Failings in Intractable Contact Cases Continue

Posted on by MichaelRobinson
wordcloud2

When intractable contact dispute cases fail to be resolved there are common reasons, and ones which involve how the cases are managed by the court and professionals involved in proceedings. Some of those cases are salvageable, while for others the long length of proceedings acts as a bar to the court entertaining a different approach.

My criticism isn’t universal and I acknowledge there are experienced and highly capable judges and welfare officers. It’s that very observation which sees me compare what, in case management terms, is the good, the bad and the ugly (one movie we didn’t see this Christmas). Sadly, justice and positive outcomes remain reliant on the quality and experience of the individuals involved, with a lack of process and poor adherence to what process exists exacerbating problems. The appeal system alone is an inadequate means of quality control to identify poor practice and capability.

Rather than intractable contact disputes being complex, these are often cases made complex by poor investigation, inadequate welfare analysis and failures to apply and carry through strategies from an early stage. These are common reasons for failure, and the saddest thing of all is that none of these should come as a surprise. Continue reading Failings in Intractable Contact Cases Continue

 

Failures in Judicial Case Allocation and Gatekeeping

Posted on by MichaelRobinson
magistrates2

We have seen a number of cases recently where the courts are failing to follow rules in relation to case allocation. Some of the worst examples include:

  • leave to remove cases (where one parent seeks to remove the children abroad).
  • complex cases previously heard in senior courts ending up heard by magistrates who fail to examine case history prior to varying the existing orders (which came before them for enforcement).

In short, the wrong level of judge is hearing cases in breach of court rules and guidance. If your case is allocated to the wrong level of judge, ask for it to be moved to the right level by writing into the court. We suggest writing into the court where the application was made, and addressing your letter to the Designated Family Judge (DFJ) responsible for Gatekeeping and Case Allocation. If you can, take the letter into court, hand it into the court administration department and ask for a receipt to confirm delivery. After this, if matters continue to be heard at the wrong level, write a position statement including a request for the case to be transferred and deliver this to court two days before the next hearing. Raise the matter orally at the hearing and take a copy of that position statement and the letter sent to the DFJ into court with you.

Case outcomes can be put at risk when too junior a judge hears them. This is why the rules exist to ensure more complex cases are heard by more experienced judiciary. In this article, we remind people of how cases should be allocated and the rules which govern this. Please reference the guidance we cite when asking that the court move proceedings to the correct level of judge.

Continue reading Failures in Judicial Case Allocation and Gatekeeping

 

Gatekeeping and Allocation: Repairing Safety Nets before the Final Hearing Falls

Posted on by MichaelRobinson
net

Today I’ve learned of another case where matters are being heard by the wrong level of judiciary, with those hearing the case making questionable case management decisions. This article is provided to remind people (or make them aware of) the Allocation and Gatekeeping Guidance that governs which level of court should hear family law cases involving complexity. That guidance is a safety net to ensure cases are heard properly. Continue reading Gatekeeping and Allocation: Repairing Safety Nets before the Final Hearing Falls