I have been reading these threads with great interest on and off today, so a few thoughts before I go to bed. Sorry it's so long - I've been saving it up!
- The law on what constitutes the best interests of a child and how those best interests should be determined does not need changing. It's well-established for good reasons. (I am a lawyer, but not in family law which I last studied at university decades ago). For all that this has been an emotive case, it is worth noting that the courts did their job well, kindly and properly - in fact, just as you should expect they should.
Francis J was the epitome of a compassionate, but wise and balanced judge. However, for all that the legal representatives also did a good job, neither the judge nor justice was helped by the fact that the family was not permitted legal aid.
Speaking as someone who does about 100 hours of legal pro bono work a year, it is not suitable for complex cases of this type and it's not fair to expect people to rely on it. Non means-tested legal aid ought to be available, if only because it ensures consistent representation which helps the court. Lawyers are able to do more, and not in so much of a rush, which usually makes presentation of evidence better because they can think around the issues and anticipate questions. Less stress is placed on the parties because they won't worry what the lawyers can't do or that they're about to lose legal representation because the lawyers can't afford to do it any more. I hope that this is one thing that will change because of this case.
- Family law suffers from a lack of transparency - often for good reasons. Such disputes are not always suitable for public consumption, but in the absence of transparency, people believe the worst of the courts. The Transparency Project has written an excellent blog today on that subject: www.transparencyproject.org.uk/kindertotenlieder-and-the-limits-of-transparency/
From having been an advocate for greater transparency (within appropriate limits) in family court so that justice can be seen to be done - an important attribute of the Rule of Law - I now wonder whether this is possible to the extent that would be needed in cases like these. I don't think that the public, the courts, the hospital or, most of all, the family have been best-served by some of the publicity surrounding this case.
I am no longer much surprised at people's ignorance of how the courts work, or what their job is (and what it isn't) ,or even of what constitutes evidence versus what doesn't. People misunderstand all of these things, and over-estimate greatly their own understanding. Some of the comments from the press and the public on this case have been jaw-droppingly obtuse. Family law is not my speciality so I wouldn't dream of advancing an opinion on what the law should say (because I know that I simply don't understand enough), but I do understand civil litigation, so from what little I did know, I could tell that some of what was reported was wrong. I also know that the subtleties of any case are not repaid by the need to frame your piece as either "balanced" (whatever that is taken to mean) or by needing to find a winner. When a journalist comments on cases in my speciality, unsurprisingly they usually get quite a bit of it wrong (or at least not quite right) because frankly if you could understand the cases as well as me, and then explain the judgment in 250 words, it's amazing that I'm still making a living after 25 years in practice.
Unless public education and understanding of the courts and the issues that surround cases like these improves, less transparency may have to be the answer because, to be frank, people can't be trusted to behave well, and respectfully. Some seem apparently incapable of understanding that although a difference of opinion may be framed in adversarial terms as the court process demands (and for good reasons), it does not necessarily mean that one side is right or good, and the other wrong. It certainly does not mean that the dispute need be framed acrimoniously. And whilst mediation may be good for a number of things, you have to be in the right mindset to benefit from it to begin with, and in a case like this that may be asking too much of people under great personal pressure.
One of the reasons I have followed these threads is because the debate has been measured, proportionate, respectful and thoughtful, even though some opinions are very strongly held. You're all a tribute to MN. Abuse of the kind that is offered by some in other fora on social media seems however to be the norm and regarded as acceptable, or at least not unusual. If social media will not moderate itself, then the only way to avoid that is that people are not told this sort of thing or not enough to identify the parties concerned. No one has an unassailable right to all information, particularly if they cannot be trusted to remember that if you wouldn't say it to your neighbour's face, then perhaps you shouldn't say it at all.
I hope that all concerned in this sad case find peace. Good night.