The book that all family practitioners wish they had written

21 July 2011 by

Review: Family Courts without a Lawyer: A Handbook for Litigants in Person – Lucy Reed – Buy book here

Family Courts without a Lawyer : A Handbook for Litigants in Person is written by Lucy Reed, barrister and author of the Pink Tape blog. A title that may, on its first reading, strike fear into the heart of family lawyers and, hopefully, give a sense of relief to many litigants in person. However, this is the book that all family practitioners wish they had written and which litigants in person may consider buying, its aim being to make any interaction with the Family Courts, for the uninitiated, as stress free as possible.

The book is described as providing “as practical tool to help you in court and a reference to help you understand what happens in family proceedings, whether or not you have a lawyer”. It does not suggest going to court as a litigant in person is to be preferred over attending at court with a lawyer, nor does it suggest the opposite; it allows the reader freedom of choice.

It is made clear very early on in the book that reading it “is not the same as legal advice” and “whilst this book may be a reasonable alternative to legal advice where you cannot afford a lawyer, it is not a substitute for it”. The reader is also asked to consider, where possible for that particular case, alternative forms of dispute resolution and draws attention to a number of internet resources that may prove useful in the circumstances of a family breakdown.

The book is divided into seven parts; Part 1 explains how the court and legal system fit together, Part 2 gives general practical guidance about courts, court procedure and general tips as to how to manage the case, Parts 3,4 and 5 each deal with particular types of case (Divorce, Separation and Finances, Children and Domestic Violence and Abuse), Part 6 deals with some of the events that may happen latterly in a case and Part 7 provides a “Toolkit”, which includes a “jargon buster”, statutory extracts, a table of case law and example documents. I think Ms Reed was very aware of the practicalities that need to be complied with and potential difficulties that could be encountered with any engagement with the Family Court process.

Ms Reed deals head on with the Human Rights Act 1998 and the fact that this brings the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law and draws attention to Article 6 (right to a fair trial), Article 8 (right to private and Family Life), Article 10 (right to freedom of expression) and Article 14 (right to freedom from discrimination) as being those which most often arise in Family Courts.

She goes onto explain the “balancing of rights” exercise carried out by the court in what, I hope are understandable terms to non-lawyers;

Generally Human Rights are not absolute rights – this means they must be balanced against other people’s human rights, and as a result sometimes your rights must give way to someone else’s , most often a child’s. They are best thought of as principles to guide the Court’s approach about these really important rights, rather than hard and fast rules.

The Justice Select Committee’s report on the Operation of the Family Courts is understandably not included in this book, as it was only published in the last few weeks. The report says that legal aid reforms as proposed in The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill risk an unmanageable rise in “DIY justice”, as vulnerable people are forced to go to family courts alone as litigants in person. The Report states “the family courts will see an increase in litigants in person following reforms to the legal aid system”, with the Committee adding that it is “not convinced the Ministry of Justice has fully appreciated the impact on court resources of many more unrepresented parties.”

Whether or not the Committee’s Report has an effect on the progression of The Legal Aid Bill, upon which Parliament is currently hearing, is yet to be seen, but I for one remain concerned that although the availability of Ms Reed’s book offers its reader the freedom of choice between having a lawyer or appearing as a litigant in person in the family courts, if the Bill becomes law in its current form, that choice may potentially disappear for large numbers of people.

This review is by Rachael Claridge who practises in family law at 1 Crown Office Row.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Related posts

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals Anne Sacoolas anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board care homes Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs costs budgets Court of Protection crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy diplomatic relations disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control hague convention Harry Dunn Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy procurement Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions prostituton Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation refugee rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism The Round Up tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Weekly Round-up Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: