Lib Dem Contact Proposals

A colleague emails:

…When looking through the LibDem manifesto this week, I noticed an express commitment, buried deep in the document at page 52, which may be of some interest (and reads, as follows)….
“The Liberal Democrats will “introduce a default contact arragangement, which would divide the child’s time between their two parents in the event of a family breakdown, if there is no threat to the safety of the child”
I’m wondering (a) what the default position will be (b) how many cases I have had in the last 4 years where a care and contact pattern has not been completely tailored to the circumstances of the particular family (less than 1 hand of fingers) and (c) how it would be implemented….?”

He’s right on the nail there as far as I can see. But I don’t see the other two parties as being exactly a family lawyer’s dream party either, so this won’t change my vote.

.

The Lib Dems will also incorporate the UN Convention on the rights of a child into UK law, publish anonymised Serious Case Reviews and they make a number of generalised pledges about such things as the reduction of child poverty.

Thanks AC for the heads up.

Family Law Direct

The Legal Services Board have today lifted the restrictions on barristers accepting instructions directly from members of the public in family work.  Previously under the Public Access Scheme barristers who, like me, had completed Public Access Training were prohibited from advising or representing clients in family matters (except in very very limited circumstances) or in immigration or criminal cases.

.

Although barristers are still not permitted to conduct litigation, and although many family cases will remain unsuitable for the instruction of a barrister without a solicitor being involved, in the right case a client may be able to significantly reduce her legal costs by instruction of a barrister direct.

.

You can find detailed information on the changes and how they are likely to operate in practice in the revised Guidance material here on the LSB website. The Guidance indicates that cases involving children are likely to be unsuitable for this kind of instruction, but whilst no doubt this is correct there will be instances where it will work perfectly well, for example perhaps where a litigant in person wishes to continue representing himself in respect of a children matter but wishes to obtain a one off written opinion or guidance about the future of the case or how he should go about things, which may well be cheaper than retaining a solicitor or even simply asking them for ad hoc advice.

I am in a minority of family barristers qualified to offer these new services to date, and I expect to be dusting off my Public Access File in the coming months…

Tear Down The Wall…

Charon QC is right. I have to comment on Jack Straw’s apparent reluctance to appoint Lord Justice Wall as the new President of the Family Division, reported on here by The Times. It is difficult to think of any reason for Mr Straw’s request that the appointment panel reconsider other than Wall LJ’s willingness to speak frankly about the state of the family justice system. Thinking back to Wall LJ’s speech about ‘coming off the bench’ in the latter part of last year one imagines a change of tack would be likely if Wall were to succeed the current President Mark Potter.

Although I have taken some time to post this since the story first broke I can find no fresher information than the Times report linked to above, so I assume there is no further announcement as yet.  Cutting it a bit fine eh?