Shaking Up the Family Court
Radio New Zealand "Insight" Programme
Sunday 21 July

Click here (or cut and paste the link below) to hear Radio New Zealand's court reporter Anne Marie May discuss the winners and losers of proposed Family Court changes with Justice Minister Judith Collins.

http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/insight/audio/2562718/insight-for-21-july-2013-shaking-up-the-family-court

I have specialised as a family lawyer for 14 years. For the last four years I have been approved to represent children in the Family Court. I am currently on the sub-committee  of the Family Law Section about the “Children Young Persons and their Families Act” and its application. I have previously been on the Women’s Consultative Group of the New Zealand Law Society. In a voluntary capacity I have been (or still am) on governance boards about emergency accommodation for women, initiatives for youth and sexual abuse counselling.

I would like to speak to my submission before the Select Committee. My experience provides a solid foundation to my submissions.

In principle, I support a family law system that offers alternative dispute resolution, is fast and easy to use, child-focussed and protects people’s privacy, dignity and safety. However I am not convinced that the proposals in the Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill achieve this. I oppose some of the reforms proposed by the Bill and support others.

I want to also note that due to the nature of the people who are my clients and the strict confidentiality and delicacy of Family Court matters, it has been challenging to encourage the people most affected by these proposed changes to speak on their own behalf. I have, however, consulted with clients in writing this submission.

I am particularly concerned about the restrictions on assistance from a lawyer. I believe this will result in an uneven playing field and create a barrier to accessing to justice for people who:

• Have been subjected to family violence, especially psychological violence which is often less easily identified
• Have English as a second language or have a  cultural background that makes navigating the New Zealand Court system particularly challenging
• Have a mental health difficulty
• Have limited literacy
• Are hearing or vision impaired
• Are of a young age
• Are socially disenfranchised
• Are generally shy, self-conscious or inarticulate

I am concerned that limiting the appointment of a Lawyer for the Child will mean that children are not adequately represented or heard. Lawyer for the Child also assist with early dispute resolution through their advocacy for the child and I am concerned this opportunity might be lost if Lawyer for the Child is appointed later in the court case rather than at an earlier stage.

Finally, I am concerned that the cost associated with the Family Dispute Resolution Service will create a hurdle to accessing justice for those who need it most, and at the very least contribute to inequity between parties of different means.

By Erin Ebborn, Managing Director

An article on Stuff (also published in the Sunday Star Times on 23 December 2012) reports the Family Court is inserting "gagging orders" into court orders, thus preventing participants from posting complaints about their former partners on social media websites. I have been a family lawyer for almost 14 years and I have never seen a condition in a Parenting Order specifically “gagging” a parent.

The issues the Family Court deals with are very personal to the participants. There are many different times when information is confidential. For example:

• What is discussed at counselling sessions, mediation conferences and Family Group Conferences. This is so that participants can speak freely and honestly without worrying that what they say is going to be used in Court.
• What is said in social work or psychology reports because it is private to the people involved.
• Making offers on a “without prejudice” basis. This is so we can make settlement proposals and negotiate without compromising the position we would otherwise be advancing in litigation.
• There are also restrictions on what can be published by the media and how Judges’ decisions can be published. If you look at written judgements the names of the parties are often changed to protect their privacy.

Therefore we shouldn’t be surprised that there are further attempts to keep personal information private particularly when at the centre of the conflict is children.

The difficulty with social media is that it can be accessed quickly, typed without thought or in the heat of the moment, distributed to a potentially very wide audience and then be difficult to contain after publication. People commenting on Facebook or Twitter about their separation and their ex is very common. I have also seen the publication of parts of affidavits on Facebook (documents which are usually kept confidential). The outcome of such comments is rarely helpful to the resolution of the proceedings. It means that friends or family jump on board the band-wagon adding their 2c worth and my view is that the result is usually a heightening of conflict or bitterness.

Parents who separate seem to forget that their parental relationship is going to remain even when their personal one has finished.  Most children can cope with their parents separating. What they struggle with is the conflict. In my role as Lawyer for the Child it is very common for the children’s wishes to be for Mum and Dad to stop fighting and be nice to each other. Sometimes the best common sense is coming from the children.

I haven’t seen or used “gagging” clauses in Parenting Orders. But would I? I expect so. I think there is a time and a place for them. My question is how successful such a clause will be.

Source: www.stuff.co.nz

A non-profit legal advice website, called LawSpot, will allow members of the public free access to lawyers to submit questions.

About 50 lawyers from firms in the Wellington region are volunteering to answer questions that are submitted from the public. The questions are screened by volunteer law students or recent graduates who remove any identifying information, making sure questions are anonymous to the lawyers responding.

The website will featurea searchable database of previous questions so users can look for similar questions and see how the answer applied to their own situation.

Citizens Advice Bureau already offers assistance and the Community Law website publishes online copies of laws so people can check what their rights are.  However, LawSpot aims to be highly accessible and easily understood by people. There are plans to offer the service in Pacific, Maori, Chinese and other languages as new immigrants or people who have English as a second language are often particularly vulnerable to not understanding New Zealand law.