Welcome to another week.
Sir Ernest Ryder, the Senior President of Tribunals, who is also a judge in the Court of Appeal, gave a speech last week, in which he said that the family courts’ focus must be on safeguarding children’s best interests, and that better training was needed for judges.
Ryder also questioned the system’s current adversarial approach, which has historically led to a shift in focus away from children’s needs, and more on individual performances of lawyers representing parties. On this point, he observed that an adversarial approach ‘is challenged in the context of family justice with its more inquisitorial process, where the focus must be, on ‘safeguarding children by securing their best interests’.
Whilst Ryder notes that family courts are increasingly trying to use inquisitorial avenues to process cases, the Family Court still remains largely adversarial, from the processes used, to the working, day-to-day culture inside the courts. The discussion about these two models though, is not new.
Researching Reform started the debate around whether the family courts should remain adversarial, or switch to an inquisitorial model in 2010, where we attempted to offer a balanced view of both. The two systems are not always mutually exclusive, with neither being completely immune to bias, error, or abuse of power. Both models can also share similar characteristics, and unsurprisingly, a more inquisitorial model would hand judges far greater powers than they have at present, which may explain judicial support for an inquisitorial system.
Our question this week, then, is just this: would you like to see the Family Court move away from an adversarial system, to an inquisitorial one?
Researching Reform 
This question is far more complicated than it seems. Most parents would have no idea how to determine which is the better of the two.
all parents ever want is True Justice to be done in the family courts and for Social workers to be challenged more robustly by Judges and even prosecuted if found they have committed perjury simply to win a case.
if this had always been the case then i think thousands of children would still be with their birth parents where they belong.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Any parents whose children have been forcefully taken from them will regard the culprits as ememies and adversaries.Whether or not the judge asks questions and participates in the proceedingsis irrelevant .
LikeLiked by 2 people
Certainly more training is necessary for social workers, and whether courts are adversarial or inquisitorial suggests that something is wrong; something is out of balance, and has to be corrected.
No one can be absolutely right, so of necessity there must always be compromise, but why must the balance of compromise always be weighted in favour of the lawyers, judges and social workers? They do not have a monopoly on correctness; indeed, if history and experience, as recorded in on this website are to be believed, all three sources are suspect.
That reform is necessary is abundantly clear; reform from the top down and the bottom up has long been overdue. Overt discussion with all parties represented is vital, but finding someone with the courage to initiate the proceedings will need to be a very special team leader who has already earned the trust and respect of all participants?
Unfortunately, experience is like a college where, as students we may gain knowledge that too often costs broken hearts as the price we have to pay, because too often what we learn to tomorrow would have served us better had we known it today. Hindsight is a wonderful asset, but it always comes too late. In too many of the cases in the Family Court Justice System, it is the children and their birth parents who pay the highest costs.
If support could be given to the vulnerable at the earliest stages, so many more would benefit and so much more could be achieved. Initially it will need an enormous injection of capital and the goodwill of all concerned, but in these days when governmental austerity is preached from Westminster for the taxpayer and carte blanche is given to capitalists and arms manufacturers, I’m afraid we may be whistling into the wind.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pingback: Question It! « Musings of a Penpusher
Reblogged this on World4Justice : NOW! Lobby Forum..
LikeLike