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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll