Submission to Family Court Review

Submission to Family Court Review

From Nelson Child and Adolescent Therapy, Nelson’s Collective of Children and Adolescence Counsellors

The Family Court should be highlighting the needs of the children equally with the needs of the parents.  Children should be represented by professionals with extensive experience working with children and where, if at all possible, there’s an ongoing relationship with that professional.  We agree with 1:31 in this regard and note 2:41.  One professional with an on-going relationship suits children’s needs above many professionals with limited relationship with that child.  Professionals must be adequately trained with appropriate clinical supervision.

We can see benefits and concerns in the Family Court being an open court.  The needs of the children once again must be paramount in any system.  We would see advantages in older children having more input and say in the court process i.e.  Able to speak in court and to the Judge.

Court Counselling is not currently available to children but rather only to the adults.  Early access to professional on-going counselling to assist the child to process conflict and to allow their voice to be heard is crucial.  Possibly this could lead to mediation between the parents outside the court system.  If the parents hear the child’s voice, their own voices may come back into harmony for the sake of the child.  We endorse 4:2 but note it needs to be a child directed process with an experienced child professional.

Clause 4.5 would need to be very carefully negotiated.  For some children this would be a helpful process, for others it has potential for harm and for parents to pressurise their child.  Once again if gauged by an experienced professional with an ongoing relationship with the child this clause has some merit.

Lawyers for children and the legal process should only, in our view, advocate as a last resort and, if holding this role, should be trained and supervised to work with children.  We don’t believe the needs of a child can be obtained in a one hour (some times a lot less) session.  Once again the needs of a child are best obtained via an ongoing relationship with a trained professional.

Lawyers for children should only be engaged in litigation if all other mediation has proved unsuccessful and then they should work in tandem with the professional already involved with the child.

Note 106 would only, in our minds, be useful if an ongoing professional relationship is available.  Note we endorse the use of a Lawyer For Child in cases of Care and Protection and where all other avenues have failed to produce an acceptable outcome.

We believe Parenting Through Separation or some similar programme, or individual counselling should be compulsory before court process or as part of a mediation process.  Early intervention with minimal legal proceedings i.e.  outside of court proceeding is preferred route.

We agree that counselling and mediation are valid avenues for resolution of disputes but note that at present children are not able to access this.  Parents need the mediation and counselling should be available to the children. 

Agreed that a focused questionnaire affidavit is an appropriate forum.  This would ensure that questions pertaining to children and their needs are adequately represented in court.  Once again the Family Court should be focusing on the needs of the child as opposed to long winded affidavits on adult issues.

Mediation as an initial and binding process, with appropriate support systems (where needed) would appear to be a quicker, less traumatic, more accessible system for those involved , especially the children.  The legal system then being reserved only for extreme cases or matters of abuse or care and protection.

Mediation could also be a useful avenue for a variation of Parenting Orders.  Court has the potential to be another step in what has been a power and control situation between adults for years. i.e.  Who will win this battle?   
A more even process of mediation has the potential to re-balance the sitiuation . This would put new processes in place for the long term care of the child, a child focused process, unlike the present court adversarial adult focused hearing.