Some McKenzie Friends are very good, but the best charge an hourly rate similar to a solicitor and about double the cost of a legal aid solicitor. Some are not so great and have their own agenda and can overheat the situation.
I remember one well known MF from the Families Need Fathers list (there are about 10 -12 names listed on the FnF website) berating another MF for being aggressive in the court's corridor which did the father's case no good and the MF was almost escorted out of the building. Another MF listed recently admitted to me his motivation was to right the wrongs against fathers. Then there was the Steve Stephenson saga;
www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4743750.ece
I guess what I'm saying is be careful if you want to take a MF. Remember they aren't a solicitor, most haven't studied law or completed on the job training that a solicitor does and MFs are not regulated or insured should things go wrong. There is no reason why an acquaintance who is articulate and well organized can't act as your MF and if it is someone you know it is easier to avoid some of the pitfalls above.
Sadly The President's Guidance for MFs appears to be no longer available but it said those wishing to use a MF should advise the court at the earliest opportunity and send a short CV of the MF.
IT's very important to remain child focused. The courts are highly unlikely to disrupt a child's sense of security or established bonds by changing the status quo unless there is evidence (school, social work, medical reports etc) that a child isn't surviving "satisfactorily."
If you do your case outline/skeleton argument, call it what you prefer, that's your ÂscriptÂ, for you and the judge (and opponent). Get your main points in there and you've got a checklist, and if you are appearing in person the judge can help you where necessary.
Make a list of things that you think are important in relation to children that have not yet been established: that's what you are going to be cross examining on.
A court hearing is an exercise in getting the relevant info clearly set out before the Judge. It is not, contrary to appearances, an argument between you and your spouse. It is each of you putting your case across. Part of that is done by asking the other person questions. But it is still part of putting your case across. If you get drawn into a verbal brawl, the text of your story gets lost, and you lose the judge's attention on the bits you want them to concentrate on.
Cross examination is not a time for malicious character assassination. Its your chance to flesh out the important factual parts of your case by asking relevant questions. This is a skill that even lawyers learn only slowly, so you need to prepare carefully.
All the histrionics you see on TV may work in the occasional criminal trial, but they don't work in family cases. And generally they are very counterproductive. If you have a good point, it will come across.
Don't make your case more complicated than it needs to be. It will almost inevitably get more complicated during the course of the hearing, so try not to start off too complex. Pick your main themes, the strong elements of your case, and concentrate on getting them across.