Challenges in Affordable Family Law Systems

 
THE CHALLENGE OF
AFFORDABLE FAMILY LAW
 
Patrick Parkinson, University of Sydney, Australia
President of the International Society of Family Law
 
 
Traffic jams
 
Stuck in traffic jams
The helicopter view
The traffic jams of family justice
Overwhelmed courts, long delays, stressed system
Cuts to  government funding in many countries or
funding not keeping pace with levels of demand
Why, and what can we do?
 
The problem of increasing
demand
 
E.g.
E.g.
 Britain, contact (visitation) orders increased
more than fourfold between 1992 and 2008
US 7 states: 44% increase in custody filings between
1997 and 2006 – follows 43% increase in 1990s.
Australia: number of contact applications nearly
doubled between 1994 and 2000
Similar trends in Europe eg. France and Denmark
Similar trends in Europe eg. France and Denmark
Delay increases litigation costs and frustration
Delay increases litigation costs and frustration
 
Reasons for stressed family
justice systems
 
Growth in number of parents who need the courts
to resolve family disputes.
outworking of the growth in the number of children born
to single parents or into cohabiting relationships.
Old model on which separation and divorce were
premised  - the idea that custody should be
awarded to one parent to the exclusion of the other,
with access to the loser - has irretrievably broken
down
Fathers want to be much more involved in
parenting after separation
 
Changing  patterns of family
formation and dissolution
 
Observed throughout much of Europe, North
Observed throughout much of Europe, North
America, South America
America, South America
 M
 M
arriage 
no longer seen as the predominant basis
for intimate partnerships and childrearing
In some South American countries, more people of
child-bearing age are living in cohabiting
relationships than are married e.g. Peru, Columbia
France, 26 percent of adults in the 18 to 49 age range
were cohabiting, while 39 percent were married
 
Parenthood: ex-nuptial
births
 
Britain: 47.5%
Britain: 47.5%
   
   
USA 41%
USA 41%
Belgium, Bulgaria, Estonia, France, Iceland, Slovenia,
Norway, and Sweden – more than 50%
Colombia  84%
Colombia  84%
   
   
Peru 76%
Peru 76%
Nicaragua 72%
Nicaragua 72%
   
   
Brazil 66%
Brazil 66%
 Majority in cohabiting relationships but much less
 Majority in cohabiting relationships but much less
durable than marriage
durable than marriage
Many born to single mums 16% in Britain and Irelad,
Many born to single mums 16% in Britain and Irelad,
24% in USA.
24% in USA.
 
The demise of sole custody
 
Model of custody to one and ‘access’ to the other is
no longer widely accepted
Emphasis on involvement of both parents after
separation
Smorgasbord of options for post-separation
parenting from limited contact to equal time
More to argue about
 
Fathers wanting more
involvement
 
Significant changes in the ideal of fatherhood, with
a greater emphasis on emotional closeness and
active involvement with the children
Greater involvement in parenting in intact
relationships
More fathers want to assist in the parenting role
after separation – increasingly as primary carers
 
Governmental responses
to demand
 
Family law professionals call for more resources for
Family law professionals call for more resources for
traditional model of adjudication
traditional model of adjudication
Pleas often fall on deaf ears in government
Pleas often fall on deaf ears in government
Traditional model of adjudication not suited for
Traditional model of adjudication not suited for
continuing family relationships
continuing family relationships
Competing demand for resources eg criminal law
Competing demand for resources eg criminal law
The harbour bridge problem – more courts a poor
investment of scarce public funds?
Limiting resources for courts forces people to settle
 
Towards different
solutions
 
The downside of downsizing
Need to think laterally about those cases that do not
Need to think laterally about those cases that do not
need fact-finding on violence, abuse or fitness to
need fact-finding on violence, abuse or fitness to
parent
parent
Many disputes between fit parents, most of which
will, eventually be resolved without adjudication,
but at high cost to the parties – if they are paying for
private lawyers - and to the government in terms of
the public costs of the legal system.
 
Five directions for reform
 
Creating different pathways for people to get help
Reducing discretion in family law cases
Providing guidance to assist resolution in parenting
disputes
Simplifying procedures for the more
straightforward cases which require adjudication
Addressing the need for defensive legal practice to
reduce legal costs
 
Creating different pathways for
people to get help
 
What is needed is to create different pathways for
parents who have separated, with litigation being just
one of those pathways
Different pathways, not just different programs e.g the
Different pathways, not just different programs e.g the
English experience
English experience
Mediation and the litigation freeway
Mediation and the litigation freeway
Early intervention: Family Relationship Centres
Early intervention: Family Relationship Centres
Highly visible and accessible centres - sources of help
Highly visible and accessible centres - sources of help
soon after separation, based in communities not courts
soon after separation, based in communities not courts
 
Reducing discretion in
family law cases
 
We need to get over the idea that we can provide
individualized justice  - except to the very few
Centripetal and centrifugal laws
Property division and child support
Canada: the spousal maintenance guidelines
Rough justice = affordable justice
 
Providing guidance to assist
resolution in parenting disputes
 
The best interests of the child must be the paramount
consideration
But few cases and not typical cases
No presumptions about time
No presumptions about time
More guidance from appeal courts
More guidance from appeal courts
Standardised parenting regimes and draft orders for
different patterns of care – must be widely available
Factors to consider about shared parenting
Factors to consider about shared parenting
Other cases – questions for mediators to discuss with
Other cases – questions for mediators to discuss with
parents
parents
 
Simplifying procedures for
some cases
 
Most people cannot afford the epic trial
Most people cannot afford the epic trial
Denmark – the County Governors’ Offices
Denmark – the County Governors’ Offices
Oregon – Deschutes County. 
Oregon – Deschutes County. 
Informal domestic
relations trial
 
 Rules 
 Rules 
of evidence are excluded and the parties
engage directly with the judge. Only the judge asks
questions of each person.
 
Addressing the need for
defensive legal practice
 
Family law reform requires tort law reform
Family law reform requires tort law reform
Unbundled legal services
Unbundled legal services
Limited purpose representation
Limited purpose representation
The risks involved for practitioners
The risks involved for practitioners
The limits of a lawyer’s liability in professional
negligence if they provide unbundled legal services
 
Conclusion
 
Paper available at 
Paper available at 
www.iflhome.org
www.iflhome.org
Publications
Publications
Recife papers
Recife papers
Slide Note
Embed
Share

The challenge of providing affordable family law services is highlighted by the increasing demand for family justice systems worldwide. Reasons for stressed systems include changing patterns of family formation, the growth in single parents, and the breakdown of traditional custody models. The rise in ex-nuptial births and the shift away from marriage as the primary basis for partnerships also contribute to the complexities faced by family law courts.

  • Family law
  • Affordable justice
  • Single parents
  • Ex-nuptial births
  • Changing family patterns

Uploaded on Sep 24, 2024 | 0 Views


Download Presentation

Please find below an Image/Link to download the presentation.

The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author.If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.

You are allowed to download the files provided on this website for personal or commercial use, subject to the condition that they are used lawfully. All files are the property of their respective owners.

The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. THE CHALLENGE OF AFFORDABLE FAMILY LAW Patrick Parkinson, University of Sydney, Australia President of the International Society of Family Law

  2. Traffic jams Stuck in traffic jams The helicopter view The traffic jams of family justice Overwhelmed courts, long delays, stressed system Cuts to government funding in many countries or funding not keeping pace with levels of demand Why, and what can we do?

  3. The problem of increasing demand E.g. Britain, contact (visitation) orders increased more than fourfold between 1992 and 2008 US 7 states: 44% increase in custody filings between 1997 and 2006 follows 43% increase in 1990s. Australia: number of contact applications nearly doubled between 1994 and 2000 Similar trends in Europe eg. France and Denmark Delay increases litigation costs and frustration

  4. Reasons for stressed family justice systems Growth in number of parents who need the courts to resolve family disputes. outworking of the growth in the number of children born to single parents or into cohabiting relationships. Old model on which separation and divorce were premised - the idea that custody should be awarded to one parent to the exclusion of the other, with access to the loser - has irretrievably broken down Fathers want to be much more involved in parenting after separation

  5. Changing patterns of family formation and dissolution Observed throughout much of Europe, North America, South America Marriage no longer seen as the predominant basis for intimate partnerships and childrearing In some South American countries, more people of child-bearing age are living in cohabiting relationships than are married e.g. Peru, Columbia France, 26 percent of adults in the 18 to 49 age range were cohabiting, while 39 percent were married

  6. Parenthood: ex-nuptial births Britain: 47.5% USA 41% Belgium, Bulgaria, Estonia, France, Iceland, Slovenia, Norway, and Sweden more than 50% Colombia 84% Peru 76% Nicaragua 72% Brazil 66% Majority in cohabiting relationships but much less durable than marriage Many born to single mums 16% in Britain and Irelad, 24% in USA.

  7. The demise of sole custody Model of custody to one and access to the other is no longer widely accepted Emphasis on involvement of both parents after separation Smorgasbord of options for post-separation parenting from limited contact to equal time More to argue about

  8. Fathers wanting more involvement Significant changes in the ideal of fatherhood, with a greater emphasis on emotional closeness and active involvement with the children Greater involvement in parenting in intact relationships More fathers want to assist in the parenting role after separation increasingly as primary carers

  9. Governmental responses to demand Family law professionals call for more resources for traditional model of adjudication Pleas often fall on deaf ears in government Traditional model of adjudication not suited for continuing family relationships Competing demand for resources eg criminal law The harbour bridge problem more courts a poor investment of scarce public funds? Limiting resources for courts forces people to settle

  10. Towards different solutions The downside of downsizing Need to think laterally about those cases that do not need fact-finding on violence, abuse or fitness to parent Many disputes between fit parents, most of which will, eventually be resolved without adjudication, but at high cost to the parties if they are paying for private lawyers - and to the government in terms of the public costs of the legal system.

  11. Five directions for reform Creating different pathways for people to get help Reducing discretion in family law cases Providing guidance to assist resolution in parenting disputes Simplifying procedures for the more straightforward cases which require adjudication Addressing the need for defensive legal practice to reduce legal costs

  12. Creating different pathways for people to get help What is needed is to create different pathways for parents who have separated, with litigation being just one of those pathways Different pathways, not just different programs e.g the English experience Mediation and the litigation freeway Early intervention: Family Relationship Centres Highly visible and accessible centres - sources of help soon after separation, based in communities not courts

  13. Reducing discretion in family law cases We need to get over the idea that we can provide individualized justice - except to the very few Centripetal and centrifugal laws Property division and child support Canada: the spousal maintenance guidelines Rough justice = affordable justice

  14. Providing guidance to assist resolution in parenting disputes The best interests of the child must be the paramount consideration But few cases and not typical cases No presumptions about time More guidance from appeal courts Standardised parenting regimes and draft orders for different patterns of care must be widely available Factors to consider about shared parenting Other cases questions for mediators to discuss with parents

  15. Simplifying procedures for some cases Most people cannot afford the epic trial Denmark the County Governors Offices Oregon Deschutes County. Informal domestic relations trial Rules of evidence are excluded and the parties engage directly with the judge. Only the judge asks questions of each person.

  16. Addressing the need for defensive legal practice Family law reform requires tort law reform Unbundled legal services Limited purpose representation The risks involved for practitioners The limits of a lawyer s liability in professional negligence if they provide unbundled legal services

  17. Conclusion Paper available at www.iflhome.org Publications Recife papers

Related


More Related Content

giItT1WQy@!-/#giItT1WQy@!-/#giItT1WQy@!-/#