Report on Family Law Induction Course The Honourable Mr Justice Morgan The Honourable Mr Justice Weir 1. I attended this course with Mr Justice Weir from 19 May until 22 May 2008 at Highgate House. This is our joint report. The course started with a precourse syndicate session which usefully reviewed some recent cases on supervision orders and dealt with questions arising from a CD which gave a broad outline of the scope of the Children Act 1989. I retain a copy of the CD which is a useful summary and would be beneficial for anyone coming into this work. 2. The first substantive speaker was Judge Lesley Newton who gave a very helpful talk focussing on the themes of the legislation and the development of the jurisprudence in recent cases. I intend with her permission to amend her paper by reference to our Children’s Order and distribute her paper, as amended, through the family DL. She would certainly be a speaker who could usefully participate in any family seminar concentrating on recent developments in family law as the law in each jurisdiction is broadly similar. 3. Judge De Hass gave a talk on the Public Law Outline. The talk was useful but necessarily she was trying to cover an extensive topic in a short time. The syndicate session led by Judge Roddy enabled us to share case management experiences in other jurisdictions. It seems clear that all parties are taking time to come to grips with the introduction in England and Wales of the Public Law Outline. 4. The first session on the second day concentrated on the role of the Guardian. The speaker emphasised the independent role of the Guardian in contributing to the management of the case from the early stages until the final hearing. This can occasionally create difficulties for the Guardian in their relationships with both the Trusts and the children but the value of their contribution far outweighs any such problems. 5. The next 3 sessions covered some medical issues. The first dealt with the important role of the paediatric radiologist in the determination and dating of fractures in NAI cases. The speaker, Dr Chapman, has given evidence in this jurisdiction and is a formidable expert. The next 2 sessions were given by Dr Sian Snelling a consultant paediatrician based in Liverpool. She focussed on neglect, developmental delay and the significance of failure to thrive. 6. The last session on the second day returned to case management. Although the Public Law Outline does not apply in this jurisdiction some of the underlying principles concerning the importance of access to all relevant information at an early stage and securing the input of the Guardian are clearly common. In this jurisdiction we are working to try to achieve
agreement as to the documents to be provided and the role of the various parties in addressing the issues in the case at an early stage. It seems clear from the presentations on Public Law Outline that there would be considerable advantages to an agreed approach which provides some degree of flexibility. 7. On the third day there was a presentation in relation to the issue of those with learning difficulties. The important issue in these cases is normally whether there is capacity to carry out the particular function, whether it be instructing lawyers, consenting to marriage etc. This reinforces an approach to the assessment of incapacity promoted by Dr Noel Scott at a recent JSB seminar. 8. There was a presentation in relation to the Adoption and Children Act 2002. This legislation does not apply in NI although there is a working party at present engaged in a review of adoption law in this jurisdiction. It appears, however, that any legislative change here is many years off. 9. There was a detailed paper in relation to contact in care cases which set out some helpful authorities in relation to the importance of substantial contact between birth parents and children wherever possible when it becomes necessary to remove the children. It also appears that there is a developing recognition of the importance of direct post adoption contact in those cases where the placement is not likely to be put at risk. Speakers also commented on the advantages of open adoptions where the child is informed at an early stage about his background. This is familiar territory to those in this jurisdiction and was discussed during the recent meeting of family judges. 10. The afternoon session on the third day concentrated on the care plan and judgment writing. There was a helpful paper setting out those matters which one might look for in the care plan which those involved in this work could use in this jurisdiction. There was also a suggested rubric for judgement writing produced although it was emphasised that style was very much a matter for the individual. One of the important messages is that one should be robust about the Trust’s proposals without necessarily having to be overly critical of the particular social worker producing them. 11. The final sessions on the last day were on attachment and adoption. The session on attachment was particularly useful although the expert indicated that her commitments would not allow her to carry out work in NI. We are trying to source a group that might be willing to do this work based in Liverpool. 12. Throughout the course there were syndicate sessions on the issues moderated by experienced circuit court judges. These provided a useful opportunity to discuss with colleagues the reasons for differing approaches
and it was noticeable that the participants were much more confident of their ability to question the proposed approach of local authorities by the end of the programme. 13. There is no doubt that there is some very valuable material on substantive law and case management in this course. Although the legislative provisions are different the substantive issues are either identical or similar. I have no doubt that all of those engaged on this work would benefit enormously from participation on it. All of those carrying out this work in England and Wales are obliged to complete this course in advance of embarking on the work because of its specialist nature and thereafter are required to top up every three years. Such a process is undoubtedly of very great benefit to judges and in my view judges in this jurisdiction are at a considerable disadvantage in not having ready access to these courses. This is a matter that should be reviewed by the JSB. 14. The materials on the course should be available on the JSB training website in a few weeks. If there is any particular aspect that anyone wishes to discuss with me please come back to me.
Declan Morgan