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

Birketts—trainee cohort

Birketts—trainee cohort

Firm welcomes new cohort of 29 trainee solicitors for 2025

Keoghs—four appointments

Keoghs—four appointments

Four partner hires expand legal expertise in Scotland and Northern Ireland

Brabners—Ben Lamb

Brabners—Ben Lamb

Real estate team in Yorkshire welcomes new partner

NEWS
Robert Taylor of 360 Law Services warns in this week's NLJ that adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) risks entrenching disadvantage for SME law firms, unless tools are tailored to their needs
The Court of Protection has ruled in Macpherson v Sunderland City Council that capacity must be presumed unless clearly rebutted. In this week's NLJ, Sam Karim KC and Sophie Hurst of Kings Chambers dissect the judgment and set out practical guidance for advisers faced with issues relating to retrospective capacity and/or assessments without an examination
Delays and dysfunction continue to mount in the county court, as revealed in a scathing Justice Committee report and under discussion this week by NLJ columnist Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School. Bulk claims—especially from private parking firms—are overwhelming the system, with 8,000 cases filed weekly
Charles Pigott of Mills & Reeve charts the turbulent progress of the Employment Rights Bill through the House of Lords, in this week's NLJ
From oligarchs to cosmetic clinics, strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) target journalists, activists and ordinary citizens with intimidating legal tactics. Writing in NLJ this week, Sadie Whittam of Lancaster University explores the weaponisation of litigation to silence critics
back-to-top-scroll