The Family Court deals with some of the most personal legal matters involving families, children, and vulnerable people. It handles issues such as parenting disputes, domestic violence protection, and care arrangements for those unable to look after themselves. Here’s how the court developed, what it’s responsible for, and the problems it continues to face.
Over 4 decades, multiple reviews have tried to fix it, but problems remain. 👉 80% of family disputes now head straight to court—not mediation. 👉 Vulnerable families, especially those without legal support, are left struggling in a system not fit for purpose.
Many families turn to the Family Court for support during separation, day to day care arrangements, and family violence issues. But did you know this system, originally designed to focus on mediation and support, has increasingly become adversarial, slow, and hard to navigate?
How the Family Court Started
The Family Court was established in 1981, following recommendations from the 1978 Royal Commission on the Courts (known as the Beattie Commission). The idea was to create a legal setting specifically for family-related matters, separate from general courts. It is clear from this report that the role of the Family Court was intended, from the beginning, to differ from that of the general courts:
The Family Court concept demands that the Family Court should be essentially a conciliation service with court appearances as a last resort, rather than a court with a conciliation service. The emphasis is thus placed on mediation rather than adjudication. In this way, the disputing parties are encouraged to play a large part in resolving their differences under the guidance of trained staff rather than resorting to the wounding experience of litigation, unless such a course is inevitable. (Beattie, 1978, p. 484)
The Family Court was intended to straddle two functions: to be both a court of law and a social agency. The Beattie Commission itself, adopting the view of the Canadian Ontario Law Reform Commission, stated that “by their very nature, Family Courts have a twofold function, judicial and therapeutic, and there is room for both to operate” (Beattie, 1978, p. 479).
The Commission suggested that this court focus on mediation rather than litigation, aiming to help people resolve disputes without drawn-out legal battles. The goal was for court appearances to be a last resort, with services like counseling and dispute resolution being used first.
The Court’s Dual Role: Legal Authority and Support Services
The Family Court operates both as a legal institution and a provider of support services. It has the authority to make binding legal decisions but also offers non-legal assistance like counseling. This approach was influenced by legal systems overseas, particularly in Canada, where courts dealing with families often take a combined legal and social service approach.
What the Family Court Does
The Family Court is involved in a range of matters, including:
- Parenting and custody disputes
- Property division between separating couples
- Adoption
- Family violence protection orders
- Care and guardianship of vulnerable adults
The court can also intervene when child welfare concerns are raised by police or social services.
Developments in 2007–2008
In 2007, Principal Family Court Judge Peter Boshier gave a talk at the University of Otago highlighting the lack of attention to children’s perspectives in family law proceedings. He pointed out that children’s views were often missing from legal decisions affecting them.
In 2008, Boshier discussed New Zealand’s approach to international relocation disputes and how judges handled these cases, but specific proposals for change during this time remain unclear without access to full conference records.
Problems and Changes
A government review in 2011–2012 identified several issues with the Family Court, including:
- Slow and complicated processes
- Difficulty accessing support
- Lack of focus on the needs of children and vulnerable people
In response, the Family Court was restructured in 2014. Changes included:
- Mandatory pre-court mediation for parenting disputes
- Restrictions on lawyer involvement in early stages
These reforms aimed to reduce the number of cases going to court. However, without notice urgent applications to the court increased sharply, suggesting many people struggled to resolve disputes without legal help.
Another Review: 2018–2019
Due to ongoing problems, an Independent Panel reviewed the 2014 reforms in 2018. Their findings showed the changes had limited success and had negatively affected families, especially those unable to get legal advice.
The review recommended over 70 changes to laws and procedures to improve outcomes for children and ensure families could access proper support and representation.
Summary of Family Court Reviews
- 1978: Beattie Commission recommends setting up the Family Court.
- 2002–2003: Law Commission reviews family dispute resolution.
- 2011–2012: Ministry of Justice review prompts 2014 reforms.
- 2018–2019: Independent Panel finds 2014 reforms ineffective.
Final Notes
The Family Court system was created to offer an alternative to traditional legal proceedings in family matters, with a focus on mediation and support services. Despite various reforms, the system has faced ongoing criticism for being difficult to navigate and not always meeting the needs of the people it serves. Reviews continue, with efforts aimed at improving access, efficiency, and outcomes, particularly for children and those unable to resolve disputes without legal help.
Conclusion: Ongoing Issues in the Family Court
Despite being set up to offer a more supportive and less adversarial alternative to general courts, the Family Court has consistently struggled to meet the needs of those who rely on it. Over the years, it has been criticised for slow, complex, and confusing processes that are difficult for many people—especially those without legal support—to navigate.
Attempts to fix these issues, like the 2014 reforms, often created new problems, these changes led to a spike in urgent court applications, highlighting how many people still needed formal legal intervention but couldn’t access it easily.
A consistent issue is that children and vulnerable individuals—the people the system is meant to protect—often don’t receive the attention or support they need. Reviews have shown that the court’s processes can be more focused on administrative efficiency than on actual outcomes for families.
Ultimately, over the past 4 decades, the Family Court has not lived up to its intended role as a service that supports families through conflict. It remains a difficult, often inaccessible system for many, with ongoing concerns about whether it truly delivers fair and safe outcomes for those most at risk.
Adversarialism in the Family Court has always been the most controversial and debated aspects. The court was intended to operate in a less confrontational, more conciliatory way than general courts, especially given the sensitive nature of family disputes. But in reality, the system has often defaulted to adversarial processes, especially in complex or highly emotional cases.
In 2023, nearly 80% of family-related disputes are opting for formal litigation rather than mediation.
Zayne Jouma is the Founder and Chairman of FDSS. He is a self-taught, trained, and experienced Mediator, Conflict Coach, Court Lay-Assistant (McKenzie Friend), and Community Coach. Zayne has supported many parents through mediation and conflict resolution and has assisted thousands of self-represented parents in their Family Court and High Court and Court Of Appeal cases across New Zealand. He is trained in conflict coaching, mediation, and child voice inclusion in mediation, and has extensive experience in complex cases involving resist/refuse dynamics, Family Violence, Relationship Property and Care of Children.
