Case reserved to judge

[FamilyLawQuestions]

Is it normal for a case to be reserved to a circuit judge and then that judge to order that a permission to apply (91.14) hearing to be heard by lay justice? Is there a reason why that might happen? Is it something to worry about?

Does lay justice always mean magistrates?

What does “outline the legal and factual basis for the application” mean? Full details of the reason for the application were supplied in the application itself.

Is there anywhere I should go to get free legal advice to questions like these? On a very low income but no legal aid and don’t know where to turn.

A lay justice is a magistrate.

"Outline the legal and factual basis for the application" means exactly what it says. It sounds like you are applying for permission to apply for an order, so the question is not about the order you are after. It is asking you to set out the basis on which the 91.14 order should be lifted so that you can apply for the order you want. Essentially that means you have to show that you have new evidence that could change the original ruling and that you have a case to argue, i.e. that you aren't going back with the same evidence and arguments that have already failed.

Thank you that’s really helpful. Circumstances have changed entirely since the last hearing (parent has been absent for a year, now seeking contact again).

Have you any experience of a circuit judge sending the case back down to magistrate level? Case history spans 5 years and 20 hearings

The court system is under resourced and close to breaking point. There are not enough judges or courtrooms. That is why it's been sent down to the magistrates.

Hello, I have quite a bit of experience in family law cases. Particularly childcare stuff. A 91.14 is to decide if they should prohibit further applications isn't it? Who has made the application ?
It's considered quite routine and there's a threshold for deciding so normal for it to be passed down to free up a circuit judges time.
Circuit judge would deal with more in depth matters. 91.14 is more administrative so totally normal

Can you outline the facts for us a bit? Are you applying for 91.14 order or is one in place against you?

@jellybean85 I'm pretty sure this is a new application by OP where a 91(14) order has already been made in previous proceedings. The CJ who made the order feels it should be dealt with by the mags.

I appreciate it’s under resourced. I’m concerned as last time it was with magistrates it was a real mess - one fell asleep, the order eventually got appealed. In some respects it’s a complicated case (persistent unjustified resistance to contact, false allegations) in others it really isn’t (no safeguarding concerns). No bundle has been ordered so the magistrates won’t know the history of the case at all.

@jellybean1985 91.14 in place against both parties. Parental alienation identified by guardian. Order for “shared residence”, EOW and half holidays still in place but NRP stopped contact 12 months ago. Now looking to resume but RP not willing to discuss direct contact. It would be inappropriate for NRP to just collect children from school after all this time. So legally an order isn’t required because the existing one allows the contact NRP is seeking but one is needed to order an interim schedule to build back up to original level. RP has not sought an order reflecting the NRPs absence.

Well I wouldn't expect RP to enforce NRP contact why did it stop 12 months ago, was there a trigger event?
It sounds like there will be permission for the hearing given but then the actual hearing will be before a judge to decide the actual facts. The permission hearing really is just a matter of whether an application needs to be heard or not. There must have been a lot previously the court deemed unreasonable for them to impose 91.14.

Why was there a 12 month delay? That's a long time in a kids life; will factor into hearing I imagine

No, not to enforce NRP contact. Of course that would be silly when’s RP doesn’t want NRP involved at all. RP hasn’t sought an order that reflects the fact that NRP stopped seeing the children, hasn’t sought any order to stop the NRP from now seeing the children. Legally NRP could just collect the children from school because the original order remains.

Yes significant reasons for break in contact and many, many hearings. I think I’ve figured out what NRP needs to do. Thank you for your help.

Is it entirely bananas for the NRP to essentially be arguing against their own application for the 91.14 order to be lifted?

The original arrangements order is still in force. The RP has not sought to amend it. NRP is now preparing for hearing but their position is essentially:

• Arrangements order still in place from before NRPs absence
• RP hasn’t sought to change it to reflect absence or resistance to those arrangements taking place going forward
• Interim arrangements can and should be agreed between the parties without need for further court intervention.

Am I missing something?

Hopeful bump