The withdrawal of legal aid for litigation in family disputes is - subject to qualifications below - to be welcomed.

 In fact, children whose parents cannot agree about who and how they are to be cared for will benefit. Legal aid  given to one or both of their parents isn't mostly (there are exceptions) to help them come to child-centred parenting agreements. It's spent to provide  parents with agents to promote their own advantage and control often by trying to rubbish the character, conduct and parenting of the other. 'Winning' in an actual hearing is only part of this. Its also about exhausting the emotional, practical and financial capacity of the other party to continue. And if the State - in the form of legal aid - pays just one party to do this its an immense advantage, especially if the other party has to do or fund their part of the work themselves.

Nearly two thirds of applicants for legal aid for family disputes are women.It has therefore been taken as an attack on their 'rights' Of course there may be a few cases of and 'upstairs-downstairs' nature where a poor servant girl needs help to combat the wealth, influence and education of the cad who got her pregnant. Or other, more modern., equivalents.

However, in the normal run of cases the person who has to fund their own representation is only a little more prosperous that the state-aided one. And it's not as if, in the general run of cases, the women are at any other systematic disadvantage either  - in education, lack of confidence, or their suffering public or agency or judicial hostility to them. If anything, the other way around.

On gender equality grounds, legal aid should be even handed by sex. Given the damage litigation does to relationship between the parents and thereby their ability to co-operate, its best that neither get it.

There are, however, very important provisos. The first is that there does need to be protection of the vulnerable, and that does not seem to be provided for. It might be learning difficulties, or language problems, or it might be 'inequality of arms' such as a private individual taking on  a  or public or private corporation, rather than another private individual much like themselves.

The second is that while this move will get rid of one barrier to child-centred outcomes, there is no certainty that there will be anyone in the system to act as an advocate for the child. They are the ones that are vulnerable, they are the ones who are most damaged by a war between their parents. This is a massive hole that needs to be filled. Currently it is partly the remit of CAFCASS, even if not done well. If their services are withdrawn from this area there will be a terrible, terrible void.