If the Government truly wishes to increase the openness and accountability of the family courts, then it must come up with workable and effective proposals. So how can this be achieved?
Although we broadly welcome the limited DCA proposals, we believe they do little to address the real issues which hide the decision making processes within the family justice system. Any attempt to increase openness must address these areas.
In the majority of private law cases, a decisive factor is the interview of the participants by a CAFCASS officer and the subsequent CAFCASS report. (Indeed, our ongoing survey of family law suggests this as one of the areas of greatest dispute and dissatisfaction).
Our simple proposals extend the DCA proposals and – for relatively little cost – we believe they provide a real level of accountability and openness that is vital if the government’s objectives are ever to be reached.
A major weakness of the DCA proposals, in our opinion, is their failure to acknowledge the importance of accountability and openness throughout the entire court process - and not just in the court hearing in front of a judge.
We propose, in addition to the DCA proposals, that :
|
1
|
Interviews between CAFCASS officers and participants should be taped by the CAFCASS officer (with the interviewee also being invited to make their own recording if they wish). More...
|
|
2
|
The CAFCASS recordings should be made available to either participant on request, for a nominal copying fee. More...
|
|
3
|
A participant may reveal the contents of a court hearing, a CAFCASS report or an interview recording to a journalist at any time during or after the proceedings.
|
|
4
|
Tape recordings of court hearings (that are routinely made already) should automatically be made available to participants after each hearing for a nominal copying fee.
|
|
5
|
These proposals should also apply to anyone asked by the court to interview participants and/or produce a report for the court (e.g. social workers, psychologists etc).
|
These reports and evidence are essentially a part of the court hearing (as, for example, it is usually contempt of court to reveal their contents), and they should be regarded as such. A CAFCASS interview or report is effectively a court hearing by proxy.
As the DCA propose that journalists should be able to attend court hearings – where in theory any of the evidence or report contents could be discussed – it is a logical extension that this right to attend hearings should also accrue a right to view and discuss these reports with participants.
Clearly, this right would hardly impose a greater risk to privacy or confidentiality than the right to attend court itself (as any of the evidence could potentially be discussed in court). In any case, the proposed reporting restrictions (which we support) would prevent publication of material identifying either child or participants.
The difference though, is that our proposals would give the press (and hence the public by proxy) the right to ensure that the family court process is properly accountable; and a greatly improved ability to assess if the court process is fair and operating in the child’s best interest.
The DCA proposals on their own would not be able to achieve this.
Despite providing apparent openness (while no doubt being politically acceptable in itself), these proposals would do very little to provide real accountability, and hence nothing to improve the family court process and outcomes for the children concerned.
