The President of the Family Division Sir Andrew McFarlane has taken the very brave decision to give an open explanation of his need to undergo open heart surgery next month, in order to explain the impact it will have on planned work in coming months.
Everyone here at The Transparency Project wishes the President well – we hope his surgery goes smoothly and that he is back on top form soon.
We have been assured that the President will continue to lead on transparency issues, and that the deadline for the submissions of responses to his call for evidence on transparency will be extended until the end of April. This is something of a silver lining, as the four week period for the gathering and submission of evidence was shorter than might have been desired. We had almost completed our submission in advance of next week’s original deadline, but it has taken some doing!. With the extension, all those with an interest in this area will now have time to properly think through what input they can usefully make. We think this will be to the overall benefit of the panel – a review has been too long delayed, but it does need to be done properly and taking into account all views.
We will in due course publish our response on the blog – and invite anyone or any organisation who submits a response to send us yours (or a link to it) so we can list all responses in one place as a repository of the responses from across the spectrum of views (email us at info@transparencyproject.org.uk).
Feature pic : Thanks to Oberhoster Venita on Pixabay
Draft of response to date, done. With more time I can do more on the misty history of closing down justice in family courts. How many people recall that family proceedings (mags) courts had press admitted for family proceedings from at least 1980 (that’s where the text for FPR 2010 r 27.11 comes from). And I can, I hope, spend more time observing (FPR 2010 r 27.11(2)(ff)) in family courts…
Yes, I’ll send in my reply to the President when its submitted to MoJ…
I’ve thought long and hard about responding to this
Firstly it is thoughtful and kind that the Transparency project have posted a warm post for the President at a time of adverse physical health.
Any person would wish another in ill health positive regard and wish them well.
It is a poignant time to remember that ill health is physical and mental health and in practice rules health = physical and mental health both are equal. A person with say dementia has no more choice over their mental state than a person with a heart condition. That is the opinion of medical clinicians.
Family law does not yet recognise this and over the coming weeks perhaps the ‘pause’ button needs to be pushed in family law for very obvious reasons in that nobody in family law could ethically assess the presidents heart condition and equally could not assess dementia… or any other of the 500+ mental health specialist disorders …yet they are with no medical qualifications.
Specialist medical consultants do that with over 10+ years clinical training; that is specialist medical clinicians treat physical problems with specialist medical training and Equally if not more so specialists consultants spend more time in clinical training to assess mental health. Psychologists, Psychiatrists and Psychotherapists are highly qualified and accredited. Social work is not any of these nor is it medical or clinical and a grave warning has to be made here… however this is not the place to go into matters which are frankly dire nor the time but matters to be properly addressed transparently before any further damage is done to children and families. Everybody with ill health should be treated with dignity and respect and that is not happening in the family courts and people are suffering. Nobody should be treated badly because of ill health.
In the spirit of transparency the big white elephant in the room is why are a certain group of non medical court advisors assessing people’s mental health because respectfully they have no more right to do so than assess say for example The President of the family divisions medical cardiac issues or any other persons health status. This is something that needs to be out in the open. Stepping into a family court is not, under current regulations regarded as safe for this group of people… This needs addressing as research is now indicating what has gone terribly wrong and the family court know this.
There is much research gathered about what has gone horribly wrong, however these are issues when the President recovers that need to be addressed transparently and a genuine impact assessment carried out on those who have been subject to inaccurate assessments in repeat of their ‘health’.
Wishing the president of the family division goodwill at an adverse and difficult time in his health in the spirit of Equality.