Legislation heralded in the Queen’s speech to reduce delays in the family justice system needs to be matched with the resources to make it a reality, family lawyers have warned.

Lawyers broadly welcomed the announcement of a Children and Families Bill, but cautioned that its measures would be hard to implement when all parts of the family justice system face budget cuts.

The bill will take up many of the reforms proposed by the government in February in its response to last November’s Family Justice Review.

Key measures will include a six-month statutory time limit for the completion of care cases; requiring parents to consider resolving disputes using mediation; and the introduction of ‘shared parenting’ principle to help ensure children maintain a relationship with both their parents after family separation.

The government will consult shortly on how legislation ‘can be framed to ensure that a meaningful relationship is not about an equal division of time but the quality of time that a child spends with each parent’.

Following proposals set out in the government’s Adoption Action Plan, published in March 2012, the bill will stop local authorities delaying adoptions to find a ‘perfect’ ethnic match for children where suitable adopters are available. Ethnicity of a child and prospective adopters will come second to the speed of placing a child in a permanent home.

The bill includes other changes to free up judicial time by allowing legal advisers to process uncontested divorce applications and strengthen the powers of the Children’s Commissioner. In reforms to help children with special educational needs, the bill will introduce a single, simpler assessment process.

The bill is expected to be introduced early in 2013.

Co-chair of the Law Society’s family law committee James Carroll welcomed the reforms and the government’s ‘admirable desire’ to reduce delays, but said: ‘There’s a fundamental difference between imposing statutory time limits and putting in place measures to ensure those time limits can become a reality.’

He said: ‘The goal of reducing delay doesn’t tally with a reducing budget. There must be measures to support those who work in the court to enable them to be able to meet the targets and that will require resources.’

Carroll said the omission from the Queen’s speech of an Equal Marriage Bill did not mean such a measure would definitely not be introduced. He added that consultation on a ‘gay marriage’ bill does not end until June.

Chair of the Law Society’s children law committee Denise Lester echoed the need to ensure adequate funding to provide services to the public and facilitate the ability of professionals working in the system to do their job. While welcoming the government’s desire to reduce delay, she said it is ‘unrealistic’ to expect all care cases to be dealt with in six months.

‘When parents find themselves in the care arena it can take time for them to accept it because the prospect of having their child taken away is so awful,’ she said. ‘They often bury their heads in the sand and do not give instructions to their solicitors, which means we are unable to progress things in the courts as judges would like.’

Lester was cautious about encouraging more parties to use mediation to resolve contact disputes, saying: ‘Mediation is not a one-size fits all solution, especially for the vulnerable. No one is there to safeguard the interests or welfare of the child and there is no one present with judicial authority.’