The former family law chief judge, James Munby, has warned that public authority budgets are under ‘relentlessly heavy pressure,’ with services severely stretched.
He fears that desperate parents are determined to have their case heard by the most experienced judges as they believe a judgement from a more powerful and well known presence will persuade the local authorities to respond more quickly to their case.
As cases increase and delays occur, the practice of upgrading a judge is becoming a more popular way of improving individual case delays and may be at the disservice of other vulnerable people.
James Munby, Former Family Law Chief, said: ‘Recent experience suggests that, in relation to children, such cases are being transferred “up”, to judges of the family division, or even to the president, because of a belief that “senior” judges have more “clout” and are thus more likely to be able to “persuade” public authorities to do what is said to be the “right thing”.
“One can understand what motivates desperate parents to propose, and less senior judges to agree, to such transfers, but I have to say that I find the practice deeply troubling. Acceptable “persuasion”, if pushed too far or prolonged too long, can all to easily shade into unacceptable “compulsion”.”
In particular, Munby was able to use evidence of a case he presided over to highlight his point. Re X, a case concerning a child, highlighted the importance of a judge to make a crucial decision. However, he questioned whether this fast tracked case was at the detriment of other deserving cases that may have been overlooked.
Munby said: “That provision was in fact found, but at what cost, perhaps, to some other child whose case was not before me and of whom I could know nothing?’
“But what is one supposed to do? What is the alternative? Wash one’s hands and wait for an inquest, followed by much hand wringing, “we have all learnt lessons”, it will not happen again”? I think not. There are occasions, and surely Re X was one where… a judge in a family court or in the Court of Protection is duty bound to act even if the prime responsibility lies elsewhere. I am unrepentant.
“Child care and adult social care services are both under intolerable, and, one fears, unsustainable, pressure, essentially the product of ever increasing demand at a time of (at best) static and (in reality) declining resources. But I had better say no more – to go further would be to enter the realm of politics into which not even a retired judge should venture.”
As these cases continue to languish in a restricted system with thinly spread budgets and strained staff, the Court of Protection struggles to produce the best outcome for every vulnerable person.
Should greater resources be offered to these vital services, despondent because of depleting budgets and increasing caseloads?
