Definitely agree about each case being extremely unique and specific, I'm not sure there's a one size fits all in family law cases.

In regards to whether or not opening family law courts up is a good idea, I suppose it will have it's pro's and con's. Obviously for reasons people have stated above, transparency I suppose mainly it's good but then on the other hand a lot of families would want privacy when there are kids involved too

One of the things that this new development should hopefully help in that regard, is that currently because it's so closed-door to reporting, judges only have to hear and consider expert witnesses - they can totally disregard it if they feel like it and again there's no way to challenge the decisions or even talk about them outside the court room. I will concede that the Scottish family court system is particularly bad - "corrupt" might be a bit far - but certainly, all of the judges and higher-profile family legal professionals are a bit too chummy, so if an abusive ex partner with the funds to hire a lawyer with connections gets a "chummy judge" then it's basically game over.

Unfortunately I do know of a few cases of court-ordered professionals being extremely dodgy too - lazy with assessments, asking leading questions, basically reporting back "standard stuff" (for a high fee) and in one of the worst examples I know of - reporting back "verbatim quotes" from a meeting that was cancelled and never went ahead. So completely fabricated direct quotes from a child. But again the closed-door nature of the court sessions means none of this has ever been able to be talked about after court. It's a very broken system.

Thankfully those examples (crap court professionals) are rare. Judges ignoring professional assessments from child psychologists, teachers, social workers etc... not so rare. An individual judge shouldn't have that sort of power, IMO.

That's disappointing to hear, not all that surprising though unfortunately. From what I hear (and I don't work with any kind of agencies involved with the courts or child protection so again it's quite anecdotal) is that the judge will pretty much always follow what a section 7 report recommends and they did with my family member

…yeah, I would also think that any ‘judge corruption’ would be a very rare thing and not very indicative of a family court..also, with any type of specific agencies of ‘professionals’…in my own experience, there are those who are excellent in their profession and those who are not so much…(…like any profession because it’s what a person brings to it as well …)…and when we at the school see some professionals more ‘disregarded’ shall we say, by judges….well, we can at times understand why…which is another layer and aspect of why these cases are all so individual and different and never ‘textbook’….

All I would say Ammi is that unfortunately it's far less rare than you'd think (court and legal corruption in general, but family courts have been especially bad) and if you need evidence... they wouldn't have had to make the changes they're making re: court reporting if there wasn't a problem to address. A large part of the reason it's being done is for judge and court professional accountability. If it was a very rare thing they wouldn't have made the change - because there is a trade off in terms of privacy, which is particularly important when it comes to children's privacy, and that trade off is only worth it because there was a problem.

Yes that's a fair point. I'm not sure its ever a good idea to have one person in charge of making decisions like this in any case, especially in matters like these involving children and their safety and mental well being

…tbh, I’ve become cynical enough…to realise that changes/however landmark have many intentions and they’re not all for ‘the good’ of those involved on a personal level…there are problems to address indeed, we sadly see those too frequently…but those problems often stem from root level before any court proceedings …what’s that expression…a series of unfortunate events….as I say, I don’t have any personal experience of corruption in judge decisions…

…the judges don’t generally make the ruling as a one person thing, which is why they have like a ward of court type system and why so many agencies are involved with so many aspects in the child’s welfare…the process is very lengthy and involves many agencies…and obviously schools are a part of that because they have a representative present for so much of it…

Well look, we have a different legal system than you do here in Ireland (although similar) so I can't argue with you about that but here unless the parents are reporting to social services/schools then the judge will just decide based on what he/she is hearing from the parents and their solicitors (unless he orders further reports from third parties)

…hopefully that’s a system that’s going to change more and more in it’s development in the future because as you say…to have a judge as the ‘lone wolf ruling’…of a family and child that they will have none or limited knowledge/personal meeting with those involved would or could be quite flawed, I would think…

Absolutely

A good judge will use all of the above in making their ruling, a bad judge can choose to ignore anything they feel like ignoring. The ruling absolutely is a one-person thing though, at the end of the day. The judge can over-rule anything they want that's been said by either parent, social services, schools, medical professionals, and hand down a ruling that would boggle any reasonable person's mind. Custody/access court rulings between parents are very different to, say, custody cases where the state is removing custody from both parents entirely. Often what's being sought is court-mandated access, not custody - they're not a ward of the court, the parent denying access already has established custody.

Should also mention often it's not even denying access, it's simply refusing to force the child to engage in access that's causing them distress. Yes, they are supposed to force them to go with the other parent, no matter how distressed they are, no matter what they're saying happens when they're with that parent. It's unthinkable. And that's when the "parental alienation" BS starts to come in (the idea that the child is only terrified of the other parent because they've been "lied to". Pseudoscience, pop-psychology and nonsense. There's no basis for this idea, at all, other than men's rights activism pushing the idea).

I wish this was all just conjecture but I know from multiple real-world examples that this is going on, god knows I wish I didn't, and as I said maybe the court system here is worse here than the rUK (and I don't know anything about Ireland), but this new ruling being UK-wide suggests to me that the issues are UK-wide at least.

For obvious reasons I can't share anything about those examples, which I realise makes the claim "trust based" and meaningless on an internet forum, but :shrug:.

Anyway like I said earlier in the thread - we can hope that transparency results in better accountability and fewer judges going god-mode on people's lives.

…yeah but there are obviously ‘good’ and ‘bad’ in every profession is the thing that I’m saying as well…that there are also agencies which are a blend and mixture of good ‘experts’ and those who aren’t so much…and that’s also why multiple agencies give for a better balance for the judge to hold their ruling…court procedure can also be of joint custody parenting…but with one parent refusing to adhere to the ruling and maybe collecting a child from school, say…?…on a day that the other parent was meant to be and that’s an extremely volatile situation as you can imagine…because a parent’s first thought of panic can be that someone (…an unknown…)…has taken their child…it’s such a sad thing to see when there has to be any court intervention in parent communication…and that’s often the crux of it…

Not too nice for the child to have all its suffering when it grows up still on public display.