Family Court reforms
August 3rd, 2012 at 11:58 am by David FarrarJudith Collins has announced:
“Our reforms will ensure the Family Court renews its focus towards those who need it most. The Court must put the needs of children first, rather than those of private couples with relationship issues.
“To better support victims of domestic violence, we’re increasing the penalty for breaching a protection order, recognising ‘economic abuse’ as a form of psychological abuse, and improving stopping domestic violence programmes.
“We’re introducing a new Family Disputes Resolution (FDR) service which will become a cornerstone feature of our family justice system, particularly for Care of Children Act cases. FDR will minimise the harmful impact conflict has on children with about 4,000 fewer court applications and 2,000 fewer children going to Court each year.
Excellent. Children should not be in court, unless absolutely necessary. The FAQ states:
It will become mandatory for parties to attempt Family Dispute Resolution before applying to the Court, unless an exemption applies. Access to the court is still available if FDR is unsuccessful.
So no heading straight to court.
Some types of disputes will not be suitable for FDR. For example, where there is a history of domestic violence or child abuse, where a party’s safety could be at risk, a significant power imbalance exists, or due to illness or disability.
Sensible exceptions.
Related posts:
- Family Court Fees
- Principal Family Court Judge on Instant Portection Orders
- Nick Smith found in contempt of court
- Family Start
August 3rd, 2012 at 12:07 pm
> Children should not be in court, unless absolutely necessary
I couldn’t agree more. But this isn’t about vulnerable kids, it’s about the government wanting to save money.
Vote:August 3rd, 2012 at 12:14 pm
Yes and no.
There are still anomalies:
1. Shared parenting should be the main aim, rather than picking which parent keeps the kids. There should be a bias towards both parents having ongoing contact with their children
2. The current system creates strong incentives to make false allegations of violence or abuse so as to gain sole custody of the children. We need to not discourage people from making true allegations, but we do need to be careful about a system that has no downsides for someone making false allegations. This doesn’t appear to be resolved here.
In short, the current system is geared up to grant custody to women, and to force men to pay for children they no longer have a relationship with. This is a really bad outcome. It must be possible to do something about this – the Australian system gets quite different outcomes.
Vote:August 3rd, 2012 at 12:17 pm
Jesus you are a cynic Ross.
The Minister specifically said it was to stop lawyers cross examining young children with questions designed to elicit which parent they would like to live with.
Vote:August 3rd, 2012 at 12:30 pm
smttc (297) I agree, Ross69 you must be one miserable bastard to be around. Do you actually ever have anything positive to say about anything? Grumpy prick.
Vote:August 3rd, 2012 at 12:40 pm
I agree with Ross. The Minister claimed that it was child abuse for lawyers to question children in these cases. She choose that ‘compelling’ statement and a cynic would say it was to benefit cost cutting plans. I agree with the concept of placing more emphasis on couples sorting out these problems themselves but I can’t understand why the Minister would justify the position by saying the current situation is child abuse by lawyers. Perhaps she only has one political style and that is to attack, but there is reasoned argument here for the situation to be improved by not relieving the parents of the onus of sorting things out, or at least trying to do so within the system before engaging lawyers.
Vote:August 3rd, 2012 at 12:45 pm
I have difficulty with the ministers comment as well.
Vote:I understand from my consultant who has experience as counsel for the child, that children are rarely cross examined. the problem arises from parents playing silly games with each other and using children as pawns.
August 3rd, 2012 at 1:01 pm
I don’t do Family Court work. However, I thought that the Counsel for Child was the one who was supposed to ask the children about their preferred living arrangements? Giving ‘cross-examination of children’ as a reason sounds a bit like Simon Power’s ‘evil lawyer’ routine to me.
alex or GPT, could either of you give us a heads up on this point? Cheers.
Vote:August 3rd, 2012 at 1:12 pm
> Jesus you are a cynic Ross.
Not at all. The government is making cuts to the public sector. It’s obvious they want to save money.
You might be unaware that from 1 July, the Family Court began charging for parenting orders and property relationship applications.
“Court processes are costly and it is intended the introduction of targeted fees will provide an incentive for people to deal with their disputes outside of court, where possible.” So cost is the driving force behind this proposal. It’s just that the government want to spin this in the best possible light.
http://www.justice.govt.nz/publications/global-publications/f/new-family-court-fees
Vote:August 3rd, 2012 at 1:15 pm
From the above link:
“They will also help ensure the ongoing financial viability of the court, which has seen a 70% increase in costs from $84 million in 2004/05 to $142 million in 2010/11 even while workloads have remained reasonably steady.”
Vote:August 3rd, 2012 at 1:17 pm
People don’t go to the family court because it’s fun, or because they WANT to rack up thousands of dollars in legal bills / legal aid bills.
If the FDR service is effective in sorting out things like custody and contact arrangements, then at $780 it’s cheap for the parents compared to the court.
My wife had to get the family court involved in arranging custody and visits after her daughter’s sperm donor proved himself unworthy and had to be kicked to the kerb. It took her years to repay legal aid all the costs of arranging one family court session and a few legal letters. (And ‘Tard’s costs were about the same again, but his Mum & Dad apparently stumped up and just paid his….)
Vote:August 3rd, 2012 at 1:18 pm
ross69: because there are some initiatives that are targeting cost recovery doesn’t mean that every initiative has to do with cost recovery. You need to take your blinkers off sometimes, and consider that some of the actions of the National government might actually not be targeted at baby eating.
Vote:August 3rd, 2012 at 1:23 pm
PaulL –
I think you’ll find the National Party is the devil incarnate, and whatever they say on any subject needs to be opposed at any cost. They are the ENEMY. Don’t think, don’t ask questions, just oppose…
Vote:August 3rd, 2012 at 1:26 pm
Ah. Sorry, let me get my one armed spectacles out – the ones the lean to the left. There, now I see it, you’re quite right. Evil National.
Vote:August 3rd, 2012 at 1:34 pm
“Some types of disputes will not be suitable for FDR. For example, where there is a history of domestic violence or child abuse, where a party’s safety could be at risk, a significant power imbalance exists, or due to illness or disability.”
hmm does that mean more chicks making shit up about the “abusive father” to get what they want?
Vote:August 3rd, 2012 at 1:59 pm
> there are some initiatives that are targeting cost recovery doesn’t mean that every initiative has to do with cost recovery.
Quite true, but in this case it is clear the proposal is about reducing costs. Costs have increased by 70% since 2004/05. The government has made it clear that that needs to change.
Vote:August 3rd, 2012 at 2:01 pm
No Ross, that doesn’t make it clear that this proposal is about reducing costs. It makes it clear that the government would like to reduce costs, it has some proposals it has been clear are about reducing costs, and it has this proposal that it has said is for other purposes. Is there anything you are pointing to that makes their assertion untrue, other than your blinkers?
Vote:August 3rd, 2012 at 2:06 pm
One of the roles of Lawyer for Child is to be a voice for the child’s views (where age appropriate). It is NOT the job of Lawyer for Child, or anyone else for that matter, to make a child choose between their parents. If age appropriate, the Lawyer for Child may ask the child what they think about the matter in dispute and whether there is anything that the child wants the adults and Judge to know, but they will not subject the child to cross examination.
Vote:August 3rd, 2012 at 2:14 pm
I am interested in more information on the proposals for the FDR process. Mediation is a very effective tool for dealing with many disputes. However, the mediator, even though they may also be a lawyer, is not there to give legal advice. There is a lot of misinformation out there about rights and obligations regarding matters in the Family Court jurisdiction and I worry that the lack of legal advice in this process may mean that parties end up with a mediated outcome that goes against their entitlements simply because they did not have any understanding of their legal position. I practice in family law and regularly have clients come in stating that that “x told them that they are not entitled to any property” or “x told me I won’t be able to see my child” or believing that american television law applies here. There is a danger these people would settle for outcomes that are not in their best interest, or the best interests of their children.
Vote:August 3rd, 2012 at 2:38 pm
FES at 1.01.
I don’t, by choice, do family court work, but my consultant does and has done so since about 1980.
In that period he has never put a child, when acting as counsel for the child or otherwise, put a child in the stand to be “cross-examined”.
He takes the view that the family lawyers are hoist on a petard of their own making, as he thinks gaming the system in the family courts is worse than even the anecdotal reports suggest in the criminal jurisdiction.
What quirky said as well.
Vote:August 3rd, 2012 at 3:27 pm
I have never heard of a child being cross examined. Sometimes they might met the Judge with the lawyer for child but I have never heard of them being put in the witness box. In fact there can be a challenge where a child makes an allegation of violence as to how that evidence can be tested in the Family Court.
Alex what area?
An argument could be made that the Court has sub let it’s work to L4Cs in some instances although, I have to say, the EIP system has been successful at bringing about prompt resolutions. EIP forward loads some costs with appointment of L4C at the start of the application and then a counsel to assist as mediator but it does bring about results.
I too am interested in the FDR approach. I think Australia has something similar but it has cost a fortune and the delays to get a matter to court are enormous.
Some things, sadly, just have to go to Court. Relocation is one that springs to mind – even the most reasonable of separated parents find that difficult to work out where there are competing reasonable reasons for one parent to move and another to stay.
Good point above about lack of understanding. In fact that is a classic with relocation as well. Father comes in and says Mum took the kids but I didn’t think I could do anything about it.
Finally the press release nearly broke the cliche metre which makes me deeply suspicious of the reforms.
Vote:August 3rd, 2012 at 3:32 pm
GPT1,
Vote:Auckland.
August 3rd, 2012 at 3:47 pm
my thanks to quirky, alex and GPT. I thought that might be the case, but I am grateful to you three for confirming it.
So is this a case of Collins misleading the public, or are her words being reinterpreted? I cannot find where she talked about the cross-examination bit.
Vote:August 4th, 2012 at 12:47 am
Alex. Ah.
Vote:FES I haven’t seen it anywhere else either. Someone might have a link