Summary of responses of Family Court users to Reviewing the Family Court A questionnaire

Transcription

1 Summary of responses of Family Court users to Reviewing the Family Court A questionnaire April 2012

2 Contents 1. Introduction Methodology and limitations Findings...6 Appendix A Questionnaire 20 2

3 1. Introduction Background In April 2011 the Government directed the Ministry of Justice to undertake a review of the Family Court. The Family Court Review aims to ensure court resources are focused on the children, families and vulnerable people that most need its help. It will also ensure that the processes of the Family Court are straightforward and its decisions are fair, timely and durable. On 20 September 2011 the Government released a public consultation paper seeking views on the issues facing the Family Court and possible areas for reform. The submission period closed on 29 February Submissions on the public consultation paper are summarised in a separate report available at Court user questionnaire An online questionnaire for people who have been through the Family Court or sought legal advice on family law matters: Reviewing the Family Court - A Questionnaire was also released in September 2011 to enable users of the Court to provide feedback. The online questionnaire closed on 29 February The Ministry received 121 fully completed responses. Process for summarising submissions This paper summarises the responses to the questions in the online questionnaire. Although it was not possible to include every response, every response was read and key points were recorded for the purpose of preparing this paper and to inform policy development. Next steps The feedback and submissions received will inform the development of advice to the Minister of Justice on reform of the Family Court. The Minister will report to Cabinet on the review later in the year, including any proposals for new legislation. If legislation is proposed, you will also have an opportunity to make submissions to a parliamentary select committee on the content of the Bill. 3

4 2. Methodology and limitations The Ministry of Justice s Research team used the online survey tool Vovici to administer the questionnaire. A link to the questionnaire was included with the Family Court Review information published on the Ministry website. The questionnaire was open from 20 November 2011 to 29 February During this period the questionnaire link was opened 303 times. When the questionnaire closed all unsubmitted responses were removed, variables were coded and data was checked and verified for inaccuracies and consistency using logic tests. The final analytical questionnaire sample contained 121 responses from people who had attended the Family Court, or had consulted a lawyer but did not go to the Family Court. As this was an open questionnaire, a response rate could not be calculated. The majority of questions were tick box style and two questions allowed questionnaire respondents (respondents) to provide free-text comments. Answers to other, please specify questions were coded and included with the tick box response options for analysis. No weighting was applied to the data set. See Appendix A for a copy of the questionnaire. 2.1 Profile of questionnaire respondents The sample included more women (55%) than men (40%). A small proportion of respondents chose not to reveal their gender (5%). The majority of respondents were in the year age group (58%), followed by those aged (37%). Four percent indicated they were 60 years or older. Respondents were asked in which year their dispute was settled (see Table 1). The largest proportion of respondents (38%) said their case was still proceeding at the time of the questionnaire. 30 percent of disputes had been settled in Smaller numbers of cases had been resolved in previous years. Table 1. Year in which dispute was settled Year Number Percentage 2007 or earlier Case is still proceeding Total

5 2.2 Limitations The sample obtained in the questionnaire was small, relative to the overall number of Family Court users, 1 and self-selected. The questionnaire findings represent the experiences and views of the user and cannot be generalised to represent all of those who access Family Court services. 1 In 2009/10 the Family Court dealt with approximately 58,000 families, 66,976 applications, and 14,895 requests for counselling (Ministry of Justice). 5

6 3. Findings 3.1 Resolving family disputes Resolving family disputes through the Family Court Questionnaire respondents who had been in a family dispute in the past five years were asked to indicate whether they had attended the Family Court or had consulted a lawyer but had not proceeded to Court (see Table 2). Most questionnaire respondents had attended the Family Court (79%) to resolve their dispute. 21 percent had consulted a lawyer but did not go to the Family Court. Table 2. Actions taken to resolve a family dispute Number Percentage Attending the Family Court Consulting a lawyer but not going to the Family Court Total How dispute was resolved Respondents were asked how their family dispute was resolved (see Table 3). For more than half (53%), a court order was necessary. Informal arrangements between the respondent and the other party or parties resolved 11% of disputes. Table 3. How dispute was resolved Number Percentage Informal arrangement between respondent and the other party or parties Written agreement made between the lawyers 8 6 Court order Other Total Thirty-six respondents (30%) provided additional comments relating to how their dispute was resolved. A majority of these commented that the case was still unresolved and ongoing, in many instances over several years. For example, one respondent wrote that their dispute is still not resolved after eight years of battle. A few respondents reported that their dispute had been resolved through counselling or mediation. 3.2 Role of lawyer in resolving dispute Respondents were asked how their lawyer recommended they resolve their dispute (see Table 4). The majority of respondents (61%) had been advised by their lawyer to go to the Family Court. Other common recommendations were for counselling (41%), mediation (39%), negotiation between the lawyers (36%) and attending the Parenting through Separation programme (35%). Only a small number of respondents (15%) had been advised by their lawyer to resolve their dispute independently. 6

7 Twenty respondents (17%) provided additional comments relating to their lawyer and the advice provided. Several noted that they did not have a lawyer, were self-represented or unable to get free legal advice. Other common themes were dissatisfaction with lawyers and their motivations (eg, four lawyers all a complete waste of time and money ) and frustration with a perceived lack of cooperation by the other party s lawyer (eg, the other party s lawyer refused to consider counselling or mediation ). Table 4. Recommendations by lawyers for resolving disputes 2 Number Percentage Counselling Mediation Attending the Parenting through Separation programme Resolving your dispute independently Negotiation between the lawyers Going to the Family Court Other Helpfulness of lawyer in resolving dispute Respondents were divided in their views on how helpful their lawyer had been in resolving their dispute without the need for the Family Court (see Table 5). 45 percent of respondents found their lawyers to be either very or fairly helpful, and a similar proportion (47%) found them to be not very or not at all helpful. Table 5. Helpfulness of lawyer in resolving dispute without need for the Family Court Number Percentage Very helpful Fairly helpful Not very helpful Not at all helpful Don t know 9 8 Total Additional comments about lawyers Ninety respondents provided comments on how their lawyer helped to resolve their dispute and/or how their lawyer could have been more helpful. How lawyers helped The majority of comments were negative, either towards lawyers or the court process. The following key themes emerged from the comments. 2 Note: Multiple responses were allowed. 7

8 Many respondents commented that they did not find their lawyer helpful. Specific reasons for this included a perception that lawyers were prolonging the dispute for personal financial gain, they lacked expertise, they did not provide enough information to the respondent and they did not act in the best interests of the respondent and/or children. For example: I paid a lot of money yet still had no understanding of what strategy my lawyer was working from or to. They muddled along shuffling paper and writing to each other and not addressing my own or the children s concerns. My lawyer was extremely hard to get hold of and did not return my calls. I had never been through the family court process before and I had a lot of questions about the legal aspects many of which went unanswered. I provided my lawyer with vital information about my case which never made it before the judge. Information that may have resulted in a different outcome for myself and my three year old son. Lawyer was helpful but the problem is the system or the other party. A number of respondents felt their lawyer was as helpful as possible but was operating within a flawed system. Others commented that the problem was not with their lawyer but the lack of cooperation from the other party. For example: The problem is not with the lawyer but with your system that demands using a lawyer and engagement with the Court before any mediation or counselling services, or proper information about delays and costs. The lawyer may not have access to records of any particular Court's backlog or average waiting times, while the Ministry has, but the Ministry won't release this to parents due to official embarrassment. Parents have no idea how much they have to pay and how long the delays are before making an application to a Court. There is a reluctance by alienated parents to engage in such an system that is uncertain, formidable and traumatic for all concerned (except the lawyers and officials who gain from it). My lawyer was as helpful as she could be. The problems relating to my issues were initiated and maintained by my ex who would not and could not accept the reality of our separation. Her way of dealing with this was to create as much havoc in my life as possible. For me, court was the only option that could put some structure and stability back into our lives (my child's and mine). Lawyer communicated well, provided good advice, and was able to negotiate well. A minority of comments were positive. These highlighted the lawyer s ability to provide all the necessary information, provide good advice and negotiate well. For example: My lawyer was amazing. She presented all information in an appropriate, timely and helpful way. She not only acted as a "Lawyer" but a "genuine" lawyer. Not one concerned with time or money! Heaven sent. My lawyer helped by giving clear legal advice about my rights, and by suggesting Family Court mediation and explaining how that worked. My lawyer was able to negotiate with the other party on my behalf, even when he was very angry, hurt and hateful. I couldn't have negotiated him into counselling without my lawyer. 8

9 How lawyers could have been more helpful Respondents made a number of suggestions for improvement. These revolved around two major themes communication and competency. Communication The majority of comments suggested that lawyers could improve how they communicate with their clients. Respondents said they would have found it helpful to have more information on their options, court processes, costs and more comprehensive explanations of the probable consequences of certain decisions. Some said that lawyers needed to be more open and transparent, particularly around costs. Some noted that a more personal approach such as phone calls would have been preferable to letters. Some felt that communications from their lawyer should have come earlier in the process and not at the last minute. For example: Written information would be more helpful. Bullet points or flow charts. The Community Law Service should be able to provide this to reduce costs. I WAS NOT told about mediation and this would have made a massive difference. I believe we could have resolved things sooner, and more amicably, if we had been able to do this rather than go down the expensive and time consuming process of letter writing by lawyers and blaming which inevitably happens once this starts. (1) Fewer letters, more phone calls. I appreciate there needs to be a paper trail but some things can be dealt with over the phone rather than inane letters to both defendant and respondent. (2) Comprehensive explanation of the future expectations and timeframes. (3) Itemised accounts. The arrogance of sending, often large, bills without breaking it down encourages further resentment. Asking what my main concerns were. Highlighting probable situations I could find myself in if I made certain decisions. Explaining what would need to be done if I followed through to court. Perhaps a follow up call to check what I had decided to do or what the outcome to our appointment was. Skills and competencies Many comments related to specific aspects of lawyers skills and competencies as areas that could be improved. For example: By making the right applications using the right sections and acts for me... Could have used less adversarial approach, could have represented our family more realistically, could have done the work in more timely manner, could have short cut the process by going directly to the FC instead of adversarial lawyers battle which cost 15k for us and about the same for the other side of the family with still no outcomes that assisted the children involved. Nearly lost our home because of the costs incurred (large debt now) and still no resolution that represents what the children need 2yrs later. My lawyer did not even mention there were alternatives to court proceedings. My lawyer could have been more helpful by insisting on more attention to s5(a) of the Care of Children Act

10 My lawyer did not give me all the facts regarding the options the Judges had available to them in their decisions. She told me there would only be one outcome - 50/50 of relationship property. This was not the case. 3.3 Family Court processes 3 Type of dispute The majority of respondents (n=82, 86%) reported that their case involved a parenting or guardianship dispute. Counselling Of the respondents who indicated that their case involved a parenting or guardianship dispute, almost three-quarters (74%) were directed by the Court to attend counselling. Counselling, however, was not perceived to be helpful (see Table 6). 84 percent of respondents reported that counselling was either not very or not at all helpful in resolving their dispute. Only 14% said counselling was very or fairly helpful. Table 6. Helpfulness of counselling in resolving dispute Number Percentage Very helpful 4 7 Fairly helpful 4 7 Not very helpful Not at all helpful Don t know 2 2 Total Cases proceeding to a formal hearing Of those respondents who indicated their case involved a parenting or guardianship dispute, the majority (76%) reported that it proceeded as far as a formal hearing where the judge made a final parenting order. Court processes that helped resolve case before proceeding to a formal hearing Respondents were asked to indicate which of several Family Court processes helped to resolve their case before proceeding as far as a final hearing (see Table 7). 29 percent of respondents found mediation beneficial. A minority found counselling (18%), attending the Parenting through Separation programme (12%) and negotiation between lawyers helpful (12%). 3 The findings reported in this and following sections are based on those respondents who indicated they went to the Family Court to resolve their dispute (see Table 2). 10

11 Table 7. Family Court processes that helped to resolve case before proceeding as far as a final hearing 4 Number Percentage Counselling 3 18 Mediation 5 29 Attending the Parenting through Separation programme 2 12 Resolving the dispute independently 1 5 Negotiation between lawyers 2 12 Other 6 35 Six respondents made additional comments. These respondents indicated they had not found any of the processes helpful, that the other party had refused to attend counselling or mediation or that the judge had threatened court costs. After the final parenting order Respondents were asked to indicate what happened after the final parenting order was issued by the judge (see Table 8). More than a quarter (26%) reported they complied with the order. In a minority of cases, applications were made to modify the order (13%), appeal the order (10%) or respondents made their own informal arrangements in lieu of the order (5%). Twenty-nine respondents (46%) provided additional comments on what happened after the final parenting order. The majority of comments described non-compliance with the order by the other party. For example: Ex-husband has not complied with the order for over a year now. Order repeatedly breached without appropriate punishment, should have been contempt of court. Some respondents noted that the order did not work for their child and that s/he would not comply. For example: My son kept refusing to go and I constantly got blamed and dragged through the court system for eight of the ten years we were at court. Issues my son had and has are that he was not listened to. Some respondents described their situation as being ongoing with the final hearing yet to be held. 4 Note: Multiple responses were allowed. 11

12 Table 8. After the final parenting order Number Percentage Questionnaire respondent complied with the order An application was made to modify the order due to changed 8 13 circumstances An appeal was made against the order 6 10 Questionnaire respondent made their own informal arrangements 3 5 instead Other Total Competence of court professionals Respondents were asked to rate the competence of various court professionals, as applicable, in relation to their case (see Table 9). Overall, their own lawyer received the most favourable ratings. Table 9. Ratings of the competence of court professionals Very competent N (%) Moderately competent N (%) Not competent N (%) Not sure/not applicable N (%) Total N (%) Own lawyer 29 (36) 27 (33) 17 (21) 8 (10) 81(100) Lawyer for the 12 (15) 23(28) 44(54) 2(3) 81(100) child Court appointed 12 (15) 14 (17) 28 (35) 27 (33) 81(100) psychologist Counsellor 13 (16) 28 (35) 27 (33) 13 (16) 81(100) Mediator 8 (10) 17 (21) 24 (30) 32 (39) 81(100) Lawyers Most respondents were positive about their own lawyer, with 69% rating him or her as very or moderately competent. In contrast, the lawyer for the child was rated as not competent by over half of respondents (54%). 43 percent felt the lawyer for the child was very or moderately competent. Court appointed psychologist Over a third of respondents (35%) rated the court appointed psychologist in their case as not competent. Another third (32%) were more positive, reporting that the psychologist was very or moderately competent. The remaining respondents were either unsure, or the question was not applicable in their case. Counsellor Counsellors were perceived by half of respondents (51%) as either very or moderately competent. A sizable minority (33%) rated the counsellor in their case as not competent. 12

13 Mediator Respondents were split in their views of mediators, with 30% rating them as not competent and 31% rating them as very or moderately competent. 39 percent were unsure, or the question was not applicable in their case. Most helpful court professional Respondents were asked which court professional was most helpful in resolving their dispute (see Table 10). 27 percent considered judges to be the most helpful. Only a small minority felt their lawyer (15%), the counsellor (6%), lawyer for the child (5%), or the mediator (4%), were the most helpful. Table 10. Most helpful court professional Number Percentage Judge Own lawyer Lawyer for the child 4 5 Court appointed psychologist 0 0 Counsellor 5 6 Mediator 3 4 Other Total Thirty-five respondents (43%) indicated that persons other than those listed were most helpful in resolving their dispute. However, the majority of remaining respondents commented that they did not find any court professionals to be helpful. Several also said that their case was unresolved and ongoing. For example: No one to date has been helpful. Most have contributed to increased high parental conflict, especially the judges. No one in the Family Court system why else would the dispute go on for 8 years? The entire philosophy of the Family Court is wrong. 3.5 Factors that may have helped resolve dispute without the need to attend the Family Court Respondents were asked to consider, in retrospect, what factors might have helped resolve their dispute without the need to go to the Family Court (see Table 11). Over a quarter (26%) indicated that in their particular case court was necessary to resolve the dispute. Similar proportions of respondents thought that easier access to mediation (21%), better information on how to resolve disputes (20%) and more encouragement from their lawyer to resolve differences (20%) may have helped. Only 12% thought easier access to counselling would have been helpful. 13

14 Table 11. Factors that may have helped resolve dispute without the need to attend the Family Court 5 Number Percentage Easier access to counselling Easier access to mediation Better information on how to resolve disputes More encouragement from lawyer to resolve differences Other No, in our case we needed to go to court Forty-six respondents (57%) provided additional comments on factors that might have helped resolve their dispute without the need to go to court. Comments clustered around several themes. These are described below: Cooperation of other party Several respondents commented that a lack of cooperation from the other party in the dispute hindered any resolution. For example: Lawyers Would have worked if my husband didn t lie all the time. The father was a power mad man and refused to meet on any point of agreement. He is a narcissistic individual. Some respondents expressed general negative attitudes to lawyers and their motivations. Other comments suggested that lawyers address issues at an early stage, and help clients settle rather than maintain their dispute. Examples of comments include: A corrupt lawyer whose only interest is to make false applications and live off the legal aid gravy train. Lawyers who helped their clients to settle rather than just shuffle paper and maintain animosity. Counselling and mediation Several comments suggested that mediation and counselling should be mandatory as well as highlighting the need to improve the effectiveness of both. Changes to the law and the court system Some respondents advocated changes to the law and court system, including removing legal aid, making care of children 50/50 by default, and stronger court responses to violations of parenting orders. 5 Note: Multiple responses were allowed. 14

15 Care of children should be 50/50 by default when both parents shown as competent hence avoiding need for court. A change to the law it favours status quo and is hard to change, even if the status quo is no good for the children. Child orientation Some respondents commented that the system needed to be more child-oriented as well as placing responsibility on parents to act in the best interests of the children. For example: A pre-court process that places accountability on the parents to act in the best interests of the children. If this is in place from the start, I believe that counselling and mediation have a better chance of success thus avoiding trauma for the children. 3.6 Satisfaction with Family Court processes Impact on children Most respondents reported that the Family Court process had a negative impact on the children involved (see Table 12). Over half (52%) indicated that the impact was very negative. Only a minority (14%) reported no negative impact. Table 12. Impact of the Family Court process on children involved Number Percentage Very negative impact Fairly negative impact Slightly negative impact 9 11 No negative impact Don t know 4 5 Total Satisfaction with time taken to settle case As shown in Table 13, the majority of respondents (72%) were very dissatisfied with the time it took to settle their case in the Family Court. Only a small minority were very satisfied (5%) or somewhat satisfied (8%). Table 13. Satisfaction with time taken to settle case Number Percentage Very satisfied 5 5 Somewhat satisfied 7 8 Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 8 9 Somewhat dissatisfied 6 6 Very dissatisfied Total

16 Improving Family Court processes and resolving more disputes outside of court Eighty-four respondents provided comments on how Family Court processes could be improved and/or how disputes might be resolved outside of court. Respondents made a range of suggestions. These are grouped around the following key themes: Need for greater transparency and accountability Several respondents highlighted the need for greater transparency around court processes and accountability of court professionals, particularly lawyers. For example: The code of silence must be lifted. The family court system and those within it from the bottom up are protected by the code of silence which surrounds the system itself. The protection of children as a reason for this silence has allowed family court representatives to run amok with people s lives and money, and the courts time and money. There must be transparency and accountability: There is no system of accountability placed on the courts representatives, and certainly not one which allows vulnerable parties to expect any sort of honest investigation into such issues. Lawyers should be made accountable as well as lawyers for the children - it appears to be a gravy train for them and it is unbelievable that they are able to charge the amounts that they do. Need for consequences for lying and misleading the Court, and stalling tactics A number of respondents commented on the need for disciplinary action against those who lie and mislead the Court or manipulate the system by using stalling tactics. Several also stressed the importance of imposing consequences for breaches of orders. For example: Consequences for applicants and lawyers who make without notice applications which are later found to have no merit or foundation, e.g. automatic award of costs unless exceptional circumstances. Recognise that some applicants use the court process to gain tactical advantage and harass respondents -- actions that outside the context of the court might be construed as psychological abuse particularly when there are small children involved. Lawyers who mislead the court, lie or behave badly should be able to be punished quickly and harshly. Parents who lie to the court should be punished. Lawyers and parents who lie to Legal Aid should be punished. The lack of punishment encourages poor behaviour. The [court] needs to be very effective with disciplinary action on parents that take matters into their own hands and continuously break parenting orders. They need to give the police the ability to act on those orders. As some parents are aware that the police cannot enforce a parenting order and that it is up to the other parent to go back to court and apply for a warrant to uplift. Issues around legal costs and legal aid Several respondents commented that issues relating to legal costs and legal aid need to be addressed. Specific suggestions included capping legal fees and a requirement for the repayment of legal aid. For example: Legal Aid = money machine for lawyers. 16

17 Make all legal aid be repaid so that it is not abused and 70% of cases will never happen. Better quality assurance A number of respondents highlighted the need for more quality assurance around court processes. For example: Better quality assurance for the making and discharging of orders. Family Court made at least two errors in discharging and making of the temporary court orders which required my lawyer to do extra work which meant extra cost. I spoke to the family court manager but was told there was no mechanism that I could use to provide feedback on court processes. Appointing competent psychologists would be helpful, and ensuring that before any report is filed that it is reviewed by some other more senior psychologist to ensure that the process has been fair, such as making sure that equal time is spent with both parties, that a balanced perspective is put forward. Measure lawyer, psychologist, counsellor, and mediator client service outcomes via consumer driven outcome measurement tools (e.g., CDOI, SRS, ORS tools). Issues relating to mediation Compulsory mediation was advocated by several respondents. For example: Mediation by mediators trained in family disputes should be mandatory. Agreements made in mediation should be enforceable by the courts. Issues relating to counselling There were a number of suggestions relating to counselling, such as enabling longer sessions if required, that counselling should focus on dispute resolution, and Family Court counsellors being able to report back to the Court. For example: Counselling post-break-ups should focus on Dispute Resolution and parenting agreements, rather than "healing" relationships. Everyone should come out of counselling with a parenting plan in place. Issues around psychologists Some respondents commented that psychologists reports needed to be more detailed and their findings taken into consideration by the judge. For example: The Psychologist reports need to be more informative and more in-depth than a one meeting view on family environments. They need to also be involved with the schools/organisations that have dealt with the family for background information. If the court appoints a psychologist for an opinion they should appoint a psychologist who is an expert in child psychology. Court appointed psychologists, who get to see the behaviour of parents and children outside of the court room, are gagged from conveying to the Judge their concerns for the children and the 17

18 reasons for this. The result is that the Judge is denied a true/full picture that would assist him/her in the difficult role of adjudicating and arriving at the best decision for the children. System should be non-adversarial Many respondents proposed a non-adversarial system for dispute resolution, commenting that the present legal model may not be the best approach in the context of family disputes. Examples of comments include: Less adversarial lawyers. Their mandate should be mediation and not escalation. maybe the LAWYERS should go from this environment so it actually becomes about families and children as its focus, rather than a legal battle of wits between two law firms! Replace lawyers with social workers, counsellors and mediators in the earliest stages following the lodging of applications in the family court. Social workers, counsellors and mediators are more apt, and hopefully more affordable, than lawyers, to sort out these issues properly. Family Court cases are not about property rights, they are about children's wellbeing. The involvement of lawyers as primary workers in these cases is not doing the best for our kids, and it s hugely expensive. Recognise that separated parents not being able to make decisions about parenting of children is not different from parents in intact families not being able to make similar decisions. It is an Interpersonal/Psychological/Communications problem NOT a legal one. By involving lawyers, judges, Family Court we make it one. There are many players then who have an investment in the problem, including a financial one. The children get lost in the process. Listen to what the children want, then include their ideas into decisions that are in the children's best interests. Involve only professionals who are competent to ascertain this information and make these decisions. Lawyers and judges are not the most competent in this area. Focusing on the children s interests Several respondents felt that the process needs to be more child focused. For example: The current process does not focus on the child's interests. It focuses on the adults, and what the adults feel they are entitled to. Very little time is afforded to LFC to actually meet with the child, and no child is going to talk much to someone who is effectively a stranger. They need to be given more time to develop a relationship with the child so that a better picture of the child's circumstances can be gained. Courts need to listen more to children. They need to more focused on the children and the long term effects on what those decisions are. Issues around lawyer for the child A number of comments related to the role of the lawyer for the child. Some respondents felt that the lawyer should be a specialist with training in the area of child psychology and development. Others advocated eliminating the role altogether. Examples of comments include: Lawyers for children to be specialists, impartial and subject to appraisal. 18

19 The lawyer for child needs to be someone who has substantial training in child psychology and child development. Even better still, rather than or in addition to having a lawyer for child, there should be a social worker appointed to the children, who has an understanding of children's development and psychology, and who also takes the time to get to know the children, and understand what their situations really are like at home, and in the non-resident parent's home/social environment. Lawyer for child should be removed and replaced with a social worker that has specialised qualifications in children. Faster, more efficient process Several respondents commented on the need to improve the efficiency of the court process, particularly in relation to the length of time it took. For example: It was such a long process. From time of separation it took two years to finally have arrangements in place through a court mediator. Very long and drawn out for children. Very hard to get hold of court coordinator - took 3 applications and a phone call from lawyer to even get the counsellor appointed. The family court processes need to be dealt with straight away, the process takes too long and the children are damaged in the meantime. The family court process is too slow and needs to be sped up. Issues relating to concept of shared care Some respondents commented on issues relating to the concept of shared care. For example: The impracticality in reality of shared care as a starting point for cases in dispute, leads to an increase in the number of variations of orders, and the increased involvement of the lawyers, including the lawyer for child, not to mention, the increase in the distress of young children who, unable to have their voices heard, have been unsettled and confused by being forced into the havoc of travelling between 2 "homes," not knowing when they are next going to see their primary parent, and being forced to spend time with a parent who does not really want them, and who berates the children, and berates the other parent in front of the children. The family court has a starting position of shared care - even though the law apparently does not. Shared care does not work in most cases as the parents are in court in the first place because they cannot work together. This results in constant friction in the lives of the children. In addition, when considering custody arrangements, financial matters are not considered and as such, many parents who are forced into a shared care arrangement often find themselves under financial pressure. 19

20 Appendix A Questionnaire Family Court Review Questionnaire Introduction The Ministry of Justice is undertaking a review of the Family Court. If you would like to learn more about the review and how to make a submission, please go to the Family Court Review homepage. As part of the review we want to hear from people who have been involved in proceedings in the Family Court or who have sought advice from a lawyer about a family dispute. The answers to this questionnaire will help shape any proposals for change in the way family law disputes are dealt with. In most cases the questionnaire takes no more than 10 minutes to complete. Names and personal details are not necessary. Once you have started the questionnaire you can use the "Next" and "Back" buttons to either move on to the next question or go back and revise your answer to a previous question. You can use the "Save" button to save your answers and return to complete the questionnaire at a later time. If you have been involved in a family dispute in the past five years then please choose one of the following. I attended Family Court I consulted a lawyer but did not go to Family Court Neither of the above apply to me How was your dispute resolved? Informal arrangement between yourself and the other party or parties Written agreement made between the lawyers Court order Other (please specify) 20

21 How did your lawyer recommend that you resolve your dispute? (please choose all that apply) Counselling Mediation Attend the Parenting through Separation programme Resolve your dispute independently Negotiation between the lawyers Go to Family Court Other (please specify) Was your lawyer helpful in trying to resolve your dispute without the need for Family Court? Very helpful Fairly helpful Not very helpful Not at all helpful Don t know Please provide any comments you would like to make on: a) how your lawyer helped to resolve your dispute b) how your lawyer could have been more helpful. Advanced Branch: 1 If you have been involved in a family dispute in the past five years then please choose one of the following. = I consulted a lawyer but did not go to Family Court; >>>> Skip to End Page: Questionnaire Submitted Did your Family Court case involve a parenting or guardianship dispute? Yes No >>>> Skip to Page 17: How satisfied were you with the time it took to settle your case in the Family Court? Did you attend counselling following a direction by the court? Yes No >>>> Skip to Page 10: Did your Family Court case proceed as far as a formal hearing where the judge made a final parenting order? How helpful was this counselling in resolving your dispute? Very helpful Fairly helpful Not very helpful Not at all helpful Don t know 21

22 Did your Family Court case proceed as far as a formal hearing where the judge made a final parenting order? Yes >>>> Skip to Page 12: What happened after the final parenting order? No Don't know >>>> Skip to Page 13: How would you rate the competence of the following court professionals, where applicable, with regard to your case? Did any of the following help to resolve your case before proceeding as far as a final hearing? (please choose all that apply) Counselling Mediation Attended the Parenting through Separation programme Decided to resolve dispute independently Negotiation between the lawyers Other (please specify) What happened after the final parenting order? We complied with the order An application was made to modify the order due to changed circumstances An appeal was made against the order We made our own informal arrangements instead Other (please specify) How would you rate the competence of the following court professionals, where applicable, with regard to your case? Very competent Moderately competent Not competent Your lawyer Lawyer for the child Court appointed psychologist Counsellor Mediator Not sure/not applicable 22

23 Who was the most helpful in resolving your dispute? Judge Your lawyer Lawyer for the child Court appointed psychologist Counsellor Mediator Other (please specify) In retrospect, is there anything that might have helped you to resolve your dispute without the need to attend the Family Court? (please choose all that apply) Easier access to counselling Easier access to mediation Better information on how to resolve disputes More encouragement from lawyer to resolve differences Other (please specify) No, in our case we needed to go to court Did the Family Court process have a negative impact on the children involved? Very negative impact Fairly negative impact Slightly negative impact No negative impact Don't know How satisfied were you with the time it took to settle your case in the Family Court? Very satisfied Somewhat satisfied Neither satisfied or dissatisfied Somewhat dissatisfied Very dissatisfied Please provide any comments you would like to make on how Family Court processes could be improved, or on how more disputes might be resolved outside of the court. 23

24 Finally, could you please provide some basic information about yourself. This will help us to analyse the responses. In which year was your dispute settled? 2007 or earlier Case is still proceeding Are you male or female? Male Female Prefer not to say What age group are you in? up to 24 years 25 to 39 years 40 to 59 years 60+ years Prefer not to say 24