header-logo header-logo

07 April 2011
Issue: 7460 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Calls for shake-up of family justice system

Children can wait “well over a year” for the family justice system to determine their future, an independent review panel has found.

An interim report by the Family Justice Review Panel found that too many private law disputes are ending up in court, that caseloads are rising and that there is little joint planning between the different organisations.

The panel’s chair, David Norgrove said, in his introduction: “There is distrust, with now a vicious circle of layers of checking and scrutiny that lead to work being done less well in the first place.There are few means of mutual learning and feedback. The lack of IT and management information is astonishing.”

The panel’s interim recommendations were to set up a Family Justice Service headed by a national Family Justice Board that would draw the function of agencies together, while local Family Justice Boards replaced the existing “plethora of arrangements”. It called for specialist judges to hear cases from start to finish, and for court social work services to form part of the Family Justice Service, subsuming the role of Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service.

It recommended less reliance on unnecessary expert reports when these are not in the best interests of the child; that a bespoke timetable be established for each child’s situation to minimise the damage caused by uncertainty; and that separating couples with children be assessed for mediation and given information on the impact of conflict on the children.
It also recommended that parenting agreements be drafted to set out contact arrangements for grandparents.

Stuart Ruff, solicitor at Thomas Eggar, said: “Grandparents are often forgotten in any separation and a huge number of grandparents lose contact with their grandchildren.”

Issue: 7460 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Kennedys—Milan Devani

Kennedys—Milan Devani

Chief information officer appointment strengthens technology leadership

Maguire Family Law—Hannah Barlow & Sophie Hughes

Maguire Family Law—Hannah Barlow & Sophie Hughes

Firm strengthens Wilmslow team with two solicitor appointments

DWF—Ian Plumley

DWF—Ian Plumley

Londoninsurance and reinsurance practice announces partner appointment

NEWS
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
back-to-top-scroll