header-logo header-logo

09 March 2012 / David Burrows
Issue: 7504 / Categories: Features , Family , Property
printer mail-detail

No quick fix

Family law reform should be handled with care advises David Burrows

Sarah Whitten commented on the Family Justice Review (2011) (FJR), and on the government response (“A job for life”, NLJ, 17 February 2012, p 237). She urged swift response. Yes, but the review must be seen in a much wider context, of procedural and legal aid reform to the whole spectrum of family proceedings. Rushed through, they risk being a politician’s part answer, which often means bad law-making. A little time taken—a few months only—can yield a more effective system. A number of questions, not addressed in the report (especially concerning family proceedings other than children proceedings) need to be answered; and the inquisitorial-adversarial debate is not touched, as far as I can see.

Defining terms

First, it is important to define terms. “Family proceedings” generally means proceedings assigned to the Family Division. Most family lawyers would see “family law” as covering any case which arises on family breakdown (married and unmarried families) and where a local authority becomes involved

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

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans appoint new Chief Technology Officer

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya announces trainee retention rate of 86%

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers welcomes two new Graduate Solicitor Apprentices

NEWS
LexisNexis is delighted to announce the launch of the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2027, celebrating outstanding achievement, innovation and impact across the legal profession
The Legal Services Board (LSB) is to take further enforcement action against the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), setting additional performance targets and ‘intensifying’ its oversight, it has said
Regulators missed several opportunities to intervene in PM Law Group before it collapsed, an independent review by City firm Jenner & Block has found
An employer’s vicarious liability for the alleged torts of an employee cannot be transferred by TUPE, the Court of Appeal has confirmed
Tiered fees of up to £1,500 for Legal Ombudsman (LeO) cases could leave firms with little option but to pay out, lawyers have warned
back-to-top-scroll