Page 1 of 1

family courts in crisis says Mark Potter

PostPosted: Fri Jul 03, 2009 3:41 pm
by avenger
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/b ... 627557.ece


Family courts in crisis, says Sir Mark PotterFrances Gibb, Legal Editor
Britain’s most senior family judge called last night for urgent action over a crisis in the family courts fuelled by increasing delays in child abuse cases and lack of funds.

Sir Mark Potter, President of the Family Division, delivered a devasting picture of a system under massive strain, exacerbated by a surge in work after the Baby Peter case.

One factor, he said, was the steady rise in cases involving ethnic minority families with language difficulties and complex cultural considerations that “substantially” added to the length and cost of court cases.

“As all judges can testify, the need for an interpreter can double the length of court proceedings,” he said.

Related Links
Questions remain as family courts open to press
Family courts system 'is hiding evidence'
Cafcass, the children’s court agency, was also suffering “considerable problems with shortages of staff, a lack of experienced guardians (social workers who act for children in care cases) and consequent delay in the allocation of cases”. Despite efforts to tackle the delays in providing reports in care cases, such delays had lead to a position which is acknowledged to be “unacceptable, Sir Mark said.

Even before the surge in work prompted by the case of Baby Peter, courts were experiencing mounting delays in the appointment of guardians and reporting, he added.

Sir Mark, giving the Hershman/Levy Memorial lecture to the Association of Lawyers for Children, said that at the same time as there were “serious delays” in the supply of reports needed for care cases, there was a “dramatic upsurge” in care proceedings brought by local authorities.

On top of the existing problems of delay, judges and court officials were now faced with the “formidable problem of accommodating this extra block of cases through an already strained system”. Sir Mark said that in the face of these problems, “urgent action” was necessary to deal with “hot spots” in delays around the country.

He and Government officials were already embarked on an exercise to ease the requirements needed in such cases to cut down time spent in obtaining reports, he said.

Sir Mark went on to warn ministers “forcibly” over their plans to reform legal aid funding in children’s cases and the “threat” posed in terms of both efficiency and delay.

If lawyers left this area of work, there would be a rise in people representing themselves and further delays caused by “inexperienced advocates undertaking more complex work”.

Hearings would be less focused and appeals more likely, he said.

He attacked the Legal Services Commission over a “discouraging lack of realism” in its apparent determination to disregard these warnings.

In its response to Lord Laming’s report on Baby Peter, the Government had pledged continuous improvement. But, Sir Mark said, there was no reference to the provision of resources or the “eventuality that a system already struggling under the constraints of limited and reducing budgets may prove unequal to task”. That “unfortunate omission” was a failure to acknowledge the “elephant which, if it is not already in the room, has already planted its front feet well over the threshold”.

Children giving evidence in trials about abuse are having to wait for more than a year before cases are heard, a report by the NSPCC shows. Crown Court trials involving young witnesses take even longer, the NSPCC found, adding to the stress of the children involved. The report, Measuring Up?, co-funded with the Nuffield Foundation, is the largest study conducted of young witnesses and draws on interviews with 182 children aged 5 to 19, parents and witness-support professionals.



Have your say

"ethnic minority families with language difficulties and complex cultural considerations" yet more fall out from Labour's policy of uncontroled immigration.

Barry, Woking, Surrey, GB

It is sad for Sir Mark to cry wolf when we wrote to him sometime ago and his office response that he will not respond but he had time to write a reference letter in support for a barrister involved in family court who had lied to gain advantage.

Kartar Badsha, Southport, UK



Have your say

PostPosted: Fri Jul 03, 2009 6:07 pm
by Secrets
MArk Potter is utterly deluded.

Since when has an increase in funding assisted when children are being wrongly removed?

PostPosted: Sat Jul 04, 2009 2:48 am
by Andrew
The workload involved is do to a large number of cases that are not even cases, stop stealing children because of petty things then they will free up a lot of resources and they can improve from there further.

Re: family courts in crisis says Mark Potter

PostPosted: Sat Jul 04, 2009 10:20 am
by NRparent
avenger wrote:Cafcass, the children’s court agency, was also suffering “considerable problems with shortages of staff, a lack of experienced guardians (social workers who act for children in care cases) and consequent delay in the allocation of cases”. Despite efforts to tackle the delays in providing reports in care cases, such delays had lead to a position which is acknowledged to be “unacceptable, Sir Mark said.


If the Guardians represented the child and told the truth to the Judge or presented the "facts" correctly without any spin, the court might be in a better position to deal with the case quicker. It's the misrepresentation that adds to the delay and and the misrepresentation seems to be centered around people who have a social worker qualification.


Sir Mark, giving the Hershman/Levy Memorial lecture to the Association of Lawyers for Children, said that at the same time as there were “serious delays” in the supply of reports needed for care cases, there was a “dramatic upsurge” in care proceedings brought by local authorities.


There isn't any clear public document that shows a parent exactly what's right and wrong. A social worker "makes it up" and tries to force a parent to see the social workers perspective and no other, then the parent is expected to comply with something the parent opposes. When the parent refuses, then the LA ask a Judge to decide.

No one knows what the specific criteria is for removing a child because it's vague and can vary from area to area. Present things in a "right and wrong" perspective and people know where they stand.

The obvious of criminal neglect and cruelty goes without saying.


If lawyers left this area of work, there would be a rise in people representing themselves and further delays caused by “inexperienced advocates undertaking more complex work”.

Hearings would be less focused and appeals more likely, he said.


There are already more people representing themselves.

The case isn't as complex as suggested usually.....the LA make it that way.

Either the parent did something wrong or they didn't. If they did, then it's a case of telling the parent what the expectations are and being open about all the options and specific expectations which are layed down at the start.

If the LA were more open and transparent with what they did, then people would know where they stood.

If the media were reporting what the LA wanted to hide, the general public would see what was happening and be in a position to change their parenting ways or object to other people's treatment by social workers..... but the LA do things in secret, with the assistance of a secret court.

If "problem over zealous social workers" were named in the press, they would be worked out a job, and rightly so. If a parent mistreated the child, they would be named in the same way and have to face their friends and family.

Hardly a surprise that the system has problems. It's been hidden for to long.

He attacked the Legal Services Commission over a “discouraging lack of realism” in its apparent determination to disregard these warnings.


Legal aid are part of the problem. In parental disputes, one parent usually has to pay while the other gets free legal representation. Solicitors tend to make things worse, not better. The system is already stacked up against one parent and there is no fair starting point.

In child care proceedings, there are so many parties that a decision takes ages to get to. No one wants to make a firm decision and the Judge has to keep involved. Plenty of laws being bantered about.

If the parents were guilty of something, send then to jail or community service or hard labor or convince them of their "fault" and teach them what they need to know.

Remove the "wishy washy" elements from care proceedings and things should start to change for the better.

Remove financial incentives and target driven criteria, so there is no expectation to keep generating work where there is none.