header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
23 October 2014 / Ellen Lucas , Caroline Bowden , Kim Beatson
Issue: 7627 / Categories: Features , Legal aid focus , Family
printer mail-detail

Family law in crisis: Pt II

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
beatson

Kim Beatson, Caroline Bowden & Ellen Lucas chart the ongoing chaos in family law proceedings

In February 2014 we reported that cuts to legal aid had thrown family proceedings into chaos (see “Family law in crisis", 10 February 2014). Six months later we are sad to confirm that the chaos continues.

In March 2014 the case of VR (Children: Temporary Leave to Remove from Jurisdiction) [2014] EWHC 643 (Fam), [2014] All ER (D) 165 (Mar) came before His Honour Judge Clifford Bellamy, sitting as a deputy judge of the High Court. Here the mother sought the court’s permission to take the children (aged 7, 6, 4, and 3) on a trip to India to visit relatives. The Legal Aid Agency (LAA) refused to fund a report from an expert on Indian family law in spite of repeated directions that the court considered the report to be essential.

The LAA’s blatant disregard of the court case management directions was not the main point

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Policing the safeguards when appointing trust corporations
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
NLJ this week: What the court considers when assessing refusal of ADR
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
NLJ this week: Finding innovative ways to fund the justice gap
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
NLJ this week: Two’s company, but three’s a crowd in financial provision cases
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
Charities Appeals Supplement: March 2026
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll