Second fdr hearing didn’t go as expected

[Runawayt]

Can anyone help? I’ve had my second fdr hearing but it wasn’t what I expected! Firstly, it was a different judge to the one at the first hearing and he did not take any notice of the directions from the first judge. Secondly, after asking just a few questions he announced what his decision would be if it was a final hearing, he did not ask us to negotiate and just ordered a final hearing! I was under the impression that this hearing was to allow us to negotiate and try to come to an agreement. I was fully prepared to negotiate and I think my ex was too! I have been left feeling totally deflated and wronged. I now have the only choice to pay what the judge said he would order or go to the final hearing when I was actual hoping to come to an agreement at this hearing! Is this the usual way of things? Have I totally misunderstood what I’ve been researching online about how second hearings should pan out? I thought the judge was supposed to help you come to an agreement and to help you avoid a final hearing. Any advice gratefully received.

Sorry for the later reply Runaway.
If you have settled, you can ask a solicitor to draft the order, but that will involve a fee. Otherwise, I would suggest that you jointly write to the court saying you have settled and including a written statement of the terms of your settlement and ask the court to list it for a short hearing. Then the judge will draft the order for you and dismiss the case. Otherwise, you can go along to the final hearing and tell the judge then, but then the hearing slot will have been wasted, so I think a letter to the court is the best way forward.

How would legal aid help if Judges are trying to handle 3 FDR's in one hour?

Judges are being asked to handle 3 FDRs in one hour because of legal aid cuts. Half the money and private children cases in the court wouldn't be there or would have settled much earlier if both parties had proper legal representation. The crisis in the justice system (meaning that courts simply haven't got the capacity anymore) has coincided with huge funding cuts (especially to family law) in 2012.

And just to clarify what I meant: 3 FDRs in one hour is a problem if you have say 9 FDRs listed in one morning. That's just not feasible. 3 FDRs listed at 2pm but judge has little else in the afternoon list is not so much of a problem because an FDR is not an unbroken 1 hour slot with the judge.

But if we are moving towards a system where most parties are unrepresented, we need to rethink the hearing structure. FDRs are a waste of time in many cases where you have acrimonious unrepresented parties. Judges aren't meant to be mediators (although I suspect that is what they are doing a lot these days). FDRs are (ime) usually successful where you have parties who have been properly advised and proactive legal representatives who make use of all the time available to negotiate on their client's behalf while managing the latter's expectations.

PeakPants That’s partly the cause, as without representation fewer cases are settling, but the greater cause is that there are fewer hearing centres, fewer court rooms, and fewer judges.

Yes, Collaborate, which is also down to government funding cuts! I campaign against those too! The system is on its knees.

Thank you again PeakPants I really appreciate your help and advice ☺️ Hopefully this will be resolved soon!