It’s been mentioned before that a District Judge is preferable to magistrates. I understand that they have more authority but is there any other reason why it would be preferable to have a hearing presided over by a District Judge (from a child arrangements perspective, whereby the father is seeking an increased number of overnights with his 2 yo child). The possible implication of asking for a district judge, so my solicitor tells me, is that it may further delay the legal process (a process that has already been drawn out for 1.5 years without a final hearing).
Guest viewing is limited
- You have a limited number of page views remaining
- 2 guest views remaining
- Register now to remove this limitation
District judge or magistrates
- Thread starter BigLes
- Start date
I would not be in a position to say. Each one of us in this forum has our own unique experience.
DISCLAIMER - MY OWN OPINION.
My gut instinct is that people have had better experiences with DGs.
I had relatively positive experiences with all 3 different DGs that oversaw my specific issues case. What I would say that if you are going in front of a DG, impress them with your professionalism, your child focus and your ability to take shit from the other party without responding. They may even ignore CAFCASS recommendations as the first DG at my FHDRA did.
The inexperience of magistrates means that they just follow CAFCASS recommendations.
I've had 4 seperate hearings on different issues and have come before both a panel of Magistrates ( on 2 cases ) and a DJ on the last 2.
Magistrates will be a panel of 3 with one taking the position as Chairperson but the Court session will always have a Legal Adviser to guide them on relevant points of Family Law and Court procedures.
A District Judge will sit on his or her own. District Judges are retained by HMRC Courts on a full time basis and are usually promoted from being having been practicing Barristers - although not necessarily specialising in Family Law.
With a panel of Lay Magistrates you are before 3 people with their own individual thought processes and how they see the presentation of the case. So you have 3 people who have to come to a collective conclusion at the end of submissions and evidence. The permeations on 3 individuals viewpoints can give its own difficulties - but they will be guided all the way through by the Legal Adviser.
District Judges tend to be more forthright and very direct in the way they hear the case and how they react to evidence as given, cross examination and tend to cut to the chase without accepting waffle.
There are very good experienced Magistrates taking hearings in the Family Court as well as DJ's but there are very poor ones as well in both camps.
Until the Family Courts start using the experience of trained Child Psychologists instead of relying on the almost broken and dysfunctional CAFCASS system - then the clear abuse of children being denied spending time with both parents will become even more arbitrary with the final order result.
A month is a long time away from a loving parent in the life of a child - months and maybe years waiting for cases to come to final hearing is simply disgraceful and in human - it should never be when we have to question is it better to be before Magistrates or A District Judge.
Sadly in my view like most things when experiencing the Family Courts and all those with input into cases you are spot with - it's pot luck
- to get any semblance of a fair hearing and fair result you need a huge amount of luck with all those involved in the case.
Magistrates will be a panel of 3 with one taking the position as Chairperson but the Court session will always have a Legal Adviser to guide them on relevant points of Family Law and Court procedures.
A District Judge will sit on his or her own. District Judges are retained by HMRC Courts on a full time basis and are usually promoted from being having been practicing Barristers - although not necessarily specialising in Family Law.
With a panel of Lay Magistrates you are before 3 people with their own individual thought processes and how they see the presentation of the case. So you have 3 people who have to come to a collective conclusion at the end of submissions and evidence. The permeations on 3 individuals viewpoints can give its own difficulties - but they will be guided all the way through by the Legal Adviser.
District Judges tend to be more forthright and very direct in the way they hear the case and how they react to evidence as given, cross examination and tend to cut to the chase without accepting waffle.
There are very good experienced Magistrates taking hearings in the Family Court as well as DJ's but there are very poor ones as well in both camps.
Until the Family Courts start using the experience of trained Child Psychologists instead of relying on the almost broken and dysfunctional CAFCASS system - then the clear abuse of children being denied spending time with both parents will become even more arbitrary with the final order result.
A month is a long time away from a loving parent in the life of a child - months and maybe years waiting for cases to come to final hearing is simply disgraceful and in human - it should never be when we have to question is it better to be before Magistrates or A District Judge.
Sadly in my view like most things when experiencing the Family Courts and all those with input into cases you are spot with - it's pot luck
- to get any semblance of a fair hearing and fair result you need a huge amount of luck with all those involved in the case.
I have had 3 different deputy district judges - the lowest possible form of judge. They were all immune to the process and happy to shoo things along. Pretty sure one of them was chummy with my exes barrister from whatever previous link on the circuit. Due to location change I'll probably end up with magistrates next, I've got a feeling from the experiences of others that they might have a little more common sense.
Very unlikely, for the reasons given above. MB's have no (legal) idea. Waste of everyone's time and very dangerous when it comes to making decisions in intricate and inevitably emotional family law cases.
SS.
I've only had District Judges. I had the tip to request one from the outset. After that, it always said - referred to a DJ because case was heard previously by a DJ. The feedback I've had, heard and seen about magistrates is - you get woolly outcomes. They don't seem to have the authority and, frankly, legal experience or knowledge, to make the kind of forthright no nonsense decisions and cut through the crap - as Km5 says.
Personally I don't think family cases should be heard by Magistrates - it's ridiculous - these are childrens lives and delay is the enemy. I think they get some training, but they are not lawyers and the very fact we have to go to court to ask to see our children is bad enough, but to have to have three old fogeys sit there deliberating our destiny is even worse. At least with a DJ - they know the law inside out - and when there are no welfare issues - there is no reason for a Father not to have a good order - and they know that.
Having said that, some people have had good outcomes with magistrates and a Dad whose partner got tips on here, recently got a 50/50 order with magistrates. So it depends. Also there are some woolly Judges who don't give two hoots either. There are also some truly excellent Judges who really care and take no nonsense.
The way the system works is also strange. Even with a very good Judge, if the ex's solicitor raises a welfare issue and wants further investigation, they sometimes just grant that - because they err on the side of caution with safety and kids. Which is why the system can be so easily manipulated by an ex and her solicitor! But - if you also had a lawyer who argued against that, the Judge can be persuaded, on a point of law and by sound argument - that further investigation is not necessary - and make their own decisions. They have the training, and therefore the confidence to actually "judge".
I completely see your point - young child, three magistrates, possibly women - society view about Mothers - that you fear it might be a bit blinkered or biased. All I can say is - do your best to put your arguments forwards and come across well. Impress them. Do a good position statement - that helps the magistrates get to grips with what is going on - have it full of blindingly reasonable and logical points and they will agree and warm to that.
I'm a big fan of position statements - swaying opinion from the outset on paper.
Don't always believe what solicitors say either. However, there is a shortage of DJ's since the pandemic. Usually if a case has some complexities then asking for a DJ is accepted. It depends on how your case is and what the issues are. But I think if I had been waiting 1.5 years and not had a final hearing, I'd be asking for a District Judge too.
Yes it probably would adjourn a hearing date if the request was accepted, which would cause some delay. When is your next hearing date? And why has it taken 1.5 years? I assume because your child was very young initially and you've had to keep going back to increase time?
I think you need someone to be quite robust now - if no agreement then it should go to a final hearing.
Personally I don't think family cases should be heard by Magistrates - it's ridiculous - these are childrens lives and delay is the enemy. I think they get some training, but they are not lawyers and the very fact we have to go to court to ask to see our children is bad enough, but to have to have three old fogeys sit there deliberating our destiny is even worse. At least with a DJ - they know the law inside out - and when there are no welfare issues - there is no reason for a Father not to have a good order - and they know that.
Having said that, some people have had good outcomes with magistrates and a Dad whose partner got tips on here, recently got a 50/50 order with magistrates. So it depends. Also there are some woolly Judges who don't give two hoots either. There are also some truly excellent Judges who really care and take no nonsense.
The way the system works is also strange. Even with a very good Judge, if the ex's solicitor raises a welfare issue and wants further investigation, they sometimes just grant that - because they err on the side of caution with safety and kids. Which is why the system can be so easily manipulated by an ex and her solicitor! But - if you also had a lawyer who argued against that, the Judge can be persuaded, on a point of law and by sound argument - that further investigation is not necessary - and make their own decisions. They have the training, and therefore the confidence to actually "judge".
I completely see your point - young child, three magistrates, possibly women - society view about Mothers - that you fear it might be a bit blinkered or biased. All I can say is - do your best to put your arguments forwards and come across well. Impress them. Do a good position statement - that helps the magistrates get to grips with what is going on - have it full of blindingly reasonable and logical points and they will agree and warm to that.
I'm a big fan of position statements - swaying opinion from the outset on paper.
Don't always believe what solicitors say either. However, there is a shortage of DJ's since the pandemic. Usually if a case has some complexities then asking for a DJ is accepted. It depends on how your case is and what the issues are. But I think if I had been waiting 1.5 years and not had a final hearing, I'd be asking for a District Judge too.
Yes it probably would adjourn a hearing date if the request was accepted, which would cause some delay. When is your next hearing date? And why has it taken 1.5 years? I assume because your child was very young initially and you've had to keep going back to increase time?
I think you need someone to be quite robust now - if no agreement then it should go to a final hearing.
When I was going through proceedings all the guys I was speaking to said how lucky I was to have judges, maybe the advantage of judges is better realised by a barrister than a litigant in person. Of the three statements I pulled my hair out over, only 1 was read.
One judge saw no irony in the fact that as an alleged perpetrator I spoke strongly in favour of CAFCASS involvement, the "victim" argued against any independent evidence at all. I had to push for alcohol testing, she argued that the court should be able to make a judgment purely on what she said. The irony was again missed when my test results came back "consistent with abstinence" for the whole period that was covered. No notice was taken of the fact that her solicitors repeatedly tried to delay testing so that the results would not pertain to the period of her allegations. No reprimand was given regarding outrageous behaviour of her and her representatives. I brought transcripts of previous hearings to my final hearing that showed her barrister was lying, the judge did not bat an eyelid. The judges sat back and allowed her barrister to hijack hearings, no attention at all was paid to dirty tricks on evidence and bundles. Judges can quite happily sit back and watch a dad get mauled on points that have already been dealt with.
I could go on, but the point really is that it is pot luck. Especially if you are not in a position to burn tens of thousands of pounds (minimum) on solicitors and barristers.
My personal experience was that judges were resolute in their refusal to read between the lines and address the pertinent points. They did not put mum to the test in any regard.
One judge saw no irony in the fact that as an alleged perpetrator I spoke strongly in favour of CAFCASS involvement, the "victim" argued against any independent evidence at all. I had to push for alcohol testing, she argued that the court should be able to make a judgment purely on what she said. The irony was again missed when my test results came back "consistent with abstinence" for the whole period that was covered. No notice was taken of the fact that her solicitors repeatedly tried to delay testing so that the results would not pertain to the period of her allegations. No reprimand was given regarding outrageous behaviour of her and her representatives. I brought transcripts of previous hearings to my final hearing that showed her barrister was lying, the judge did not bat an eyelid. The judges sat back and allowed her barrister to hijack hearings, no attention at all was paid to dirty tricks on evidence and bundles. Judges can quite happily sit back and watch a dad get mauled on points that have already been dealt with.
I could go on, but the point really is that it is pot luck. Especially if you are not in a position to burn tens of thousands of pounds (minimum) on solicitors and barristers.
My personal experience was that judges were resolute in their refusal to read between the lines and address the pertinent points. They did not put mum to the test in any regard.
Perhaps having "no (legal) idea" would leave a little more room for some "common sense."
Yes it can just be luck with Judges. There are some excellent ones and some lazy ones - and some biased ones. Understanding their role helps though. They are senior and don’t get caught up in admin - they deal with points of law - but can be persuaded by barristers one way or the other. Yes the dirty trucks thing is common and Judges don’t deal with it because they are there to deal with a hearing, not arguments about dirty tricks - which is how lawyers get away with it - so you have to watch your back! Keep an eye on things and pre empt dirty tricks where possible. Having a barrister helps - if it’s the right one and they aren’t biased too!
The Judges role is dictated by the welfare checklist and partly by Cafcass recommendations. But final hearing is usually where they can be persuaded. An ex solicitors job is to drag things out and cause delays hoping Dad will give up/run out of money or just accept a rubbish order for an easy life.
I agree that Judges should do more to step in and point out unnecessary delay tactics - the issue there is lack of judicial continuity partly - a long time between hearings and maybe different magistrates or a different judge at every hearing. But there are some who are really on the ball and will disagree with an ex solicitor.
The Judges role is dictated by the welfare checklist and partly by Cafcass recommendations. But final hearing is usually where they can be persuaded. An ex solicitors job is to drag things out and cause delays hoping Dad will give up/run out of money or just accept a rubbish order for an easy life.
I agree that Judges should do more to step in and point out unnecessary delay tactics - the issue there is lack of judicial continuity partly - a long time between hearings and maybe different magistrates or a different judge at every hearing. But there are some who are really on the ball and will disagree with an ex solicitor.
I would add that if you have a lazy Judge, that is exactly when having a barrister can really help as they can keep pestering the Judge and make things happen. I had a Judge once that wasn’t just lazy and disinterested and clearly biased towards Mum, he was also incredibly rude and bad tempered. My barrister on the day earned every penny and was relentless and got results despite being shouted at and treated like shit! That was a minor hearing but an urgent one. If I hadn’t been represented on that occasion I’d have come out with nothing and my ex would have moved further away.
My second judge ignored CAFCASS recommendation on S7 report and went with her barrister's claim there was no need. They knew that the report would have shown I was the primary carer and involved lots of professionals giving positive reports on my parenting. Judge's greater discretion can be an advantage to either side.
Maybe I could have done with a woolly, middle of the road, outcome.
Maybe I could have done with a woolly, middle of the road, outcome.
I've only had a District Judge so far who was forthright and very direct as Km5 alludes but also flappy and indecisive with trembling hands. My son's life is in the trembling hands of someone who hasn't the first clue about making serious, life changing human decisions. I'm sure it pays well and they have a nice house out of it, but it doesn't save my child from the psychological damage of being denied a loving parent. An underfunded, under-performing CAFCASS are advising these individuals on their life changing decisions based on questionnaires and 10 minute phone calls.
For a country that prides itself on protecting children we fall so short of the mark it is bewildering at the very least, at the most, disturbing. Reminding myself we are in the 21st century and not the Middle-Ages is a daily struggle. Four months between hearings. An average of 10.5 months for cases to reach a final order (up to 2 years for some). An antiquated process that achieves absolutely nothing but anguish for all.
What would be preferable would be a well funded, well trained, well resourced dedicated Local Authority who takes charge of parental disputes in their jurisdiction using intelligent investigatory steps with face to face interviews and relevant facts, keeping matters out of a languid Medieval and adversarial "family" court system and get's children back with their impeded parent in weeks not months or years, with Child/Parent Contiguity Orders that have genuinely enforceable directives providing a potent deterrent for the vindictive who take their own children as psychological hostages.
For a country that prides itself on protecting children we fall so short of the mark it is bewildering at the very least, at the most, disturbing. Reminding myself we are in the 21st century and not the Middle-Ages is a daily struggle. Four months between hearings. An average of 10.5 months for cases to reach a final order (up to 2 years for some). An antiquated process that achieves absolutely nothing but anguish for all.
What would be preferable would be a well funded, well trained, well resourced dedicated Local Authority who takes charge of parental disputes in their jurisdiction using intelligent investigatory steps with face to face interviews and relevant facts, keeping matters out of a languid Medieval and adversarial "family" court system and get's children back with their impeded parent in weeks not months or years, with Child/Parent Contiguity Orders that have genuinely enforceable directives providing a potent deterrent for the vindictive who take their own children as psychological hostages.
The reason for the delay is a covid backlog and then the court not apportioning nearly enough time to deal with any of the issues in the last hearing (i.e. the courts messed up), which meant an additional 6 month wait until the next hearing. The Cafcass report is in my favour. The Magistrates didn’t seem to give much credence to the ex’s claims and general position. They also said they thought that the next hearing would be presided over by a DJ, but it turns out it will be Lay Magistrates again (presumably the same ones). There is a specific issues order as well as a CAO.
Frustratingly I didn’t realise it takes over a month to receive the court order after a hearing (I assumed it would be a couple of days). Therefore the only thing that was decided (PR) I, for all intents and purposes, still don’t have.
I wonder if magistrates or DJs will have differing responses to dirty tricks such as submitting statements just the day before a hearing (weeks after having read the father’s statement and therefore writing their statement in response to what was written in father’s). I wonder whether magistrates or DJs will be more upset about a failure to follow previous interim court orders/ directions/ recommendations. Magistrates, in my limited experience, seem to be initially angry and then throw their hands up saying “but what can we do? Let’s proceed”.
There is an additional specific issues order as well as a CAO to deal with, there are some complex issues associated with the SIO (although there is precedent that a magistrate could easily follow).