'Without the FDAC... I’d be dead': On the fringes at Labour in Liverpool

Party conferences are carefully choreographed these days but they still provide ordinary citizens with access to the people with influence and power to change things for the better. Where else would you see parents who have gone through family court proceedings share their experiences with the courts minister in a dockside bar?

Discussions about justice often focus heavily on the numbers – but rarely do we see politicians hear directly from the people behind those numbers.

In a packed corner of Revolution, minister Sarah Sackman listened to a mother who went through standard family court proceedings explain how the courts, judges, police and social workers frightened her. She feared they would pick apart her life and make her feel like a terrible parent – make her relive her traumatic life and not be believed. See her as a liar because she used to be an addict. Talk at her and about her. But she went through family court proceedings because ‘I had to fight for my children’.

The event heard that the children’s father was violent and aggressive, but he was not convicted because the mother could not prove it. Going through standard family court proceedings, the mother’s mental health plummeted. She reunited with the father and they had another child. For their youngest, they went through the family drug and alcohol court (FDAC).

The mother said: ‘Going through FDAC, having someone to hear me, someone who understood. When I was in the family court before, I was trying to talk about abuse and told “we’re not here for that, we’re here to assess how well your children are being looked after”. FDAC do not do that. They look at the whole package. Everything was relevant. Incidentally, I have all my children back with me now. I have no idea what I would have done without FDAC. I’m pretty sure I would be dead.’

Analysis commissioned by the Department for Education shows that a single case that goes through FDAC instead of traditional proceedings could save a council £10,000 in legal costs. The problem-solving court has many fans, including the lady chief justice. But there are only 14 FDACs covering 37 local authorities. That number could shrink without more central funding. Phil Bowen, director of the Centre for Justice Innovation, which has been championing FDACs, told the event that a court has opened in Merseyside, but one is at risk in the Black Country.

‘We need the money,’ the mother declared, the minister watching on. ‘It’s not a lot. We roll out [FDAC] nationwide so every child has the chance to have a healthy family.’

The following day, the Gazette was invited to attend a private event organised by business lobby group Fair Civil Justice, led by former City solicitor and MP Seema Kennedy, to hear about the risks posed by exploitative third-party litigation funding practices.

Shortly after the last election, Burnley MP Ryan Oliver was approached by residents who were victims of cowboy cavity wall insulation schemes.

He told the event: ‘These people felt left on the scrapheap by various government schemes, helpless and subject to predatory legal approaches from legal sharks who promised the earth on a “no win, no fee” basis. An awful lot of people were misled as to what it was they were signing up to. Some of the language and practices of these law firms was intimidating, pushy and deliberately opaque. Hidden deductions, small print loopholes, cases being litigated or resold without the knowledge of the client involved. Many of whom then found themselves chased for tens of thousands of pounds worth of legal costs they knew nothing about. All the while, still in houses unfit for habitation.’

Debra Sofia Magdalene, spokesperson for the SSB Law Victims Support Group – set up by former clients of the failed claims firm – attended to ensure their voices were heard and highlighted three key priorities. l Government accountability – secure recognition that failed retrofit schemes caused the crisis and a compensation fund.

• Stronger consumer protection – clearer rules on litigation funding, law firm insolvency and victim debt enforcement; and
• Data safeguards – highlighting how victims’ personal data was mishandled and demanding stronger protections.

The solicitors profession, of course, continues to await the Legal Services Board’s independent report into the circumstances of SSB’s collapse, which will doubtless inform any likely reforms.

This article appeared in last week's edition of the Gazette