Editorial – 46(3)

On 4 July 2024, Britain went to the polls in a General Election. The Labour Party, led by Sir Keir Starmer, was elected with a large majority of seats in the House of Commons. The manifesto on which the Labour Party was elected focused on ‘change’. Within that manifesto, there are a number of relevant passages for social welfare and family lawyers which will no doubt provide a range of opportunities for discussion and analysis in this Journal over the coming years. Some examples of potential reforms which are relevant for readers of the Journal include the new Labour Government’s commitment to ‘strengthening the rights and protections available to women in co-habiting couples’ (2024, p. 68) as well as their focus on reducing violence against women and girls by half (2024, p. 67). In addition, the manifesto pledges that women’s equality ‘will be at the heart’ of the Government’s plans with policy proposals including protections from maternity and menopause discrimination as well as plans to reduce the gender pay gap. There are also proposals to review Universal Credit and deal with housing, such as improving building safety. In relation to the private rental sector, the manifesto outlines that the Government will, inter alia, abolish section 21 ‘no fault’ evictions (2024, p. 79) and extend ‘Awaab’s Law’ (requiring landlords to fix reported health hazards within a tenant’s home within specified timescales) to the private sector (2024, p. 80).

In providing a brief overview of the contents of this issue, I will turn first to our relatively new Debates in Social Welfare section which provides readers with four fascinating pieces on a range of issues. The first contribution is a full length article from Carla Reeson. This is an ethnographic study of personal housing plans under the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 and provides a detailed empirical treatment of the statute. The second full length article in this section is from Freya Cole Norton who draws on content analysis and interviews to provide an empirical study of local welfare assistance schemes across England. The final two pieces in this section comprise two shorter articles. The first is a piece by Helen Carr and Mark Jordan reflecting on their experiences of being involved in Southampton City Council’s Scrutiny Inquiry into its private rented sector. Drawing on their experience, they argue that scrutiny inquiries have potential as a route for social welfare scholars seeking to influence the lives of the poorest and most vulnerable. The final Debates in Social Welfare piece is an article by Gregg Olsen in which he considers the third policy pillar in welfare state research: protective legislation. In doing so, he sets out the scope for a future special issue to be carried by this Journal next year (Vol 47) which will engage with third pillar legislation as part of the welfare state. For readers interested in contributing to this special, please contact Gregg Olsen using the contact details provided in the article.

In this issue, our General and Case Commentary sections contain a wide mix of topics, with our case comments considering issues including parentage and the Care Act 2014. The General Section opens with a piece by Matthew Jay who discusses how discovering health and social determinants of family law proceedings could inform upstream interventions and inform measures to mitigate the adverse health effects of legal processes on vulnerable families. The second piece by Genevieve Heard and colleagues looks at family law services in a large community sector organisation in Victoria, Australia, and examines the use and misuse of ‘everyday’ communication technologies (CT) such as instant messaging, email and social media through mixed methods data collection. It suggests that whilst certain CTs are used more than others, they are generally widely used for co-parenting among post-separation service clients.

Australia is the focus for the third article in our General section with a piece by Emily Schindeler examining the records of all successful appeals of parenting orders under the new regime of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Division 1 Appellate Jurisdiction with the aim of her paper being to contribute to the understanding of how the administration of the family law system currently performs in the resolution of contentious parenting order disputes.

The final two articles in the General section considers the issues of child sexual abuse and adoption. The first of these is by Elizabeth Dalgarno and colleagues who undertook a qualitative study into the experiences of mothers and children in private family law proceedings when child sexual abuse was reported, whilst the final article by Stella Bolaki and Samantha Davey explores the potential benefits of artist’s book workshops for mothers who have experienced grief following the adoption of their children without consent.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).