Family Court Statistics
Oct.21, 2008 in
Media, Youth Work
My good friend Dave sent me this dramatic photo he took from an article in today’s Independent newspaper regarding opening up the Family Courts to the public.
In 2007, Family Courts in England and Wales…
- heard 107,075 cases involving children
- recieved 138,000 petitions for divorce
- issued 26,901 domestic violence orders
While I’ve not yet read the entire article, those are sad statistics that make me think such painful court proceedings should be kept private rather than exposed for anyone to witness.
October 21st, 2008 at 4:40 pm
You should read the article and also go and have a look at how many mothers were put into prison for contempt of court following secret trials. I was nearly one of those jailbirds - I was raped 12 years ago, my rapist took me to court, he used the secret courts as a tool to stalk me! The police would not prosecute him, neither would they investigate the abuse I suffered as a 13 year old at Chadswell Assessment Centre, Lichfield - a childrens home that was being run by pedophiles. It took seven years of fighting for me to earn the right not to send my son to a rapist. If the newspapers had been able to report on my case it would have been on the front of every tabloid, I would not have been tormented for seven years and the taxpayers, which includes you, would not have had to foot the £100,000 bill that it cost everyone to allow a rapist to take his victim to court for 7 years.
October 22nd, 2008 at 12:30 am
Hi Zoompad,
Thanks for taking the time to comment here. Your terrible experiences put the debate in a whole new light! Do you think everyone would benefit from opening up the Family Courts? Are there many cases like your own?
October 22nd, 2008 at 3:09 am
Yes Jon, there are many cases like Zoompad's where parents try to prevent contact between a child and the other, violent parent. There are also many cases where decent parents desperately try to have contact with their child which the other parent obstructs. Every year the courts make 60,000 or so orders for contact.
The problem is that the courts don't distinguish, treat all cases the same, and squander scant resources 'protecting' children who don't need protection. Children who do need protection are put at risk. They do this through a combination of idleness, habit, incompetence and extreme ideologies, all protected by secrecy.
It is a misconception that secrecy is there to protect children from publicity - it is actually because it's believed that open courts would inhibit witnesses and compromise justice. Are we expected to believe that this isn't a problem in other courts? The reality is that secrecy only protects idle, incompetent and bigoted adults.
Despite our (minor) differences, Zoompad, who belongs to Mothers for Justice, and I, who belong to Fathers 4 Justice, both recognise that court secrecy must end, and I'm sure she would agree with me that she would rather her dirty laundry was aired in public than that her child should be put at risk.
October 22nd, 2008 at 3:18 am
Excellent response Nick. I’m aware of some of what Fathers 4 Justice do and am glad you’ve taken the time to post. Being reasonably ignorant on the subject, would allowing all cases into the public arena solve some of these issues? Could parents use or abuse the potential media coverage to their advantage (good or bad)?
October 22nd, 2008 at 4:03 am
No. There are many things wrong with the family courts and the secrecy is only one of them. The court is not the right place to deal with most of these cases.
Opening the courts would not mean that all cases would be publicised - when the New Zealand family courts were opened to the media (in a very limited and controlled way) only a handful of cases was reported in the first year.
I think we need to get away from just thinking about the media, though. Open courts must admit anyone: public, MPs, academics, etc - anyone who wants to see justice done. It's controversial, but I don't agree with anonymising proceedings and judgements - there is no evidence that children are harmed by being named, and plenty of evidence that they are harmed by secrecy.
I think parents are far more likely to abuse the secrecy, by making false allegations, for example, than abuse openness.
October 22nd, 2008 at 4:20 am
Fair points, well made!
If, as you say, court is not the right place to deal with the majority of cases, how then should they be resolved? Working as I do with kids, I’m interested in the impact of an open court on them. Personally I have an affinity to openness and honesty so the idea appeals, yet I can’t help thinking about the torment these kids go through anyway. If more of their peers knew about the situation would it provoke ridicule or empathy? Also, where is the current legislation at about opening Family Courts? What is the argument against and when will it all get decided?
October 22nd, 2008 at 4:48 am
There was an interesting study recently (can't find the link) on the effectiveness of 'conciliation' which is usually a one-off session conducted in-court by CAFCASS with both parents in a contact dispute. It concluded that conciliation didn't work beyond a short-term effect. It also recommended taking contact disputes out of the legal system and treating them as public health or child welfare issues. I would support this.
They should also be dealt with swiftly, to prevent the hostility escalating, which turns a domestic quarrel into an intractable case of implacable hostility with false allegations flying and years of litigation.
I agree that exposing children potentially to publicity or the ridicule of their peers (do kids read the Times law reports?) could increase their torment, but I think it is a matter of weighing one risk against another, and I believe that, on balance, courts should be open to public scrutiny, and the professionals involved should be accountable for their decisions. There also needs to be far more academic access to assess effectiveness of orders, compliance with orders, etc.
The legislation prevents two things: the publication of information likely to identify a child subject to proceedings, and the access to the courts by those who are not parties or their legal representatives. Both are subject to judicial discretion, which means a judge can open his court or publish a judgement if he wants to. Prosecutions have been brought on the first prohibition (under Section 97, Children Act 1989) but so far as I am aware never successfully.
The justice minister Jack Straw is due to make a statement nest month. I would expect limited publication of anonymised judgements and some very limited access for accredited journalists to selected cases.
October 22nd, 2008 at 6:51 am
Thanks again Nick for such helpful and clear information.
I imagine you would think Straw's probable announcment next month
doesn't really change the situation drastically and would want more
extensive reform.
I like the idea of treating contact disputes outside of court, but if
conciliation doesn't work beyond short term then what are the
alternatives and who would take responsibility?
On 22 Oct 2008, at 12:49, “Disqus” <notifications-
November 21st, 2008 at 4:36 am
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/FathersNotGuilty/
It is well know that many women lie to the police to prevent or restrict fathers access to their children. The Police and family courts not only turn a blind eye but their acceptance of this practice only encourages women to keep doing it.
Fathers are not guilty by default! They are usually the more level headed parent, willing to put the childs interests first and yet they are criminalised by the false accusations of their ex partners.
It is often the mothers who are breaking the law and putting their childs interests second to their own selfish and vindictive tendancies.
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/FathersNotGuilty/
November 21st, 2008 at 5:22 am
Hi “Not Guilty”, thanks for taking the time to comment. I’m starting to understand the complexities of the issues involved. You’ve put forward an emotional response defending the rights of the Father, but it appears to also be a general attack on “selfish and vindictive” mothers. I imagine this is a particularly poignant debate for you, but it would be useful to have some particular examples or statistics to support your statements rather than general slander.
Do the Police deliberately turn a blind eye to mothers who lie about the father, or is it their practice to take these things at face value? Can you expand on that a little?
November 28th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
I would be only too please to be able to print names, addresses, photos and a statement with the evidence - unfortunately due to the present law and the existence of a non-mol I cant. That has not stopped third parties from publishing info on this and other cases on the internet. If the courts were open not just to the press but also the general public then many cases of false allegations - this is a universe away from general slander.
The police took over two months to take any action-and whilst not entirely the fault f the officers-there is little understanding of perjury and it takes a back seat to other crime that is understandable - it is far easier to apprehend a speeding driver in their vehicle as opposed to chase a so-called victim.
The petition has attracted 166 votes to date - 40% of which are women - this is not just a male problem - mothers daughters and wives suffer to due to the selfish, spiteful and vindictive attitudes of some women - more importantly it is the sons and daughters of the accused who truly suffer.
These women will never win - they are merely delaying the day of judgement - bestowed upon them by the child who suffered when they are old enough to realize - 16 years of lies - a lifetime of punishment.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-464132/Jailed-waving-daughter.html
December 2nd, 2008 at 9:38 pm
open the courts stop injustice