Family court - representing yourself

[Strawblue]

Not me - asking about a friend who has decided to represent herself in family court going forward. She said she has spent over £30k so far and just can’t afford it anymore.

Her abusive ex is taking her back to court to try and overturn the previous court order as he’s not happy with it. I’m scared for her that in representing herself she is going to lose their DC because he has a barrister who will undoubtedly know the law better and have the ‘gift of the gab’ on how to sway the judge in his favour.

For background -last year the court ordered DC split between them as 4 days friend / 3 days ex-partner. When DC starts school friend becomes the resident parent, ex has DC EOW and one night in the week.

She left him when DC was 4 months old because of emotional abuse and coercive control. He was ordered to do anger management course because of his behaviour towards friend (no change though). No abuse towards the DC I believe.

Im just so worried that this could be the worst decision of her life. Anyone know if judges are biased towards those with a barrister? I have heard that judges don’t like people representing themselves but that’s not my concern.

Ask your friend to get in touch with this fantastic charity who support (but can’t represent) litigants in person in family cases
www.supportthroughcourt.org/

I’d be unhappy if I were him too if I was effectively going from status quo shared care to EOW at primary school. I don’t see how that’s fair on him.

if he has done a good job then it should be 50/50.

I'm not sure she can win as the split looks to be very unfair after DC starts school but I'm all for not using lawyers, I don't really rate them. I've won 2 cases (1 employment, 1 car accident) against lawyers, the 'professionals' were pretty useless! They actually helped me rather than hindered me! In both cases I actually ended up with MORE than I was originally asking for due to their incompetence!

50/50 is not always seen as the best split when DC is at school. It’s not about what the parents feel they deserve. It’s about what’s best for the child. Coming home to the same house after school and to get ready for school the next day is often seen as a normal arrangement. It gives continuity snd allows for a child knowing exactly where they live on a school day. Arrangements to facilitate play and after school care often work best with the resident parent organising it. It’s not too difficult to argue that continuity and less disruption are better than Dad wanting to change an earlier decision because he somehow deserves it. Always stare clearly what’s best for the child and why.

£30k did get your friend what she wanted. Yes of course a barrister will work hard for their client. That’s what they are paid to do. They are also experts. So you would expect them to be well versed in the family courts and how to advocate for a client. They should be better then a litigant in person with no training.

However this isn’t entirely “law” is it? It’s opinion regarding what is a more stable and suitable arrangement for a child. It’s not a beauty contest. So why not see if there are cheaper solicitors snd barristers. This case shouldn’t cost anywhere near as much as £30k. If she goes it alone, remember it’s about what’s best for the child.

In many cases, the courts are more amenable to those who self represent.

Look at nackenzie friends.

Normally I agree with you TizerorFizz but most of the research shows children have better social/emotional and financial outcomes under shared care. Assuming of course there’s no abuse and parents are of equal capabilities.

I think people “feel” that a child should have a main residency but I have a 2 year old that had been under 50/50 share care (more of less) for a year who is extremely well advanced and scores top scores for all development checks. However I suspect most people “feel” she should be with mum/have 1 stable home.

This isn’t my case but how could anyone take my own case back to court and say “yes x is doing amazing but she needs one stable environment when she returns home from school”.

District Judge said best outcome for our child was 50/50 shared care. To be honest I don’t know why this dads order seems to arbitrarily change and I do suspect it’s unusual. He can’t be that bad to have so much contact with a small child.

A 2 year old isn’t at school. It’s often very usual to have one home for the child on school days.

judges sometimes find litigants in person very annoying. They can ramble and take up a lot of time.

Yes in 93% of cases there is a resident parent and a non-resident parent.

in 1900 women only made up 20% of the workforce.

i can’t see why being in school makes much difference to be honest. Although I have noticed that shared care does sometimes struggle as ex is a dreadful communicator. So I have to make all the concessions. So maybe it’s similar for school.

Courts would do well to focus on serving the interests of the child concerned not some equity agenda for parents.

I think they do try that's why we have a welfare checklist so we can look to see which parent/s/both can best support a child set against that criteria. Or that's how it should work in an ideal world.

Interestingly in some states in the US their equivalent welfare checklist includes morality but that is missing in the UK. I think mortality/social compass is something I would want to see as defining any checklist for checking a parents suitability.

I’m not sure I communicated well earlier. I do think there is something to be said for a settled home life on school days. Holidays and weekends are different. We don’t know the circumstances but ensuring a child is well rested, organised and can walk to school with friends when the time comes might well be more important than what a dad wants. He could live 10 miles away and children don’t like confusion or parents arguing. Therefore both parents need to take a step back and look at how the timetable for school works in practice every day.

@Skeptadad I suppose my point was that the family court generally lacks the skills, expertise, time and resources to apply the welfare checklist effectively. Even if they had all this, often the outcome is at best the least worse option. With very young children it's also necessary to make a large number of assumptions since the child simply cannot articulate (or know / judge) what they need.

I don’t think there’s anything you have said that can’t be achieved in two houses TizerorFizz aside from waking to school with the same set of friends everyday. Two houses two sets of friends which could be seen as a positive.

They are dreadful at magistrates level Pinkyxx. The higher up you go the better they are. Although you would expect that really. Some of the decisions I saw at magistrates level were dumbfounding.

I didn’t say it could it be achieved but there might be issues in individual cases that make it preferable for one house on school
nights. It’s very standard to agree to this. It’s about what is best for the child. Not what each parent sees as a split they must have.

Courts do listen to what a barrister says about all the things I mentioned. The key is the child and a workable solution.