NZ: Home Truths; Opening of the Family Court
Home Truths
By Greg Knight
The Weekend Sun, Tauranga, Bay Of Plenty, New Zealand
Friday 2 April 2004 Issue: 182
Opening of the Family Court
A couple of weeks I wrote an article about the New Zealand Family Court. It could not have been a more appropriate time to write about the public's dissatisfaction with this institution.
With the well publicised contempt of court charge against Nick Smith for releasing details of a family's case from his electorate, it is a stark reminder that the Family Court is not only very protective of it's own, but very protective of the way it operates and the way its decisions are made. This can be seen by the High Court ruling that Dr Smith had undermined public confidence in the Family Court. Yet the very nature of the Family Court and its secretive structure has in itself undermined public confidence. It is important that the public are well informed about such important decisions that effect our communities around us.
After 30 years of secrecy the public are starting to become aware of some of the unjust decisions that the Family Court has made over this period. It has been a slow painful experience for many people, especially the parents who feel they have been unjustly treated.
'Cattle market'
The president of the Law Commission has stated that the present court structure is at times little better than a "cattle market", carries a cost too - for the thousands of people who use it, voluntarily or involuntarily, in one way or another.
The restriction on parents being able to talk about their cases has meant that Judges have never been subjected to public scrutiny, or accountability for their decisions.
Nick Smith support
The public support of Dr Nick Smith has been clearly shown that New Zealanders believe that the Family Court should be open to public scrutiny, and that an MP and parents within a case should be allowed to raise failings with the Family Court and the people associated with it.
In one editorial of a leading newspaper, the opening line was " if our Courts system was any other kind of business, it would have been re-evaluated and overhauled well before now, such is it inadequacy". Although a travesty, it is encouraging to those who wish to see change, that an MP has seen first hand the Family Court in action, with the Court once again taking away the rights of the parents.
The time has come for the Family Court to be opened to public scrutiny and to carefully evaluate its procedures and practices. While the Court continues to hear cases behind closed doors, the public will struggle to maintain confidence in it.
Suggestions
If people cannot be allowed to judge for themselves that the Court is doing a good job as many of its supporters say, ( usually lawyers, psychologists and judges who benefit nicely with large monetary incentives ) then the Family Court will continue to be a mistrusted and unaccountable secret society.
The Law Commission's review that was presented to Parliament two weeks ago, contains many valuable suggestions, one of them being opening up of the Family Court so that the media can report proceedings, subject to restrictions on identifying parties.
What the Court or our politicians need to be careful of when making any new rules, is that Judges should not be allowed to unnecessarily suppress the media or the parties involved from reporting or discussing Family Court proceedings.
Public assessment
There is no doubt that if this Government were to take away the Family Court's shroud of secrecy, then it would give the public a proper opportunity to assess whether the Family Court is acting in an equitable and competent manner, as Act's social Welfare Spokesman, Muriel Newman has said "the demand for change would be immediate and profound. "
If this happens, it is likely that we will see a decline in the adversarial litigation between parents warring over custody and access, who will recognize that mediation and shared care arrangements are a better option.
END
|
