Proposals to modernise the practice and terminology of the family procedure rules - and not name the third party in adultery cases - will result in significant improvements to the system, according to the Law Society.
In its response to a government consultation paper, the Society said the current vocabulary of the family courts created considerable scope for confusion. It said parties, where married, should be referred to as husband or wife divorce applicant/ respondent.
When it came to naming the person with whom a respondent is alleged to have committed adultery, Chancery Lane suggested the default position should be that the person is not named, although the court could allow identification upon application where justified.
It also highlighted concerns that some of the proposals may have cost implications at a time when there is considerable uncertainty about legal aid fee levels.
Meanwhile, the Society has issued a lukewarm response to another consultation on separate legal representatives for children in private law proceedings where there is a 'legal need'. It said there should be a presumption in favour of representation in cases where the child is sufficiently mature and able to give instructions, and in other circumstances, including where termination of contact with parents or siblings was an issue or there were unusual, complex or difficult issues involved.
But the Society criticised the use of the term 'legal need', which was left undefined, and suggested it was a meaningless concept to most children that may reduce their participation.
It was also sceptical of the proposal that judges should as a matter of course speak to children in proceedings and said such an option should not be a substitute for legal representation.
A Law Society spokeswoman said: 'The focus must be on the needs of children and resolving disputes for the benefit of families. Whatever arrangements are made need to be properly funded.'
Catherine Baksi
No comments yet