Our article this month for Jordans Family Law focuses on the recent recommendation of the Legal Services Consumer Panel to regulate McKenzie Friends. We also do a little myth busting in the piece: did you know, for example, that McKenzie Friends CAN conduct litigation as well as hold rights of audience?
Central to our thoughts though, is whether regulation at this stage will harm rather than help families and the family justice system at large. Do let us know what you think.
You can access the article here.
Researching Reform 
I can speak a bit from personal experience as a non lawyer helping parents.In the 1960s. any person could apply to have a care order discharged .As a Kent County Councillor I did this frequently calling the parents and often the children as witnesses appearing against my own Council ;The magistrates were always very sympathetic,there was no secrecy and certainly no forced adoption. I never lost a case.After 6 years my language business suffered from lack of attention,and so did my first marriage so I stood down from the KCC and concentrated on business and my own family for 40 years.
Following the Meadows scandals around 2003 I wrote a letter to the Mail saying things seemed worse now than 40 years ago and got immediate calls for help from parents who had read my letter.
Alas the law had been changed so that only qualified lawyers or persons with parental responsibility could apply to have a care order discharged;When I decided to help as a Mckenzie friend, from a now much sounder financial and family base ,I found secrecy,gagging orders, adoption without parental consent and very hostile judges and magistrates who took social worker’s words as gospel ! I coined the phrase “forced adoption” and so named my site,but I was never granted the right of audience to speak for parents,and eventually no family court would allow me to be a McKenzie friend at all .Several parents have reported to me that as soon as my name is mentioned for that role the local authority barrister objects to the judge and my candidature is refused !
I never ever received any money for a fee or for expenses from any parent but I have been “regulated out” by the courts without the need for more regulation!
There does seem a mania in UK to regulate whenever possible and the law of unintended consequences ensures that usually all such measures cause general deterioration as a result .Please,please,no more rules…………….
LikeLike
Thank you, FA
LikeLike
Reblogged this on World4Justice : NOW! Lobby Forum..
LikeLike
one has to wonder why the fear by some of the legal system of McKenzie friends from the report of the Legal services consumer panel, mu understanding of their role is set out on this link and there is certainly a divide and dichotomy in law between the High Court decision of Mr Justice Munby referred to in the link with that of that espoused in the practice guidance (not direction) of LJ Wall in 2010….. awaiting the vehicle to argue this……:-)…. am almost there…… http://www.southernfamilyaid.com/mcKenzie-friend.htm
LikeLike
The law is set out as in the link below…. there is an illogical variance between the procedure in some courts and others. The report of the legal services consumer panel is clearly not liked by some who gave evidence as they are opposed to McKenzie friends……….The practice guidance LJ Wall 2010 (and not a practice direction) is at variance with the findings of Mr Justice Munby in 2008 as noted in the analysis…….. right of audience for McKenzie friend and litigant to assist the Court should be automatic if the litigant seeks this….. hardly a threat to justice but certainly brings in equality of arms…..maybe I have a vehicle or two to raise this in the higher courts…..:-) see http://www.southernfamilyaid.com/mcKenzie-friend.htm
LikeLike
I’m not sure that ‘regulation’ for MFs is the answer here, especially as CAFCASS has already operated in the Family Courts without any regulation whatsoever for over a decade whilst making life changing recommendations about children’s futures, caught up in an unhelpful legal system.
Substantial information long in the public domain confirms that CAFCASS reporters have NO guidelines and training in the main area of their work, and thus NO proper complaints procedure. As such, they are entirely unaccountable for the quality and content of their reports – yet, despite the forgoing, their recommendations are invariably endorsed by the Judiciary as a document of weight, when making ‘time-based’ decisions about children.
A misleading CAFCASS report can condemn a child to limited or no contact at all with one of their parents, for no good reason, and is considered a common outcome in post separation conflict via the Court. An estimated 100,000 children are impacted every year and long term ramifications for both children and Society are dire. This secret scandal going on behind closed doors has led to the rise in McKenzie Friends.
In my experience of over 15 years, McKenzie Friends are almost entirely focused on helping clients to achieve reasonable and timely child-centred solutions, focused on establishing post court arrangements and encouraging amicable agreements where possible, thereby bringing closure to needlessly protracted family proceedings.
Whilst CAFCASS invariably achieves the opposite, and remains the elephant in the room – regulation doesn’t appear to have prevented some solicitors from behaving outrageously in child contact proceedings. So, what useful purpose can regulation serve, if any, for McKenzie Friends? In fact, there is nothing.
Kenneth Lane
LikeLike
Those are interesting points, Kenneth, thank you.
LikeLike
Pingback: McKENZIE FRIENDS challenged or the Forensics of a Legal Farce | Voluntary Public Interest Advocacy
Pingback: WHO PROTECTS this boy from his father’s red banana? WITNESS STATEMENTS and Chronology of Events by MzKenzie Friends | Lithuanian Audrone I trying to protect her son