Why We Exist

3d Centre Map.jpg

 

We seek to offer a more cost effective and innovative approach to family or separation matters. We believe that it is possible to reduce conflict, and therefore costs, in the majority of separations and divorce. We also feel passionately that by reducing conflict between parents, we permanently improve the emotional and psychological trajectory of the children of those families.

The Effects of the Removal of Legal Aid

Increasingly, legal advice and representation is becoming the privilege of the rich with universal access to justice no longer a cornerstone of our legal system. Since 1 April 2013, when the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 took many private law children and family cases out of scope for legal aid, the situation only worsened. Since then, 80% of all new family court cases had at least one party who did not have legal representation – a Litigant in Person or LiP (Source: House of Commons Briefing Papers). The family court continues to see LiPs in at least 50% of new cases. Since the pandemic, courts are struggling with even greater caseloads and backlogs which causes unacceptable delays to family law cases as well as inconsistency, as judges can no longer guarantee to see the same case through to final hearing. The President of the Family Division, the most senior judge in the country, is calling for all family law professionals to direct clients to ‘alternative dispute resolution’ such as mediation, wherever appropriate.

The Removal of Early Legal Advice

Early advice has also been taken out of the scope of public funding. This has meant that many people, whose concerns could have benefited from early advice, have seen their dispute go unresolved, escalate or end up in the already overloaded court system. Our First Meeting service, offers this early intervention of information, at an affordable cost.

The Family Court Must Consider ‘Non-Court Dispute Resolution’ such as Mediation

The Family Procedure Rules 2010 — Part 3

Part 3 of the Family Procedure Rules 2010 indicates:

  • Rule 3.3: The court must consider at every stage of proceedings whether non-court dispute resolution is appropriate.

  • Rule 3.4: The court has powers to encourage non-court dispute resolution and to manage the timetable of proceedings accordingly.

This means the court should consider whether mediation or another suitable dispute-resolution process could resolve some or all of the issues without requiring a contested hearing. The court must consider suitability, rather than automatically refer every case to mediation.  

Practice Direction 3A

Practice Direction 3A supplements Part 3 and explains how MIAMs and non-court dispute resolution should operate.

It supports the court's consideration of mediation because:

  • Family disputes may be resolved more constructively through discussion and agreement.

  • A mediator can assess whether mediation is appropriate for the particular dispute.

  • The court can examine whether the MIAM requirement was met or a valid exemption claimed.

  • If an exemption is not valid, the court may direct attendance at a MIAM and adjourn proceedings where appropriate.