country to solicitors, Cafcass, through Resolution, IFLA and various barristers’ chambers. Secondly, the number of cases which have become finalised after an arbitration has continued to grow steadily, notwithstanding the lack of external (government) funding which was extended to the family mediation scheme. Thirdly, the scheme has been effective in the remedy it provides for its users. Writing for Family Law Week in 2019, I stated that the fact the appeal cases are “vanishingly rare is a tribute both to the design of the arbitration scheme and its supporting Rules, and to the skill and judgment of the arbitrators who operate under its auspices” (‘Cementing the future of arbitration’, J Stather, Family Law Week, 8/2/19). The position as it was in 2019 with regard to appeals has not changed to date. Fourthly and finally, the scheme has secured the enthusiastic endorsement of both the incumbent and previous Presidents of the Family Division. Sir James Munby (when he was President) published Practice Guidance in 2018, along with judgments which are generally supportive of the scheme. His article post-retirement – when perhaps he felt less constrained – was entitled ‘The crisis in private law in the English Family Court’ (Family Law [2020] Fam Law 448). In it,
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy Mjk3Mzkz