header-logo header-logo

21 February 2025 / Stuart Hanson
Issue: 8105 / Categories: Opinion , Family , Mediation , ADR , Divorce , Legal aid focus
printer mail-detail

Mediation vouchers: a short-term patch

208722
Stuart Hanson on why mediators should not be celebrating the repeated extension of an inadequate scheme

The recent announcement that the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has extended the Family Mediation Voucher Scheme by another 12 months has been met with praise from some quarters, including the Family Mediation Council (FMC). The FMC has highlighted that ‘early analysis from the first 7,200 families to use the scheme showed more than two-thirds reached agreement without the need to go to court’—on the surface, this sounds like a success story worth celebrating.

However, beneath the headlines lies a set of deeper concerns that the mediation profession—and the public—should not ignore. While the voucher scheme has undoubtedly encouraged some separating couples to explore mediation, it also masks the ongoing underfunding of family mediation and the wider issues surrounding access to justice in private family law cases.

Since the removal of legal aid for most private family law disputes in 2013, family mediation was promoted as the government’s flagship alternative to court

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

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
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?
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
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
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll