View from the bench | To review or not to review

That is the question (with apologies to William Shakespeare) often raised at the end of a final hearing in a private law Children Act application.

My base court is in Blackpool, a town of some 142,000 persons, which according to the recently released 2011 census, is the divorce capital of the United Kingdom. 13.1 per cent of all people in Blackpool are divorced as against a national average of nine per cent.

Apocryphally, the percentage of separated couples in Blackpool is even higher. No one reading this short article will therefore be surprised that the district judges and the justices in the family proceedings court next door are overwhelmed with Children Act applications.

The national reviews in 2009 confirmed that the average length of private law proceedings to final order was 46 weeks. For a residence order it was 35 weeks and for a contact order 51 weeks. This led to the Norgrove report of November 2011, and the Crime and Courts Bill from which the proposed Family Court will come into being, will require public law cases having to adhere to a 26 week timetable, if not of exceptional complexity. Private law cases surely will not be far behind in having to be completed within the same time scale.

Further the restraint upon public funding of private law cases from April will no doubt put greater pressure on judges and justices, with far more applications for Children Act orders from self-represented parents, and on making of a final order, far more reviews. The question is whether these reviews should be granted

Guidance was recently given by Black LJ in re K (Children) [2012] EWCA Civ 1306, being an appeal following a hearing in a private law case concerning contact. She said: “… a word about review hearings. Hearings at which there is to be a ‘review’ of a case are not at all uncommon, but they do carry a risk that there is a misunderstanding as to what will be addressed by the court. It is important that in advance of such a hearing, there is as much clarity as possible about its form and ambit, the issues that will be addressed, whether evidence is contemplated and whether the orders that result will be case management orders or orders of substance and, if the latter, whether interim or final.”

Examples of such issues that can be addressed are likely to include:

? the filing of a further report from a family court advisor or children’s guardian as to a parent’s response after attending a series of contact visits at a specialist supported contact centre;

? the filing of further reports as to recovery from alcohol or drug addictions but only if it is within a time limit appropriate to the age of a child concerned;

? the filing of a psychological or psychiatric report upon a parent but only if it is within a time limit appropriate to the age of a child concerned;

? the production of children for contact by a parent. In re M (Children) [2012] EWCH 1948 (Fam) Peter Jackson J on an application by a father for residence, the mother having stopped producing the children for contact, and following committal hearings, made orders for staying contact with hearings to follow. This was to ensure that the mother facilitated contact. To date this review after review has worked as contact has taken place as ordered. I have since successfully used the same series of reviews on a weekly basis against a mother who was not supporting contact, but by ordering a hearing immediately after each contact the children’s guardian and I seem to have persuaded the mother to comply; and

? to see if indirect contact has been successful but only if it is within ?a time limit appropriate to the age of ?a child concerned.

Even when pressurised by self represented parties or even solicitors or counsel, reviews should not be used just because public funding is unlikely to be available in the future, or just in case an order does not work.

Therefore if, after a final hearing, you are going to ask the judge or justices to review the case, ensure that the reasons for such a review are clearly set out so that they can be recorded on the face of the order.