The Children and Families Bill was debated again this week by the Grand Committee in the House of Lords; a startling number of amendments were proposed; you can read the Hansard transcribe of that debate here.
It is one amendment – and in particular one comment by the Earl of Listowel that I am picking up on. Amendment 242 would enable the introduction of a pilot scheme,
“to trial the registration of births within children’s centres”.
When he spoke about his proposed amendment, the Earl of Listowel said:” there is a danger of stigma in visiting a children’s centre; people may feel that they can go only if there is something wrong with them. This, however, is a universal service. Everyone would go there to register their child, so there would be no stigma attached to it. Practitioners talk about this as an important step forward in terms of involving fathers. Fathers will go along when the child is going to have the birth registered. I am not quite sure of the technical details as to why it is so important for fathers to be involved in the registration process—perhaps one of your Lordships can tell me in a minute—but there is a strong feeling that more fathers will be involved early in their child’s life this way.
If unmarried fathers are not present at the registration of the birth of their children, then they will not automatically acquire Parental Rights – acquisition of PR would then be dependant on either a PR agreement with the mother, or via a court order. Last year, 47.5% of children were born to unmarried parents; if the trend continues then by 2016 the majority of children will be born to unmarried parents.
It is imperative that fathers are not prevented or discouraged from being present at the birth registration – there are already far too many barriers for fathers in this country, and any new legislation should be inclusive of fathers, rather than attempting to further marginalise them. While the proposal of a trial of parents being able to register their child’s birth at a children’s centre and at the same time make parents aware of what services are available to them should they be required seems to hold some water, it would surely help a great deal if the Lord proposing this amendment understood the implications of why unmarried fathers need to be present at the registration. And no, he didn’t get a reply to his question to the other Lords as to why it is important for fathers to be present.
(from the New York Times)
In a pair of major victories for the gay rights movement, the Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that married same-sex couples were entitled to federal benefits and, by declining to decide a case from California, effectively allowed same-sex marriages there.
People celebrated outside the Supreme Court on Wednesday after it struck down the Defense of Marriage Act.
The rulings leave in place laws banning same-sex marriage around the nation, and the court declined to say whether there was a constitutional right to such unions. But in clearing the way for same-sex marriage in California, the nation’s most populous state, the court effectively increased to 13 the number of states that allow it.
The decisions will only intensify the fast-moving debate over same-sex marriage, and the clash in the Supreme Court reflected the one around the nation. In the hushed courtroom Wednesday morning, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy announced the majority opinion striking down the federal law in a stately tone that indicated he was delivering a civil rights landmark. After he finished, he sat stonily, looking straight ahead, while Justice Antonin Scalia unleashed a cutting dissent.
The vote in the case striking down the federal Defense of Marriage Act was 5 to 4, and Justice Kennedy was joined by the four members of the court’s liberal wing. The ruling will immediately extend many benefits to couples married in the states that allow such unions, and it will allow the Obama administration to broaden other benefits through executive actions.
The case concerning California’s ban on same-sex marriage, enacted in a ballot initiative known as Proposition 8, was decided on technical grounds, with the majority saying that it was not properly before the court. Because officials in California had declined to appeal a trial court’s decision against them, and because the proponents of the ban were not entitled to step into the state’s shoes to appeal the decision, the court said, it was powerless to issue a decision. That left in place a trial court victory for two same-sex couples who had sought to marry.
The vote in the California case was also 5 to 4, but with a different and very unusual alignment of justices. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote the majority opinion, and he was joined by Justice Scalia and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer and Elena Kagan. The four dissenters — Justice Kennedy and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Sonia Sotomayor — said they would have decided whether Proposition 8 was constitutional. But they did not say how they would have voted.
The case on the federal law was the more important one from a legal perspective, setting the terms for challenges to state bans on same-sex marriage. Justice Kennedy’s reasoning, as Justice Scalia noted at length in dissent, could just as easily have applied to state laws as to the federal one.
“The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and injure those whom the state, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity,” Justice Kennedy wrote. “By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment.”
He said the law was motivated by a desire to harm gay and lesbian couples and their families, demeaning the “moral and sexual choices” of such couples and humiliating “tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples.”
The constitutional basis for striking down the law was not entirely clear, as it had elements of federalism, equal protection and due process. Justice Kennedy said the law’s basic flaw was in its “deprivation of the liberty of the person protected by the Fifth Amendment.”
He added that the ruling applied only to marriages from states that allowed gay and lesbian couples to wed.
Dissenting from the bench, Justice Scalia said that that declaration took “real cheek.
“By formally declaring anyone opposed to same-sex marriage an enemy of human decency,” Justice Scalia said, “the majority arms well every challenger to a state law restricting marriage to its traditional definition.”
- Exactly 10 years ago, Justice Scalia issued a similar dissent in Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down laws making gay sex a crime. He predicted that the ruling would lead to the legal recognition of same-sex marriage, and he turned out to be right.
The court’s four more conservative justices — Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito — issued three dissents between them in the case on the federal law. They differed in some of their rationales and predictions, but all agreed that the law, which passed with bipartisan support and which President Bill Clinton signed, was constitutional.
Chief Justice Roberts said that he “would not tar the political branches with the brush of bigotry,” and that “interests in uniformity and stability amply justified Congress’s decision” in 1996, which, “at that point, had been adopted by every state in our nation, and every nation in the world.”
Justice Scalia wrote that the majority had simplified a complex question that should be decided democratically and not by judges.
“In the majority’s telling, this story is black-and-white: Hate your neighbor or come along with us,” he wrote. “The truth is more complicated.”
The decision will raise a series of major questions for the Obama administration about how to overhaul federal programs involving marriage. Justice Scalia noted some of the difficult problems created by the decision in the case,United States v. Windsor, No. 12-307. “Imagine a pair of women who marry in Albany and then move to Alabama,” he wrote. May they file a joint federal income tax return? Does the answer turn on where they were married or where they live?
The case before the justices concerned two New York City women, Edith Windsor and Thea Clara Spyer, who married in 2007 in Canada. Ms. Spyer died in 2009, and Ms. Windsor inherited her property. The federal law did not allow the Internal Revenue Service to treat Ms. Windsor as a surviving spouse, and she faced a tax bill of about $360,000, which a spouse in an opposite-sex marriage would not have had to pay. Ms. Windsor sued, and last year the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in New York, struck down the federal law.
The Obama administration continued to enforce the federal law, but it urged the justices to strike it down as unconstitutional, prompting House Republicans to step in to defend it. The justices differed on whether the case’s odd procedural posture deprived the court of jurisdiction, much as the machinations in the Proposition 8 case had.
Justice Kennedy said that the federal government retained a stake in the case, and that the lawyers for House Republicans had made “a sharp adversarial presentation of the issues.” Because the “rights and privileges of hundreds of thousands of persons” were at stake, Justice Kennedy wrote, it was urgent that the court act.
In the California case, Chief Justice Roberts said that the failure of state officials to appeal the trial court decision against them was the end of the matter. Proponents of Proposition 8 had suffered only a “generalized grievance” when the ballot initiative they had sponsored was struck down, the chief justice wrote, and they were not entitled to represent the state’s interests on appeal. The ruling in the case, Hollingsworth v. Perry, No. 12-144, erased the appeals court’s decision striking down Proposition 8.
As a formal matter, the decision sent the case back to the appeals court, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, “with instructions to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.” That means the trial court’s decision stands.
Lawyers for the two sides had different interpretations of the legal consequences of the Supreme Court’s ruling. Supporters of Proposition 8 said it remained the law in California because the trial court’s decision applied only to the two couples who had challenged the law. The lawyers who filed the challenge to Proposition 8, Theodore B. Olson and David Boies, said the trial court decision was binding in all of California.
As a practical matter, Gov. Jerry Brown, a Democrat, instructed officials to start issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples as soon as the Ninth Circuit acts.
If California becomes the 13th state to allow same-sex marriage, about 30 percent of Americans will live in jurisdictions where it is legal. Until last year, when four states voted in favor of same-sex marriage at the ballot box, it had failed — or bans on it had succeeded — every time it had appeared on a statewide initiative.
Bulletin 3 – June 2013
|Welcome to the third bulletin from the Family Justice Knowledge Hub|
What is the aim of Knowledge Hub?
A number of recommendations in the Family Justice Review related to the need to better disseminate relevant research and good practice throughout the Family Justice System. The Government Response to the review accepted these recommendations and committed to work with the Family Justice Board to facilitate the provision of social research evidence to family justice practitioners and wider stakeholders.
Ministry of Justice (MoJ) Analytical Services are supporting this through developing the Family Justice Knowledge Hub. One aspect of this is to collate and disseminate the latest research news, whether conducted on behalf of government departments, local authorities, research bodies or other organisations. Recipients of this bulletin are welcome to forward to others to help facilitate the dissemination of knowledge across the Family Justice System.
What can you expect from the Knowledge Hub Research Bulletin?
The Knowledge Hub Research Bulletin aims to provide a summary of the findings of recent research relevant to family justice, and an update on the progress of noteworthy ongoing and forthcoming projects. Where available links to fuller information are provided.
This third bulletin includes recently published public law studies and ongoing studies both in private and public law in England and Wales.
How can you get in touch?
We would appreciate your feedback on this bulletin. Additionally, if you would like to suggest any research for inclusion in future bulletins or to add a recipient on to the mailing list please get in touch at firstname.lastname@example.org
NB. While MoJ Analytical Services will apply discretion in assessing the relevance of material included, inclusion in the Knowledge Hub Research Bulletin does not mean the research is endorsed by the MoJ. The information included is not intended as an official view of the MoJ or a reflection of MoJ policy. Note that where research included here has been through an independent peer review process this is indicated in the Bulletin.
PUBLIC FAMILY LAW
The contribution of experts
Update on ongoing or forthcoming research projects
The contribution of experts
PRIVATE FAMILY LAW
Update on ongoing or forthcoming research projects
Litigants in person
Divorce and finance
|PUBLIC FAMILY LAW
Masson, J. and Dickens, J., with Bader, K. and Young, J. (2013) The pre-proceedings process for families on the edge of care proceedings. University of Bristol and University of East Anglia
Funder(s): Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC)
Related Journal Articles: Dickens, J., Masson, J., Young, J. and Bader, K. (2013) ‘The paradox of parental participation and legal representation in ‘edge of care’ meetings’, Child and Family Social Work, early view.
The study examined the operation and impact of the pre-proceeding process introduced in 2008 as part of the Public Law Outline (PLO) reforms to care proceedings. The pre-proceedings process requires local authorities to write a ‘letter before proceedings’ to parents explaining their concerns and invite them to a ‘pre-proceedings meeting’ to discuss how proceedings could be avoided. The pre-proceedings process aimed to divert cases of abuse and neglect from the courts, to ensure local authorities were better prepared and to reduce the time courts took to decide cases.
The study included:
The study was conducted in 6 local authorities in England and Wales. It aimed to explore:
Key findings include:
nvolved pre-birth assessments. care or improvements in care at home;
gs; was sufficient time to do so.
Jelicic, H., Gibb, J., La Valle, I and Payne, L. (2013) The Voice of the Child in the Child Protection Conferences. National Children’s Bureau.
Funder(s): Involved by Right – EU Daphne grant-funded programme
Report: National Children’s Bureau (NCB)
Related Journal Articles: in preparation
In order to improve participation and advocacy in child protection conferences and achieve better outcomes for children at risk, the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC) introduced, on a pilot basis, an advocacy service for child protection conferences. The advocacy service provide support to children who were subject to child protection plans to ensure that their views and wishes are listened to when making decisions about their future during a child protection conference. The NCB Research Centre carried out an evaluation of the advocacy model to explore benefits and effectiveness of the service. The aims were to explore whether children, with the support from the advocate, were able to:
The evaluation consisted of:
Key findings included:
|PUBLIC FAMILY LAW
The contribution of experts
Dr Brophy, J., Owen, C., Sidaway, J and Dr Johal, J.J. (2012) The Contribution of Experts in Care Proceedings: Evaluation of the Work of Independent Social Work Assessments. Findings from Stage 1. Confederation of Independent Social Work Agencies (CISWA) UK and University of Oxford
Report: CISWA-UK Report
Related Journal Articles: none
ISWs are asked to provide ad-hoc assessments to local authorities or courts across a wide range of specialities including child protection, fostering or adoption. This may be when another opinion is needed or because a specialist assessment is required. Concerns about the use of independent social work (ISW) assessments emanated from submissions to the Family Justice Review (FJR). Concerns raised included that ISW caused delay, duplicated existing local authority assessments, and undermined confidence in social work assessments. It was also said such reports result from human rights arguments by parents – to which courts too readily accede.
This two part study addresses a lack of robust empirical data in this field. Stage one was based on a random sample of cases drawn from the records of three independent agencies providing ISW assessments for courts. It utilises qualitative and quantitative methods to examine letters of instruction and reports in England and Wales; reports concerned 121 children in 65 cases; the sample consisted of 82 reports and associated letters of instruction.
Stage I – sample profile
Instructions to ISWs
The context in which ISWs are instructed
Contesting existing LA assessments and human rights arguments
The Assessors: skills, experience and role
ISW reports for courts
Delay and duration
|PUBLIC FAMILY LAW
Thomas, C. (2013) The Adoption Research Initiative
Funder(s): Department for Education
Report: Adoption for looked after children: messages from research: an overview of the Adoption Research Initiative
Related Journal Articles: none
In 2001 the Government of the day began to plan an Adoption Research Initiative to monitor and evaluate the implementation of the Adoption and Children Act 2002. The overall aim of the research initiative was to examine the impact of the Government’s adoption project on the quality of services for children who are adopted or placed in other permanent placements. More specifically the initiative aimed to:
Seven large and complex studies were funded over an eight-year period between 2002 and 2010. Several of the studies reported in parts or stages, and in total generated 11 research reports. Details of all the studies, including summaries of each one and other related dissemination materials, are available on a dedicated website for the initiative http://www.adoptionresearchinitiative.org.uk/
The purpose of this Adoption for looked after children: messages from research is to synthesise into a single report these studies’ key findings together with their messages for policy and practice.
The important underlying common themes and messages from the studies converged on:
The overview concluded that the Adoption and Children Act 2002 and the associated programme of adoption reform led to:
The report, however, also identified significant problems that persisted:
The overview is available from the British Association for Adoption and Fostering: http://www.baaf.org.uk/bookshop/book_ARi_overview. The report is also available on the Adoption Research Initiative website: www.adoptionresearchinitaitive.org.uk
Luckock, B. and Broadhurst, K., (2013) Adoption Cases Reviewed: An Indicative study of process and Practice.
Funder(s): Department for Education
Report: Department for Education
Peer Review Status: reviewed by expert advisory group
Related Journal Articles: none
The aim of this small-scale study was to evaluate the strengths of the current adoption process and establish what changes, if any, are required to ensure that the processes of local authorities and court case handling and decision making are consistent with the principles underpinning the Adoption and Children Act 2002.
Files for twelve closed adoption cases where care, placement and adoption decisions were actively contested and/or opposed by birth parents were subject to in-depth scrutiny. The twelve cases were selected by purposive sampling from five local authorities. An adoption journey timeline was constructed for each child from adoption to care order.
The study found that in the twelve cases reviewed:
Munro, E.R., Hollingworth, K. (2013) Adoption Reform: Messages from local Authorities on Changes in processes and timescales. Findings from Wave 1.
Funder(s): Childhood Wellbeing Research Centre
Report: Childhood Wellbeing Research Centre
Peer Review Status: internal review at the Department for Education
Related Journal Articles: none
An Action Plan for Adoption: tackling delay outlines the Government’s plans to reform the adoption system. The Department for Education has introduced a voluntary quarterly survey to collect quantitative data from local authorities on the number of children and adopters at each stage of the adoption process, timescales for completion of core processes, children’s age, ethnic backgrounds and disabilities.
The Childhood Wellbeing Research Centre has been commissioned to undertake three waves of complementary qualitative data collection at six months intervals in order to assist with meaningful interpretation of the qualitative data, examine factors affecting adoption timescales and causes of delay and explore how local authorities are responding to the adoption reform agenda. Twenty local authorities were approached to participate among those that met the adoption score card average time threshold indicators.
This report outlines the findings from the first wave of data collection between October and November 2012. Telephone interviews were undertaken with adoption managers from 15 out of the 20 local authorities selected for inclusion. The aims were to:
Key findings included:
Interviews and focus groups are now being undertaken with adoption managers and social workers to examine the actions that local authorities are taking to tackle delay in the adoption process and to explore the impact of the reforms http://www.cwrc.ac.uk/projects/1129.html
|PUBLIC FAMILY LAW
Update on ongoing or forthcoming research projects
NCB Research Centre, The Role of the Independent Reviewing Officer in Improving Care Planning for Looked After Children
Local authorities are required to appoint Independent Reviewing Officers (IROs) to have independent oversight of the way that looked after children are being cared for. Their primary focus is to quality assure the care planning process for each child, and to ensure that the child’s current wishes and feelings are given full consideration. New guidance has been in operation since April 2011 in an attempt to strengthen the existing arrangements, but some have called for more radical reform. The aim of this study, funded by the Nuffield Foundation, is to develop an evidence base about the implementation, effectiveness and costs of the IRO role, in order to inform policy and practice.
The research involves:
An interim report covering survey findings is expected in July 2013 and the final full report is expected in late 2013.
The contribution of experts
Dr Brophy, J., Owen, C., Sidaway, J. and Dr Johal, J.J. (forthcoming) The Contribution of Experts in Care Proceedings: Evaluation of the Work of Independent Social Work in Care Proceedings. Stage 2. CISWA-UK and University of Oxford
Concerns about the use of independent social work (ISW) assessments emanated from submissions to the Family Justice Review (FJR). Concerns included views that ISWs can cause delay, duplicate existing local authority assessments, and undermine confidence in social work assessments. It was also said such reports result from human rights arguments by parents – to which courts too readily accede.
This two part study addresses a lack of robust empirical data in this field. Stage one is now completed and available at http://www.ciswa-uk.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/FINAL-REPORT-EVALUATION-OF-ISW-ASSESSMENTS-FOR-CARE-PROCEEDINGS-FINAL-23-Apr-2012.pdf
Stage II will explore the impact of assessments and the circumstances in which they are commissioned by courts with a sample of senior judges.
Provisionally, findings on the quality and duration of ISW reports indicate that with adjustment, the deployment of ISWs may assist the family justice modernisation programme to meet timescales without sacrificing quality.
However the authors identify some key questions that remain: first the impact of reports on judicial thinking and decision making, and second the views of local authority social workers and advocates. There would appear to be benefits to local authorities in some circumstances and given timescales for the filing of evidence and completion of cases.
The study is due to complete in June 2013 and a report will follow soon afterwards.
Harwin, J. Family Drug and Alcohol Court (FDAC) – Evaluation Research Study. Phase 2 (Nuffield Foundation)
The Nuffield Foundation and Home Office funded Brunel University to carry out an independent first stage evaluation of FDAC (2008-2010). The aims were:
Key findings included:
The report can be downloaded from http://www.brunel.ac.uk/fdacresearch
A second stage study is being conducted by Brunel University, funded by the Nuffield Foundation. It started in June 2011 and will finish in late 2013.
It continues to:
The evaluation includes a new element, a twelve month follow up of all parents living with their children at the end of the care proceedings. This will provide comparative information on the sustainability of parental substance misuse recovery, placement stability, child removal due to neglect or abuse, and the initiation of fresh legal proceedings.
|PRIVATE FAMILY LAW
Update on ongoing or forthcoming research projects
Litigants in person
Trinder, L., Bader, K., Hinchly, V., Hitchings, E., Hunter, R., Miles, J., Moorhead, R., Pearce, J., Sefton, M. and Smith, L. Litigants in Person in Private Family Law Cases (Ministry of Justice)
This study, commissioned by the Ministry of Justice, is designed to explore the needs and impact of litigants in person in private family law cases in light of changes to legal aid implemented in April 2013. The study aims to identify the different types of litigants in person, their support needs and their impact on the family justice system using a multi-method qualitative design. The fieldwork for the study was completed just before the introduction of the legal aid changes, which removed legal aid for private family law cases. The dataset encompasses observation of 150 court hearings, three quarters of which involved at least one litigant in person and a quarter where both parties were represented cases to enable comparison. The cases observed were financial remedy, private law Children Act and special guardianship cases. In many of these cases interviews were also conducted with the parties, members of the judiciary, lawyers and McKenzie friends. This was combined with information from the court file. The researchers also ran focus groups with judicial officers, lawyers, Cafcass (Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service) and court staff. The final report for the study is due for publication in September 2013.
Trinder, L, Hunt, J., McLeod, A., Pearce, J., Woodward, H. Enforcing Contact Orders: Cases, Courts and Consequences (Nuffield Foundation)
Enforcement has long been seen as a significant challenge for the family courts and for policy-makers but there is currently little research evidence about the types of cases involved or the court’s response to inform the debate. The study is designed to address this gap in the evidence base. The research, funded by the Nuffield Foundation, is designed to build a profile of the private law cases where enforcement of a court order is sought, to examine how and why the court responds to applications and to explore the actual and perceived effectiveness of current powers available to the courts to address enforcement cases. The research will examine a national sample of over two hundred enforcement cases, accessed via the Cafcass electronic case files system, combined with a small number of focus groups with judges. The study began in November 2012 and is due to report in July 2013.
Divorce and Finance
Woodward, H. Pensions and Divorce (Nuffield Foundation)
This study, which is being carried out by Cardiff Law School and funded by the Nuffield Foundation, aims to provide detailed information on the extent to which pensions are considered in those divorce cases which reach solicitors or the courts, the circumstances in which pensions are likely (or unlikely) to be included in final settlements, the alternatives adopted and the rationales behind the approach. Extensive data has been collected from 369 divorce court files, and interviews conducted with family practitioners and members of the judiciary in three different locations in England and Wales. The findings will be contained in a full report to be published on the Cardiff University website in Summer 2013.
Barlow, A, Hunter, R., Smithson, J., Ewing, J., Getliffe, K. and Morris, P, Mapping Paths to Family Justice – A National Picture of Findings on Out of Court Family Dispute Resolution (Universities of Exeter and Kent)
This interdisciplinary ESRC-funded project aims to provide evidence about the usage, experience and outcomes of the three different forms of Alternative Dispute Resolution in family law currently available in the UK – Solicitor Negotiation, Mediation and Collaborative Law. The project consists of three phases:
Findings from the three phases will be synthesised to arrive at an overall ‘map’ of family dispute resolution pathways. http://socialsciences.exeter.ac.uk/law/research/frs/researchprojects-/mappingpathstofamilyjustice/
Initial findings from the first phase of the study have now been published and are available in the March 2013 issue of Family Law at: http://www.jordanpublishing.co.uk/publications/family-law/family-law-0
The first phase consisted of two nationally representative questionnaire studies totalling just under 6,700 adults interviewed face to face (Civil and Social Justice Panel Survey 2012 and the tns-BMRB omnibus survey) probing awareness and experience of the three forms of alternative dispute resolution.
Whilst mediation was the best recognised of these forms of dispute resolution, the article considers why people who had used it were, in general, less satisfied with it than those who had used the more partisan alternatives of either solicitor negotiation or collaborative law. The article also explores the reasons given for rejecting these different dispute resolution processes and highlights the high percentage (46% of the sub-sample of 315 respondents that had divorced or separated) of people who settle disputes without seeking legal advice at all.
Phase 2 and 3 of the study are now underway and preliminary findings from 35 of the Phase 2 interviews with parties who had experienced mediation formed the basis of a paper given at the Socio-Legal Studies Association annual conference in March 2013 by Anne Barlow and Rosemary Hunter titled ‘The End of Voluntary Medation?’. Whilst there were some very positive mediation experiences, the paper drew attention to the worrying pressures felt by some parties to mediate brought to bear by partners, solicitors and in some instances the courts even where there was a history of violence or coercive control within the relationship, due to inadequate or incomplete screening prior to mediation. A correlation between such pressure and dissatisfaction with the mediation experience was found to exist.
Resolution’s latest Guides to Good Practice
Managing Family Justice in Diverse Societies
Ministry of Justice new research studies
For more information on these studies please visit: www.gov.uk/contracts-finder
Events and Conferences
SLSA 2013 Conference
Forthcoming Statistics Publications
Ministry of Justice (MoJ) Court Statistics Quarterly (CSQ)
The local authority children’s social care services workforce, England, as at 31 December 2012
|We would like to thank all those whose work we have summarised in this bulletin and to other contributors who have reviewed the bulletin and made suggestions for inclusion. With specific thanks to Mavis Maclean, Anne Barlow, Julia Brophy, Judith Masson, Caroline Thomas and Liz Trinder.|
Revised Court Fees for Family proceedings, England and Wales, Senior courts of England and Wales; County courts, England and Wales to be enacted as from 1st July 2013.
SECTION 1: FEES TO BE TAKEN IN THE HIGH COURT AND IN COUNTY COURTS
1 Commencement of proceedings
1.1 On filing an application to start proceedings where no other fee is specified. £245
1.2 On presenting an application for—
(a) a decree of divorce made under section 1 of the Matrimonial
Causes Act 1973(a);
(b) a decree of nullity made under sections 11 or 12 of the Matrimonial
Causes Act 1973;
(c) a dissolution order or nullity order made under section 37 of the
Civil Partnership Act 2004(b). £410
1.3 On presenting an application for—
(a) a matrimonial or civil partnership order, other than an application for a decree of divorce, a decree of nullity, a dissolution order, nullity order or to which rule 7.7(1)(b) of the Family Procedure Rules 2010(c) applies, or
(b) a declaration to which Chapter 5 of Part 8 of the Family Procedure
Rules 2010 applies. £365
Note: Fee 1.3 is payable only once for each declaration to which Chapter 5 of Part 8 of the Family Procedure Rules 2010 applies.
1.4 On applying for a non-molestation order, an occupation order or a forced marriage protection order under Part 4 or Part 4A of the Family Law Act 1996(d) (or on applying for two or more of those orders). £75
1.5 On amending an application for a matrimonial or civil partnership order, amending an application for a declaration to which Chapter 5 of Part 8 of the Family Procedure Rules 2010 applies, or making an application to which rule 7.7(1)(b) of the Family Procedure Rules 2010 applies. £95
1.6 On filing an answer to an application for a matrimonial or civil partnership order. £245
1.7 On applying for an order under Part 3 of the Solicitors Act 1974(e) for the assessment of costs payable to a solicitor by a client; or on the commencement of costs-only proceedings. £40
1.8 On an application under section 54 (parental order) of the Human
Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008(f). £215
2 Proceedings under the Children Act 1989
2.1 On an application for an order in form C1 or form C100 (free standing application), form C79 (application related to enforcement of a contact order), form C2 (application in existing proceedings) or a request for permission to apply for an order in form C2 under the
following provisions of the Children Act 1989(g)—
(a) section 4(1)(c) or (3), 4A(1)(b) or (3)(h) (parental responsibility);£215
(b) section 4ZA (1)(c) or (6)(i) (parental responsibility); £215
(c) section 5(1) or 6(7) (guardians); £215
(d) section 10(1) or (2) (section 8 orders); £215
(e) section 11J(2)(j) (enforcement orders); £215
(f) section 11O(2)(k) (compensation for financial loss); £215
(g) section 13(1) (change of child’s surname or removal from jurisdiction while residence order in force); £215
(h) section 14A(3) or (6)(a), 14C(3) or 14D(1)(l) (special guardianship orders); £170
(i) section 25 (secure accommodation order); £180
(j) section 33(7) (change of child’s surname or removal from jurisdiction while care order in force); £180
(k) section 34(2), (3), (4) or (9) (contact with child in care); £180
(l) section 36(1) (education supervision order); £180
(m) section 39 (variation or discharge etc of care and supervision orders);£180
(n) section 43(1) (child assessment order); £180
(o) sections 44, 45 and 46 (emergency protection orders); £180
(p) section 48 (warrant to assist person exercising powers under emergency protection order); £180
(q) section 50 (recovery order); £180
(r) section 102 (warrant to assist person exercising powers to search for children or inspect premises); £180
(s) paragraph 4(2), 6(2), 7(2) or 9(2) of Schedule A1(m) (applications in respect of enforcement orders); £95
(t) paragraph 5(2) of Schedule A1 (amendment of enforcement order by reason of change of address); £95
(u) paragraph 1(1) or (4), 2(1) or (5), 5(6), 6(5), (7) or (8), 8(2), 10(2),
11 or 14(1) of Schedule 1 (financial provision for children); £215
(v) paragraph 19(1) of Schedule 2 (approval of court for child in care of local authority to live abroad); £180
(w) paragraph 6 of Schedule 3 (extension of supervision order); £180
(x) paragraph 15(2) or 17(1) of Schedule 3 (extension or discharge of education supervision order). £180
2.2 In relation to proceedings under section 31 of the Children Act
1989 (care and supervision orders)—
(a) on an application; £3,320
(b) where a final hearing has been listed. £2,155
Notes to fees 2.1 and 2.2
Where an application requires the permission of the court, the relevant fee is payable when permission is sought but no further fee will be charged if permission is granted and the application is made.
Where an application is made, permission is sought or an appeal is commenced under or relating to provisions of the Children Act 1989 which are listed in two or more different numbered fees, or require two or more different numbered forms, only one fee is payable, and if those fees are different, only the highest fee is payable.
Where an application is made, permission is sought or an appeal is commenced under or relating to two or more provisions of the Children Act 1989 which are listed in the same numbered fee, that fee is payable only once.
Where the application is made, permission is sought or an appeal is commenced in respect of two or more children at the same time, and these children are siblings or children of the family, only one fee is payable in respect of each numbered fee.
Notes to fee 2.2 only
Where a final order is made at a case management conference or at a case management hearing, £1360 of the amount paid under fee 2.2(a) will be refunded.
Where proceedings are consolidated with other proceedings, any fee which falls to be paid after the date on which the proceedings are consolidated is payable only once.
Where a fee is paid under fee 2.2(b) in relation to a hearing that is cancelled, for example, because a final order is made at earlier hearing, the application is withdrawn, or the hearing is no longer needed, the fee will be refunded. A refund will not be given if the hearing is adjourned to a later date or to a date to be fixed.
The fee in 2.2(b) is payable 14 days before the hearing.
2.3 On commencing an appeal under section 94 of the Children Act
1989(n) relating to proceedings to which the following fees apply—
(a) 2.1 (a) to (g) and (u); £215
(b) 2.1 (h); £170
(c) 2.1 (i) to (r), (v) to (x) and 2.2. £180
2.4 On commencing an appeal under paragraph 23(11) of Schedule 2 to the Children Act 1989 (appeal against contribution order). £180
3 Adoption and wardship applications
3.1 On applying or requesting permission to apply under any provision in Part 1 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002(o), other than an application under section 22 of that Act. £170
3.2 On applying under section 22 of the Adoption and Children Act
2002 (placement order). £455
3.3 On applying for the exercise by the High Court of its inherent jurisdiction with respect to children. £170
When an application requires the permission of the court, the relevant fee is payable when permission is sought but no further fee will be charged if permission is granted and the application is made.
Where an application is made or permission is sought under or relating to two or more provisions of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 only one fee is payable.
Where the same application is made or permission is sought in respect of two or more children, who are siblings or children of the same family, at the same time, only one fee is payable.
4 Applications in proceedings
4.1 On an application without notice or by consent except where separately listed in this Schedule. £45
Note: Fee 4.1 is not payable in relation to an application by consent for an adjournment of a hearing where the application is received by the court at least 14 days before the date set for that hearing.
Note: Fee 4.1 is not payable on an application to make a decree or order absolute or final, as the case may be, where the applicant has paid fee 1.2.
4.2 On an application under rule 7.19 of the Family Procedure Rules 2010 for the court to consider the making of a decree nisi, conditional order, a decree of judicial separation or a separation order (other than in an undefended case where no fee is payable). £50
4.3 On an application on notice except where separately listed in the schedule. £80
4.4 On the filing of—
(a) a notice of intention to proceed with an application for a financial order to which rule 9.4(a) of the Family Procedure Rules 2010 applies; £255
(b) an application for a financial order to which rule 9.4(b) of the
Family Procedure Rules 2010 applies,
other than an application for a consent order.
5 Appeal from a district judge
5.1 On filing an appeal notice from a district judge to a judge. £125
6.1 On making a search in the central index of decrees absolute or of final orders kept at the Principal Registry of the Family Division for any specified period of ten calendar years or, if no such period is specified, for the ten most recent years, and, if appropriate, providing a certificate of decree absolute or of final order, as the case may be.£65
6.2 On making a search in the central index of parental responsibility agreements kept at the Principal Registry of the Family Division in accordance with regulations made under section 4(2) of the Children Act 1989 and, if appropriate, providing a copy of the agreement. £45
6.3 On making a search in the index of decrees absolute or of final orders kept at any designated county court or district registry for any specified period of ten calendar years or, if no period is specified, for the ten most recent years, and if appropriate, providing a certificate of decree absolute or of final order, as the case may be. £45
7 Copy documents
7.1 On a request for a copy document (other than where fee 7.2 applies)—
(a) for ten pages or less; £5 and
(b) for each subsequent page. 50p
Note: The fee payable under fee 7.1 includes—
- where the court allows a party to fax to the court for the use of that party a document that has not been requested by the court and is not intended to be placed on the court file;
- where a party requests that the court fax a copy of a document from the court file; or
- where the court provides a subsequent copy of a document which it has previously provided.
7.2 On a request for a copy of a document on a computer disk or in other electronic form, for each such copy. £5
8 Determination of costs
8.1 On filing a request for detailed assessment where the party filing the request is legally aided, is funded by the Legal Services Commission or is a person for whom civil legal services have been made available under arrangements made by the Lord Chancellor under Part 1 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of
Offenders Act 2012(p) and no other party is ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings. £195
8.2 On filing a request for detailed assessment in any case where fee
8.1 does not apply; or on filing a request for a hearing date for the assessment of costs payable to a solicitor by a client pursuant to an order under Part 3 of the Solicitors Act 1974 where the amount of the costs claimed—
(a) does not exceed £15,000; £325
(b) exceeds £15,000 but does not exceed £50,000; £655
(c) exceeds £50,000 but does not exceed £100,000; £980
(d) exceeds £100,000 but does not exceed £150,000; £1,310
(e) exceeds £150,000 but does not exceed £200,000; £1,635
(f) exceeds £200,000 but does not exceed £300,000; £2,455
(g) exceeds £300,000 but does not exceed £500,000; £4,090
(h) exceeds £500,000. £5,455
Where there is a combined standard basis and legal aid, or a combined standard basis and Legal Services Commission, or a combined standard basis and Lord Chancellor, or a combined standard basis, and one or more of legal aid, Legal Services Commission or Lord Chancellor determination of costs, fee 8.2 will be attributed proportionately to the standard basis, legal aid, Legal Services Commission or Lord Chancellor (as the case may be) portions of the bill on the basis of the amount allowed.
8.3 On a request for the issue of a default costs certificate. £60
8.4 On commencing an appeal against a decision made in detailed assessment proceedings. £205
8.5 On an application to set aside a default costs certificate. £105
9 Registration of maintenance orders
9.1 On an application for a maintenance order to be registered under the Maintenance Orders Act 1950(q) or the Maintenance Orders Act 1958(r) £45
9.2 On an application for a maintenance order to be sent abroad for enforcement under the Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1972.(s) £45
10.1 On an application to question a judgment debtor or other person on oath in connection with enforcement of a judgment, or on an application to which rule 33.3(2)(b) of the Family Procedure Rules
2010 applies. £50
10.2 On an application for a third party debt order or the appointment of a receiver by way of equitable execution. £100
Note: Fee 10.2 is payable in respect of each third party against whom the order is sought.
10.3 On an application for a charging order. £100
Note: Fee 10.3 is payable in respect of each charging order applied for.
10.4 On an application for a judgement summons. £100
SECTION 2. FEES TO BE TAKEN IN A COUNTY COURT ONLY
11.1 On a request for service by bailiff of any document except—
(a) an order for a debtor to attend the adjourned hearing of a judgment summons;
(b) an interpleader summons under an execution;
(c) an order made under section 23 of the Attachment of Earnings Act
1971(t) (enforcement provisions); or
(d) an order for a debtor to attend an adjourned oral examination of means. £110
12 Enforcement in the County Courts
12.1 On an application for or in relation to enforcement of a judgment or order of a county court or through a county court, by the issue of a warrant of execution against goods except a warrant to enforce payment of a fine. £100
12.2 On a request for further attempt at execution of a warrant at a new address where the warrant has been returned to the court not executed (except where the warrant has been returned after it has been
suspended by the court). £30
This week sees the launch of the Stand By Your Man campaign, aiming to highlight and increase awareness of Prostate Cancer, and is asking people to pledge to talk to the men in their lives about how prostate cancer can be identified. The figures below are from prostatecanceruk.org:
Across the UK
- Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in men.
- Every hour one man dies from prostate cancer – that’s more than 10,000 every year.
- Over 40,000* men are diagnosed with prostate cancer every year – that’s more than 100* men diagnosed every day.
- It’s estimated that by 2030, prostate cancer will be the most common cancer.
- One in eight men will get prostate cancer.
- Over a quarter of a million* men are living with and after prostate cancer.
- Two out of three adults don’t know what the prostate gland does.
- Nearly 3,000* men are diagnosed with prostate cancer every year in Scotland.
- More than 700* men die every year from prostate cancer in Scotland.
- Every day two men die from prostate cancer in Scotland.
- Over 34,000* men are diagnosed every year in England.
- More than 8,000* men die every year from prostate cancer in England.
- Every hour one man dies from prostate cancer in England.
- Over 2,000* men are diagnosed every year in Wales.
- Over 500* men die every year from prostate cancer in Wales.
In Northern Ireland
Over 900* men are diagnosed every year in Northern Ireland.
More than 200* men die every year from prostate cancer in Northern Ireland.
According to prostatecanceruk.org, breast cancer receives twice as much research funding as prostate cancer, despite both diseases killing similar numbers of people, the average spend per breast cancer case is £853, compared to the £417 per prostate cancer case. In January this year, the Sledgehammer campaign was launched, fronted by Bill Bailey, in a Telegraph article written at the time, Owen Sharp, Chief Executive of Prostate Cancer UK, said: “Men in the UK have a problem and they don’t want to talk about it. Neither do the wives and partners who will end up supporting them, the doctors who will treat them, nor the politicians who will count on their vote. Prostate cancer is the UK’s best kept worst secret.
“Prostate cancer is simply not on the radar in the UK. Even though it kills one man every hour, that’s 10,000 men each year, most men and women don’t know enough about it. We need to follow the lead of the successful female movement against breast cancer and create a real change for men.”
Recent research on prostate cancer will help to identify which patients have high-risk prostate cancer, meaning disease that is likely to progress and should be treated, and could lead to targeted therapies. The researchers looked at the DNA of over 25,000 patients with prostate cancer and the same number of men without the disease. They were able to identify 23 new genes associated with prostate cancer, and discovered that 16 of these are linked to aggressive prostate cancer. This information will be used not only to identify patients at risk but also to develop new drugs that can target specific genetic changes in these patients. Research is still ongoing in these areas and the genetics of men with a family history of prostate cancer are also being investigated.
The Stand By Your Man campaign has also made a short Father’s Day film to raise awareness of a disease that is underfunded and poorly understood – you can view the film by clicking here.
You can sign the pledge here - http://prostatecanceruk.org/get-involved/fathers-day/stand-by-your-man-pledge