Category Archives: family-justice-review

Ryder’s Rider

I’m confuserated.

First of all the ALC website reported Ryder’s apparent acknowledgment at the NAGALRO conference that the 26 week limit was only currently achievable in about 30% of cases. And then it disappeared. Except of course you can’t disappear something you’ve published on the internet “juslikethat”, Tommy Cooper stylee. Family Law Week had already reported it. And so there was an odd void on the ALC website for a period. A post with no content…Begging the question.

Now it has been replaced with a post that says (I paraphrase) “this is what we reported was said, this is what the Judicial Office say was in fact said, and just for good measure here is Ryder J’s rider “for the avoidance of doubt”.

This is what was originally reported:

“Practitioners from different parts of the country raised concerns about courts rigidly implementing the 26 week timetable. One child care lawyer asked Mr Justice Ryder if he was aware that in the experience of many lawyers, the 26 weeks requirement had been written “on tablets of stone” – even if it led to a denial of justice for children and parents. Ryder J responded that the 26 weeks was not written in stone, that it was aspirational, and that in his view it may be achieved in two years’ time.

Both he and McFarlane LJ were very clear that there was “no missive from on high”, and no direction given to impose 26 weeks. The family modernisation programme did not have the status of a practice direction. Ryder J went on to observe that early data being collected from courts showed that the 26 week timetable was only achievable in about 30% of cases.”

Continue Reading…

As one door closes another opens

You might have presumed I would have done my consultation response on shared parenting ages ago. But that starting point would have been the wrong starting point. Had you taken all the circumstances into account it was not safe to assume that I would do so, because although it was likely I would have had the fullest possible involvement with the consultation throughout its life (without of course specifying the amount of time I have spent on it), in fact I have not exercised my responsibility until the eleventh hour, although I have lived with the consultation throughout its minority, nurturing it and thinking about it all the time. I have sadly been unable to prioritise this particular baby over my other needs.

Ok enough. I’ve wanted wanted wanted to get to this shared parenting consultation response for an eon, along with my response to Stephen Twist’s post on a related topic, and along with my half drafted and rather dusty epic post on shared parenting in general. I have given all of this a massive amount of thought and have been reading, ruminating and generally worrying about it for some time but have just been too busy to actually get down to it.

And in the meantime the Government have published their proposed amendments to the Children Act 1989 (H/t Family Lore), so just as I tick one thing off my list I have something else to replace it with. Plus ca change. Thankfully, Suesspicious Minds has covered the public law aspects of the draft legislation here – there are no surprises in it really. I have touched on the private law aspect of it (child arrangements orders) in my consultation response. Since I am all private lawed out after the consultation response frenzy today I have little energy for a blog post on child arrangements orders, but I have attached my consultation response. I’ve tried to focus on the strengths and weaknesses of the comparative proposals but it was pretty tough to stay on the straight and narrow. I confess I had begun to warm to the idea of a presumption or some kind of legislative “we take dads seriously” flag, but the more I looked at the actual wording in Options 1 -4 the more difficulties resurfaced. I want it to be a silver bullet that makes things better but I don’t really think it will be. I tried to think of better wording but failed…I shall now probably be shot down in flames by people who say I’m defending the status quo with my gravy train politics, or who say I’m a feminazi. I’m really not. I just think the problem is a social not a legal one. I do think that one can impact on the other but I don’t think that statutory amendment in itself will fix a social problem. And statutory amendment in the absence of resource to back it up (court, legal advice / representation, CAFCASS, information or anything else) is just a recipe for more disillusionment and injustice.

The consultation is here by the way. It closes tomorrow.

My response is here.

 

The Pathwaye of the Errant Knight Ryder

Oh. Just ignore the title. It’s silly.

But on second thoughts…Let’s run with it.

The Pathwaye of the Errant Knight Ryder – An Epic Pome

After many arduous stanzas depicting adventures across faerieland our brave virtuous hero Sir Ryder thunders up the pathway on his stallion Tonto, brings him to a dusty snorting halt, unfurls his Sixth Scroll and reads thusly:

“Friends, Romans, Self-Represented Countrypersons. [Aside : Is this microphone working?]

I have a dream….

Of pathways. Of oh so many pathways. Spreading across this fair isle casting inquisitorial intent like a gossamer veil over our adversarial land.

But I’ve been on the road for many long months now, and I am spent with overmuch derring do, and the vanquishing of dragons both allegorical and real, and so I thought it would be easier to type it up and make it into a pdf for you to read at your leisure. So, here.”

And without as much as a “By your leave” he was off. To sleep an enchanted sleep in bounteous meadows until six moons hath waxed and waned, or until the passing of 26 whole weeks (whichsoever shall occur soonest).

Ye ende.