{"id":2913,"date":"2019-07-01T15:21:18","date_gmt":"2019-07-01T14:21:18","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/empathygap.uk\/?p=2913"},"modified":"2021-07-30T18:02:02","modified_gmt":"2021-07-30T17:02:02","slug":"family-justice-review-panel","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/empathygap.uk\/?p=2913","title":{"rendered":"Family Justice Review Panel"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<div class=\"wp-block-image\"><figure class=\"aligncenter\"><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"http:\/\/empathygap.uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/07\/Family-Law.jpg\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-2914\"\/><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n<p>The purpose of this post is to review the<a aria-label=\" membership of this Family Justice Review Panel (opens in a new tab)\" href=\"https:\/\/www.gov.uk\/government\/news\/family-justice-panel-update\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\"> membership of this Family Justice Review Panel<\/a>. It is,<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li>Melissa Case &amp; Nicola Hewer, Director of Family and Criminal Justice Policy, MOJ (Chair)<\/li><li>Professor Liz Trinder, University of Exeter<\/li><li>Professor Rosemary Hunter FAcSS, University of Kent<\/li><li>Professor Mandy Burton, University of Leicester<\/li><li>Mr Justice Stephen Cobb, Judiciary<\/li><li>District Judge Katherine Suh, Judiciary<\/li><li>Nicki Norman, Acting Co-Chief Executive, Women\u2019s Aid<\/li><li>Dierdre Fottrell QC &amp; Lorraine Cavanagh QC (joint representatives), Association of Lawyers for Children<\/li><li>Isabelle Trowler, Chief Social Worker for England (Children &amp; Families)<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>There is no father-friendly voice on that Panel (as I will explain below). I believe FNF have offered but been ignored. In these days of near-mania about \u201cdiversity\u201d, including gender balance, why is it acceptable to have one man and 10 women on the Panel? Is it because the Government think that \u201cfamilies\u201d are no business of men? <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Before I distract you with the details, an immediate purpose of this post is to encourage you to write\/email your MP to ask them to raise the matter with the Minister responsible, namely Paul Maynard, requesting that a representative from the charity Families Need Fathers Both Parents Matter Cymru (FNF-BPM Cymru) is added to the Panel. Their National Manager has prepared <a aria-label=\" (opens in a new tab)\" href=\"http:\/\/redpilluk.co.uk\/Letter_to_MP_re_MoJ_family justice review.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">this statement<\/a> which you can send with your letter\/email. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The case for including a rep from FNF-BPM Cymru is to provide,<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li>Representation of the perspective of men\n(balancing that of Women&#8217;s Aid);<\/li><li>Representation for an organisation that is\na DV support service for men;<\/li><li>Welsh representation on a panel looking at\nthe operation of Family Justice in England and Wales<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>I believe there is no other organisation that could\nmeet all three criteria.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"has-text-align-center\">*******<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Now for the current members of the Panel\u2026but first,\nsome background\u2026.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>On 21<sup>st<\/sup> May 2019 the Government <a aria-label=\" (opens in a new tab)\" href=\"https:\/\/www.gov.uk\/government\/news\/spotlight-on-child-protection-in-family-courts\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">announced their intention<\/a> to convene a \u201cpanel of experts\u201d to \u201creview how the family courts protect children and parents in cases of domestic abuse and other serious offences\u201d. This is a spin-off from the consultations around the new Domestic Violence Bill, whose Parliamentary Committee has recently reported and on which I shall be blogging shortly. Some quotes establish the motivation and movers,<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\u201c<em>The move follows\nresponses received through the government\u2019s domestic abuse consultation in\nwhich concerns were raised around the family courts\u2019 response to potential harm\nto children and victims. In addition to calls for better protections for\nchildren, some claim that domestic abusers are using the court system to\nre-traumatise their victims<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>&nbsp;\u201c<em>The panel will consider how the family\ncourts handle a range of offences including rape, child abuse, assault, sexual\nassault, murder and other violent crime, with the government committed to\nensuring the right protections are in place for victims and their children<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>These are all serious criminal offences. Why are they\nnot being addressed through the criminal courts? Could it be that there would\nbe insufficient evidence to support a prosecution?<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The announcement states that the panel\u2019s deliberations\n\u201c<em>will build on the draft Domestic Abuse Bill<\/em>\u201d which \u201c<em>includes\nmeasures to ban abusers from directly cross-examining their victims in family\ncourts<\/em>\u201d. No, it doesn\u2019t. It includes measures to ban those who have been\naccused from questioning their accusers. The conflation of \u201caccused\u201d with \u201cabuser\u201d\nand \u201caccuser\u201d with \u201cvictim\u201d is not careless, it is deliberate. The impetus\nbehind convening this panel is not neutral. &nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>For those who have not been paying attention, let me remind you of the background. In April 2013 a new Act, <a aria-label=\" (opens in a new tab)\" href=\"http:\/\/empathygap.uk\/?p=1525\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">LASPO<\/a>, came into force which withdrew legal aid from Civil court cases. However, there were exceptions, of which an allegation of domestic abuse was one. A common situation which has arisen since is a mother alleging domestic abuse who may still acquire legal aid, and hence legal representation in court, whilst the accused man will not have legal aid and will often have no legal representation in court. The alert will notice that this inverts the original purpose of legal aid: namely, to assist the impecunious in mounting a defence against an accusation. Such a man is left having to mount his own defence (a Litigant In Person) in total ignorance of court procedure. This will include, on some occasions, questioning his accuser \u2013 who else is to do it? This situation, in which the accused man is obliged to struggle unaided with his own defence, is presented in lurid newspaper headlines such as \u201c<a href=\"https:\/\/www.theguardian.com\/society\/2016\/dec\/22\/revealed-how-family-courts-allow-abusers-to-torment-their-victims\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Revealed: how family courts allow abusers to torment their victims<\/a>\u201d. The Government is no better. The tone of their announcement is much the same. They do not mention that this situation, undesirable to all parties, is of the Government\u2019s own making due to their withdrawal of legal aid from these Civil cases. One might argue, though, that the root cause is that the Civil jurisdiction is addressing what should be handled by the criminal courts \u2013 or not at all. &nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>This is the latest episode in a very, very long saga.\nLike all long-running serials, you need some knowledge of past events to make\nsense of the current episode. The details are legalistic but the essence is simple.\nThe feminist lobby has been working for many decades to weaken fathers\u2019 legal\nand social attachment to the family, with the aim of rendering fathers an\noptional accessory whom the mother can remove from the family with the minimum\nof difficulty or disadvantage. Accusations of abuse have proved an efficacious strategy\nto achieve this. Much of the skirmishes over the last five years or so have\nfocused around the following clause in primary legislation,<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\u201c<em>A court\u2026 is as respects\neach parent\u2026to presume, unless the contrary is shown, that involvement of that\nparent in the life of the child concerned will further the child&#8217;s welfare<\/em>\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Because the interests of the child are paramount in\nfamily law, this clause is a potential barrier to achieving the feminist objective\nof easy removal of fathers from their children\u2019s lives. Simply put, feminists\ndo not believe the statement: they do not regard fathers as particularly important.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>A brief reprise of recent skirmishes is in order as\nmany of the personnel involved reappear in the new Family Justice Review Panel,\nas we will see. &nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The 2014 skirmish concerned an attempt to introduce a rebuttable presumption of shared childcare after parental separation. The above presumption that, unless the contrary is shown, involvement of a parent in the life of child will further the child\u2019s welfare, was introduced into primary legislation in 2014. However, in a display of entrenched political power, the combined feminist lobby managed to neutralise the intention to facilitate ongoing involvement of both parents in their children\u2019s lives via a devastating amendment. Clauses 1(2A,2B) were introduced into the <a aria-label=\" (opens in a new tab)\" href=\"http:\/\/www.legislation.gov.uk\/ukpga\/1989\/41\/section\/1\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Children Act 1989<\/a> by Clause 11 of the <a aria-label=\" (opens in a new tab)\" href=\"http:\/\/www.legislation.gov.uk\/ukpga\/2014\/6\/section\/11\/enacted\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Children and Families Act 2014<\/a> and read,<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><em>(2A) A court, in the\ncircumstances mentioned in subsection (4)(a) or (7), is as respects each parent\nwithin subsection (6)(a) to presume, unless the contrary is shown, that\ninvolvement of that parent in the life of the child concerned will further the\nchild&#8217;s welfare.<\/em><em> <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><em>(2B) In subsection (2A) \u201cinvolvement\u201d\nmeans involvement of some kind, either direct or indirect, but not any\nparticular division of a child&#8217;s time.<\/em><em><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Clause 2B destroys the initial intention of facilitating shared care. It was deliberately introduced for this purpose. I related the full story behind this 2014 amendment to the legislation in <a aria-label=\" (opens in a new tab)\" href=\"http:\/\/empathygap.uk\/?p=2616\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Woozling Shared Parenting<\/a>. A key ingredient in the power-play was the woozle-driven <a aria-label=\" (opens in a new tab)\" href=\"https:\/\/www.gov.uk\/government\/publications\/family-justice-review-final-report\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Norgrove Report<\/a>. Two of the key academics who endorsed the Norgrove Report appear on the new Family Justice Review Panel: Professor Liz Trinder and Professor Rosemary Hunter. Both are committed feminists. Both concurred with the report\u2019s stance against a presumption of shared care. Professor Liz Trinder was quoted in the Norgrove Report, \u201c<em>I am encouraged that the Review has opted against a shared care presumption. That is entirely consistent with the research evidence on what works for children<\/em>.\u201d That statement is untrue. <a aria-label=\" (opens in a new tab)\" href=\"https:\/\/www.tandfonline.com\/doi\/full\/10.1080\/10502556.2018.1455303\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">The research shows the opposite<\/a>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Despite its emasculation by Clause (2B), the presence\nof Clause (2A) in the legislation remains a thorn in the side of the feminist\nlobby. To neutralise it further they lever to the maximum the proviso \u201cunless\nthe contrary is shown\u201d. The approach to showing \u201cthe contrary\u201d is to magnify as\nmuch as possible the spectre of men\u2019s potential danger to both mother and\nchild. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The 2017 skirmish revolved around \u201cPractice Direction 12J\u201d. This is the guidance to judges on how to address family law cases involving child arrangements and contact orders where there is an allegation of domestic abuse. The <a aria-label=\" (opens in a new tab)\" href=\"https:\/\/www.gov.uk\/government\/news\/spotlight-on-child-protection-in-family-courts\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Government\u2019s announcement<\/a> regarding the Family Justice Review Panel observes,<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\u201c<em>Practice Direction\n12J was revised in October 2017 to place greater emphasis on both the indirect\nharm that domestic abuse can cause to a child and parent, and the impact of\nnon-physical forms of abusive behaviour. The Children Act also makes clear that\nthe presumption of parental involvement will not apply where there is evidence\nthat the involvement of that parent in the child\u2019s life would put the child at\nrisk of suffering harm<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>This is the levering of the proviso \u201cunless the\ncontrary is shown\u201d, and there is a history to it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The pressure to revise Practice Direction 12J came\nfrom the feminist lobby. Specifically, in January 2016, Women\u2019s Aid published,\nas part of its Child First Campaign, a report entitled \u2018Nineteen Child\nHomicides: What must change so children are put first in child contact\narrangements and the family courts.\u2019 The publication of that report was followed\nby a Parliamentary Hearing convened by the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG)\non Domestic Violence; a Parliamentary Briefing Paper followed the hearing. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Women\u2019s Aid\u2019s report cherry-picked a dozen cases of men killing children after contact disputes, obtained by trawling ten years of Serious Case Reviews. I have presented the full story in <a aria-label=\" (opens in a new tab)\" href=\"http:\/\/empathygap.uk\/?p=1503\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">332 Child Homicides<\/a>. Looking at all Serious Case Reviews presents a rather different picture in which mothers emerge as at least as culpable for child deaths as fathers, and in fact rather more so \u2013 especially single mothers. But no one in positions of influence is interested in this. Our society simply will not recognise that mothers can also be a danger to children. More importantly, though, and to quote from my own post, <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\u201c<em>I emphasise that the\nreview presented below is not intended to suggest that mothers in general are\ndangerous to their children. That would be ridiculous. The purpose of the\nreview is to provide a balance which is totally absent in Nineteen Child\nHomicides. Women\u2019s Aid is very willing to use a small number of carefully\nselected cases to suggest that all fathers should be considered dangerous, but\nI am not about to commit the same mendacious folly with the genders reversed.\nIndeed, after reading through hundreds of SCR Abstracts it becomes clear that\nthese terrible cases have little or nothing to tell us about the bulk of\nsociety<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>However, the emotional impact of cases of men killing children, and sometimes their mothers, sweeps away all rational considerations. Consequently, the feminist axis had its way and Practice Direction 12J was duly revised. The man detailed to do the job is also the only man listed to take part in the new <a aria-label=\" (opens in a new tab)\" href=\"https:\/\/www.gov.uk\/government\/news\/family-justice-panel-update\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Family Justice Review Panel<\/a>: Mr Justice Cobb. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Prior to the 2017 review, and consistent with the\nprimary legislation, Practice Direction 12J contained the clause,<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\u201c<em>The Family Court\npresumes that the involvement of a parent in a child\u2019s life will further the\nchild\u2019s welfare, so long as the parent can be involved in a way that does not\nput the child or other parent at risk of suffering harm<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a aria-label=\" (opens in a new tab)\" href=\"http:\/\/redpilluk.co.uk\/Justice%20Cobbs%20review%20and%20his%20draft%2012J%20Jan_17.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Mr Justice Cobb\u2019s first stab at amending the Practice Direction<\/a> attempted to delete that clause and replace it with,<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\u201c<em>Where the involvement\nof a parent in a child\u2019s life would put the child or other parent at risk of\nsuffering harm arising from domestic violence or abuse, the presumption in\nsection 1(2A) of the Children Act 1989 shall not apply<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The charity FNF-BPM Cymru, in their elicited response to the draft new Practice Direction, pointed out to the President of the Family Division that this change would constitute a change to statutory legislation and thus exceed the judiciaries powers. It was changed back. Perhaps Mr Justice Cobb did not enjoy being corrected by FNF-BPM Cymru, though he should have been grateful that such an embarrassing error was spotted. You can read <a aria-label=\" (opens in a new tab)\" href=\"http:\/\/empathygap.uk\/?p=1921\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">here<\/a> the blow-by-blow account of the changes to Practice Direction 12J which were ultimately adopted (its horribly legalistic). <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Most telling are the influences upon Mr Justice Cobb in producing his first draft of the 2017 revised Practice Direction. These are explicit in his <a aria-label=\" (opens in a new tab)\" href=\"http:\/\/redpilluk.co.uk\/Justice%20Cobbs%20review%20and%20his%20draft%2012J%20Jan_17.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">report to the President of the Family Division<\/a>. They were, (i) Women\u2019s Aid, (ii) the group \u201cRights of Women\u201d, (iii) Women\u2019s Aid\u2019s report \u201c19 Child Homicides\u201d, and a similar earlier report \u201c29 Child Homicides\u201d, (iv) Professor Rosemary Hunter (yes, her again), and (v) Professor Marianne Hester and Dr Gillian Macdonald. All these influences are feminists espousing the male power &amp; control theory of domestic abuse, with an all-consuming gender-political agenda. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>To go back even further into history, Practice\nDirection 12J was first produced, in 2008, as a response to Women\u2019s Aid\u2019s \u201c29\nChild Homicides\u201d report. It was revised for the first time in 2014 as a\nresponse to a report by Rosemary Hunter for the Family Justice Council. Judicial\nguidance on this matter has been controlled by the feminist lobby for a very\nlong time, and the same personnel are repeatedly involved. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>The Family Justice Review Panel<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>We have already seen that Mr Justice Cobb, Professor Liz Trinder and Professor Rosemary Hunter have previous in these matters. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The MOJ reps (<strong>Melissa Case<\/strong> and <strong>Nicola Hewer<\/strong>) we may pass over as it\u2019s the MOJ&#8217;s Panel and hence their reps must be present. As for their bias, or otherwise, I have made no investigation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Similar remarks apply to <strong>District Judge Katherine\nSuh<\/strong>. She is a member of the Family Procedure Rule Committee. This Committee\nmakes rules of court that govern the practice and procedure followed in family\nproceedings in the High Court and family court. A rep from that body is\nrequired on the Panel as it is likely to have an impact on said rules. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The two women QCs, <strong>Dierdre Fottrell<\/strong> and <strong>Lorraine Cavanagh<\/strong>, jointly represent the Association of Lawyers for Children (ALC). The ALC is a national association of lawyers and others working in the field of children law. It has over 1,000 members, mainly solicitors and family law barristers who represent children, parents, other adult parties and local authorities. In January 2017 <a aria-label=\" (opens in a new tab)\" href=\"http:\/\/alc.org.uk\/uploads\/Elizabeth_Truss_MP_27_Jan_17.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">the ALC wrote to the Rt Hon Liz Truss MP<\/a>, then Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice. They wrote, \u201cwe wish to emphasise that it is not only adults, mainly women, who find themselves in the humiliating and abusive position of being cross-examined by their alleged abusers, but also the children or step-children of the parties, who may be witnesses to the alleged abuse\u201d. They made reference to the Guardian article by Sandra Laville to which I linked earlier (<a href=\"https:\/\/www.theguardian.com\/society\/2016\/dec\/22\/revealed-how-family-courts-allow-abusers-to-torment-their-victims\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Revealed: how family courts allow abusers to torment their victims<\/a>). However, they also observed,<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\u201c<em>Although this is not the primary issue, the grant\nof legal aid for representation at family court hearings for both accused and\naccuser where domestic, sexual or child abuse is alleged, will also deal with\nthe very real problem of cases where the former partner (usually the father) is\nfalsely accused of physical or sexual abuse by the mother, on herself and\/or\nthe children, in an attempt to frustrate the father\u2019s contact with the children\nof the family<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Their main beef is the withdrawal of legal aid, which\nthey always opposed (well, lawyers would). &nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Mandy Burton<\/strong>, Professor of Socio-Legal Studies, University of Leicester, may be rather\nmore empirically based than the others. She authored a book \u201cLegal Reponses to\nDomestic Violence\u201d and is working on another entitled \u201cDomestic Abuse, Victim\u2019s\nRights and the Law\u201d. She contributed an invited submission to the Justice\nCommittee in reference to the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2, entitled\n\u201cEmergency Barring Orders (EBOs) for Domestic Abuse: An Overview \u201c. In England\nand Wales EBOs are called Domestic Violence Prevention Notices and Orders\n(DVPNs and DVPOs), and are one of the pathways through the DV Gateway. In this\nsubmission she makes reference to the Istanbul Convention and the Council of\nEurope, which makes me question her impartiality. Some publications are,<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li>\u2018<a aria-label=\" (opens in a new tab)\" href=\"https:\/\/www.tandfonline.com\/doi\/abs\/10.1080\/09649069.2018.1519657\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Specialist Domestic Violence Courts for Child Arrangement Cases: Safer Courtrooms and Safer Outcomes?<\/a>\u2019 (2018)<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li>\u2018<a aria-label=\" (opens in a new tab)\" href=\"https:\/\/www.researchgate.net\/publication\/288411891_How_different_are_false_allegations_of_rape_from_false_complaints_of_GBH\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">How different are \u2018false\u2019 allegations of rape from false allegations of GBH?<\/a>\u2019 (2013)<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li><a aria-label=\" (opens in a new tab)\" href=\"https:\/\/www.gov.uk\/government\/publications\/understanding-the-progression-of-serious-cases-through-the-criminal-justice-system\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Understanding the progression of serious cases through the criminal justice system<\/a>\u2019 (2012, co-author)<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>I am familiar with the last paper,\nwhich is very useful. It shows, in a sample of cases, that the attrition of rape\ncases is essentially the same as that of GBH cases. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Isabelle Trowler<\/strong>,\nis the government\u2019s first ever Chief Social Worker for Children &amp; Families.\nShe was appointed to the Child Safeguarding Practice Review\nPanel in June 2018, and she also sits on the ministerial-led Family Justice\nBoard. I guess this CV makes her presence on the Panel close to obligatory. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Nicki Norman<\/strong> is the Acting Co-Chief Executive of Women\u2019s Aid \u2013 \u2018nuf said?<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"has-text-align-center\">*************<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Added 26\/7\/19: A response to the National Manager of FNF-BPM Cymru&#8217;s letter to the Under-Secretary of State, Paul Maynard, was received today. Readers will be unamazed to hear that an FNF-BPM Cymru rep has not been asked to join the Panel. Instead, the Minister informs us that reps from Welsh Women&#8217;s Aid and Respect have been added to the Panel. The Minister closes his letter with &#8220;I hope you find this response reassuring&#8221;. As a lady volunteer with FNF-BPM put it &#8220;&#8221;Reassuring&#8221; ?????\u00a0 What a muppet, not a clue&#8221;.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The purpose of this post is to review the membership of this Family Justice Review Panel. It is, Melissa Case &amp; Nicola Hewer, Director of Family and Criminal Justice Policy, MOJ (Chair) Professor Liz Trinder, University of Exeter Professor Rosemary Hunter FAcSS, University of Kent Professor Mandy Burton, University of Leicester Mr Justice Stephen Cobb, [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2913","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-justice","category-marriage-divorce-families"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/empathygap.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2913","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/empathygap.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/empathygap.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/empathygap.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/empathygap.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=2913"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/empathygap.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2913\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3795,"href":"https:\/\/empathygap.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2913\/revisions\/3795"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/empathygap.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2913"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/empathygap.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2913"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/empathygap.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2913"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}