Fam
Law [2003] 455 - April 2004
Contact
Dispute Resolution
A
seminar, Early Interventions – Towards a Pilot Project, held
in London in April 2003, examined ways of streamlining s 8 contact
applications. Chairperson Bracewell J regretted the abiding characteristic
of contact litigation, where high expenditure was often linked to
low returns. She said it was time to consider ‘a different approach’
that might enable the courts to allocate time better by concentrating
on those cases where judicial intervention was indispensable.
THE
AMERICAN WAY
The
keynote from Her Ladyship – that many long-running disputes
might never get under way if there were proficient early interventions
– was amplified by guest speaker Judge John Lenderman, a senior
family law circuit judge from Florida. He confirmed that in Florida,
as in much of the US, ‘contact is no longer an issue litigated
on a frequent basis’. Judge Lenderman’s presentation,
How and Why Most American States Changed to Early Interventions emphasised
how their statutory requirement for frequent and continuing contact
was founded on child developmental research. Children did better when
both parents were kept in their lives. He described how well-publicised
parenting plans – setting out the cycles of contact in the average
case – meant that American parents knew what kind of order the
courts were likely to make. In the absence of exceptional circumstances,
there was little point in litigating.
Parents
were streamed through a two-stage preliminary process. Judge Lenderman
recounted how separating couples were mandated to group parent education
classes, where their post-separation parenting responsibilities to
their children and each other were explained. They could then agree
a parenting plan and exit the system. Resistant parents were obliged
to attend a single session of contact-focused mediation. More recent
innovations included Florida’s standard ‘standing temporary
order’, issued in every case, binding the parties to maintain
contact prior to the first hearing.
Only
a minority of cases, mostly involving serious issues, needed further
intervention. Florida’s overall caseload was up; costs were
down; enforcement was a rarity; and delay was negligible. Most disputes
were resolved in a few weeks. Charting Florida’s 1990s shift
to its current early-interventions mode, Judge Lenderman concluded:
‘The process really does work. It saves money and time –
and emotional distress.’
THE
BRITISH RESPONSE
A seminar panel consisting of three UK experts considered if the key
components of an early-interventions system could be assembled in
England and Wales. Their collective answer, in the affirmative, prompted
Bracewell J’s closing endorsement of a pilot project to establish
‘first, if we can get better results; and second, if we can
provide quicker tiMETAbling’.
Preparing
the way for this conclusion, Dr Hamish Cameron, consultant child psychiatrist,
said that the professional recognition that children needed two parents
engendered an obvious requirement for blocks of parenting time. It
made sense to inform parents what kind of contact arrangements were
customary, using a prepared menu of parenting plans analogous to the
American model. District judge Crichton underlined how much better
it would be if the courts’ view of what should happen –
which is really society’s view matching the experts’ view
– was relayed to parents before they reached the stage of contested
hearings. He foresaw a new partnership with the ancillary services.
Two interlocking elements were involved. The court and associated
professional services would each play their part in a revised procedure,
where professional services solved most cases before they reached
court, guiding parents towards timely parenting plans.
THE
WAY FORWARD
The question of how this would be done was dealt with by barrister
Caroline Willbourne. Three of the agencies primarily concerned –
educators, mediators and CAFCASS – had been canvassed for, and
given support to, the system. A half-day ‘parenting class’
could be devised and staffed; mediators could be co-opted; and the
relevant paperwork generated.
The
requirement for funding was modest. During the ensuing plenary discussion,
a proposal for a 1-year pilot project attracted support from those
present. The creation of a steering committee, to translate informed
interest into active planning, was mooted as the logical next step.
One of the committee’s tasks would be to designate the pilot
court: at the seminar, the Inner London Family Proceedings Court offered
its services, drawing attention to the need to create court-based
infrastructure. Developments required were:
•
parenting information for distribution by the court
• equivalent of Florida’s ‘standing temporary order’
• a one- or two-session parenting class
• contact-focused mediators
• assents, implementation, outcome/cost research
Recent
discussions with professionals suggested that the mediators required
were to hand. Initial dialogue with the Institute of Family Therapy
had explored the staffing of a 3-hr parenting class, perhaps operating
weekly. Judge Lenderman offered to make the workings of Florida’s
family courts available as an example. CAFCASS, the SFLA and FLBA
were said to be ‘on board’. As for the steering committee,
the need was not so much for an open-ended inquiry into what to do,
but rather the more proactive task of ensuring that an early-interventions
trial – where court education and mediation worked together
– actually occurred. Final responsibility lay with the courts.
The impetus for the seminar derived from judicial re-evaluation of
the needs of court users; ongoing judicial direction provided the
key to change.
