header-logo header-logo

Family court back on track?

19 April 2012
Issue: 7510 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Ryder J plans family court twin-track following Norgrove report

The new family court will split care proceedings into “standard 26-week track” and “exceptional track” cases to help it meet the six-month deadline recommended by the Norgrove report.

In his fourth update, Mr Justice Ryder, the judge in charge of the modernisation of family justice, said the court would publish plain language “pathways”, incorporating peer-reviewed research and good-practice guidance. The “pathways” would describe the two “standard” and “exceptional” tracks with timetables for the children concerned and guidance on important case management steps, such as social work evidence, Cafcass advice, use of experts and placement options.

Ryder J said: “The [standard] pathway is likely to describe the case in which the threshold is agreed or is plain at the end of the first contested interim care order hearing by reason of the decision made at that hearing…The problem to be solved is essentially placement, which may of course include the success of rehabilitation, the feasibility of kinship options and consequential contact.

“Even as respects ‘planned and purposeful delay’ cases, decisions can be made in principle within 26 weeks.”

Former senior civil servant David Norgrove’s report into family justice, published in November, uncovered “shocking delays” in the system, with care proceedings taking an average of 13 months to resolve. He recommended that a six-month time limit be imposed on care proceedings to reduce uncertainty and distress for the children and families involved.

Meanwhile, the courts are having to deal with a rising number of care proceedings. Cafcass received 10,000 child care applications from local authorities in the last year—an all-time high.

Ryder J said a new case management system is now in place and will track every public law case issued from 2 April. “It will record all adjournments, use of experts and the reasons for the same. This is a major innovation…For the first time we will know why unplanned delay is occurring and we will be able to say so.”

The new family court is due to launch next year, and will replace the family proceedings court and the general family work currently undertaken by the county court and High Court. Fewer family law experts will be instructed under the new regime.

Issue: 7510 / 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