Editorial

In June 2017, the Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law published a special issue on ‘The post-LASPO landscape: challenges for family law’ (2017, 39(2)). The issue stressed the impact that austerity was having on family law and its users and identified the need for ‘reflexivity and innovation’ in responding to the challenges brought to bear by the Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act (LASPO) (Mant and Wallbank 2017, p. 151). As this issue goes to press, the Ministry of Justice has just published its review into the impact of the dramatic cuts to legal aid (Ministry of Justice 2019b). It has also set out in a Legal Support Action Plan (Ministry of Justice 2019a) its intentions going forward. One positive development is in the social welfare arena, where face-to-face early legal advice will be piloted and evaluated against technological solutions. Other encouraging proposals include the expansion of legal aid to cover special guardianship orders in private family law and increasing the scope of legal aid for separated migrant children in immigration cases.

However, other elements of the action plan speak to the rather ambiguous goal of ensuring that individuals can access the right legal support at the right time through means such as developing online legal support tools, improving signposting advice and encouraging ‘the delivery of legal support through technology.’ (Ministry of Justice 2019a, p. 6). All laudable aims, but less than one third of the UK population are ‘digital self-servers – people who have the skills, access and motivation to use digital services unaided’. (Ministry of Justice 2016, para 7.1.3) Furthermore, Trinder et al’s research report into litigants in person in the family courts highlights the difficulties and limitations of online legal information for litigants in person. (Trinder et al. 2014, p. 89–91) Hence, it could be suggested that the post-LASPO review begins to look like a nicely wrapped present under the Christmas tree: it has the potential for some hopes and expectations being realised and there is the promise of better things to come, but there is always the underlying possibility that it will leave its recipient disappointed.

It is with LASPO in mind that we turn to the first two papers in this issue. The focus of Kayleigh Richardson and Ana Speed’s paper is not on the impact that LASPO has had on vulnerable individuals and groups, but instead on the impact of the cuts on the family court itself. The second paper by Penelope Russell, draws on interview data with family law solicitors to examine their willingness to innovate in the new legal services landscape; a landscape framed by cuts to legal aid, increasing numbers of litigants in person, increasing use of technology and a fragmented legal services market.

The next two papers have an international dimension. The paper by Kristin Natalier and Priscilla Dunk-West looks at the perspectives of Australian parents in determining what is a good post-separation relationship. In drawing on qualitative interview data to explore the question how separated parents define a good post-separation parental relationship, the authors suggest that a typology can be identified: allied, arm’s length and autonomous relationships. They further examine how socio-legal expectations of good relationships align with those of separated parents. In our fourth article, Jill Berrick and colleagues explore children’s and parents’ involvement in child protection proceedings through a cross-national comparison of the views of judicial decision-makers.

Continuing with the theme of parenting, Brian Tobin’s paper examines the recent legislative proposals for regulating surrogacy arrangements in Ireland. This piece explores the route towards surrogacy reform and critiques the new hybrid model that has been proposed in Part 6 of the General Scheme of the Assisted Human Reproduction Bill 2017. He argues that the legislative proposals are so restrictive that they are more likely to discourage future surrogacy arrangements rather than facilitate them. The paper is a timely reminder of the important question of how to achieve a balance between the rights of the surrogate, the intending parents and the intended child.