Terms are the same however we sugar coat them

Solicitors and law practitioners learn
through experience what trigger words to avoid, or at least to be careful with, when dealing with anxious and sometimes volatile clients.

Family law is an area where emotions are often understandably raw. Language must be chosen wisely. Calm heads are needed to achieve the best solution for a child caught up in a break-up. We sometimes
find ourselves reaching for
softer, neutral, passive, less inflammatory words, to calm
a client.

Since the Children Act 1989 came into force in 1991, the court has dealt with arrangements for children caught up in a divorce. Now, the wide-ranging Children and Families Bill currently under consultation will change the language and arguably the approach of the courts to dealing with disputes concerning
children. It will effectively rebrand aspects of family justice to soften the language.

In its response to the Family Justice Review, the government said it was keen to 'remove the current emphasis on the labels of contact and residence.' Instead, the new legislation, which broadly covers the same territory, will focus on 'child arrangement orders' and what practical arrangements are required in the best interests of the child.

Some might say that it is change for the sake of change. Parents may not be interested in the subtleties of language, only in what the words mean in reality.

'Contact' infers an exception to the rule and that the greater power lies with the other party. 'Residence' could be interpreted as where the child rightly belongs and that elsewhere is second best.

Given that there has to be some element of enforcement available to the court it would be expected that new child arrangement orders will be defined in such a way that the court can readily see if there has been a breach and conclude whether appropriate enforcement action should be taken. Make no mistake about it: we are not talking about a vague and cosy arrangement which is intended to eliminate all conflict.

And there is always a concern that however legislators sugar coat the pill, in time people will develop negative connotations of any new term and the same difficult, upsetting and sometimes intractable disputes by parents will return. SJ