Judges do not listen sufficiently to parents, who, for example, have to deal with an out-of-home placement of their child. This is evident from a new report by family judges, who have scrutinized their own functioning. “This report does ouch.”
The powerlessness and pain of parents whose children were placed under supervision, parents who sometimes also lost authority over their children. This really struck Liesbeth Scheij, chairman of the so-called ‘reflection committee’ of family judges. “That they experience a procedural injustice in such impactful cases, where the government intrudes into their family life, that hurts.”
And that most important conclusion in a new report by family judges, who recently examined their own functioning, has attracted the judiciary. Family judges must allocate more time to parents during court cases. A session of approximately one hour is now scheduled for the out-of-home placement of a child. It is too little and within that limited time many parents get the feeling that judges rely too much on authorities and do too little to find the truth, they let family judges know during interviews.
Surcharge affair
The family judges looked to themselves because of the benefits affair. Administrative judges previously concluded that they had insufficiently protected citizens when the Tax and Customs Administration led families into major (financial) problems with high, unjustified claims. It later became clear that 2090 children of affected parents were removed from their homes. The files of those custodial placements will still be examined, but family judges decided to see what could be better for all parents.
And that’s quite a bit. In addition to more time, parents must also be given immediate access to a free lawyer, for which pilot projects are already underway, and an appeal must not take three months, but four weeks. By the time the Court considers a decision of a lower court, a new decision has often already been made about the child in question.
What also needs to be done much faster: expert research. At the moment, this is often neglected, not because judges think it would be better for experts not to consider a request for custodial placement, for example, but because it takes far too long to have such an investigation carried out. That can take up to a year, while in cases involving children it is almost always necessary. It is then considered ‘not in the best interest of the child’ to wait.
‘ouch’
Because in juvenile justice it has to be good and fast. Children who get into trouble at home, for example because their parents cannot take care of them (properly), are sometimes in acute danger and almost always need appropriate help quickly. It is already painful that the waiting list plagued youth care often cannot provide this. And now it appears that the judiciary can and must do better.
Criticism from parents in particular touches the heart of the judiciary. After all, trust in the judiciary is essential for its functioning, emphasizes Henk Naves, chairman of the Council for the Judiciary. “This report hurts,” he says. But the most important bottlenecks are not easy to solve, he emphasizes. “The judiciary squeaks and creaks. Judges run panting from session to session. If we strengthen family law, we have to move manpower elsewhere. The problems are not solved overnight.” Even if it should, Naves also says. “It is about children, the future of our country. That is also why judges, despite the great pressure, do everything they can to still perform more than satisfactorily. But justice is the work of people: that will not always work, sometimes the performance will be below par.”
Text continues below the photo
But with some of the report’s recommendations, judges can get to work right away. It is emphasized that judges must adopt an ‘active and curious’ attitude. With more room for parents during court proceedings, but also understandable language in their decisions, in which they motivate their decisions. They can also more often choose to have their decisions apply for a shorter period of time. An custodial placement is then, for example, not granted for a year, but for three months. This makes it possible to check whether sufficient help has been provided to a family in the meantime.
The report also calls on family judges to actively investigate relevant facts more often, for example by requesting additional information prior to a court case. That is not an unnecessary luxury: research by the Health and Youth Care Inspectorate recently showed how no report from youth care was in order in 45 custodial placement cases. In the near future, the report will be discussed in all professional consultations of family judges. One of the recommendations is that they should discuss their role and task more often.
Free unlimited access to Showbytes? Which can!
Log in or create an account and don’t miss a thing of the stars.
#Family #judge #listen #parents #report #functioning #ouch