Family and Child Care

Legal 500

Posted on

The Partners and Staff of Philcox Gray are delighted to confirm the inclusion of our firm in the 2015 edition of the Legal 500. Both the family team and the housing team were listed in this year’s rankings. The inclusion of our firm recognises the hard work and commitment of all of the members of our team.

In the family team, Clare Gaskin was singled out for praise. The editorial comment recorded “Philcox Gray & Co has four Children’s Panel members, and two of its team have higher rights of audience in civil proceedings. Clare Gaskin is a ‘passionate practitioner’”

In the housing team the work done was considered to be in the third tier and it was noted that Ruth Camp had particular specialism in possession and housing disrepair.

If there is a housing or family matter with which we can assist you, please do not hesitate to contact us for help from our acclaimed team.

New Study into Legal Aid changes

Posted on

The Government “does not understand, and has shown little interest in, the knock – on costs of its [Legal Aid] reforms across the public sector”

The Public Accounts Committee has accused the Government of having made cuts to legal aid without understanding the potential consequences of these cuts. Many of its findings will resonate with those who provide social welfare advice.

In its report published today, on the implementation of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act (LASPO) the committee said the Ministry of Justice  (MoJ) is on course to make a “significant and rapid reduction” in spending, but has little idea of whether the £300m annual saving is outweighed by additional costs elsewhere.

The committee chair said it was “deeply disturbing” that changes to legal aid had been pushed through on the basis of “no evidence in many areas, and without making good use of the evidence that it did have in other areas”.  Despite lawyers in the social welfare sector having warned the MoJ about the impact of its cuts to civil legal aid and the increased costs they would create elsewhere, it was not the type of evidence they were willing to listen to. The level of spend seems to have been the critical factor in driving cuts in legal aid.

The report found that the changes in Civil Legal Aid had limited access to mediation for family cases. Mediations for family law matters fell by 38% in the year after the reforms, rather than increasing by 74% as the Ministry expected. The short-sightedness of the Government is made clear in these figures. Despite the MoJ knowing that solicitors were the major channel through which people were referred to mediation, they failed to foresee that removing legal aid for solicitors would reduce referrals.  The report recommends that the Ministry should closely monitor the take up of mediation following the changes it made in April 2014, and should take prompt action if this does not increase as expected. The fall in mediation in family law matters contrasts with an increase in the number of contested family cases reaching the courts. The concern caused by these figures, is compounded by the rise in “litigants in person “in the family courts – especially in cases involving children and the rise in contested family cases.

The report said that the complexity of the justice system is preventing people accessing justice, if they are no longer eligible for legal aid. Recent Government proposals for another significant increase in civil Court fees, including applications to suspend an eviction warrant or set aside an order for possession, are likely to further limit access to justice.

Sheila Donn and Beverley King, joint managing Partners at Philcox Gray Solicitors and Mediators believe that Legal Aid makes a significant difference to families and households, to local area economics, and also contributes to significant public savings. Their experience is that early legal advice prevents problems from escalating into unnecessary and expensive litigation.

 Article by: Philcox Gray Solicitors & Mediators

Article Date: 4 February 2015

Couple are rehoused after refusal to help by local authority delayed the return of their child

Posted on

A young couple were refused accommodation by Greenwich Council after they asked to be housed in order for their son, who was in foster care, to be returned to them. Redbridge Council had removed their son from their care some 2 ½ years earlier, and the Family Court indicated in September 2014 that the child should be returned to his parents once they were in suitable accommodation.

The couple approached Greenwich Council for temporary accommodation, but were told that the Council did not owe them a duty as their son was not part of their household. No accommodation was offered in spite of the fact that the Council was aware, through the care proceedings, that the child was only still in foster care because the couple did not have appropriate accommodation. In this case, the local authority should have accepted the child as part of the household and offered temporary accommodation. Because this did not happen, the child could not be returned to his parents, and their long wait to have him back with them continued.

David Araya represented the couple in relation to the issue of housing. Following a threat of judicial review made to Greenwich Council, and an Interim Supervision Order made by the Family Court, the Council agreed to house the couple and include their son in the household.

Philip Wilkins of Hudgell & Partners acted for the father in the care proceedings, and worked with David to ensure that the issue of housing by Greenwich Council was resolved. Happily, the offer of accommodation came just before Christmas and the family will now be able to work towards being reunited.

If you have been refused temporary accommodation from a local authority, you may be able to challenge this decision. Please contact us to see if we can assist you.

To read the full judgment click here: bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/HCJ/2014/775.html

For a comment on the case from a family law perspective, click here:

suesspiciousminds.com/2014/12/24/section-20-drift

For a comment on the case from a housing law perspective, click here:

nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2014/12/every-possible-obstacle/