and careful implementation.

Public law

When the Children Act came into force, care proceedings were expected to be completed within an average of 12 weeks. More than 20 years later these cases normally last over a year.

In what has become its headline recommendation, the review calls for new legislation to introduce a statutory six-month time limit, extendable by the court only in exceptional circumstances.

Although a six-month time limit is an admirable goal, there are concerns among family practitioners that it risks compromising the child’s best interests in the making of a lifelong decision. Each care case turns on vastly varying family circumstances and issues. Blanket policies and rigid time limits could compound the very problems that the report aims to address. This is particularly worrying with cuts in the legal aid budget and delays in guardian appointments.

Welcome reforms such as more robust judicial case management, greater judicial continuity and reduced reliance on expert witnesses need to prove their effectiveness before the introduction of potentially risky statutory time limits. The Law Society welcomes the retention of the tandem model of representation of children by a children panel solicitor and a guardian.

Worryingly, however, the review also recommends the exploration of an in-house tandem model, presumably along the lines of Cafcass legal. This would need to be thoroughly researched and trialled before a radical reform of this nature could be considered further.

Practitioners have voiced concerns at proposals for a reduction in court scrutiny of local authority care plans for children. With cuts in local authority budgets, frequent changes in social workers and problems with the effectiveness of the review system for children in care, the worry is that thorough court scrutiny of care plans is indispensable in providing a safety net for children in the care system.

Private law

The Law Society is doubtful about the review’s proposal for doing away with residence and contact orders and replacing them with increased use of parenting agreements and the introduction of child arrangement orders. Such changes in terminology may prove to be cosmetic and the reality is that public perception is likely to remain unchanged.

The Law Society welcomes the controversial decision that legislation should not be introduced that gives the perception of a presumption in favour of shared parenting when a relationship breaks down. Such presumption risks subordinating a child’s best interests to the parents’ expectations of ‘equal’ rights.

The review sees mediation playing an increasingly important role in dispute resolution. In many cases this will be effective but, either because of intractability or where parties cannot safely engage in it, mediation cannot be regarded as a panacea.

Overall the review is positive and many of the recommendations are eminently sensible. Its success in improving family justice will require changes in culture, practice and structures, together with targeted and sustainable investment.

Naomi Angell is co-chair of the family law committee of the Law Society