Should children be heard in family court cases?

In a story by the BBC today, questions are being asked as to whether the law should be changed to allow children to be heard during family court cases in England and Wales.

As it stands, guardian service Cafcass asks the child about their feelings and communicates them in a report to the court.

Many campaigners and judges are unhappy with this, as they feel this means the child doesn't really have a voice.

What do you think? Should children be a more direct part of proceedings in family court?

In a story by the BBC today, questions are being asked as to whether the law should be changed to allow children to be heard during family court cases in England and Wales.

As it stands, guardian service Cafcass asks the child about their feelings and communicates them in a report to the court.

Many campaigners and judges are unhappy with this, as they feel this means the child doesn't really have a voice.

What do you think? Should children be a more direct part of proceedings in family court?

One is asking a lot of judges who may not be parents or whose own experiences of parenthood may be far removed from that of the children coming before the family courts.

If the child is a witness then fairness dictates that the parents' lawyers should be able to question them. Do we really want lawyers asking four year olds why they want to live with Mummy rather than Daddy and do we want lawyers asking them whether Mummy told them to say they didn't like Daddy?

In a story by the BBC today, questions are being asked as to whether the law should be changed to allow children to be heard during family court cases in England and Wales.

As it stands, guardian service Cafcass asks the child about their feelings and communicates them in a report to the court.

Many campaigners and judges are unhappy with this, as they feel this means the child doesn't really have a voice.

What do you think? Should children be a more direct part of proceedings in family court?

I agree with the latter proposition. But the idea that judges who are not parents would be less well-equipped... in almost every case that comes before a judge, it will involve things of which they have no life experience.

I've now done a few Employment Tribunal cases as a lay rep (suitably supervised by a solicitor.. I'm not some McKenzie Friend cowboy) and I would be shocked if the judges I've been in front of had ever been dismissed before, or dismissed someone, or been the subject of sex discrimination. If anything, the judges lack of personal experience means they do not come with preconceptions.

We ask judges to give rulings by applying common sense, empathy and pragmatism to the law in situations about which they have no personal familiarity. The family court seems little different in that respect.

I think it really depends on what the court is about.

Also, if the companies like Cafcass operated well, if they were trained in dealing with children, (children's psychology etc) and obeyed rules around only putting forward the child's exact words as evidence, then that to me seems okay? Like they could spend hours with the child, get to know her/him and make the situation as srrsss free as possible. Rather than the stressful cross examinations of court. Also, can you imagine how easy it would be to alter a kids words in court? To question him or her, and manipulate? I don't think it's a good idea at all.

Which is why Employment Tribunals are equipped with wing members

You can't ask a child to explain himself. He has to be questioned to contribute anything useful and the questioning has to be age appropriate and socially appropriate. A social worker is far better placed to do that.

What a number of judges do now, which I welcome, is turn adoption orders for children into a sort of welcoming ceremony. Some, when they make difficult decisions about very young children, write for the children's future selves explaining why they are doing what they are doing.

In general, we are talking about two sorts of contested case; one is the decision to take a child into care or what provision is made for the child under a care order and the other is disputes between parents as to where a child should live and the terms on which the parent with whom the child doesn't live should have contact with the child.

That's a good point, but that's only in discrimination cases. In a pure unfair dismissal case, the employment judge sits alone. But I do take your point. Although presumably the ET is alone in having lay members?

I would agree with that. Have you seen this recent case where a two-year old's evidence led to a man pleading guilty to an abuse charge?


https://www.theguardian.com/law/2017/oct/10/two-year-old-girl-gives-evidence-in-uk-abuse-case

Indeed, did you see that awesome judgment which was written in the form of a letter to the child?