Norgrove review could have gone further
The Norgrove review of family law has made some worthwhile recommendations but has missed an opportunity for a more radical overhaul, says Jon Armstrong
David Norgrove's review of family justice appears to have caused more dismay than rejoicing. The media have emphasised Norgrove's rejection of the introduction of a right to a meaningful relationship between a father and his children with headlines that at first sight seem to imply that fathers will no longer be able to seek contact with their children. The Daily Mail pronounced: 'Fathers and grandparents will be denied the right to see children,' while The Guardian declared: 'Divorced fathers will not let get legal right to access.'
The family justice review has in fact decided against implementing the demands of Fathers 4 Justice that, at the end of a relationship, there should be an automatic arrangement whereby the children should spend equal amounts of time with their parents. Nadine O'Connor, campaign director of Fathers 4 Justice, has condemned the review as a 'betrayal' and described it as 'a monstrous sham and a bureaucratic exercise in improving the efficiency of injustice'.
As a family law solicitor, I am not surprised that Norgrove has decided against the principle of dividing children's time equally. In my experience, such shared residence arrangements usually only succeed where the parents are capable of a high level of cooperation. It is the parents who are not able to do this who end up instructing solicitors and having to use the court. If the parents find themselves arguing about residence or contact arrangements at court, they will never be able to make a shared residence arrangement work. Time and again, I have seen such arrangements break down, with the child gravitating towards one parent '“ often the parent who is more indulgent.
It is a shame that the principle of children having a meaningful relationship with both parents has not been adopted. There should be a presumption that contact will take place between child and the non-resident parent on a regular and frequent basis, unless there is a good reason why it should not. I see far too many cases where mothers deny or restrict contact with the father for spurious or selfish reasons.
The power of mediation
The review also recommends that people should make their own arrangements for their children when they separate through mediation and should only use the courts when necessary. Quite right. As a mediator, I am often surprised how many cases that are suitable for mediation do not use it. Mediation is an excellent way of resolving disputes about children. However, it should not be regarded as a panacea. For example, the government's recent decision not to reform the law on cohabitation was justified by the Ministry of Justice as not being necessary because of the availability of mediation, which is nonsense.
Mediation gives parents the opportunity to resolve their differences about their children in a way that does not ruin their ability to work together in the future. It avoids the perception of winners and losers and allows the parents to retain control over the outcome, rather than putting it in the hands of judge. It also has the advantage of being considerably cheaper than going to court. But mediation is not suitable in every case.
Greater cohesion
The review also recommended that the family justice system should be overhauled so the agencies and professionals work together with greater coherence to improve the experience of children and families, as well as there being a new six-month time limit in care cases. It remains to be seen whether or not there are sufficient resources for this to be a realistic possibility.
Norgrove is apparently keen for social services to be responsible for some decision making instead of the court. Those of us who are rarely impressed by social workers will not find this a tempting proposition.
One final proposal of particular significance in the review is the call for a single family court to replace the current three-tier structure of magistrates', county and high courts. That is probably a good idea; I have never been able to understand the logic of having three alternative venues.
Norgrove's view of the family justice system is that we do not have one; what we have is far too chaotic and not joined up enough. But it is hard to predict whether or not the review will remedy this.