Page 84 - Solving Housing Disputes

229
hearing as part of the court process, and so it was permissible as “a step in the
230
process which can assist with the fair and sensible resolution of cases.”

3.52 Elsewhere in the civil justice system, processes that have traditionally been
called “ADR” have become normalised and are increasingly the default process
for disputes where there is a need to maintain ongoing relationships between the
parties. The 2011 Family Justice Review recommended that mediation or an
alternate out of court mediation service be the first port of call for divorcing
231
parents, and that ADR should be rebranded as “Dispute Resolution Services”
232
in order to minimise a deterrent to their use. Family court processes now
emphasise a range of dispute resolution processes that eschew adversarialism in
favour of problem-solving or mediative approaches. These include:

• the use of Family Drug and Alcohol Courts (FDAC), which feature a
problem solving, therapeutic approach for parents with drug and alcohol
problems at risk of child removal. FDACs feature a multi-disciplinary team
who carry out assessments and work with parents, to coordinate an
intervention plan to engage with substance misuse, parenting and other
233
services, facilitate additional support and update the court on progress;

229 Ibid per Moylan LJ para 24-26. On one argument, Lomax represents no great diversion from Halsey,
as it did not disturb Halsey as it relates to Article 6 compliance when mandating external ADR providers.
However, it permits a court to order ADR as part of the court process irrespective of whether the parties’
consent, which is a substantive diversion from the traditional position.

230 Lomax note 228 above,

231 An international review of the Norgrove Review articulated the general principles as being that
‘conflict should be minimised, process should be clear and simple, and administrative or non-adversarial
in nature and mediation should be preferred to a legal process’, Maclean, Eekelaar and Bastard (eds),
st
Delivering Family Justice in the 21 Century (Hart Publishing 2015) 3, see also Hodges, note 157 above
Chapter 11.

232 ‘Family Justice Review – Final Report’, November 2011’ (The Norgrove Review) para 115. available
at https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/21
7343/family-justice-review-final-report.pdf

233 2016 research into the efficacy of FDACs revealed great success, with a higher proportion of FDAC
rather than comparison mothers reunited with their children (37% v 25%); FDAC mothers experienced
less disruption to family stability over a three year period post proceedings (51% v 22%) and the cost of
£560,000 saved £1.29 million for local authorities (who fund FDACs) through fewer children
permanently removed from families and fewer families returned to court, Barwin, Alrouh, Ryan,
McQuarrie, Golding, Broadhurst, Tunnard and Swift, ‘After FDAC: outcomes 5 years later. Final Report’
(Lancaster University, 2016) available at http://wp.lancs.ac.uk/cfj-
fdac/files/2016/12/FDAC_FINAL_REPORT_2016.pdf See also Hodges note 157 above p. 320-322.

78