Call our National Helpline on 08707 607496
Monday to Friday between 6pm and 10pm
Keeping Children and Parents in Contact since 1974
Press Release
It’s not about ‘perception’ – it’s about quality control
The Department of Constitutional Affairs has just released another 80-page consultation paper on ‘Improving transparency and privacy in family courts'.
“The public will still normally be excluded from family proceedings. They will still not have a right to attend, but will need permission which may or may not be granted”, said Families Need Fathers chair, John Baker
The paper has no mention of quality control, the element so lacking in the Family Courts, but includes an awful lot about ‘perception’. The DCA, as administrators of justice in family proceedings, need to start taking quality control more seriously and worry a little less about perception.
Buried deep in this report are the reasons why quality control, that works in other areas of justice, does not work in family proceedings. The first, which the DCA are very slowly appreciating, is that there is a lack of scrutiny. The second is that appealing is futile, and delay is just as damaging as a ‘no contact’ judgement.
It’s all there in the sentence 'Denying a parent contact with their child effectively ends that parent/child relationship'. So it has to be got right first time, and we don’t think that dispersing proceedings around more part-time magistrates is going to improve either quality or quality control. It’s the failure of the DCA to consider quality control that has led them into these over-timid and over-delayed proposals. Why on earth should the entry of the Courts’ own inspectorate be in doubt? They cannot review judicial decisions but could at least review delay and lack of continuity, the two great failings of the Division.
Families Need Fathers will answer the consultation but, not for the first time, the DCA has asked the wrong questions. For example :-
- How could the courts decide who was a legitimate ‘member of the press’, in the age of the internet, without stepping into another minefield of civil liberty issues ? It has been a long time since you could define the ‘press’ by a union card.
- Could you really convict someone for reporting that X had had to go to court to get access to their children?
- Could you really imprison someone for reporting that Y had had to go to court to enforce a contact order, when the judges have declared that they can’t penalise the person who has obstructed contact?
- Is the DCA really proposing to anonymise all children proceedings, or just as at present, those concerning its own judges? (Proceedings concerning British children in non-British courts are currently televised without penalty and without, apparently, irreparable damage to the children.)
“These proposals do not go far enough. The DCA still doesn’t get it. It’s not about ‘perception’, it’s about quality control. Tinkering with ‘perception’ will not restore confidence in the secret family courts”, said FNF chair, John Baker.
- ENDS -
Families Need Fathers(FNF) is a registered charity providing information and support on shared parenting issues arising from family breakdown, and support to divorced and separated parents, irrespective of gender or marital status. Our primary concern is the maintenance of the child’s relationship with both parents. Founded in 1975, FNF helps thousands of parents every year.
Please see Families Need Fathers ‘programme for change’ Father’s Day Manifesto