header-logo header-logo

07 April 2011
Issue: 7460 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Calls for shake-up of family justice system

Children can wait “well over a year” for the family justice system to determine their future, an independent review panel has found.

An interim report by the Family Justice Review Panel found that too many private law disputes are ending up in court, that caseloads are rising and that there is little joint planning between the different organisations.

The panel’s chair, David Norgrove said, in his introduction: “There is distrust, with now a vicious circle of layers of checking and scrutiny that lead to work being done less well in the first place.There are few means of mutual learning and feedback. The lack of IT and management information is astonishing.”

The panel’s interim recommendations were to set up a Family Justice Service headed by a national Family Justice Board that would draw the function of agencies together, while local Family Justice Boards replaced the existing “plethora of arrangements”. It called for specialist judges to hear cases from start to finish, and for court social work services to form part of the Family Justice Service, subsuming the role of Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service.

It recommended less reliance on unnecessary expert reports when these are not in the best interests of the child; that a bespoke timetable be established for each child’s situation to minimise the damage caused by uncertainty; and that separating couples with children be assessed for mediation and given information on the impact of conflict on the children.
It also recommended that parenting agreements be drafted to set out contact arrangements for grandparents.

Stuart Ruff, solicitor at Thomas Eggar, said: “Grandparents are often forgotten in any separation and a huge number of grandparents lose contact with their grandchildren.”

Issue: 7460 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll