php article flj final version

8/14/2019 PHP Article FLJ Final Version

1/20

1

TheParentingHearingsProgrammehalfwaythrough

itspilot:Aviewfromthebar

ByBerryZondag,1PhDcandidate UniversityofAuckland

Thispaperis asummaryreportoftheresultsofasurveyofFamilyLawPractitioners,conducted

inNovember

and

December

2007.

This

survey

is

part

of

a

research

project

provisionally

titled

theParenting Hearings Programme Pilotin theNewZealandFamilyCourts:constitutional,

philosophical, legalandpracticalissueswithsemi-inquisitorialprocessin acommonlaw

system.Amoredetailedanalysis ofthesurveywillbe publishedas partofthethesis.

IntroductionMyPhDprojectisconcernedwithanarrowtopic,apartofthecourtprocessthatmaybeinvolvedin

theresolutionordeterminationofdisputesbetweenparentsaboutcarefortheirchildrenfollowing

separation. Parentingdisputesmakeup themajorityof litigation in theFamilyCourt.2 Parenting

conflict is a source of considerable debate among those professionally involved in these often

emotionalanddifficultdisputes. Currentsocialandpsychologicalthinkingholdsthat itisgenerally

in the interest of the children to remain in positive relationships with both parents and the

associated wider family, after their parents have decided to terminate the close and intimate

relationshiptheyonceshared.3 Thestrengthofthisthinkingissuchthatithaseffectivelybeencast

in legislation,4 and it is certainly embedded in judicial decision making. In a sense therefore,

governmentpolicyasks separatedparents tobridge their irreconcilabledivides inorder tocreate

suitable arrangements to accommodate this societal objective.5 Although it is said that most

divorcingpartnersarecapableofachievingthisautonomously,statisticsseemtoindicatethatavery

largeproportionofseparatingparentsengage insomewaywiththeservicesoftheFamilyCourt.6

However,onlya small fraction of the casesentering the court system by wayof someparentingrelatedapplicationactuallymake ittothestageofacourthearingandsubsequent formaljudicial

intervention.7 Atthatpoint,butassumedlythroughoutany interactionwiththeFamilyCourt,the

statutorydirectionofparamountcyforthewelfareandbestinterestsofthechildcomesdecisivelyto

theforeground.

It seems generally accepted that legal process (and especially its adversarial variant8) often

exacerbatestensionsbetweentheparentsandthusworksagainstthecreationorenhancementof

the accommodating mindset that is required to come to, or implement, workable parenting

arrangements. This is the motivation behind legislative, regulatory andjudicial attempts to craft

disputeresolutionordeterminationproceduresthatarelessdisruptivetothedesired cooperative

goal. TheParentingHearingsProgramme(PHP)isanexampleofsuchanattempt.


2/20

2

On1November2006theFamilyCourtsAuckland,Tauranga,Rotorua,PalmerstonNorth,Wellington

and Dunedin started a twoyear pilot to test the effectiveness of the PHP proposal.9 The main

characteristicsof thePHPare the introductionofmoreefficientand lessadversarialproceedings,

specifically for matters dealing with parenting issues. This is sought to be achieved by rigorous

changesinprocedureandbymovingthecontroloftheprocessfromthepartiesandtheirlawyersto

thejudges,who inadditiongain the flexibilitytoadoptdifferentstylesof intervention (onascalebetweenmediativeandadjudicative)andthefreedomtoswitchbetweentheseastheyseefit. The

programme thus appears to introduce aspects that are akin to the inquisitorial style of process

foundinCivilLawjurisdictions,oratleasttheunderstandingwehaveofthatprocess.10

Anumberofquestionsarise, suchaswhether thenewprocesscanaccomplish theobjectives for

whichitwasintroducedandhowitmaybeaccommodatedinalegalsystemthatisfirmlyrootedin

an adversarial common law tradition, including its associated legal structures and assumptions.

Differentperspectivescanbeusedtoapproachthesequestions, includingcomparisonswithother

jurisdictions, views based on alternative dispute resolution methodology, or the use of (socio

psychological)conflicttheorytodevelopanunderstandingofthenatureanddifficultiesofthetype

ofconflictthePHPseekstoresolve. Thosemainlytheoreticalapproachesareuseful,butlackdirectpracticalrelevance. Alternatively(oradditionally)apilotprocesssuchasthePHPcanbeevaluated

in a more practical manner by recording and analysing substantive decisions, by considering

logisticaldata,orbysurveyingor interviewingthose involved. Infact,theveryconceptofapilot

project is that it includes an evaluation, which is a precursor to implementing or amending the

processorpolicyundertrial.11 InAustralia,forinstance,anexternalevaluationconductedbyGriffith

Universitywasan integralpartof the trialof theChildrensCasesProgramme (CCP),12which is

often referred toas the GenesisofourPHP.13 Itmust,however,beemphasized that thereare

distinctandsubstantialdifferencesbetweentheAustralianandNewZealandprogrammesinrespect

ofprocessandespeciallytheirorganizationalsetting.14

WhenthispaperwaswrittentherewerenodetailsavailableabouttheformalevaluationofthePHP

pilot,otherthanthatitwouldincludebothquantitativeandqualitativeanalysis,15andbeconducted

inhousebytheresearchandevaluationunitoftheMinistryofJustice.16 Verylimitedpreliminary

resultsofthePHPPilothave recentlybeenpresentedby theprincipalFamilyCourt Judge.17 As it

was apparent that there is a wide variety of views about the PHP process and its pilot amongst

familylawpractitioners,itappearedappropriatetoconductanindependentsurveytocollectthose

views,aspartofmywiderresearchproject. Equally,itappearedlogicaltodothataboutayearafter

thepilotsstart. Thishasallowedsufficienttimefortheprocesstohavebeddedin,whileitleaves

theopportunitytorepeatthisexerciseatthetwoyearmark,inordertogainalongitudinalview.

Thispaperpresentstheresultsofthisfirstsurveyoffamily lawpractitioners insummaryform. It

doesnotseektocompletelyevaluatethePHPoritspilotprocess;itistooearlyforthat,andmuch

moreinformationwouldberequired. Whatispresentedisacomprehensivecollectionoftheviews

found in a large and representative sample of the family law bar at this point in time, halfway

throughthepilot,withsomeobviousconclusions.

MethodPublicly available information was used to collect the email addresses of practitioners with a

specialisationinfamilylaw(N=735). Althoughnopreciseinformationisavailableaboutthenumbers

ofmoreorlessspecialisedlawyersacting intheFamilyCourts,thissample isprobablyclosetothe

entirepopulationofthosewhoconsiderthemselvesfamilylawyers. Thepractitionerswereinvited

toparticipateinthesurveybywayofanemailmessage,witharemindermessagesentafteraweek.The email message contained a link to a web site, where survey forms could be accessed and


3/20

3

completedanonymouslyonline.18 Theresponseswerecapturedinadatabasethatwasthenusedto

performstatisticalanalysis.19

Thequestionnairecontainedanumberofgeneralquestions,whiletherewerealsospecificquestions

aboutactualexperiencewithPHPhearings,whichwereonlycompletedbythosewhoindicatedthey

had acted in PHP cases. There were also a number of open questions, which invited furthercomments. MostresponseswerecollectedbywayofaLikertscale,i.e.bychoosingananswerona

graduated scalebetween extremes suchas stronglydisagreeand strongly agree. The survey

questions were grouped in topical blocks. The questions within each block were presented in

randomorder toeachparticipant, inorder toavoid narrativebiases. In total156practitioners

participated,asubstantial(21%),andcertainlyarepresentativesample.20

Thereis,atthisstage,adistinctadvantageinsurveyingtheviewsoffamilylawyersascomparedto,

for instance, thepartiesviewsoranalyzingprocessdata suchasnumbersofcases completedor

processingtime. Asurveyofpractitionersisrelativelyfast,andprovidesprofessionalopinionsbased

onacomparisonwiththetraditionalprocessatarelativelyearly,yetsufficientlymature,stageof

thepilot. Lawyersare inagoodposition toassessthemeritsanddisadvantagesofthePHP from

various relevantpractical, legalandproceduralperspectives,withoutbeing too influencedby the

outcome.AproblemwithbasinganassessmentofapilotsuchasthePHPon interviewswith the

partiesisthattheirviewsarelikelytobecolouredbytheoutcomeintheirparticularcase.21 Parties

normallylackaproperbasistomakecomparisons,andwouldnaturallyhavefewerskillstoseethe

processdistinctfromtheirspecificfactsituation. Furthermore,practitionerscanprovideadditional

finegrainedopinionsandconclusionsthatmaybeoverlookedinbarestatistics. Inaddition,parties

are emotionally affected by, and involved and occupied in, the court process, which for them

represents an alien environment in which entirely private matters are being decided. Anecdotal

evidenceshowsthatpartiesemotionalstatescanbesuchthattheybarelyrealisetheyarepartaking

inanexperiment. Thisisparticularlythecasebecause,contrarytotheAustralianpilot,theparties

in the PHP are not asked to consent to participation. For the above reasons, using partybased

analysishasseveredisadvantagesthatcanbeavoidedbysurveyingthelegalprofessionalsinvolved.

RespondentsThe respondents were experienced practitioners, some indicating they had been in family law

practiceforover25years. Only11%oftherespondentshadlessthan3yearsfamilylawexperience,

14%between4and7years,and75%hadmore than8yearsof family lawpracticebehind them

(N=146).

Parentingdisputetakesupasubstantialamountoftimeforthosepractisingfamily law,withmore

thanhalfoftherespondentsindicatingthatmorethanhalfoftheirworkinvolvesparenting issues.This statistic indicates that parenting disputes come at a substantial societal cost.22 Not all of

lawyersparentingdisputeworkwillbecourtrelated,but itmaybeobviousthatbetterandmore

efficient procedures would free up legal andjudicial capacity, and would make good economic

sense.23 Table1provides theparenting workloadof the family lawpractitioners in the sample.

Therewasnostatisticallysignificantcorrelationbetweenfamily lawexperienceandtheamountof

professionaltimededicatedtoparentingdisputes.24


4/20

4

Parentingdisputeworkasafractionofprofessionalwork. %0to25percent 1526to50percent 3251to75percent 3176to100percent 22Table1: Parentingdisputeworkload/fractionofrespondents(n=147).

InformationaboutthePHPprocessandpilotprojectEach respondent had heard about the PHP project, but only a very small number considered

themselves experts (2%). Fortytwo percent of the respondents (typically those without PHP

experience) indicated tohave toobtainmore information if theywouldhave toundertakeaPHP

case. Thisresult isnotsurprisingas thepilot is restricted tosixcourtsandthesamplewastaken

nationally. Twentytwopercentofrespondentswereacquaintedwiththepilotproject,while35%

signalled to be confident that they knew enough about the PHP process. This last groupoverlapped substantially with those who had acted in PHP cases: 92% of those with confident

knowledge had actualPHP experience, and only 5%of those who had not acted in a PHP cases

indicatedtheyfeltconfidentabouttheirknowledgeof it. Experience isthusseenasan important

aspectofknowledgeofthePHPprocess. OnlyoneoftherespondentswhohadactedinPHPcases

indicatedadesiretoobtainfurtherinformation. Apparently,onceapractitionerundertakesoneor

more PHP cases, they become confident that their knowledge of the process is sufficient. The

importance of experience is probably also an indicator of the limited quality of the available

information(discussedbelow).

RespondentswereaskedtoindicatebywhatmeanstheyhadgainedknowledgeofthePHPpilotand

process. Atextboxentryalsoallowedrespondentstoreferto informationsourcesnot included in

the question. This prompted some respondents to refer to discussion sessions between bar and

judges,whichwereorganisedinthePHPareas. Table2liststhevarioussourcesofinformationthat

wereused.25 AninterestingobservationistheratherlimiteduseoftheFamilyCourtwebsite,which

indeedcontainslittlespecificPHPinformationapartfromcopiesofthereadilyavailablebrochures.

Equally interesting isthehighpercentageofrelianceoncommunicatingwithcolleagues. Thatthe

briefingpaperbythePrincipalFamilyCourtJudgeisthemostused(andarguablymostauthoritive)

source isnotsurprising,althoughamuchhigherscorethan76%wouldbeexpected. Whilethose

withPHPexperiencehavebeensignificantlymoreactiveinpursuinginformation,26strangely,17%of

thosewithactualPHPexperiencedidnotmentionthebriefingpaper. Whenalsotakingintoaccount

therelativelylowoverallpercentagethatreferstothebriefingpaper,itseemsthatvitalinformation

aboutthis initiative isnotadequatelyreachingtheprofession. Anotherobservation isthat15%of

thosewithactualPHPexperiencedidnotmentionhaving seen thePHPDVD,which isassumedly

compulsoryforthosetakingpartintheprocess.27


5/20

5

MeansusedtogainknowledgeofthePHPpilotandPHPprocess. Overall% PHPexp.% NoPHPexp. %StudyingtheAustralianCCPpilotanditsevaluation 9 13 5FamilyCourtwebsite 13 17 6ByactinginPHPcases 42 94 0FamilyCourtDVDaboutthePHP 44 84 10LawSocietymeetingorseminar 48 52 43FamilyCourtbrochures 56 73 39Fromotherpractitioners 63 65 60Briefingpaper6September2006,issuedbyJudgeBoshier 76 83 70Table2: SourcesofPHPknowledge/fractionofrespondents(n=146),overallandwithandwithoutPHPexperience.

Having traced the informationsources, thenextquestion ishowtheseare rated in termsoftheir

quality. Thiswasbrokendown intoclarity,comprehensivenessandavailability. Practitionerswere

askedtoratetheseona5pointscale,rangingfromverypoor(1),poor(2) throughaverage(3)to

good(4)andverygood(5). Thefollowingtable3providesthemeanscores,28theirvariance29and

therelevantresponsenumbers.

QualityofinformationaboutthePHPpilotandprocess. Mean Var nClarityofFamilyCourtinformation 3.47 0.76 120Comprehensiveness ofFamilyCourtinformation 3.32 0.76 116AvailabilityofFamilyCourtinformation 3.51 0.98 113ClarityofLawSocietyinformation 3.17 0.69 106Comprehensiveness

of

Law

Society

information

3.10 0.71 104

AvailabilityofLawSocietyinformation 3.13 0.71 104Table3:QualityofinformationaboutPHP,rated15,mean,varianceandrespondents(n)

TheFamilyCourtinformationisconsistently30ratedhigherthantheLawSocietyinformation.31 Yet

thereremainssubstantialroomfor improvementforboth. Giventhatthesescoreswereassessed

by legalprofessionals,onemightwonderhowtheactual customers(theparties,orperhapseven

thechildren)perceivethequalityof informationemanatingfromtheFamilyCourts. Itisalsoclear

thattheLawSociety ismissing importantopportunitiestoassistmemberswith informationabout

thePHPpilotprocess. Giventheimportanceofinformationfromotherpractitioners,therelatively

lowscorefortheactualuseofthebriefingpaperandtheimpactofpracticalexperience,anobvious

suggestion would be to organise briefing sessions for Law Society members that involve boththeoretical and practical elements,e.g. roleplayusing the knowledge and experience of those

whohavealreadyactedinPHPcases.

AssumptionsunderlyingthePHPTheargumentbywhichthePHPispromotedstartswithassumptionsaboutthedisadvantagesofthe

adversarial process, followed with the observation that the process needs to (re)focus on the

interestsofthechildren. Theargumentthenproceedstopresumethattheseproblemscanbecured

by changing the role and powers of thejudge, which will (it is suggested) also lead to increased

speed, more flexibility and less formality. The argument is then concluded by referring to the

successful pilot in Australia and its subsequent nationwide introduction, apparently suggesting a

defaultpositionwherebyNewZealandshould invariably followAustralias lead in thesematters.32


6/20

6

The PHP has already been declared a success, embraced by practitioners.33 Nevertheless, the

construction of this argument leaves some questions: whether practitioners actually agree with

these assumptions and presumptions, and with the conclusion drawn; and whether they would

perhapsconceivethattherearealternativestoadoptingtheAustralianapproach.34 Inordertotest

this,thefollowinggeneralpropositionswereratedona5pointscalebetweenstronglydisagree(1)

and stronglyagree (5). Thecollectedviewsoneachpropositionare representedherewith theirmeanscore,varianceandnumberof responses. Thequestionwasoffered toallparticipants; the

instruction was to generally rate agreement with the following statements, without specific

referencetothePHPpilot.

Agreementwithpropositionsrelatingtoadversarialprocessandwaystoresolveitsshortcomings. Mean Var nTheadversarialcourtprocessoftenescalatesconflictbetweenparents 3.98 0.59 141Theadversarialcourtprocessmayseriouslydamagetherelationshipbetweenchildrenandoneorbothparents 3.79 0.78 140Theadversarialcourtprocessoftenresultsinaworserelationshipbetweenparents,destroyinganychanceoftheparentsreachingagreementlateron 3.41 1.09 140

Thewaytoresolveproblemswithadversarialprocessisbychangingthecourtprocess,specificallytheroleofthejudge 2.91 1.01 138Judgesshouldhavemorecontrolofproceedings,bywayofcasemanagement 3.44 0.82 140Judgesshouldhavemoreinquisitorialpowersanddecidewhatfurtherevidencemayberequired

3.43 1.34 140

Judgesshouldhavemorepowertodecidewhatissuesarerelevanttothecase,andnotleavethistothepartiesandtheirlawyers 2.74 1.10 140

Therecouldbeotherwaystoresolveproblemswithadversarialprocess,forinstancebyprovidingmorejudicialandadministrativecapacityorincreasingtheuseofmoderntechnology,withoutchangingthefundamentalsoftheexistingprocess

3.73 0.83 138

Parentingissuesshouldnotbedealtwithincourtatall,butbyasocialservicesagency 1.82 0.69 140Table4:AgreementwithPHPpropositionsandsomealternatives,rated15,mean,variance,respondents(n)

As may be seen, there is strong and quite unequivocal support for the assumptions about the

disadvantagesoftheadversarialprocess,especiallyinrespectofitsescalatingcharacterand(albeit

slightly less outspoken)about theharmdone to relationships. There isalsoagreement with the

assumption of its effect of destroying any chance of agreement later on. The text responses

providemanynuancestothegeneralityofthegivenstatementsabouttheadversarialprocess:

Theadversarialprocessbeginsbecauseparentsarealready inseriousdisagreement,so the

process

cannot

be

entirely

blamed

sometimes

but

certainly

not

always

a

hearing

can

be

quite

catharticforparentsandtheirrelationshipmayimprovethereafter


7/20

7

Ihaveoftenconsideredthatthelawyerwhohastowinatanycost,istheonewhodoesmore

harmtothepartiesandtheirchildren,ratherthantheprocessperse

Therearecaseswherethe'bloodletting'experienceofthecourtallowstheparentstosimply

getitoutoftheirsystem

Thereareelementsofboth the inquisitorialandadversarial systems thatareuseful in the

context of resolution of parenting disputes as are elements of social science, child

developmentetc.Itisnotassimpleasonesystembeingbetterforthesesortsofdisputesthan

theother

Parents often have a soap opera mentality and seem to thrive on conflict and

confrontation

It isaneasyassumptiontomake,thattheadversarialprocessmakesthingsworse,when in

fact thequalityofadvocatesand thewisdomofjudgeare significantfactors inmaking the

outcomepositive

Itneedstoberememberedthattheparentingissuesresolvedbyadversarialhearingsarefor

themostparttheintractableonesthatareprobablynotamenabletomoremediatorystylesof

resolution. The alternative processes must be available and offered but if they are not

successfulthesooneran"adversarial"decisionismadethelessthetraumatoallinvolved

Thepresumptionthatchangingthecourtprocess,especiallyroleofthejudge,isthepanaceatothe

perceived harms is not supported as a general proposition, scoringjust to the negative side of

neutral.35 Thereis,however,supportforsomechangesinthejudgesrole,specificallyforstronger

case management and more inquisitorial powers in relation to determining whether further

evidencemayberequired.

The next step, judicial discretion in deciding what issues are relevant to the case, is rejected.

Commentsmade inthatcontextemphasizethedifferencebetweentherelationships lawyerclient

andjudgepartyandtheresultingdifferenceinunderstandingwhattherealissuesare.Culturaland

socioeconomicdifferencesbetweenthejudgeandpartieswerecited,aswastheriskofsacrificing

thorough fact finding (by way of cross examination, for instance in domestic violence cases) for

proceduralefficiency.

Judgesmayneedconsiderablepersuasionfromapersonsuchasanexpertwitnesstocredit

relevancetoissueswhichintheirworldhasnosuchrelevance

The

role

of

a

lawyer

cannot

and

should

not

be

minimized

in

their

relationship

with

their

client,

particularly ascertaining the client's legal issues. This relationship cannot be superseded by

Judges,astheirroledoesnotincludedealingdirectwithclients!

IhaveaseriousissueastotheJudgehavingtheabilitytodeterminewhatevidenceshouldor

should not be called.Whilst I appreciate that there is a lot of unnecessary and irrelevant

evidencefiledunderthepresentsystem; iftheJudgesweremoreactive inmakingrulingsto

strikeoutevidence that isopinion,submissionor irrelevant thenmanyof theproblemswith

thecurrentsystemwouldbeaddressed

Interestingly, the proposition that there could be other ways to resolve problems with the

adversarial process finds substantial support,even more so than limited extension of thejudges

powers. Inotherwords,theprofessionseemsratherhesitanttoreplacethecurrentsystemwithout


8/20

8

anattemptattryingtofixit. Thereappearstobeagreementaboutthenatureoftheproblems,but

disagreementaboutthewaytoresolvethem.

If there was greater adherence to the laws of evidence and legislative timeframes, the

adversarialprocessmayworkbetterthanitdoesnow

Courtprocessescorrectlyappliedandfollowed,andcourttimemadeavailablepromptly,and

notweeksormonthsafteritisreallyrequiredwouldremovealotofthedifficulties.Themaxim

justicedelayedisjusticedeniedishighlypertinent

ThePHPv"adversarial"systemisanunhelpfuldichotomy thecruxoftheissueisfundingand

resourcing.IfjudgesaregoingtoremovenonPHPcasesfromthelistsastheyaredoing.it

will obviouslymake the nonPHP system look really badfor timing yet the issue remains

resourcing

MostFamilyCourtJudgesaregoodatsortingoutissues,especiallyinvolvingchildren.Thebig

problemIseeisthatthereisnotenoughJudgetimeavailable.Itcantakesixmonthstogeta

hearingregarding

contact,

and

counseling

and

mediation

often

will

not

work

at

all

in

the

meantimewhereonepartywillnotbudge.The standardprocessesmaybefine, if spedup.

WhereJudgeshandle listdatesmattersarenotsobadbecause interimorderscanbemade,

butRegistrarsarenotequippedtohandlethis

Theconceptof increasingly interventionistapproaches indealingwithparentingdisputes,suchas

obligatory counseling and conciliation processes and the introduction of further nonadjudicative

means of dispute resolution, often raises the question whether these matters should in fact

appropriatelybedealtwithbythejudiciary. However,thesuggestionthatparentingissuesbedealt

with by a social agency rather than a legal process was very strongly rejected by practitioners.

Nevertheless, a limited number of respondents could see substantial merit in the idea. One

remarkedthatexperiencingarealadversarialprocesspersonallyandfirsthandwoulddramatically

reduceonesenthusiasmforanyprocessthatinvolveslawyersandjudges,whileanothersuggested

thatperhapsanintegratedpanelapproachinvolvinglawyers,socialworkers,expertsetcwouldbe

abetteralternativetoeitheralegalorasocialserviceprocess.

Inconclusion,whilstthegeneralassumptionsabouttheadversarialprocessfindsignificantsupport,

practitioners do not to agree with the presumption that changing the role of thejudges is the

ultimatecure. Somespecificchanges inthejudgesrolethat improvethequalityandefficiencyof

theprocessarecarefullysupported,butthefundamentalchangethatletsthejudgedeterminewhat

issuesarerelevanttotheexclusionofthepartiesandtheirlawyersisfirmlyrejected.36 Practitioners

donotthinktheFamilyCourtshoulddevelopintoasocialagency,andthereisclearlymoresupport

forimprovingthecurrentprocessthanthereisforfundamentallychangingit.

ThePHPinpractice,thebenefitsofthenewprocess44%of the survey respondents37hadexperienced thePHPprocess in190 cases (anaverageof3

cases/practitioner).38 Thehighestindividualexperiencewas8cases,while72%oftherespondents

with PHPexperiencehad acted in13 cases; 59%of those withPHP experience acted mostly for

parties,22%mostlyaslawyerforthechildandtheremaining19%hadamoreorlessevenlydivided

role. The respondents with PHP experience were asked additional questions that were not

presentedtopractitionerswhohadnotyetacted inPHPhearings. The followingtableshows the

distributionofPHPpractitionersandtheircaseexperienceoverthedifferentpilotcourts.39 Afew

respondentshadactedinmorethanonePHPlocation. Todatenoinformationhasbeenpublished


9/20

9

by theMinistryof Justiceor theFamilyCourtaboutPHPcaseloadsorother relevantstatistics. It

seems, however, that the current survey has obtained a broad and representative sample of

practitionerswithactualPHPexperienceoverallthepilotcourts.

FamilyCourtsinwhichthePHPwasexperienced Practitioners* % Cases** %Auckland 22 37 50 30PalmerstonNorth 4 7 8 5Tauranga 13 22 32 19Wellington 13 22 38 23Rotorua 5 8 15 9Dunedin 6 10 23 14Table5: PHPexperienceindifferentFamilyCourts;numberandpercentageofrespondentsandcases/PHPcourt.

*SomelawyersactedinmorethanonePHPcourt. Thepercentagesthereforeadduptomorethan100.

**Notallcasedatacouldberelatedtoindividualcourts;hencethetotalofcasesinthistableislessthantotalcases.

WiththeintroductionofthePHPpilot,severalassertionsweremadewithregardstotheadvantages

ofthenewprocess,andthesearealsousedtopromoteandexplainit. Inordertoobtainopinions

on whether these advantages actually materialize in the process, the respondents were asked to

ratetheiragreementwithanumberofstatementsona5pointscale,betweenstronglydisagree(1)

and strongly agree (5). The instruction was: When the PHPpilotwas announced, a number of

assertions were made to support the introduction of this new process. Based on your own

experience,indicatetowhatextentyouagreewitheachofthefollowingstatements.

AgreementwithstatementsregardingassertionsPHPprocess Mean Var nThePHPrepresentsamuchbetterenvironmentfordecidingwhatisinthebestinterestofthechildren 3.03 0.93 59ThePHPprocesswillresultincasesbeingdecidedmuchfaster. 3.68 1.15 59Becauseofthejudges'directcontrol,thepartiesstayfocusedonthechildrenratherthanontheparents'issues. 3.27 1.08 60ThePHPprocessguaranteesanoutcomethatwilllastlonger. 2.43 0.72 60ThePHPprocessguaranteesanoutcomethatisbetteracceptedbytheparents. 2.72 0.68 60ThePHPprocessguaranteesanoutcomethatisbetterforthechildren. 2.66 0.88 59OnceparentshavebeenthroughaPHPprocesstheywillinthefuturebebetterabletoresolveissuesbetweenthemselveswithoutassistance 2.65 0.57 60ThePHPprocesscomplieswiththerulesofnaturaljustice 2.45 1.13 60ThePHPprocessimprovesthepartiesabilitytohavetheirsay 3.38 1.22 60Thepartiesappreciatethepossibilitytodirectlyaddressthe

judge 3.85 0.44 59Thedirectinteractionbetweenthepartiesandthejudgerevealsthatissuesareoftenlessextremethantheyappearinaffidavitsandwrittenstatements 3.25 1.00 60Table

6:

Agreement

with

assertions

about

the

effects

of

the

PHP

process,

rated

15,

mean,

variance

and

respondents

(n)


10/20

10

Obviously,practitionerswhohaveexperiencedPHPhearingsareskepticalaboutsomeofthealleged

benefits. Theiropinion isneutralabout thePHPprovidingabetterenvironment todecidewhats

bestforthechildren,andthere isonlyslightagreementwiththeassertionthatthejudgescontrol

canactuallykeep theparties focusedonthechildren. Therespondentsareclearlyoftheopinion

that the process cannot guarantee the strongly promoted outcomebased expectations, such as

longer lasting and better accepted agreements, better outcomes for the children, or improveddecisionmakingcapacitiesbetweenthepartieslateron.

What is seen as a clear advantage of the process is its speed,40 although there were several

comments thatquestionedwhetherthiscanberetained iftheprocesswas toberolledoutmore

widely. There were also some suggestions that the PHP cases were receiving something of a

preferentialtreatmentovernormalcases.41 Asmentionedabove,manycommentatorssuggested

that increased resourcing and subsequent faster processing times would enhance the traditional

processaswell,raisingthequestionifafullblownPHPprocessisactuallyneeded. Furthermore,it

seemsthatatleastapartofthespeedadvantageofthePHPrestsontheincreasedefficiencythatis

the result of tighterjudicial control and issue and evidence reduction. Thisof course raises the

question iftheprocessstillcomplieswiththerulesofnaturaljustice.

42

Althoughareassurancetothateffectisemphasizedemphaticallyinthepromotionalmaterial,43thepractitionerswhoactedin

PHPcaseswereoftheopinionthatthereisaseriousshortcominginthisrespect. Compliancewith

naturaljusticewasratedatanalarminglylow2.45,44withremarksthatquestionedwhetherthePHP

complieswithevenminimaldueprocessstandards.

The PHP provides new possibilities for direct interaction between the parties and the court, in a

moreinteractivewaythanwhatcanbeachievedbythetraditionalsequentialevidenceprocess.

Thereissomesupportfortheassertionthattheprocessgivesthepartiesmoreopportunitytohave

theirsay,andtherespondents indicatedconvincinglythatthis issubstantiallyappreciatedbytheir

clients.45 Somesupportwasgivenfortheideathatthedirectinteractiondemonstratedthatissues

areoftenlessextremethantheymayappeartobefromtheaffidavits.

TheconclusionfromthissectionofthesurveymustbethatthePHPisthoughttosacrificetoomuch

in procedural safeguards to gain relatively minor advantages. In fact, there was notable

disagreement with the main outcome assertions underlying the PHP process. The PHPs main

advantages are speed and the opportunity to directly interact with the judge, but these are

measuresthatcanpotentiallybeimplementedwithoutaradicallynewprocess.

ThePHPinpractice,thechangesinvolvedinthenewprocessThe PHP process introduces some dramatic changes to the way the Court will be dealing with

parentingdisputes,bychangingtheroleofthejudgeandintroducingstricttimeconstraints. Thesechangeswillofcoursealsoresult inchangesto theworkofthoseprofessionally involved inthese

disputes:thelawyers,butalsootherprofessionalssuchasprovidersofpsychologicalassessments,or

agenciessuchastheChildYouthandFamilyService(CYFS)ortheLegalServicesAgency(LSA).

In order to test the views of those with experience in PHP hearings about these changes, an

agreementrating46wasobtained foranumberofstatements. The instructionwas:Thisquestion

asksforyourviewsaboutchangesthatthePHPprocess introduces. Pleaseanswerthembasedon

yourexperienceinactualPHPhearings.


11/20

Agreem

processThePHThePHItisappmodesThetimdealwiOtheracomplyThelegconstrai

Table7:

Whencthe laPractiti

willdoquitedtheydisthejudevenm5%of rwhile1balance

experie

approac

distribu

Figure1

TheP

The

It

s

entwithstaintroduces.processde

processincropriatethafoperation

elimitsimphparentingenciesorp

withthetilservicesantssetbytgreementwit

onsideringtyer for thnerswithengradeoruceptive,asagreeinalmesabilitytrestronglyespondents%agreedsdopinionsace with thh is certaintionofscore

istributionof

HPprocessd

theparti

PHPprocessi

thechildr

isappropriat

itchbetwee

operation,i.

tementsrevaluatesthreasestherttheJudge,i.e.mediasedbythedisputes.rofessionals

elimitssetencycanaePHPprocstatementsr

hedescripti child, whperienceopgradetheinfactbetwostequalnochangebdivided.Th(n=58) actutrongly,leaboutchange PHP is nly a causesontheab

atingsaboutt

valuatesthe

s'counsel

ncreasesthe

en'scounsel

ethatthejud

differentm

.mediation

ardingtheroleoftheoleoftheccanswitchionandadjPHPproces,suchasrebythePHPequatelyd

ess.changesintr

onofthePile it appethePHPprroleoftheleen60%anmbersabotweenmodmeanscorally gave aing31%ansintherolecessary.for concernvethreequ

hechangeint0%

roleof

roleof

gecan

desof

nd

11

hangesthapartiescouildrenscoetweendifdication.areadequortwriters,process.alwiththe

ducedbythe

Pprocess,rs to slighcessdonoawyers. Hod70%ofprtthedirectesofoperaeisslightlyneutral r45%respesoflawyerhe disagre. Figure 1estions.

erolesofcou20% 40%

thePHPnsel.nsel.erenttetocan

HP,rated15,

itappearsttly reducetonaverageever,the(ctitionerseionofthatcion isaquotheagreesponse. Nictivelyfordsandjudgesment on tprovides a

nselandjudge60% 8

Mean3.022.983.172.742.392.60

mean,varian

increasetthe role oanticipatealmostneutxpectachahange.

48 Thstionthat lmentsideonepercentisagreeandmaybeanhe judgesgraphical r

.% 100%

Var0.930.891.511.210.740.78

eandrespond

eresponsi parties chatthePHral)meansngeintheireappropriaavesthepfneutral.49disagreedagree.Thindicationtflexibility topresentatio

Stronglyd

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly

n585858585753

ents(n)

ilitiesofounsel.

47processoresarerole,butenessofofessionButonlytrongly,sefinelyatmorechange

n of the

isagree

gree


12/20


13/20

13

AgreementwithstatementsregardingtheunderlyingobjectivesofthePHPexperiment.

Mean Var nThePHPprocessisagenuineattempttoprovidebetteroutcomesforparentsandchildren 3.82 0.63 131

ThePHPisanattempttoreducethecostsoftheFamilyCourtsystem 3.52 0.64 131ThePHPisanattempttoforceparentstocomplywithgovernmentpolicyobjectives 2.65 0.74 133ThePHPwillleadtofurtherdominancebysocialagenciesandreducetheroleoflawyers,tothedetrimentofjustice 2.82 0.94 131

ThePHPwillprovidebetteraccesstojustice 3.03 0.85 133Inquisitorialprocessshouldhavenoplaceinourcommonlawsystem 1.96 0.49 133Table8:AgreementwithstatementsreunderlyingobjectivesPHP,rated15,mean,varianceandrespondents(n)

Thereis,ofcourse,oneoverridingobjectivewhichguideseverythingtheFamilyCourtundertakesin

respectofparentingmattersandthisisembeddedstatutorily,theparamountcyprinciple,whichfor

thepurposeof thePHPmayapparentlybe translated into reducing thedamage thatprotracted

litigationdoestocoparentingandparentchildrelationships.55 Asnoted,there isstrongsupport

for thenotion that protracted litigation indeed does such damage. Unsurprisingly therefore, thestatementthatthePHPattemptstoprovidebetteroutcomesreceivesstrongsupport.Nevertheless,

whencomparingthe3.82with for instancethescoresonthedisadvantagesofadversarialprocess

(3.98and3.79)theresultisnotasoverwhelmingaswouldbeexpected.56 Apparentlythereisalevel

ofskepticismwhetherperhapsother(andpossiblymorecovert)objectivesalsoplaysomerole. The

nextquestionsattempttoexplorethis.

SavingcoststopartiesandintheCourtstimeandresourcesismentionedasoneofthekeyfeatures

ofthePHP,soitcanbehypothesizedthatreducingtheoverallcostforthecourtsystemtodealwith

parenting dispute may also an objective of the PHP. Practitioners agreed with that conclusion.

Whether the means of achieving procedural efficiency and consequent cost savings are valid

objectives isoutsidethescopeofthispaper. Whatmaybeconcluded is that thePHPprocess (atleastaspromoted)seemsalmosttoogoodtobetrue. Itallegedlyfixesasystemevaluatedasailing

becauseofitsadversarialcharacterandplaguedbydelays. Yetitnotonlycurestheseproblems,it

alsoprovidesbetteroutcomes for those involved,andmaintainsthestandardsof the ruleof law,

anditmaydosoforreducedcosts.

FamilyLawispermeatedwithpolicyobjectives. Thewaymembersofsocietyareexpectedtodeal

with interpersonal problems, and the infrastructure the state makes available to determine the

inevitabledisputes thatarise,cannotbeseenas independent from the ideologicaldogmasunder

which a state operates. Current thinking (especially in family law)57 aligns with consensual and

mediativeprocesses,ratherthanadjudicative(andespeciallyadversarial)models. Theconciliation

(therapeutic)armoftheFamilyCourtisabouttobefurtherextendedwithnonjudgeledmediation

and the PHP can clearly be seen as a proponent of a momentum away from adjudicative


14/20

14

intervention. Thequestionariseswhethertheactualpartiestothedisputesharethisobjectiveor

whether they would rather suffer another, more determinative, process from the start. That

questionisnotaskedofthem,adecisionhasbeenmadeandtheissueisthusoneofexplainingthat

the new processes are simply better than the litigation model that they might envisage as being

available.Theroleofthecourtsauthoritybecomesoneofexplanation,persuasion,andifallfailsre

education,58

followedbyaprocesswherethethusmodifiedcitizensareassistedinfindingtheirownsolutions. ItcanbearguedthatprocessessuchasthePHPallowformoredirectstateinterventionin

privateordering, i.e.thestateuses itsroleastheguardianofchildrensrightstoteach itscitizens

morallessonsabouthowtheyshouldbehaveinconflictsituations,andhowtheyshouldthinkabout

family relationships postseparation. However, the consequent proposition that the PHP is

introducedasamechanismtoenforcecompliancewithpolicyobjectives isclearlyrejectedby the

respondents. Similarly,thesuggestionthatthePHPwillleadtoadominanceofsocialagenciesanda

reductionintheroleoflawyerswasrated(albeitless)negatively.

Onaverage,practitionerswereofaneutralopinionaboutthequestionwhetherthePHPprovides

betteraccess tojustice. Justover40%providedaneutral rating,withsimilarnumbers rating the

statementoneithersideofneutral. Inotherwords,almost60%oftherespondentsthoughtthatthePHP did bring a change in this respect, but they were equally divided over the direction of that

change.

Finally,the issueoftheplaceof inquisitorialprocesses inourcommon lawsystemwasaddressed.

Because there are already some inquisitorial processes in the Family Courts, the question was

framednegativelyinordertodrawoutaclearresponse. Ascanbeseen,therespondentsareofthe

clearopinionthatinquisitorialapproachesarequiteappropriateinourFamilyCourts.

ViewsonpilotprojectsgenerallyandthePHPpilotspecificallyThe next block of questions (presented to all participants) addressed the use of pilot projects

generallyandthePHPpilotspecifically. Theparticipantswereaskedtoratetheiragreementwitha

numberofstatements,followingtheinstruction:Inordertoinvestigateyourviewsabouttheuseof

pilotprojects in the Family Courts, could youplease indicate your agreementwith thefollowing

statements. Theresultsaresummarizedintable9.

AgreementwithstatementsregardingtheuseofpilotprojectsandthePHPpilot. Mean Var nThereshouldbenoplaceforexperimentsintheCourtsatall. 2.21 0.73 132Importantrulechangesshouldbebroughtaboutbylegislationonly.

3.23 1.12 130

ThePHPprocessaffectssubstantivejustice. 3.21 0.81 129ThePHPpilotiswellexecutedinpractice 3.00 0.54 127ThePHPprocessandpilothavebeenintroducedultravires 3.08 0.85 129Thepilotisafarce, decisionhasalreadybeenmadetointroducethisprocess 3.08 0.92 131Table9:AgreementwithstatementsrepilotprojectsandthePHPpilot,rated15,mean,varianceandrespondents(n)

The respondents had no problem at all with some experimentation in the Family Court, 78%

disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement. As canbe seen from the score on the next


15/20

stateme

thatareought tCourtson,orvfound iquitesptoFamilInourcmay betherefo

conclud

findingrespect.

substan

influencconseq

respond

(withaThe surexecute

choosin

dividedstateme

Figure2r

ConcOverall,forthethispoiwill curmanage

parties

The

alrea

TheP

T

nt,thiswillipiloted. Ifbe introd

recreatureary,theirpr the fact tecific inproyCourts.61ommonlawsaid that ehasdirected.

63Inaprthat respon The questivejustice,ed

by

the

cently disre

ents, the P5%confideey concludd. All threganeutralrdifferencentsaboutth

esponsesonP

usionsthepictureassumption

tinthepilo these shomentand iis considere

pilotisafarc

dybeenmad

proc

HPprocessa

introduced

hePHPpiloti

pr

ngness to tthesechancedby legisofstatute,ocedure,that the legiceduralpro

system,pronaturaljustsubstantiveeviousquesents certaition remaini.e. breacharacteristicards relevaPhas suchceintervaledwith thr statementesponse. Oof opinion.ePHPpilot.

Ppilotstate

thatemergaboutthetprocess,frtcomings.decidingd helpful a

e,adecision

tointroduc

ess.

dpilothave

ultravires.

swellexecut

ctice.

lerateexpesare impslation. Thiandalthouismustneclation andvisions,alth

cedureisaice lies atovertonestionthe issnly thoughts whetheres of natursof

the

pront issues in

deficiencie

between3.1eequestionwere rateceagain,h Figure 2 r

ents

s isnotovdisadvantag

milylawprhere is clehat furtherd apprecia

0%

has

this

been

edin

15riments istrtantrules sentimenththeyargssarilybe liegulationsoughthese

mechanismhe heart oswell. Theeofnaturathat theP process sljustice arcess.

(For

iorder too

s, albeitnoand3.4)iss about theneutral,wwever,theepresents

rwhelmingl

esoftheactitionersar support fevidencemted by the

20% 40%

emperedbhanges,the isnodoubablyhavesmited.

60 Suunderwhicarguablygi

thatsafeguf the commdebateonljusticewaPprocesshch as thee such thatstance,

the

tain efficie extreme.troubling.PHPpilotith relativelmeanneutrraphically

positive.versarialsyrenotconvior extendinaybe requiclients. Ho

60% 80

the importre isadistit related toomeresidupportforth the Familesubstanti

rdstheholon law conthatissuehaddressed,ad seriousPHP thereb substantivprocess

hacies).

64 INeverthele

s it is curr large fraclscorehideow the re

lthoughthstemas itcncedthatt the roleored. Thediever, the

% 100%

anceofthenctmood th the fact thldiscretionatargumenCourtsoplprocedur

grailofjuscept ofjusscertainlyconcludinghortcoming

y has an i issues area

structura theopinio

s, the scor

ntly introdionsof ressastark,bupondents r

re isstronurrentlyopeePHPasinf thejudgerect interacnext step,

Stronglyd

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly

changesatthesee Family9torulemayberate arel leeway

tice.62 It

ice, andotbeenwiththes in thatpact ondirectly

lbias,

or

n of theof 3.21

ced andondentstequallyted the

supportrates,atroducedin caseionwithomplete

isagree

gree


16/20

16

inquisitorial intervention,whereby thejudge decideswhat the issuesareandhow togoabout

deciding them, is not considered appropriate. There are serious doubts about whether natural

justice is achieved in the pilot, and the question is raised whether a wholesale replacement of

currentprocessisnecessarywherethematterisessentiallyoneofresourcing.

ThereseemstobeaperceptibleproblemwiththeinformationexchangebetweentheFamilyCourtsand thepractitionersoperating there. TheLawSocietyalsoappears to fallshort in itssupporting

role. Giventhatthebuyinofpractitionersisclearlylacking,onecouldraisethequestionwhether

sufficientattentionwasgiventoconsultationand informationexchangepriortothe launchofthe

programme,andwhethermoreorbetter logistical resourcesought tohavebeenmadeavailable.

The time limits seem somewhat problematic and may have been set slightly too ambitious.

AmbitionisacharacteristicofthePHPprocessandpilot. Itwasintroducedwithstrongstatements

of its capabilities,but apart from speedand the opportunity of parties to communicate with the

judgethoseachievementsarenotthoughttomaterialize,orarethesubjectofsevereskepticism.

Manycommentsweremadeaboutthe impactofthecharacterofthe individualjudge,differences

betweenjudges, theprofessional standardsof the lawyers, lackofuniformity,and theperception

thatitistoohardforajudgetocometogripswithacaseintheavailabletimelimits,orevenonthe

basisofnotbeingable tounderstand the realityof theparties. It is in thisaspect that there isa

significantdifferencewith theAustralianCCP,whereanadditional functionaryobtains the taskof

makingsurethatthecourthasthistypeofinformationavailablewherenecessary.

The differences (especially organizational and structural) between the PHP and its Australian

counterpartwerehighlighted,andthequestionwasraisedwhethertheshoestringimplementation

of our local variant can legitimately claim to result in the advantages that are claimed of the

Australianexperiment.

Finally,there isaneutralattitudeaboutthewaythePHPpilot isbeingconductedandhow itwas

introduced. Itis,however,somewhatdisturbingtonotethatabout20%ofrespondentsconsidered

thatthepilotprocesswasnotexecutedwellinpractice,thatalmost30%ofrespondentsopinedthat

thePHPprocessanditspilothavebeenintroducedultravires,andthatmorethan30%thoughtthat

adecisiontointroducethePHPprocesshasinfactalreadybeenmade,regardlessoftheoutcomeof

thepilot.

Endnotes1 LLB(Hons) MMGT BBS PDBA FAMINZ(arb) MAANZ. I wish to express my thanks to Associate Professor

PaulineTappforreadingthistextandprovidinghelpfulcomments. Anyerrorsareofcoursemine,forfurtherinformationaboutthissurvey,[email protected] In2006,almost23,000parentingrelatedapplicationswerebeingprocessed intheFamilyCourts, insome

12,000 individualcases.Of these7,536were newcases, i.e. relating to familieswithoutprior familycourt

involvement: OngSW FamilyCourtStatistics (Wellington,MinistryofJustice,2007).3 Althoughthereseemstohavebeenlittleinformeddebateinwhichtheprincipalmeritsofthisconcepthave

beenarguedextensively,seefor instance:FinemanM Dominantdiscourse,professional language,and legal

change in child custody decision making 101Harvard LawReview 727 (1988) , or for an overview of the

practical consequences: Kelly J B Children's living arrangements following separation and divorce: insights

fromempiricalandclinicalresearch FamilyProcess,46(1),35. Inrecentparliamentarydebate(ontheFamily

CourtsMattersBill)thebestinterestofthechildprincipleinthiscontextwasreferredtoasalthoughanoble

guide,iteffectivelyleavestotalcontroloffamiliesfuturemakeuptothewhimofanindividualjudge: (2007)

641NewZealandParliamentaryDebates11491(JTurner).4Sections4and5CareofChildrenAct2004.


17/20

17

5Policydiscussionshaveemphasisedtheproblemsandharmscausedbynonresidentparentswhodisengage

anddisappear. Butlittleconcernhasbeenaddressedtothedifficultiesandproblemsassociatedwithongoing

parenting relationships. It seems tobe takenforgranted that such relationshipswill thrivejust so longas

parentsaresufficientlycommittedtothewelfareoftheirchildren. Butwhatwewanttosuggestisthat,quite

independentlyofacommitmenttowelfare,suchrelationshipsarehardtomanageandaffectveryprofoundly

thequality

of

life

of

many

thousands

of

children,

parents,

grandparents

and

new

partners

ifboth

want

to

remainengagedparents theyhavetoremaininsomekindofrelationshipwitheachother. Thereisthereforea

tensionforparentswhichmeansthattheycannotsimply leavebehindarelationshipnomatterhowmuch

theymaywish to in theway thatcoupleswithoutchildrencan. :SmartC,&NealeB Familyfragments?

(PolityPress,Malden,Mass.,1999)7071. Thequestion isofa social, rather than legal,characterandnot

restricted to common lawjurisdictions. It raises similar issues in a civil law, inquisitorial, context. See for

instance: Rooijen C v Scheiden zonder vrijheid. Isgezamenlijkouderlijkgezag inhetbelang vanhet kind?

(Divorcewithoutfreedom,isjointparentalauthorityinthebestinterestofthechild?) (WolfLegalPublishers,

Nijmegen,2007).6 Unambiguousanddefinitivestatisticaldataarenotavailable,andthewaysuchdataaretobecollected is

alsoatopicofdebate:StatisticsNZ Reportofthereviewofofficialfamilylawstatistics (Wellington,Statistics

NewZealand,2007b)and:StatisticsNZ Internationaldevelopmentsinfamilystatistics (Wellington,Statistics

NewZealand,2006). However,theavailablemarriageanddivorcestatisticsindicatethatannuallyabout4,500

divorces are processed that involve children: StatisticsNZ Marriages, civilunionsanddivorces: Year ended

December 2006 (Wellington, Statistics New Zealand, 2007a). While there is no data for the number of

parentingdisputesbetweenseparated,butnotpreviouslymarriedcouples,theexnuptialbirthrate(approx.

45%)couldbeusedasan indicatorthatprobablyabouthalfofthechildren involved inseparationarefrom

nonmarriedcouples. FamilyCourtstatistics indicatethatannuallyabout7,500newparentingdisputesare

filed:Ong,seenote2above. Usingtheaboveapproximationofexnuptialparentingdisputes,andassuming

thatnomorethanoneprocedurecanbecompletedannuallyforeachconflictingcouple, itcanbeseenthat

7,500 cases annually would involve a very large fraction of all separating couples, both married and non

married. Thisphenomenoncallsforfurtherresearchandanalysis,butthisisoutsidethescopeofthisstudy.7Anoftenheardfigureisthatonly5 6%ofdisputesrequirejudicialdetermination:(2007)641NewZealand

ParliamentaryDebates11462(JCollins),orthePHPbriefingpaper:BoshierPF,&UdyD ParentingHearings

Programme(Less

adversarial

hearings) (BriefingPaper6September2006) (Wellington,FamilyDistrictCourts,

MinistryofJustice,2006).8 See for example: Weinstein J V And never the twain shall meet: The best interests of children and the

adversarysystem. UniversityofMiamiLawReview,52(1),79175,wholistsanextensiverangeofreasonswhy

theadversariallegalprocessisunsuitableforparentingdisputes.9ThepilotwaslaunchedataLawSocietyConference: BoshierPF "TheFamilyCourt Towardsachievingour

best" (A speech to the Auckland Family Courts Association, Auckland Disrict Law Society, Auckland, 29

November2007) . Theformalintroductionwasbywayofabriefingpaper:seenote7,above.10Forathoughtfulandcaptivatingcomparison,see:DamaskaMR Thefacesofjusticeandstateauthority:a

comparativeapproachtothelegalprocess (YaleUniversityPress,NewHaven,1986). Forabriefcomparison

focusedontheFamilyCourt,see:CarruthersD ReportofinquiryintotheFrench(investigative)judicialsystem

Butterworths Family LawJournal, March 1996, 301307 , or: Harrison M Finding a better way. A bold

departurefrom

the

traditional

common

law

approach

to

the

conduct

of

legal

proceedings (Canberra,Family

Court of Australia, 2007). However, it is appropriate to note that in civil lawjurisdictions despite their

inquisitorialorinvestigativesystems verysimilarproposalsareadvocatedtointroducenonlitigationdispute

resolutionforparentingdisputes. ForinstanceintheNetherlandstheAmericanmediationmodelisadvanced

as an exampleofabetter way to deal with (parenting)disputes thatarise outof separation:ChinA Fat B

Scheiden:(ter)echterzonderrechter? Eenonderzoeknaardemeerwaardevanscheidingsbemiddeling(Divorce:

more real andjust without ajudge?An investigation into the added value of divorce mediation) (SDU

Uitgevers,TheHague,2004).11Forathoroughexposeontheuseofpilotsinpolicymaking,see:JowellR Tryingitout:Theroleof'pilots'in

policymaking,reportofareviewofGovernmentpilots (London,CabinetOfficeoftheUnitedKingdom,2003).12 See for instance: Hunter R Evaluation of the children's casesprogram:A report to thefamily court of

Australia Sociolegal research centre, Griffith University, 2006a), and: McIntosh J The Children's Cases

Project:

An

exploratory

study

of

impacts

on

parenting

capacity

and

child

well

being (FinalreporttotheFamilyCourtofAustralia) (Victoria,2006). Butalsosee:HunterR ChildrelatedproceedingsunderPtVIIDiv12Aof


18/20

18

theFamilyLawAct:WhattheChildren'sCasesPilotProgramcanandcan'ttellus. AustralianJournalofFamily

Law,November2006,Volume20.13 See note 9above and:Ministry_of_Justice ParentingHearingsProgramme; What this new Family Court

process means for you and your children Brochure 085 issued by the Family Courts,October 2006 , and:

Ministry_of_Justice ParentingHearingsProgramme;Thenewprocessandtheroleoflawyersandlawyersfor

thechild Brochure084

issued

by

the

Family

Courts,

October

2006.

14ForanearlycomparisonbetweenasuggestedmodelforNewZealandandtheCCPsee:JeffersonS Draft

opinion FamilyCourtpilotprogramme (Auckland,2004). Arecentdescriptionofthehistory,development,

andcurrentoperationoftheCCPisprovidedbyHarrison,seenote10above.15Possiblysimilartotheapproachusedintheevaluationofthemediationpilot: BarwickH,&GrayA Family

mediation Evaluationofthepilot (Wellington,MinistryofJustice,2007).16 Design of the formal evaluation started in October 2007. Additionally there is an informal monitoring

processandPHPjudgesmeetregularlytoscrutinisetheoperationandeffectofthepilot: SmithE Parenting

HearingsProgramme:Lessadversarialchildren'shearings("PHP"),NZLSConference,Family law flyinghigh.

(Christchuch,NewZealandLawSociety,2007).17BoshierPF "ThePrincipalFamilyCourtJudge'svisionfortheFamilyCourtgoingforwardafterthefirst25

years" (AspeechtotheNewZealandFamilyLawConference,Christchurch,8November2007) and:BoshierP

F "The Family Court Towards achieving our best" (A speech to the Auckland Family Courts Association,

AucklandDisrictLawSociety,Auckland,29November2007) .18UsingtheonlinesystemofQualtrics(www.qualtrics.com).

19StatisticalcalculationswereperformedwithSPSSandMINITABsoftware.

20Becauseofthedifferentblocksofquestionsandthenoncompulsorycharacterofmostquestions,notall

participantscompletedeachquestion. In thisarticle thenumberof respondents isgiven foreachquestion,

whererelevant.21AphenomenonthatwasalsoobservedinresearchabouttheuseofADRinothercivilprocess:SavilleSmith

K Alternativedisputeresolution :generalcivilcases/preparedfortheMinistryofJusticebyK.SavilleSmith

andR.Fraser (Wellington,N.Z.,MinistryofJustice,,2004).22Ifthesenumbersareextrapolatedtotheentiresample, itwouldfollowthatthesocietalcostofparenting

dispute involves at least 400 years of lawyers work annually, or, using a conservative fee estimate of

$250,000/yearanamountofat least$100millionon lawyers feesalone. Thismaybecomparedwith theFamilyCourtstatistics,whichprovidethatsome12,000parentingcasesareprocessedannually,whichwould

equatetoanapproximateaverageof$8,500lawyersfees/case.23 It must be noted that conclusions in purely economic and efficiency terms are irrelevant if the actual

disputesarenotdisposedofproperly. Thepartieswouldsimplyendupinaworsesituationorkeepreturning

totheCourtforfurtherroundsoflitigation.24Spearmans =0.064,p>0.05.

25Becausemorethanonesourcecouldbeselected,thepercentagesrefertothefractionofthesamplethat

usedeachspecificsource.26ThosewhohadactedinPHPcasesusedonaverageanother4sourcesofinformation. Thosewhohadnot

acted inPHPcaseshadonaverageused2.4 informationsources. Thisunsurprising, statisticallysignificant,

difference demonstrates that practitioners will actively pursue information once confronted with this new

processinpractice. [T(122)=6.16,p


19/20

19

averagewouldalsobe3.0,butthevariancemuchlarger,about4.0. Thevariancecanbeusedtocalculatea

95%confidenceinterval,whichmaybeinterpretedasastatisticalapproximationofthetwovaluesbetween

whichthemeanmayexpectedtobefor95%ofsimilarsamplesdrawnfromthesamepopulation.30Butnotstatisticallysignificantly(usingaMannWhitneytest)foreachdifferentqualityvariable:Forclarity

W=14823, p


20/20

20

well documented, and perhaps appositely summarized as being a long standing critic of adversarial

proceedings inchildrensmatters:Harrison,seenote10above;andadvocatingthat:thepermissible issues

being framed by the judge...the right to test evidence by crossexamination of the parties should be

removed....theextentandnatureofparticipation inthehearingwouldaccordinglybedefinedfortheparties

andnotbythem[emphasisadded]:BoshierPF What'snextaftercasemanagement? ButterworthsFamily

LawJournal,

September,

149

152,and: BoshierPF "Truthorproof evidentialissues" (Paperpresentedto

the NewZealandLawSocietyFamilyLawconference,1991) Conferencepapers:"TheFamilyCourttenyears

on",161166 .54Or,alternatively,thestrategicobjectiveswereomittedfromthebriefingpaperandpromotionalmaterial,

becausethesepracticalguidelinesneednotbeburdenedwithsuchadditionalmaterial. Thisofcourseleaves

thequestionopen inwhich forumsuchstrategicmattershavebeendetermined,andwhat theappropriate

processforthatdeterminationis. ThosewithacynicalworldviewmayarguethatthePHPrepresentsaform

ofjudicialactivism;severalcommentsfrompractitionersexpressedverystrongviewsonthissubject. Notably,

theAustralianexperimentalsoseemedtobelargelydrivenbythejudiciary:Harrison,seenote10above.55Seebriefingpaper,note9above,underintroduction.

566%ofrespondentsratedthestatementwithdisagree(1.5%)orstronglydisagree(4.5%),while19%had

aneutralopinion.

57Buttosomeextentingeneralcivillitigationaswell,seeforexamplethe1999changesinEngland,following

thereportofLordWoolf,therecentchangesinNewSouthWalescivilprocedure,andthependingreviewof

theDistrictCourtcivilrulesinNewZealand.58Thebriefingpaperstates:Parenteducationbefore theprocesswillbecrucial.Before thefirstdayof the

processtheparentswillviewavideothatexplainsthenewprocess,andthatshowsthedamagingeffectson

childrenofbitterseparationdisputesandlengthycourtbattles. Thelawyershavearoleinthiseducational

objective as well, for instance the role of the lawyers is said to include: educate their clients about the

objectivesof theprocess,particularly theneed tofocuson theirchildren. Lawyersare furthersupposedto

buyin into theprocess,and shouldbecomeskilled inexplaining theprocess to their clientsandguiding

themthroughit:Briefingpaper,seenote9above. IntheAustralianCCPcontext,an importantpartofthe

newroleoffamilyconsultantisofaneducationalcharacter,whilehis/herexpertiseandcredibilityisbasedon

specialized knowledge about the impact of high conflict on children. The family consultants were given

additionalnationaltrainingtoensure

that

the

information

provided

on

common

issues

was

consistent

across

theCourt.: Harrison,note10above.59SeeIllingworthQC,note42,above.

60ItisinterestingtonotethatwheretheothercivilcourtsinNewZealandhavearulecommitteethatoversees

rule changes and experiments, this is not the case for the Family Court. See:

http://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/about/system/rules_committee/role_powers.html.61AndhenceperhapstheremarkinthebriefingpaperthatthePHPtosomeextentwillformalizeanapproach

manyNewZealandFamilyCourtjudgesarealreadyusing.Seenote9above,at1.62Whileincivillawjurisdictionsthissafeguardisofaninstitutionalnature,i.e.inthewaycourtsareorganized

andpopulated,thewayjudgesaretrainedanddeveloptheircareers,and inthewaytheirrulesystemsare

maintained. ForacomparativeperspectiveseeDamaska,note10above,whileahistoricperspectivemaybe

foundin:CoquilletteDR TheAngloAmericanlegalheritage (CarolinaAcademicPress,Durham,1999).63

See for instanceRishworthP,HuscroftG,&OpticanS TheNew

Zealand

Bill

of

Rights

(OxfordUniversity

Press,Auckland,N.Z.,2003),at754.64 In thatcontext it isappropriate to refer tosomestrongconcerns thatwerevoicedaboutthePHP in the

context of domestic violence and other extreme power inequities. This concern was also raised at the

evaluationoftheAustralianCCPpilot:HunterR Evaluationofthechildren'scasesprogram:Areport to the

familycourtofAustralia Sociolegal researchcentre,GriffithUniversity,2006a),and isoneof thegeneral

concerns that always surface where procedurally strong (and therefore often inefficient) processes are

replacedbylessformal(orempowering)methodsofdisputeresolution.

php article flj final version

Documents