Your recent feature article suggests that many family lawyers want to see a 'fundamental rewrite of the law of divorce', though several comments from family lawyers suggest that this may not be a universally held view (see [2006] Gazette, 5 October, 20).

Clients are more concerned with dealing with the consequences of family breakup than how the marriage is to be terminated. There are two characteristics of family breakdown that make it likely that appropriate procedures can best accommodate them. First, and particularly in the early stages, emotions of anger, betrayal and fear of the future often dominate everything else and make any rational decision-making difficult if not impossible. In that climate a premature application to court will exacerbate conflict and deny the parties any contact with each other which, if they are parents, will be especially unfortunate. A procedural check, such as a requirement to consider mediation, would surely be desirable.


Second, as the circumstances of each family breakdown vary widely and because, very often, one particular problem, for example, the future of the children, may assume an overriding importance, a flexible system, which can adapt to different situations and which can offer alternative solutions, is essential. Mediation is the obvious alternative to court proceedings but it will not be appropriate in every case. It has never been claimed to be 'a panacea'.


If the Family Procedure Rules are to be changed, then a requirement to consider mediation as the first step in the divorce process should be included. This would not amount to compulsory mediation. It would simply be an invitation to both parties to take this opportunity of finding solutions to their problems themselves, with the aid of a mediator, rather than having solutions imposed on them by the court.


John Westcott, Chairman, Bristol Family Mediation, Bristol