Skip navigation

Department for Constitutional Affairs Family Justice Division Forum

Method(s) Used


Name of person who posted the project:

Kerry Ryan


Location of project:

United Kingdom


Date when the project started:

2006


Date when the project ended/project ongoing:

2006


Background to project:

The Department for Constitutional Affairs was responsible in government for upholding justice, rights and democracy. Its stated objectives were to:
  • Provide effective and accessible justice for all;
  • Ensure people�s rights and responsibilities;
  • Enhance democratic freedoms by modernising the law and the constitution.
    Her Majesty�s Courts Service (HMCS) was an executive agency of the DCA. Its purpose was to deliver the administration of the civil, family and criminal courts in England and Wales.
    The Family Justice division of the DCA covered the national policy on family law.

Purpose of project:

The forum was set up as part of the DCA�s consultation on proposed changes to the workings of the family courts. These aimed to:
  • Improve confidence in the family courts through public scrutiny;
  • Improve public understanding of court decisions;
  • Protect the privacy of those in court;
  • Provide rigorous enforcements of sanctions where privacy is breached;
  • Make simple, easily understood, consistent and workable arrangements.
    Discussion topics in the forum were set out by the policy team; they were:
  • Attendance of MPs, Lead Members and Inspectors in court;
  • Adoption Cases;
  • Media Attendance;
  • Providing Information to Children;
  • Protecting Privacy;
  • Practical Considerations.

Project activities:

Online deliberative forum.
Discussion was structured around topics that related to the consultation. Pre-moderation was carried out by the consultation team who logged on to the forum to post follow-up questions and address issues raised by participants.

The forum was readable by anyone, but registration was required to contribute. The intended core user-group was court users from England and Wales.

PUBLICITY
The forum was advertised on the DCA and Family Courts websites and via stakeholder meetings.
Press releases were sent out by the DCA and Family Justice division to trade and mainstream press.
There was no paid-for marketing.


Project results:

Strengths:
  • The forum engaged people who had experience of family courts;
  • Discussion remained open, even when contentious views were being put forward;
  • The consultation report made specific references to the online deliberations;
  • Participants were informed when the consultation report was published.

Potential for improvement:

  • The forum would have benefited from better planning and consistency of moderation;
  • Staff and resource allocation were insufficient to support the forum;
  • Consultation team could have recruited experts and opinion leaders to participate and facilitate discussion;
  • Regular feedback to participants via summaries should have been more regular and consistent;
  • More background information for participants and clearer guidance about policy process could have been provided to orientate users.

Contact details:

www.familycourtsforum.net

Source: 'Digital Dialogues Second Phase report' - Hansard Society/Ministry of Justice 2007
eDemocracy Programme,
Hansard Society,
40-43 Chancery Lane
London WC2A 1JA
e - edemocracy@hansard.lse.ac.uk
t - 020 7438 1222

Recommended Case Studies
Act on it (Forum Theatre)
GM Nation
Taking it on (Online Consultation)
The Walsall Participatory Appraisal Network
Udecide Newcastle
Your Health Your Care Your Say