Do We Have Trial by Expert?

Way back in 1996 Lady Justice Butler-Schloss, shortlyvery difficult to argue with them and it is near
before she became President of the Family Divisionimpossible to make them change their mind. Welfare
of the High Court, reminded judges that they shouldofficer talk of ' being unable to prioritise the need of
never lose sight of the fact that the ultimate decisionchildren ' means that you disagree with him. Going to
was for them and not for an appointed expert. Thiswar with an expert is unfortunately a recipe for
is what parliament intended, particularly in familydisaster. You must seem to be on the same side.
cases, and what was included in section 7 of theThe only real answer however to dealing with
Children Act 1989. This allows a judge the option towelfare officers and court-appointed experts is to
order a welfare report and take notice of it if he soavoid them altogether. When a family breaks down
chooses. There is no obligation to either order awith young children there will be many years of care
report or pay regard to it but that is not always howarrangements ahead. When the other parent is
it works in practice.spoiling for a fight you must not fall into the trap of
Welfare reports are nearly always ordered when itappearing as a warmonger. You must be seen as
has not proved possible for parents to agreebeing a peacemaker and fair and reasonable with
arrangements for their children. In contact andyour only interest being what is best for the children.
residence order applications which become contested,If agreement can be reached you will avoid the need
a CAFCASS report is the norm. Thereafter will followfor a welfare report. attempting to reach a
a delay of at least three or four months whilst thecompromise settlement at the mediation stage of
report is prepared. Even then there can be problems.the first appointment can work wonders and you
Often the report is late and further hearings have toshould always allow your former partner to get his or
be adjourned. If the report is not favourable to aher grievances off their chest. Take every
publicly funded party their legal aid is likely to beopportunity to negotiate a settlement and remember
withdrawn. They are unlikely to be able to proceedthat a negotiated settlement is likely to work better
and this can be little more than trial by welfarethan a court enforced one.
officer.If everything fails and you are faced with an experts
Even should the case proceed to trial, the judge isreport there is one important thing to remember.
going to be a heavily influenced by the welfareThat is to come across as a reasonable and loving
report and inclined to follow the recommendation. Ifparent who will co-operate with the other parent and
the judge does not follow the welfare officerswho is able to recognise that parents good qualities.
recommendation he must give written reasons whichWhat is sudden death to your chances of a
could lead to an appeal. the judge is likely to thinkfavourable recommendation will be an attack on the
that it is the welfare officer who has spoken to theother parent to the welfare officer. Not only will a list
parties and the children, visited them in their homes,of your former partner's failings as a parent or
spoken to the schools and is therefore in a betterperson be ignored but they will act against you as
position than he is to make a decision.showing you to be an unreasonable person who is
What has to be accepted if you are involved in alikely not to be co-operative and who cannot focus
dispute concerning your children is that the welfareon the needs of the children. The only certain way to
officer is a powerful person and that you should notget on the right side of a welfare officer is to agree
get on the wrong side of them. The parent whowith him or her. If you do not agree with the welfare
quarrels with the welfare officer and disagrees withofficer play it cool and never lose your temper and
their set principles of childcare is likely to be accusednever rant and rave at him or her.it is unfortunately
in the report of 'not being able to prioritise the needsthe case that especially in the lower courts judges
of the children'. This stems from the inherenttend to rubberstamp and follow a welfare officer's
tendency of welfare officers to think that theyrecommendation. This is not how it should be.
know best about the care of children. This makes it