Government Response to the Family Justice Review

The Government has published its Response to the Family Justice Review.

The Government has accepted the majority of the Review’s recommendations, in full. Going through the detailed responses to each recommendation in the Review, I have identified the following main areas where the recommendations have been rejected, or not accepted in full:

1. The recommendation that charges to local authorities for public law applications should be removed: The Government says that the Review "did not find any evidence that court fees prevented local authorities from fulfilling their statutory duty", and that: "The cost of these fees has been built in as appropriate to the Spending Review settlements for 2010 for those departments affected."

2. The recommendation that the time limit for the completion of care and supervision proceedings should be set at six months, with a stipulation that a trial judge proposing to extend a case beyond six months would need to seek the agreement of the relevant Designated Family Judge/Family Presiding Judge, as appropriate: The Government responds: "the Panel’s proposal that extensions beyond the time limit should be agreed by a senior judge would encroach on judicial independence and may create further delay. For these reasons, the Government does not accept this part of the Panel’s recommendation, but to ensure that there is transparency about any decision to extend a case beyond the six-month time limit and that the proportion of cases requiring extensions can be kept under review, the reasons for the extension will be recorded and stated in court."

3. The recommendation that no legislation should be introduced that creates or risks creating the perception that there is a parental right to substantially shared or equal time for both parents: The Government feels that further consideration of this is needed. It says: "On careful reflection, the UK Government believes that legislation may have a role to play in supporting shared parenting and will consider legislative options for encouraging both parents to play as full a role as possible in their children’s upbringing." A working group of Ministers has been established to develop proposals for legislative change, which will be brought forward for wide debate and consultation later this year.

4. On the Review's recommendations regarding enforcement of orders: "The Government does not agree with the Review’s conclusion that additional enforcement measures are not the answer. Whilst the courts already have a number of enforcement powers (a fine or imprisonment for contempt of court; the imposition of unpaid work; and the award of compensation for financial loss suffered by the other parent) there are practical and evidential hurdles which in practice mean that these sanctions are little used. The Government therefore intends to explore the feasibility of providing the courts with wider enforcement powers so that in appropriate cases these can be used to address wilful disobedience in respect of the court’s order. Parents should also be made aware at the outset of proceedings about the potential consequences of disobeying any order made by the court and the Government believes that this could help to prevent enforcement from becoming the central issue."

5. On the recommendation that the Government should establish a separate review of financial orders to include examination of the law:  "The Law Commission is already taking forward a project to look at how provision might be made for pre-nuptial, postnuptial and separation agreements to be given legal effect, so as to provide couples with more control and certainty about how their assets are to be divided on divorce. Ministers have agreed that this project should be extended to include a limited reform on the substantive law on Financial Orders relating to needs and non-matrimonial property. The project will take around 18 months to complete. The Law Commission will then undertake a separate project to make recommendations for improving the enforcement of Financial Orders. These two projects together will improve the substantive law and make it easier to enforce Financial Orders once made by the courts." In other words, the recommendation is rejected.

As to what happens next, by April this year the Family Justice Board will be established and the legislative changes that will be required will be clarified. The Government will report on progress in implementing the wider reform programme by April 2013.

For some reaction to the Response, see this article on Family Law Week, this article on Family Law and this article in The Guardian. Family Law also has a reaction from James Carroll, Co-chair of the Law Society's Family Law Committee, here. Hayley Trim on Family Law has also given her analysis of the Response, here.


  1. There is always a downside. I hope I am wrong but I strongly believe there will be an increase in the number of 'welfare' issues from mums who wish to preserve the status quo.of 'welfare' issues

  2. nice to hear ken clarke on the radio 'tother day telling us family cases take too long. damn fine chap. i trust he will be doing something next to deal with just how wet rain is. that has always annoyed me as well. and it will be the lawyers' fault too. or absent fathers. or floppy judges. or cafcass.

    1. Thanks, SW. Ken clearly has his finger on the pulse.

    2. Or Social Workers....

  3. Possibly the self destruct button - we can but hope

  4. ken is like a knight rider for the 21st century. righting wrongs ... or was that wronging rights? i no longer know. or probably care. hope he gets a bloody puncture.

    1. Yeah. Mind you, you would have thought that a car as advanced as KITT wouldn't be stopped by a puncture...

  5. good point ... small thermonuclear missile? violent revolution? plague of frogs?

    1. Those should do it.

      Good to see some serious debate about the most important changes to family law for years!

  6. well it isn't as if anyone has tried applying a plague of frogs to the problems of the family 'justice' system. might be just the thing. and it's a natural progression from there to death of the firstborn, which will certainly have some impact.
    think ken spoke of judges having to perform the judgment of solomon, so we aren't a million miles away. and if the child is dead there will be no need to cut it in half. problem solved.

    now to cure cancer....

    i really think i am wasted as a mere junior barrister.

    (and while i'm solving the world's problems, there's a grocer's apostrophe in the first line of the pos't(sic). i'm on fire!)

    yes, i will shut up now, thank you for asking.

    1. That's more like it! When Ken goes, you'll be a shoe-in for Lord Chancellor!

      What apostrophe? ;-)

  7. gosh - i was sure there was one there somewhere - eyes must be playin tricks agin! *does clever winky thing with bits of punctuation*

    and is it shoe-in or shoo-in? never was shooer.

    thanks for the compliment - that must mean i'm as good at this law stuff as .... wait a minute?! why i oughta...!

    1. By Jove SW, you're right - it is 'shoo-in'! You learn something every day (not sure of the value of this particular fact, but still...).

      I really ought to pay more attention to what you say in future...


Post a comment

Thank you for taking the time to comment on this post. Constructive comments are always welcome, even if they do not coincide with my views! Please note, however, that comments will be removed or not published if I consider that:
* They are not relevant to the subject of this post; or
* They are (or are possibly) defamatory; or
* They breach court reporting rules; or
* They contain derogatory, abusive or threatening language; or
* They contain 'spam' advertisements (including links to any commercial websites).
Please also note that I am unable to give advice.