Family Court reforms

August 3rd, 2012 at 11:58 am by David Farrar

Judith 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.

Tags:

Posted in NZ Politics | 23 Comments »

Family Court Fees

June 15th, 2012 at 12:00 pm by David Farrar

The Dom Post editorial:

The Government’s review discussion paper also argues that although the state has a clear role in protecting children and vulnerable adults, its role in resolving what are private parenting squabbles should be reduced. It says, “The court should promote children’s welfare, not parents’ rights”. Neither the Greens nor Labour can fault that, surely? The discussion paper considers, too, whether Domestic Violence Act matters should properly become the preserve of the Domestic Violence Courts, and asks whether opening Family Court hearings to greater public scrutiny might make the courts more transparent and the parties more accountable for what is said in court.

Chief Family Court judge Peter Boshier notes the trivial matters that, under present arrangements, reach the bench time and again. “Answers are sought from judges”, he says, “on everything from choice of school to choice of surnames”. Thus, the new fee regime is the least of Family Court issues that should worry Opposition MPs and family lawyers. If its processes are being abused, the family law community has a responsibility not only to ensure that taxpayers get value for the millions they invest in this branch of law, but also that children, not their parents, are front and centre in the process. A Family Court hearing should surely be a last resort.

I think the emphasis on the Family Court being a last resort for feuding couples is the correct one. Having taxpayers pay for court rulings on which school a kid goes to is bad for us, but also bad for the kid that his or her parents have no incentive to sort such disputes out themselves.

Tags: , ,

Posted in NZ Politics | 26 Comments »