5,310
edits
Changes
→An impressive pile of reports
If we do live in a society governed by the rule of law, and I believe we do, it seems important to advocate for better access to justice for everyone, including the children of separation and divorce.
==An impressive pile of reports...==
Beginning in the 1960s and early 70s, lawyers and judges began to be concerned about the justice system, partly because litigation associated with the civil rights struggle revealed gross inequalities in people's ability to access justice as a result of their income, their sexual orientation, their gender, their religious inclinations, their ethnicity and the colour of their skin. People protested, wrote lots of important papers about access to justice, and lobbied government for change. As impotent as protests and lobbying can seem today, things did in fact change.
<blockquote>"Canadians do not have adequate access to family justice. For many years now reports have been telling us that cost, delay, complexity and other barriers are making it impossible for many Canadians to exercise their legal rights. More recently, a growing body of research has begun to quantify the extent of unmet legal need in our communities and to describe the disquieting individual and social consequences of failing to respond adequately to family legal problems."</blockquote>
But, commenting on that "growing body of research," they further observed that the pile of reports which had already been generated on the access to justice problem were remarkably consistent in both their diagnosis of the problem and their recommendations for its cure:
<blockquote>"The [working group] is very mindful of the many family justice reform reports that precede this one. These reports are remarkably consistent in their diagnosis of the problems and their prescriptions for change. A key theme of all reports is the place of adversarial (rights-based) and non-adversarial (interest-based) dispute resolution processes in the family justice system and the still untapped potential for non-adversarial values and consensual dispute resolution processes to enhance access to the family justice system.</blockquote>
<blockquote>"Despite these changes, reports and inquiries continue to call for further reform, saying that the changes to date, while welcome, are simply not enough. The reports continue to advocate for a more dramatic shift to non-adversarial approaches, calling for 'drastic change', a 'fundamental overhaul' and a 'paradigm shift'."</blockquote>
Now , more than sixty years after the access to justice revolution first began, the problem continues and persists. In fact, it is arguably worsening. The number of people without lawyers continues to climb in all areas of the court system, but especially in our provincial courtsand especially in family law cases. The availability of out-of-court options for resolving family matters has increased, which is a positive development for families. However, court processes continue to be affected by under-resourcing and delays, which increases stress on families.
==And some partial progress==