This is a personal blog, and not an official Association one.

the start of this is less 'Shared Parenting' than it becomes.

No-one is going to dissent from views about how vile this man is, but the objections to the way his defence was run mostly seem to miss the point.

He was not conducting his own case, that was in the hands of his lawyer. Now lawyers, supposedly, have an ethical code which puts promoting 'Justice' and - in the family courts, child welfare, above the interests of their client or themselves.

And where was that ethical code? One has to ask whether his advocate did not have his eye on one, or both, of two things. The first being that the judge might stop his cross-examination of the Dowler family on the grounds of it being inappropriate, offensive and distressing. This might then trigger an appeal on the grounds of interference with the defence and an acquittal on that technicality. That did not work, but the second one might. Namely for the lawyer to attract more clients who might hope to get off, because witnesses might see that treatment they could expect and refuse to testify.

The way forward may not be to reduce the rights to defendants, but have a better - and enforced - code of conduct for lawyers. If they were denied fees or their right to practice was suspended....

 But to come to the family courts, finally. These, like the criminal courts, are run on adversarial lines. Lawyers see it as being to the advantage of their clients and themselves to throw mud at their opponents. If they do it less effectively than Bellfield's, it may be as much to do with lesser skill than better motives. Well, there are mercifully exceptions and there are attempts, such as those of 'Resolution' to do better, but they have an uphill task. The structures are against them. All too often tensions and disagreements between parents are inflamed as a result of their lawyers trying to fight for their advantage. Parents often find that co-operative work is easier if they can by-pass lawyers and the courts.

This is why the withdrawal of legal aid in the family courts will result in better outcomes for children. But there should not simply be a void. There should be a service that advocates for the children, and helps parents to come to be best arrangements for the children. Rather than try and maximise their own advantage and control.