header-logo header-logo

Breaking family boundaries

09 February 2012
Issue: 7500 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

MoJ: the maintenance of family relationships must be enshrined in law

The importance of children maintaining relationships with both parents following a break-up is to be enshrined in law, the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has confirmed.

In its response to the recommendations of David Norgrove’s Family Justice Review, the MoJ says it plans to restore public confidence that the courts recognise both parents’ roles.

It will bring forward legislation emphasising the importance of children maintaining parental relationships where that is safe and in the interests of the child. Any legislation will recognise that this does not imply an equal division of access.

Jane Craig, head of family law at Manches, warns: “Providing a formal legal right to shared parenting time is unnecessary and fraught with difficulty—as Norgrove recognised.

“The experience in Australia is that it leads to far more litigation between parents.”

Liz Edwards, vice-chairwoman of Resolution, says: “As the government has recognised, the experience of other countries has shown that guaranteeing ‘shared parenting’ in law places the demands of adults over the needs of children, and we will be engaging with the ministerial working group to ensure that any legislative statement on this issue continues to safeguard children’s welfare.”

Outlining its plans last week, the MoJ said it will require separating couples to attend a mediation session before they can take their case to court, encourage parenting agreements to include grandparents, and set a six-month time limit on care and adoption cases.

Currently, the 20,000 children caught up in care proceedings each year wait an average of 55 weeks before their future is decided.

The MoJ also plans to reduce the use of expert reports in family cases, reduce the amount of time judges spend scrutinising care plans, transfer the court social work agency Cafcass to the MoJ, and simplify the family justice system by creating a single family court across England and Wales.
Law Society chief executive Desmond Hudson called on the MoJ to commit sufficient resources to the reforms and warned the legal aid cuts were brewing “a perfect storm”.

He added: “Delays in care cases amount to a national disgrace—children most in need of society’s care are being failed. The recommendations in the Norgrove review could contribute significantly to reducing these delays.”

Issue: 7500 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll