header-logo header-logo

Family courts & COVID-19

29 September 2020
Issue: 7904 / Categories: Legal News , Family , Covid-19 , Profession
printer mail-detail
The Family Court has dealt with a record number of domestic abuse cases during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, while care proceedings for children lasted an extra three weeks on average and fewer children were adopted, official records show

The Family Court has dealt with a record number of domestic abuse cases during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, while care proceedings for children lasted an extra three weeks on average and fewer children were adopted, official records show

According to the Family Court Statistics Quarterly for April to June 2020, the number of domestic violence remedy order applications increased by 24% compared to the same quarter last year, while the number of orders made rose by 17%.

The average time for a care or supervision case to reach first disposal was 36 weeks―ten more than the 26-week limit introduced by the Children and Families Act 2014, and an increase of three weeks on the previous year’s average. Only a third of cases met the time limit.

Children waiting to be adopted have also been badly affected by the pandemic. The number of adoption cases started in the courts dropped by 24%. There were 798 adoption applications during the quarter, down 35% on the previous year. The number of adoption orders issued decreased by 52% to 584.

Joanna Farrands, partner at Moore Barlow, said: ‘While the decrease in new family law cases is no doubt due to COVID-19 and lockdown, it will also be reflective of the move to try and resolve more matters outside of the court system with an increase in arbitration and private financial dispute resolution hearings.

‘The move to alternative dispute resolution solutions has been fast-tracked by COVID-19 and the reduction in capacity of the courts. In addition, as most court hearings are now by telephone, this often produces a less than satisfactory experience and outcome for the clients.

‘The increase in domestic violence is a sad reflection of couples being locked down together in difficult circumstances; we have seen a significant upturn in these cases in practice.’

Issue: 7904 / Categories: Legal News , Family , Covid-19 , Profession
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