FAMILY
PROCEDURE RULE COMMITTEE
Minutes
of the meeting held on Monday 3 April 2006
Present:
Members
The Right Honourable Sir Mark Potter, President of the Family Division–
Chairman
The Right Honourable Lord Justice Wall – Deputy Chairman
District Judge Duncan Adam – district judge (county court)
John Baker – justices’ clerk
The Honourable Mr Justice Charles - High Court judge
Her Honour Judge Angela Finnerty – circuit judge
Mike Hinchliffe – CAFCASS
Charles Hyde – barrister
Susan Jones – barrister
District Judge Katharine Marshall - district judge (magistrates’ courts)
Clive Redley – solicitor
David Salter - solicitor
Senior District Judge Waller – district judge (PRFD)
Guests
Richard Crouch - Daniel Fox - John Kingston - Chelly Milliken - Cheryl
Morris -
Vicenta Pallet - Victoria Smith - Richard Strong - Elizabeth Walsh
Officials
Anne Herd, Legal Group, DCA
Vicky Baum, Legal Group, DCA
Jeremy Hodges, Legal Group, DCA
Andrew Frazer, Head, Civil Law & Justice Division, HMCS
Alex Clark, Family Justice Division, HMCS
Vicky Rayne, Family Justice Division, HMCS
Diana Roy, Family Justice Division, HMCS
Katherine Fox, Crown Dependencies Branch, DCA
Andrea Scotland, Civil Law & Justice Division, HMCS
Erika Maass, Family Justice Division, HMCS
Daniel Webb, Civil Law & Justice Division, HMCS
Clive Buckley (secretary), Civil Law & Justice Division, HMCS
ANNOUNCEMENTS
AND APOLOGIES
1.1
The Chairman welcomed guests to the meeting; the first open meeting
held by any DCA sponsored rule committee. He outlined the work of the
Committee since its creation in 2004 and its commitment to openness
in its working practices. In addition to observing the meeting, guests
were afforded the opportunity of putting questions to the Committee,
which were taken at the conclusion of the Committee’s business (see
annex A attached).
1.2
Apologies had been received from Martyn Cook, Bruce Edgington and Jane
Probyn (members) and from Bebe Chu, Fiona Pointer and Gary Westcar (guests).
MINUTES
OF THE LAST MEETING: 6 March 2006
2.
The minutes were approved.
MATTERS
ARISING
3.1
Practice Directions under s.81(1) Courts Act 2003 (para 5)
It
was confirmed that the reference to the civil division of the Court
of Appeal in section 81(1) of the Courts Act 2003, as amended by the
Constitutional Reform Act 2005, appears inadvertently. Proceedings in
the Court of Appeal are not family proceedings for the purposes of s.81.
Therefore, Practice Directions made under s.81 will not apply to proceedings
in the Court of Appeal.
3.2
S.7 Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (para 7.1)
It
was confirmed that the proposal from Resolution put forward by David
Salter has been referred to the Family Justice Council’s Ancillary Relief
Advisory Committee (ARAC) and will appear on the agenda for its May
meeting.
The
Committee was informed that the Department has not yet formed a policy
view but looks forward to receiving the reaction of ARAC to the proposal.
David
Salter elaborated on how the scheme might work in practice. It was envisaged
that there would be a joint application by the parties either before
the issue of a petition or between the issue of a petition and the granting
of a decree nisi (using existing terminology). The joint application
would be supported by the agreement and a summary of financial disclosure.
The
court would decide whether or not to give approval to the agreement
and, if so, make directions regarding its conversion into an order upon
decree. He added that the paper had been referred to the Association
of District Judges, who had welcomed the proposal.
The
Chairman concluded that initial reaction to the proposal appears favourable
but it is now largely a matter for policy consideration and therefore
passes beyond the remit of the Committee.
FAMILY
PROCEDURE RULES
First
draft rules relating to matrimonial and civil partnership proceedings
4.
The draft rules and Paper 3 were considered.
4.1
Paper 3
The
following conclusions were reached on each of the issues raised in Paper
3:
(i)
Draft rule 7: It was agreed that the term ‘withdrawing of application
before service’ should replace the current wording “discontinuance of
cause before service of petition”.
(ii)
Draft rule 12: In a number of cases petitions require minor amendments
before the directions for trial stage. To follow the CPR Part 17 practice
of not allowing amendments after service without permission of the court
or the consent of the other party would lead to an unnecessary increase
in the number of applications to the court. Harmonisation in this instance
would not be appropriate.
It
was agreed that the existing provision that a petition or answer may
be amended without leave until directions for trial have been granted
should be retained.
(iii)
Draft rule 13: Under the current rules a respondent may file an answer
to the petition incorporating a cross prayer or may file a separate
free-standing petition. Under the draft rule an application by the respondent
would need to be filed within a prescribed time period and within the
existing proceedings.
It
was agreed that the approach in draft rule 13 should be followed. There
would need to be provision for the applications to be heard together.
The
words ‘unless the court gives permission’ should be moved to the beginning
of the draft rule.
(iv)
Draft rule 15: The general consensus was that a provision staying an
application if it has not been proceeded with within a prescribed time
would not be appropriate in matrimonial/civil partnership proceedings.
There may be cases where parties are negotiating a financial settlement
or attempting a reconciliation but wish to keep the petition on file.
An automatic stay may have the effect of leading parties into divorce
too quickly.
District
Judge Adam agreed there should not be an automatic stay but would like
some form of court control of cases that do not progress. He emphasised
that this would be for the purpose of assisting the parties rather than
the disposal of cases. However, there were concerns expressed about
imposing further burdens on court staff to monitor cases upon which
no action has been taken, particularly given the limitations of the
IT systems supporting the family courts.
It
was also questioned, in the event of a stay, what the procedure would
be for removing the stay.
ACTION:
Vicky Baum to re-consider the question raised in paragraph 15 of Paper
3 in light of the comments made and to email any further thoughts to
those members with an interest in this particular issue.
(v)
Draft rules 16-22 It was acknowledged that although the question of
disclosure and inspection rarely arises in matrimonial cases, there
still needs to be provision by rule to cater for such cases. It was
also recognised that in light of the Committee’s decision that the Family
Procedure Rules should be a self-contained set of rules, cross-referencing
to other rules cannot be relied upon.
It
was agreed that disclosure should not be automatic but where a disclosure
order is made, inspection of documents listed should be automatically
permitted. Where the party making disclosure does not want there to
be inspection, the onus should be on that party to apply to the court.
ACTION:
The emphasis of the rule to be changed accordingly.
(vi)
Draft rules 26-28
The
move away from the Special Procedure was welcomed.
The
approach contained in draft rules 26 to 28 was approved, but the following
specific points were made:
draft
rule 27(2): For consistency with other rules substitute the word “opposes”
for “objects”.
draft
rule 27(3): It was questioned whether an order for costs could be made
at this stage. It was agreed that the rule be re-phrased to provide
that the court may certify that the applicant is entitled to costs.
The
provisions relating to case management hearings in defended cases struck
the right balance. It was confirmed that general case management powers
will appear elsewhere in the rules.
Service
is established by the filing of an acknowledgement of service. On applications
for a conditional order, there will need to be provision for deeming
service and dispensing with service.
It
was confirmed that rules regarding service in all family proceedings
are being considered separately and during the course of that exercise
it will be seen whether it is necessary to have bespoke rules for service
in relation to matrimonial and civil partnership proceedings.
(vii)
Draft rule 37: The current rules relating to the powers of the Queen’s
Proctor address the issue of decrees obtained by collusion. Any revised
rules must retain the Queen’s Proctor’s ability to intervene and to
make an application.
4.2
Other comments on draft rules
(i)
draft rule 1(4) (references to a divorce county court or civil partnership
proceedings county court to include a reference to the Principal Registry):
Lord Justice Wall reminded members to remain alert to the need to make
rules that are simply expressed and suggested that the wording of this
draft rule (which follows the existing rule) be re-examined.
ACTION:
Drafters to attempt simplification of wording of the rule.
(ii)
draft rule 31: District Judge Adam wondered whether this rule, which
is based on the existing rule, might be more sensitively worded.
It
was considered that the provision of court appointed medical examiners
should be retained to ensure independence.
ACTION:
Drafters to re-examine the wording of the rule and consider whether
any of the detail might more appropriately be included in a Practice
Direction.
(iii)
draft rule 22(3): Charles Hyde suggested that the power to make an order
restricting or prohibiting the use of a document which has been disclosed
should be extended to draft rule 22(2)(c) as in some circumstances such
disclosure would affect a third party. Although rule 22(3) is likely
to be a general power to make such an order, it would be preferable
for the rule to make the position clear.
A similar
point was raised in respect of draft rule 14(4).
ACTION:
These draft rules follow the CPR but drafting lawyers will re-examine
them.
(iv)
draft rule 15 Paper 3 paragraph 17: Mr Justice Charles was concerned
about the exclusion of provision for a civil restraint order. In courts
other than the High Court, there is a need for a sweep up provision
for all family proceedings if it is to be excluded from the matrimonial/civil
partnership rules.
4.3
Other comments on policy
(i)
Third parties
On
a petition filed under s.1(2)(a) Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 there is
no requirement to name the person with whom the respondent is alleged
to have committed adultery. District Judge Adam suggested that there
be a prohibition on naming a third party unless the court gives permission.
He considered that naming an alleged adulterer can inflame matters and
to prohibit such naming would reduce the temperature. Additionally,
it would streamline the procedure as service on the alleged adulterer
would not be required.
(ii)
Procedure under s.41 Matrimonial Causes Act 1973
District
Judge Duncan Adam suggested that for the purposes of s.41 MCA a greatly
simplified version of Form M4 (statement of arrangements for children)
could be prescribed as the current form contains detail that is not
required. The necessary information relating to children could even
be included in the form of application for a matrimonial order.
The
Senior District Judge agreed that there could be scope for adjusting
the Form M4 to make the questions more relevant but felt it should still
remain as a separate form, so as not to make the application form more
cumbersome.
Conclusion:
District Judge Adam offered to put his views in a paper and this offer
was gratefully accepted.
(iii)
Joint applications
Had
Part II of the Family Law Act 1996 been implemented, joint applications
for matrimonial orders would have been permissible. David Salter suggested
consideration be given to permitting joint applications under the new
rules.
ACTION:
It was thought that this would be difficult under the existing legislative
framework but officials would investigate the possibility.
(iv)
Section 8 Children Act orders:
Susan
Jones pointed out that under the existing Children (Allocation of Proceedings)
Order, proceedings to vary an existing Section 8 order should be commenced
in the court that made the original order. Therefore, where such an
order was made in a family proceedings court, a court dealing with s.41
Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 that considers it likely that Children Act
powers need to be exercised, is required to refer the matter back to
the family proceedings court.
ACTION:
Officials will take this point into account when considering the Allocation
of Proceedings Order.
4.4
Forms: Application for a dissolution/divorce/separation/nullity order
No
objection was raised to the inclusion of all forms of relief being incorporated
in a single form.
The
following points were made:
(i)
the court’s jurisdiction is the first thing the court needs to consider.
The paragraph relating to jurisdiction should therefore appear nearer
the beginning of the form.
(ii)
In paragraph 2 of Part 2 the words ‘with a [man][woman]’ should be omitted.
(iii)
In paragraph 2(c) of Part 2 the word ‘petitioner’ should read ‘applicant’.
ACTION:
Members to send any further comments on the draft rules and forms to
the Secretary in writing.
Agenda
forward to June.
PENSIONS
ACT 2004 – PENSION PROTECTION FUND
5.
Paper 6 was considered.
The
policy requirements for amendments to the Family Proceedings Rules were
noted.
The
Committee decided that amendments to Form E to capture the information
required relating to the Pension Protection Fund should be considered
during the course of making new Family Procedure Rules.
The
court is required to consider the position regarding pensions at the
First Appointment and in the interim the Pension Inquiry Form can be
used to ensure the necessary information is made available to the court.
ACTION:
Draft Family Proceedings (Amendment) Rules to be sent to members of
the Committee.
Members
of the Family Proceedings Rule Committee to be invited, if content,
to sign the draft rules.
CHILD
CUSTODY RECIPROCITY BETWEEN JERSEY AND JURISDICTION OF THE U.K.
6.
Paper 7 was considered.
It
was confirmed that the reference in the Paper to the UN Convention on
the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction should be a reference
to the Hague Convention.
The
Committee noted the requirement for amendments to the Family Proceedings
Rules arising out of the legislative changes in Jersey outlined in the
Paper. Additionally, the Committee was informed of Guernsey’s intention
to have the Hague Convention and European Convention extended to it
and, accordingly, that there may be a requirement for similar rule changes
in respect of Guernsey by mid 2007.
ACTION;
Draft Family Proceedings (Amendment) Rules to be sent to members of
the Committee.
Members
of the Family Proceedings Rule Committee to be invited, if content to
sign the draft rules.
PARENTING
PLANS
7.
As the revised Parenting Plans had not been provided to the Committee
and the representative from Department for Education and Skills had
been called away before the item was reached, the Committee decided
to agenda forward this item.
ACTION:
Agenda forward
Copies
of revised parenting plans to be circulated to members in advance of
the next meeting of the Committee
An
official from the Department for Education & Skills to attend the
next meeting of the Committee
ROUTES
OF APPEAL/SINGLE FAMILY COURT/JUDICIAL RESOURCES REVIEW/ALLOCATION TO
JUDICIARY DIRECTIONS
8.
The Committee considered Paper 9.
The
proposals regarding the intention to review and amend all appropriate
Allocation Orders and Directions and to introduce a certificate mechanism
to justify an appropriate tier of court were noted.
The
Chairman reminded members of the changes to the statutory provisions
for making Allocation of Proceedings Orders and Allocation to Judiciary
Directions brought about by the Constitutional Reform Act 2005.
The
Chairman also drew attention to other initiatives including the Carter
Review of Legal Aid and the Child Care Review that may have an impact
on the decisions taken regarding allocation of work between the different
levels of court. If judicial recommendations are adopted, there may
be a pre-proceedings protocol in public law cases laying down the need
for local authorities to have a case plan in place, that would form
the agenda for an early comprehensive directions hearing before a judge,
This would concertina the first 3 stages of the Protocol and would be
heard by a judge experienced in case management, whether a district
judge of a county court or a district judge (magistrates’ court).
For
so long as Public Law Children Act proceedings are required to be commenced
in family proceedings courts and Private Law Children Act proceedings
are commenced, by choice, in county courts, there will continue to be
problems surrounding the appropriate forum for trial.
Routes
of Appeal
Members
were informed that it is intended to implement the recommendations of
the Committee contained in its report “Routes of Appeal in Family Proceedings”,
by rule or other secondary legislation, except recommendation 9.1(2)
(no permission requirement whether the appeal is from a lay bench or
from a district judge (magistrates’ court) whether sitting alone or
with justices), which requires further consideration and recommendation
9.1(3) (allocation of appeals to the county court according to the nature
and subject matter of the appeal) with 9.6, which would require primary
legislation.
It
is intended that the necessary legislative changes will be in place
when the new Family Procedure Rules are made.
It
was confirmed that an appeal from a district judge of the PRFD shall
continue to lie to a judge of the High Court.
Allocation
to Judiciary Directions
District
Judge Katharine Marshall reminded members that she had queried the ticketing
of judiciary in family proceedings courts which, notwithstanding the
Constitutional Reform Act, still seemed to her to be under the direction
of the Lord Chancellor. The Chairman queried this.
ACTION:
Officials will report back with an answer to the query.
TRANSPARENCY
IN FAMILY PROCEEDINGS
9.
The Committee was informed that the Department had expected a Consultation
Paper on transparency in family proceedings to be issued in March. However,
following changes to ministerial responsibilities in the Department,
a Consultation Paper has not yet been published. Because of the forthcoming
pre local election purdah, publication of the Paper will not be before
5 May 2006.
In
the meantime, officials have held consultation meetings with key stakeholders
on the general issue which will feed into the eventual proposals.
ACTION:
When the Consultation Paper is issued, copies to be distributed to members.
Agenda
forward
ANY
OTHER BUSINESS
10.
It was agreed that the meeting of the Committee scheduled for the 8th
May 2006 be cancelled.
It
was agreed that the next meeting of the Children’s Proceedings Working
Party be moved to Monday 8th May 2006 at 10.30 a.m. in Selborne House,
8th Floor
It
was subsequently agreed that the next meeting of the Financial Proceedings
Working Party be held on Monday 8th May 2006 at 2.00 p.m. in Selborne
House 8th Floor.
DATE
OF NEXT MEETING
11.
Monday 5th June 2006 at 10.30 a.m. in Selborne House, 8th Floor.
Clive
Buckley
Secretary
April
2006
020
7210 1497
clive.buckley@hmcourts-service.gsi.gov.uk
ANNEX
A (see paragraph 1.1 of the minutes)
Pre-submitted
written questions were invited from those attending the open meeting.
The Chairman indicated that following the answer given to each question
there would be scope for a supplementary question to be put verbally.
This
is a record of the questions put and the answers given by the Chairman
and other members of the Committee
Richard
Strong Q. Would the potential introduction of Electronic Filing and
Document Management (EFDM) in 2008 cause the FPRC to amend the Family
Proceedings Rules and re-prescribe official forms?
A.
The Committee would need to consider the potential implications of the
EFDM in drafting relevant rules. A representative of the EFDM project
team within the Department for Constitutional Affairs is scheduled to
appear before the Committee later in the year to brief members on the
implications of the work.
The
EFDM project team will be consulting Lord Justice Neuberger shortly
on the scope and terms of reference for a working group to include Judges,
departmental representatives (business and I.T.) and others with an
interest, to consider what changes may be needed to court and judicial
processes and the potential rule and practice direction changes that
may be required if EFDM were to be introduced.
The
EFDM project team has already indicated to the questioner that they
will be contacting him later in the year to seek views on its work at
appropriate times.
Victoria
Smith Q. If there were one thing that you could change about the family
procedure rules what would it be?
A.
(from various members):
·
To create a single harmonised set of Family Procedure Rules across the
High Court, county courts and magistrates’ courts.
·
To simplify the rules as there are more litigants in person involved
in family proceedings than in any other field of law.
·
To simplify routes of appeal by the implementation of the Committee’s
recommendations contained in its report “Routes of Appeal in Family
Proceedings”.
Victoria
Smith Q. What are your key objectives over the next 12 months?
A.
The Committee’s objectives until Autumn 2007 (subject to ministerial
approval) are:
·
to align the procedures in all levels of court, so far as possible
·
to create a single unified code of practice along the lines of the CPR
·
to harmonise the new rules with the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) where
appropriate;
·
to remove the more old-fashioned language of the existing rules (e.g.
petition, decree, suit, cause) whilst being careful not to introduce
phrases that are no more intelligible than the ones replaced.
Fiona
Pointer Q. The whole procedure of sorting out finances and child maintenance
can become very drawn out which obviously adds to the stress. Are there
any plans to perhaps reduce the length of time the whole procedure takes
and change it in any way?
A.
The Committee will try to improve procedures when making the new rules
but speed is not always easy to achieve. Even where the parties are
available and ready for hearing there may be difficulty in getting a
case heard because of crowded court lists. Efforts are being made to
improve matters but without extra judges and extra court space this
is difficult. Additionally, the volume of public law work is increasing
and a lot of court time is taken up by these cases.
The
Committee’s responsibility is for rules governing the practice and procedure
in the family courts. So far as financial proceedings are concerned,
the ancillary relief procedure was revised in June 2000. This has led
to a significant number of cases being resolved by consent and a reduction
in the number of cases proceeding to final hearing. The rules have to
balance the need to cater for the simplest cases and the most complex
cases. There is scope under the rules to combine the first and second
stages of the procedure or to move directly to a final hearing.
The
Committee has established a Financial Proceedings Working Party which
is now looking at whether any further improvements to the procedures
can be made.
Vicenta
Pallett Q. To assist the Committee’s strategy for making Family Procedure
Rules, working parties have been created to examine rules relating to
(i) experts in family proceedings (ii) financial proceedings and (iii)
children’s proceedings. In relation to (iii), subsection 1(b) and 2
of s.122 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 provide for rule-making
powers for the separate representation of children in Children Act cases
generally and, in particular, in s.8 cases. In a written Parliamentary
answer of 11 January 2006, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State
in the Department for Constitutional Affairs (DCA), Baroness Ashton
of Upholland, stated that to inform the government’s consideration of
what rules of court might be made, the DCA had commissioned research
by Cardiff University so as to understand whether formal representation
through a solicitor and guardian was meeting children’s needs or whether
there were other ways in which their needs could be met. The Cardiff
University research with children and families focused on how children
were heard and how they were involved when separately represented under
the existing r.9.5 of the Family Proceedings Rules 1991 (S.I. 1991/1247).
The final draft of that research was apparently submitted to the DCA
on or around 17 March 2006. Could the committee state:
1.
whether the appropriate rules are likely to be made
2.
when the Cardiff research will be published
3.
what is the effect of the small number of children interviewed for the
research (said to be 15 out of a total of 224) and the small number
of parents interviewed (said to be 22 out of 121 cases examined from
court records).
A.
Proposals for any draft rules under s.122 of the Adoption and Children
Act 2002 have not yet been put before the Committee. S.122 amends the
Children Act 1989 so as to provide that rules of court may make provision
for children to be separately represented in Children Act proceedings,
including proceedings under section 8 (residence, contact and other
orders with respect to children).
The
research into the operation of rule 9.5 of the Family Proceedings Rules
1991 by Cardiff University commissioned by the DCA was published on
23 March.
The
research is outside the remit of the Committee so it can’t be commented
upon, but the key recommendations contained in it are:
·
The child should always be separately represented before making enforcement
orders under the Children and Adoption Bill (upon enactment the Children
and Adoption Act).
·
Application of the potential advantages of r9.5 earlier in the proceedings
rather than being a measure of last resort by a judge exasperated by
the intractability of the case.
·
Need for judicial continuity so that the same judge hears the same cases,
thereby gaining familiarity with them and enabling cost-effective proceedings.
·
Need for children to have reliable, explanatory and age-appropriate
information about their parents’ separation/divorce at the very beginning
of the process.
·
Need for children to have a “passage agent” - someone, apart from their
parent(s), to support them through the litigation process.
·
Work towards achieving less intimidating and more child-friendly court
settings. The current image is of courts as scary places with a punitive
ethos.
·
Use of psychometric measures to be applied in advance of the litigation
process to identify features of the case which are likely to produce
intractable behaviour on the part of parents (unless intervention in
the form of r9.5 can be quickly applied).
·
Change FamilyMan (the IT system supporting the courts) to indicate (i)
if the tandem model was used (ii) who was appointed to represent the
child [i.e. CAFCASS, NYAS, private solicitor] (iii) name of judge hearing
the case.
Copies
of the research were made available at the meeting.
Gary
Westcar Q. “What substantive Statute Law/Act allows/permits FPRC to
make Rules/Statutory Instruments? Is it the Courts Act?
A.
Yes, section 75(2) of the Courts Act 2003 states that “The Family Procedure
Rules are to be made by a committee known as the Family Procedure Rule
Committee “.
The
Committee must before making rules consult such persons as they consider
appropriate and meet (unless it is inexpedient to do so)(s.79((1)(2)).
Those rules must be then submitted to the Lord Chancellor, who may allow
or disallow the rules (he must give the committee written reasons if
he disallows the rules) (s. 79(3)(4)). The rules will then be contained
in a statutory instrument which will be laid before Parliament (s. 79(6)).
The
Committee is in a transitional phase and has not yet acquired its full
powers to make rules for all family proceedings in all levels of family
court. In the interim, certain members of the Committee, appointed for
that purpose, will make rules of court in the High Court and county
courts under section 40 of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act
1984. Additionally, in the interim, rules for family proceedings in
the magistrates' courts will be made by the Lord Chief Justice, or a
judicial office holder nominated by the Lord Chief Justice, (with the
concurrence of the Lord Chancellor), on the advice of, or after consultation
with, the Magistrates' Courts Rule Committee.
Gary
Westcar Q. “What external groups/organisations has the FPRC consulted
before ever making any Family Rules? “
A.
The Committee has an obligation to consult on rules it proposes to make
under s. 79(1) of the Courts Act.
The
only rules that the FPRC has made so far have been the Family Procedure
(Adoption) Rules 2005. Before draft rules were put to the Committee
the Department for Constitutional Affairs carried out a public consultation
in June 2004. Extensive contact with the full range of stakeholders
was also carried out by departmental officials. Given these steps, the
Committee agreed in July 2005 that consulting the President's Adoption
Committee would be sufficient. The President's Adoption Committee included
in its membership all the main stakeholders in the adoption and care
field, including Barnados and the British Association for Adoption and
Fostering.
The
next major task for the Committee will be to make the new Family Procedure
Rules. The Department again intends to consult on the key policy questions
this summer. Once the rules have been drafted the Committee will then,
in light of the process of public consultation, make a decision as to
consultation on the rules themselves.
