Help stop family court fees increasing
Last year, the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) started its plans to make the courts self-funding. The cost of application fees payable by local authorities in care and adoption proceedings increased by an impressive 3200%, from £150 to £4,825.
Hidden on the website of Her Majesty’s Court Service is a consultation paper on plans to increase fees payable in civil court proceedings including enforcement fees in the family courts. The closing date for consultations is 4th March 2009.
Justice in the family courts is already suffering. Legal aid cutbacks have led to fewer firms of solicitors being prepared to undertake funded work and the Legal Services Commission’s funding for contact activities being cut from April.
CAFCASS (the court welfare service) received three critical inspection reports from OFSTED in 2008 but are being asked to take responsibility for a host of new services with little additional funding. In some areas, if a Judge asks for a welfare report into a family’s circumstances, there is already a 20 week delay before a CAFCASS officer can even be allocated.
In Sept ’08, an article in The Times covering a day in the life of Mr Justice Hedley recorded: ‘presented with four lever-arch files, Mr Justice Hedley had just minutes to grapple with the new case. In one month he has dealt with about 100 such cases.‘ When mistakes are made due to there being limited time to consider evidence or due to a poorly conducted CAFCASS investigation, the costs of appealing a judgment are already prohibitive.
Application fees and the cost of a transcript (required for making an appeal) can easily be over £1,000, and that is before the cost of solicitors and barristers. The family courts are becoming the preserve of the very rich or poor (but only if legal aid solicitor can be found).
In 2007, UNICEF found the United Kingdom to have the unhappiest children in the developed world. February’s Research Report from the Children’s Society concluded that children are 40% more likely to suffer mental health problems if denied contact with their fathers.
Their research confirms earlier studies (PDF) which showed that children do better academically where both parents are involved in their education. The researchers expressed concern that 28% of non-resident parents lose contact with their children after having been separated for three years.
When one parent blocks contact, the children suffer until their parents can access the courts, but the courts are becoming increasingly inaccessible.
The Government is failing in its duty under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of a Child to support a child’s right to both parents. Cuts to legal aid and court services, a lack of funding/resources for CAFCASS and increases to court fees go entirely against the state’s legal duty under the Convention.
As a first step, the increases to court fees in family cases need to be stopped, and better, abolished entirely. I would ask you to join me in replying to the Government’s consultation paper, and details can be found on my website www.thecustodyminefield.com.
---------------------------
| Tweet |
This is a guest post. Michael Robinson is founder of the website The Custody Minefield and author of a book of the same name.
· Other posts by Michael Robinson
Filed under
Blog ,Health ,Westminster
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Reader comments
Access to the family courts should be a right for all parents and not limited to those with the ability to pay the unreasonable state dictated costs in seeking the justice those of us in this so called democratic country expect and have a right to. Clearly this Government does not concur with this fundamental tenet. Michael Robinson is right – it is time to challenge the Government as they are simply failing children and those unfortunate parents desperately needing the so called family justice system to ensure and secure their ongoing relationship with their children.
Astounding that the govt are bent on increasing fees even further from the present extortionate rates for child related welfare decisions in the Courts.
Hardly a Govt that puts children first and foremost.
Here we are heading into economic oblivion and children and their families are being further ill-served by a policy decision of govt to restrict access to justice, beggars belief.
About time this was tackled. Can anyone imagine being charged to bring a child to a doctor or being charged to ask leave to do so?
This is the equivalent of what is happening in the family court system. Those of us unfortunate to need the courts to safeguard the welfare of our children and ensure they have a full relationshhip with both parents are facing hardship and even bankruptcy for doing so.
Where legal aid is available, it often pays for poor representation and is, in any case, unfairly assessed and available to few. Like the police service, this should be paid for out of taxes
When family justice and child welfare are dependent on ability to pay, the govenment is indirectly guilty of child abuse and abuse of basic human rights.
Reactions: Twitter, blogs
- Liberal Conspiracy
New blog post: Help stop family court fees increasing http://tinyurl.com/de3of7
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
You can read articles through the front page, via Twitter or RSS feed. You can also get them by email and through our Facebook group.
» Why Quantitative Easing doesn’t make common sense
» Barclays was also bailed out – Diamond doesn’t deserve a bonus
» Ten myths about private rented housing
» Even on the left, morality has its limits
» The NHS bill could be a Waterloo moment for the govt
» Ken Livingstone and gay rights – it just isn’t an issue
» Abu Qatada deportation: what about our principles?
» New study shows a Robinhood tax would boost growth
» In defence of Sky News’ re-Tweeting ban
» Another reason to continue banker bashing
» An attack on the wind industry is an attack on UK jobs
|
26 Comments 15 Comments 17 Comments 26 Comments 42 Comments 21 Comments 13 Comments 49 Comments 11 Comments 78 Comments |
LATEST COMMENTS » Dominic Newbould posted on Dorries says Osborne wanted Lansley "shot" » Dominic Newbould posted on Dorries says Osborne wanted Lansley "shot" » Anthony Adshead posted on Dorries says Osborne wanted Lansley "shot" » G.O. posted on Dorries says Osborne wanted Lansley "shot" » Tiffany posted on Dorries says Osborne wanted Lansley "shot" » Rob posted on Dorries says Osborne wanted Lansley "shot" » Pam posted on Dorries says Osborne wanted Lansley "shot" » Pam posted on Dorries says Osborne wanted Lansley "shot" » Jennifer Hynes posted on Dorries says Osborne wanted Lansley "shot" » Peter Underwood posted on Dorries says Osborne wanted Lansley "shot" » Jim Fahie posted on Dorries says Osborne wanted Lansley "shot" » OccupySydney posted on Goldman Sachs' role in killing democracy across Europe » psiloiordinary posted on Dorries says Osborne wanted Lansley "shot" » Panda posted on Dorries says Osborne wanted Lansley "shot" » Penny Jones posted on Dorries says Osborne wanted Lansley "shot" |








