The Family Justice System is ‘not working’ with ‘scandalous’ delays which are harmful to vulnerable children and adults, according to the independent Family Justice Review panel.

The panel’s interim report, published today, said the system needs significant reform to tackle delays and ensure the 500,000 children and adults who use it each year get the service they deserve.

After taking evidence over a year, it concluded that the family justice system is too complicated, with overlapping structures and a lack of shared goals and objectives, which was causing harmful delays.

It said the length of cases is ‘little short of scandalous’ and the delay ‘represents a shocking failure, with damaging consequences for children and for society that will last for decades.’

The report noted that there had been seven reviews of family justice since 1989, with countless ‘piecemeal changes’, and although there had been some improvements, it said the same problems persist.

‘The chief explanation, in our view, is that family justice does not operate as a coherent, managed system. In fact, in many ways, it is not a system at all,’ the report said.

The panel said it had been impressed by the dedication and capability of those who work in the family justice system, but despite that, it said ‘the system is not working’ and the situation ‘cannot be allowed to continue’.

It recommended a package of proposals designed to improve children’s and families’ experience of the system.

The panel is now consulting on these proposals, before publishing its final report in the autumn.

Among the proposals are recommendations to keep more cases away from court through more use of mediation, and the creation of a more coherent approach that brings together the key functions of the agencies within the system.

The panel recommended a unified family court system, streamlining services to replace the current three-tier system; specialist judges to hear cases from start to finish; and more robust case management by the judiciary, with consideration given to legislation to support this.

It also suggested work should be focused in fewer court buildings to allow better management of case listings.

To improve the time taken to conclude public law cases, the panel recommended a statutory time limit of six months for the completion of care and supervision proceedings, with bespoke timetables set for each child’s situation, and less reliance on ‘unnecessary expert reports’.

In private law cases, the panel’s proposals were aimed at helping parties to focus on their children and to reach agreement.

It suggested a statement should be inserted into law to reinforce the importance of the child continuing to have a meaningful relationship with both parents, but said there should be no legislation that created the perception that there is a parental right to substantially shared or equal time for both parents.

The review recommended the use of parenting agreements to bring together arrangements for children’s care after separation, focusing on where the children spend time rather than ‘contact’ and ‘residence’, and reinforcing the importance of a relationship with grandparents and other relatives and friends valued by the child.

It said there should be a single online information hub and telephone helpline to give information and support to couples, and help them resolve issues following divorce or separation outside the court.

The panel also recommended that all parties seeking to litigate should first be assessed by a mediator for suitability to attend a parenting information session, and to use an alternative dispute resolution service.

It proposed removing the current two-stage process of decree nisi and decree absolute, replacing this with a single notice of divorce, with the process beginning with an online hub and dealt with administratively unless there is a dispute.

The panel did not specifically take evidence about legal aid, but at a press briefing today its chairman David Norgrove said that in anticipation of the restriction in legal aid in private law cases, the panel had tried to create a process that diverted people away from court.

In the report the panel said that if the proposals in the Green Paper go ahead, the reduction in the scope of legal aid may result in more litigants in person, which could lead to longer cases.

The panel was also concerned that some parents would simply not pursue their disputes, leading to some children losing contact with a parent.

The panel recommended that the legal aid budget be managed as part of the overall family justice budget, which it said would enable the Family Justice System to take a more holistic approach to ensuring there were services to support families.

Norgrove said: ‘Family justice is under huge strain. Cases take far too long and delays are likely to rise.

'Children can wait well over a year for their futures to be settled. This is shocking.’

He said: ‘Our recommendations aim to tackle these issues, to bring greater coherence through organisational change and better management, making the system more able to cope with current and future pressures and to divert more issues away from court where appropriate.’

Norgrove added: ‘It’s the nitty gritty changes that will make the difference. It’s not grand standing stuff; it’s hard graft that will change the way people work.’

He said there had been a lack of priority for family justice, as criminal justice had had a greater political priority over the last 25-30 years.

Family law, he said, had been a ‘bit neglected’.

Norgrove said the legislative framework for family law was ‘very strong’ and the principles in the Children Act 1989 were widely admired throughout the world, and the panel did not see any reason for significant changes to it.

On the proposal for the greater mediation, he said in future there would be a need for more lawyers to train as mediators, who would need to raise their standards.

He said: ‘Being a mediator is quite a different type of thing to being a lawyer. All mediators should be trained at least to the Legal Services Commission standards. Our understanding is that lawyers don’t always reach that standard.’

He added: ‘Lawyers will need to focus on [mediation] more, rather than just doing it as a sideline.’

Summing up the proposals, he said: ‘We want to less time being taken without reducing the quality of scrutiny’ in family law cases.’

Law Society president Linda Lee said the family justice system had been under-resourced for too long.

She said: ‘We think there is considerable merit in many of the panel’s recommendations, in particular that cases should be handled by a single judge.

‘Allowing the same judge to hear a case from beginning to end, and ensuring that courts only deal with the most important issues in a case, will help strengthen the system and ensure that it more efficient, and able to provide swift and fair resolution for what can be very difficult cases.

‘We also support the view that these cases should not be about "winners and losers", but about enabling people to move forward and providing proper protection for vulnerable children.

‘However, it is crucial that adequate resources are in place to properly implement these changes.

'The proposals are ambitious and seem likely to need additional funding if they are to succeed.

'This will apply not just to the court service but to local authorities and others who will have greater roles as a result of these proposals.

‘We believe that this will be money well spent. Family cases involve people dealing with complex, sensitive issues and are highly stressful for both the children and adults involved.

'They have far-reaching effects on the lives of all parties involved and it is crucial that the system should provide the most effective way forward in the interests of the children concerned.’

She added: ‘In many cases, mediation and other alternative ways of resolving disputes will be effective and helpful, but we are concerned that some of the proposals may place too many hurdles in front of people whose disputes, ultimately, will need to be resolved by a court, and cause significant delay and cost.'

‘Care will be needed to avoid unintended damaging consequences.’

The consultation on the recommendations is open until 23 June 2011.

To view the full report and consultation questionnaire, go to the review website.