This just in from the Ministry of Justice’s Website:
New measures have been introduced to ensure child care cases are dealt with more quickly and effectively in family courts. This is so children and families are spared unnecessary delays and the cost to taxpayers is reduced.
Under today’s changes, the family courts will now be required to:
- Restrict expert evidence to that which is only necessary to resolve the case;
- Take account of specified factors before agreeing to expert witnesses reports, currently, no factors are specified. In care cases, these include the impact on the welfare of the child; the impact on the timetable for proceedings and whether the evidence which is needed is available from another source such as the local authority; and
- To approve the questions that are to be put to the expert to ensure they are focused on the determinative issues for the court.
Until now multiple reports have been commissioned in many cases which can lead to delays of several weeks. The reports are typically commissioned from expert witnesses, for example doctors or specialist psychologists.
Family Justice Minister Lord McNally said:
‘We are taking action to tackle the unacceptable delays in our family courts.
‘The number of expert reports being commissioned at the moment is far beyond what is actually needed to make a considered decision – and is causing delays which can ultimately harm children.
‘The new rules mean expert evidence will only be used where necessary and reports will be commissioned more sensibly and sparingly.’
Today’s changes are the latest steps in the Government’s commitment to ensuring family cases are dealt with within 26 weeks, following a recommendation by the Family Justice Review conducted by David Norgrove.
Lord McNally
Oh dear – what a nonsense, are self serving and self protecting LA’s and Judges now expert enough?? So much for justice and honesty. Elite Experts etc. Pet experts are already under scutinity, but sadly protected by a system that earns huge amounts.
When will the Judges realise that the public is aware of the cosy collestted life of family Courts, family Solicitors and Cafcass and the instructed Barristers on the family circle that fail children and parents and the UK by destroying families and not standing up to wrong doing and self serving Social welfare actions, that with an open and transparent court will see better justice than currently being served up daily under the so called over loaded court system of family courts, that after all has a washing machine syndrome rather than solutions and adequate judgements. Yet more rubber stamping at lower court levels that at appeal court due to descreationary nature of the family law will rub out familys, create adoption and come down against the parent who has already been excluded by the other parent or the LA easy route of divide and rule policy.
Weakest pocket or wrong gender bias. Children suffer.- Parents marginalised
“…delays…can…harm children…” Lord McNally advises us.
His OWN delay, confusion and contradictory statements regarding Relocation Law caused harm to many children.
http://www.mckenziefriend.com/2010/04/27/your-numbers-up-payne-v-payne-time-for-change/
To date, Lord McNally has refused to respond to the serious questions raised concerning his conduct.
Hundreds of separated or divorced parents who had enjoyed a shared parenting regime, but whose children were, nevertheless, removed overseas between February 2010 and July 2011, surely deserve answers from Lord McNally.
As a Government minister, isn’t he supposed to be accountable?
Bruno D’Itri
Family Courts are dysfunctional and are unfit and unsuited to the purpose of determining the future care and welfare of children. The Australian Chief Justice Diane Bryant stated in 2009 [Brisbane Speech] that the Family Courts do not have the Powers, Expertise, and Resources to competently investigate allegations of child abuse and domestic violence in which child abuse is an inherent part.
The Family Courts do not have the statutory powers to investigate allegations of child abuse, nor do they have the powers to order the respective child protection authorities and police to investigate such allegations. In the majority of such cases it is therefore left to the alleging parent to try to prove their case, which is procedurally unfair to that parent and to the child.
The current `Experts’ who serve the Family Courts do not meet the requirements established in many western countries that they have `Specialised knowledge’ gained by `study, training, and experience’ (e.g. Daubert/Frye Test – USA/ Makita Rules and Evidence Act 1995 – Australia).
In the vast majority of such Family Law cases therefore, their testimony is completely lacking in authenticity and credibility and should be ruled as inadmissible. But their credentials are rarely challenged by counsel and even when this occurs, the judges defend their own decisions in appointing them.
Because they lack the necessary powers and training to investigate allegations of child abuse, the `Experts’ make summary judgements that the child has not been abused [usdually based on a one hour office interview) and turn matters against the alleging parent and make counter-allegations of their being `Delusuional', or that they have `coached' the child, and/or they have a non-specific `Borderline Personality Disorder'. By so doing they then claim that the alleging parent is emotionally abusing the child and recommend that the child be placed in the sole custody of the parent who is originally alleged to be the abuser. The `Expert' is not required to provide any evidence to support such an assumption and counter-allegation.
In cases of child sexual abuse allegations, the Family Courts apply the outdated and irrelevant Briginshaw Principle [UK - 1938] which requires that the Court consider the `gravity’ of the allegation for the alleged perpetrator, although no one is charged with an offence and the Family Court are not a criminal Court. Its primary responsibility is to the child and to determine the future care and welfare of the child and to protect the child from possible harm and exploitation. Yet by applying the Briginshaw Principle it transforms into a quasi-criminal Court. This is further complicated by the application by the Family Courts of a non-existent Third Standard of Evidential Proof i.e. “to the extreme end of the scale” [see M & M 1988 Australia] which acts as a further protection for the alleged abuser and is not in the child’s interests. A full explanation of how this is applied can be found in Krach & Krach 2009 – Au.
In effect, it is virtually impossible to prove child sexual abuse to the requirements and standards of proof required by Family Courts, and almost as impossible to prove other forms of child abuse and domestic violence. Even in those rare occasions when such allegations have been found to be proven, the Family Court still insist that the right of the parent to have custody/contact with the child is the primary and overriding consideration. Ergo, it is a complete waste of time for any parent and their counsel to make submissions fo child abuse and domestic violence to the Family Court and some cousnel are advising parents of the insurmountable barriers to proving such allegations and therefore not to make that a part of their case e.g. Darcey Freeman 2008 – Melbourne.
So all delay is due entirely to the expert witness? Really? And all expert witnesses now have no expertise relevant to the matter in hand and are asked pointless questions which they answer at inordinate length? Truly?
Why hasn’t this simple solution to delay been identified before?
It won’t make a jot of difference.
That is a gross misrepresentation of what has been said regarding `Expert’ witnesses. Where do psychiatrists/ psychologists/ lawyers derive their `expertise’ in conducting child abuse investigations and the relevant study and training to undertake such highly skilled work?. An hour or two of interviewing /counselling a child who has been abused in an office.?. Where is the examination by a forensic paediatrician for physical signs of abuse, by a forensic psychologist for psychological/behavioural signs of abuse, by a forensic examination of the child and the scene of the abuse for blood, semen, skin tissue, DNA samples, the sworn statements of witnesses to the abuse or to whom the child has disclosed/reported the abuse, and the statements of explanation by the parents regarding the abuse?. The abuse of a child is a serious crime and should be thoroughly and competently investigated as such and not be merely an opinion based on casual conversations in an office. If such factual evidence were collected and presented to a judge as the `Trier of Fact’, then many `Expert’ witnesses would not be required to interpret casual conversations and to collate the opinions of others.
Pingback: Expert Evidence To be Restricted in the Name of Efficiency – But What’s in a Name? « Researching Reform
Reblogged this on Parents Rights Blog.