Contact
Dispute Resolution [2003] Fam Law 455
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.
