Introduction
In response to extensive criticism from family dispute professionals, the UK government is poised to abandon its proposal of mandating mediation for separating couples in England and Wales. The original plan aimed to reduce pressure on the family justice system by requiring couples to engage in mediation before pursuing legal action to resolve asset division and child custody disputes. However, objections from legal experts and practitioners have prompted a revaluation of the government’s strategy.
Background to mediation
The government’s initial proposal, championed by former justice secretary Dominic Raab, sought to address the lengthy delays in family court proceedings. This was because cases involving children were taking almost a year on average to conclude. The mandatory mediation sessions were envisioned as a pre-emptive measure to encourage separating couples to find common ground. Mediation aims to explore alternatives to courtroom battles.
Challenges and Criticisms
Despite the government’s intentions, mediators and solicitors raised concerns about the practicality and potential harm of compelling couples to undergo mediation. Critics argued that while mediation could be beneficial in suitable circumstances. However, enforcing it across the board could prove unworkable and, in some cases, detrimental.
Responses and Reconsideration
Acknowledging the widespread criticism, sources within the government revealed that they have carefully considered the feedback received on the proposals. In a shift away from compulsion, ministers are now exploring alternative approaches to promote cooperative solutions for separating couples. One such initiative involves a voucher program designed to subsidise the costs of mediation sessions. The mediation voucher scheme offers financial support to those willing to engage in voluntary mediation.
Expanding the Scope
The government’s commitment to promoting mediation extends beyond family disputes. It encompasses a broad range of legal conflicts, such as civil claims between businesses and disputes between neighbours. This holistic approach aims to alleviate the long backlogs in the court system by encouraging alternative dispute resolution methods.
mediation Impact on Children and Court Delays:
The proponent of the initial proposal, Dominic Raab, argued that compulsory mediation could prevent children from witnessing distressing arguments in court. It could also contribute to addressing the prolonged delays in family court cases. However, recent data indicates that the average duration of private family law cases involving children has nearly doubled to 45 weeks since 2016, highlighting ongoing challenges in the system.
Political Opposition and Concerns:
Despite the government’s intentions, the Commons’ justice select committee, chaired by Conservative MP Bob Neill, expressed strong opposition to the proposed mandatory mediation. In a letter to justice minister Lord Christopher Bellamy KC, Neill emphasised that forcing families into mediation against their will would not necessarily serve the best interests of the children involved.
Special Considerations for Survivors of Domestic Abuse:
Legal experts also raised specific concerns about the potential risks posed by mandatory mediation for survivors of domestic abuse. The government assured that abuse victims would not be compelled to attend mediation sessions with their former partners. However, identifying these victims could prove challenging. This is because some victims may be hesitant to disclose violence at the outset of legal proceedings.
Conclusion to mediation
The UK government is currently reconsidering its approach to resolving disputes between separating couples. However, it emphasises the importance of encouraging voluntary mediation and exploring alternatives to court battles. The proposed voucher program to subsidise mediation costs reflects a shift towards a more flexible and cooperative strategy. While the initial plan faced significant criticism, the ongoing discourse highlights the complex nature of family law reforms and the need for a balanced approach that considers the diverse circumstances of those involved.
Source: Financial Times (Published on 25 January 2024)
