Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Attack by Family Court judges force Government backdown

Collapse
X
Collapse
  •  

  • Attack by Family Court judges force Government backdown

    Click image for larger version

Name:	Laurence Ryan.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	6.4 KB
ID:	24890
    The Government has backed down from radical Family Court changes which would have banned lawyers from acting in the early stages of disputes over the care of children.
    The proposed changes, designed to save $15 million a year, have been slammed as "unsafe" in an outspoken submission by Family Court judges.
    Principal Family Court Judge Laurence Ryan, on behalf of the full Family Court Bench, said a proposal to ban lawyers until the final stages of parental disputes would drive parents into more allegations of domestic violence so that they could get legal aid.
    "There is an assumption that these changes will reduce the overall cost of supporting the Family Court," the judges said. "We consider, on the contrary, that there will be no cost savings at all. Many people will avoid [mediation], the lack of legal representation will mean that fewer cases settle, more judicial time will be required and more cases will go to defended hearings."
    Justice Minister Judith Collins said that "her officials had listened and would recommend changes that would address most of the judges' concerns."There will be more involvement by lawyers than indicated," she said. "There are likely to be opportunities for lawyers to be involved in relation to children as well." She accepted that financial savings would be less as a result.
    Mrs Collins has described the bill as making "the most significant changes to the family justice system since the Family Court was established in 1981". It would require most parents with disputes over the care of children, except in family violence cases, to go first to a private mediator approved as a "family dispute resolution (FDR) provider".
    The Government would pay a fixed mediation fee of $897 where the incomes and assets of both parents were below the legal aid thresholds. Parents above the thresholds would have to negotiate fees.
    Lawyers would be banned from acting for parents in mediation and in the court until a case is set down for a full defended hearing. Long-standing provisions banning children's contact with a parent alleged to be violent, known as the "Bristol clauses", after Wanganui man Alan Bristol killed his three children and himself in 1994, would be abolished.
    Mrs Collins said the bill was "a proposal to get feedback" and she expected changes when it came back from a select committee in June.
    "We will be definitely proceeding with FDR. However, we have listened very much to the judges and their concerns, and the departmental report coming back to the select committee is likely to reflect that listening has occurred."
    She said judges would also be able to direct parents to counselling before mediation. "For some people, counselling may be just what they need before FDR, or instead of it."
    On the Bristol clauses, she said the bill's aim was to ensure judges focused on children's safety. The revised bill would make this clearer.

    Family Court bill
    Original version:
    • All care-of-children disputes, except family violence cases, go first to private mediation before access to Family Court.
    • Mediation fee $897 unless income above legal aid threshold.
    • Lawyers banned from acting in mediation and in Family Court, except in family violence cases, until case reaches defended hearing.
    • Abolition of long-standing provisions banning children's contact with allegedly violent parent.
    Revised version:
    • Care-of-children cases will still have to go to mediation first.
    • Mediation fee unchanged.
    • Lawyers allowed earlier in process, possibly including lawyers for children during mediation.
    • Possibly new risk or safety criteria to guide decisions on children's contact with parents.
      Posting comments is disabled.

    Latest Articles

    Collapse

    • Judge Goddard Shipped to United Kingdom for Inquiry
      by courtwatcher
      Official comments from the United Kingdom lauding the appointment of New Zealand High Court Justice Lowell Goddard to head an Inquiry into broad child sexual abuse have legal doyens in New Zealand privately scratching their heads. Goddard J scored dead last in the 2014 poll of New Zealand judges last year, with many lawyers extremely critical of Lowell’s opportunistic public stances, liberties with the truth and contrarian judgments. But let us not be burdened by the empirical truth when we sho...
      05-02-2015, 12:27 PM
    • TRANSPARENCY IN NEW ZEALAND
      by admin

      Transparency International New Zealand posted a news story on Voxy yesterday stating its "emergent overall findings" into its "National Integrity Systems review" "found that high standards of independence, integrity and accountability were generally met, although areas for improvements were noted. New Zealand also scores highly for fiscal transparency." The story states a further report will be provided in July, with the full report concluding August 27th. The public are invited...
      14-05-2013, 02:50 PM
    • Judges push Parliament to protect them
      by admin
      New Zealand Judges have ganged up to push Parliament into considering legislation which gives them greater privacy, stating criticism of judges - what they called "unwarranted and improper attack" - is increasing on internet sites; adding complaints to the Judicial Conduct Commissioner, while "appropriate in principle", are frequently being used "essentially to harass judges". Eight judges, including the Chief Justice and Acting Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, expressly endorsed the submissions t...
      25-04-2013, 11:14 AM
    • Shake up for judges mooted
      by admin
      Judges are facing the biggest overhaul of accountability in decades, with the Cabinet considering legal changes that would compel the judiciary to publish annual reports, bring transparency to judicial appointments and attempt to stem criticism washing up against the bench. The changes being considered by ministers today will see the 115-year-old Judicature Act updated to modernise a branch of state that has come under fire from some.

      A Herald-DigiPoll survey has found 53 per cent...
      15-04-2013, 10:07 AM
    • Attack by Family Court judges force Government backdown
      by admin
      The Government has backed down from radical Family Court changes which would have banned lawyers from acting in the early stages of disputes over the care of children. The proposed changes, designed to save $15 million a year, have been slammed as "unsafe" in an outspoken submission by Family Court judges. Principal Family Court Judge Laurence Ryan, on behalf of the full Family Court Bench, said a proposal to ban lawyers until the final stages of parental disputes would drive parents into more...
      07-04-2013, 10:10 AM
    • Litigants without lawyers biggest problem facing the Family Court
      by admin

      Current proposals with the select committee considering the Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill include a compulsory $900 family dispute service, axing counselling sessions and restricting access to legal representation for parents and children. Judge Laurence Ryan is the new principal Family court Judge and he is concerned about changes to legal aid - meaning dozens more litigants without lawyers .
      Ryan was appointed to the bench in 1996 - he has a strong interest in case ...
      25-03-2013, 08:07 PM
    Working...
    X