Supporting Families After the Riots and the Role of Family Law Speech by David Allison of Family Law

in Partnership LLP Introduction Thank you for inviting me to speak today about the role of family law in supporting families after the riots. Nobody wants to see a repeat of the terrible events of last August. Like any shocking event, people were immediately searching for answers. Even now, four months on, were still trying to explain exactly what caused young people in our towns and cities to do what they did. Undoubtedly there were a whole range of factors none of which excuse the behaviour we saw. But clearly were all here today because we recognise that society, as a whole, needs to ensure it is doing what it can to reduce the chances of those events being repeated in the future. Family law and the family justice system obviously play an important role in that. Im a practising family solicitor, but Im also the Chair of Resolution, an organisation committed to a constructive and non-confrontational approach to resolving family disputes. We believe that this is the right way to resolve family disputes because we know that a constructive and peaceful resolution is best not just for the individuals involved, but importantly for their children. Im going to touch on three key points: o Some of the things were doing on the ground to help parents; o The reforms to the family justice system currently underway and the impact they might have; o And the costs of getting it wrong. Helping Parents
1

 Poor parenting is clearly not the only factor in social unrest. In fact, it is interesting to note that when the Guardian and the London School of Economics asked the rioters themselves, only 40% of them cited poor parenting as a reason for the riots, compared to 86% of the public who put the blame at the parents door. But parenting does play a big role. It is the role for which we have the least training and which often finds us at our most vulnerable. And getting it right can be a real challenge, particularly when parents are separating. Given how stressful separation can be, it is not surprising that people dont function at their best during the experience. And there is inevitably an impact on the children. Thats why, working with Resolution, weve spearheaded a series of workshops called Parenting After Parting. Just as expectant mothers attend National Childbirth Trust (or similar) courses helping them to prepare for giving birth, these workshops aim to help parents manage the impact of their divorce or separation by putting their children at the focal point of their discussions. But the key way the family justice system can provide support is by promoting ways to resolve disputes that minimise conflict, such as mediation, collaborative law, and arbitration. As a mediator and collaborative lawyer, you might not find it a surprise to hear me say that. But I say it because I see on a daily basis the positive effect it has, and know it avoids having the long-term negative impact on children that could lead to them getting involved in a repeat of this summers unrest further down the line. Family Law reforms Thats why I was so pleased to see alternative dispute resolution methods recognised by David Norgrove in his Review of Family Justice.

 Norgrove puts the interests of the child at the centre, and the overall direction is very welcome he focuses on demystifying and streamlining the process for parents and children alike, diverting cases from court, and reducing delays for those cases that do go to court. But and there is always a but the changes to legal aid that will take place as a result of measures currently going through Parliament run the risk of undermining the admirable aims of the Family Justice Review before its had a chance to get off the ground. Whilst much has been made of the involvement of middle class young people in the riots, the Governments own statistics show that rioters were more likely to come from poor homes. By withdrawing legal aid in family cases from those who need it most, the government could inadvertently be creating a whole wave of new problems. Assistance will still be available for mediation, which is welcome, but mediation is not suitable for every situation. And importantly, mediation is bound to fail more often if there is no realistic alternative I will often say to couples in mediation that they had better come to an agreement there or they will face someone else a judge making decisions about their children for them. If the court option is effectively no longer available for poor families unless they are prepared to represent themselves then we only have the carrot and not the stick to motivate them to do the right thing for their children. If the Government is serious about family separation staying out of the courts, it needs to look at options that stand a better chance of working in difficult cases- such as collaborative law and arbitration. Importantly it must also fund advice and representation for those families who, for whatever reason, cannot or will not resolve their disputes in mediation or another constructive process and need court input.
3

 Otherwise, without access to professional legal advice, if their cases to go to court, one or both parties will have to represent themselves. Litigants in person will get to court, without the help and advice of a lawyer to prepare their case, to find a judge who is not familiar with their case who often will not have read the case papers and who will not be in a position to make a decision for them. Let me be clear that this is not a criticism of our family judiciary who do a fantastic job in very difficult circumstances. But the court system is under significant strain and judges do not have the support they need to effectively manage cases. So, where families do go before the courts without representation further adjournments and even greater delays will be the inevitable result. This in turn leads to a more traumatic experience for everyone, especially the children. The difficulty I have is that matched alongside the political rhetoric of family-friendly policies, you have the reality of this Bill which is anything but. The costs Then there are the costs. This summers riots demonstrated the social costs of getting it wrong. There are also financial costs - the damage to property ran to around 100m in total. Thats why cutting costs in the short term for example, by reducing legal aid - doesnt necessarily save you money in the long-term. Aside from the price of property damage, there are other less dramatic, perhaps less headline-grabbing costs involved. Citizens Advice estimate that for every 1 spent on legal aid, the government saves 8 elsewhere on things like welfare payments and social housing.

 Present company excepted, I recognise that long-term solutions do not always come second-nature to politicians. I also recognise that there is a job to do in reducing the national deficit. But my concern is that in cutting legal aid, to save a bit of cash in the short-term, the current government is establishing a false economy. Conclusion I think its great that were all here having this discussion, and that we all share a desire to avoid a repeat of events in Tottenham, Croydon, Liverpool, or elsewhere. And I look forward to hearing the views of others. I suspect were not going to solve these problems overnight. But hopefully we can contribute to the work going on elsewhere and help identify a way forward. END