‘It's good to talk’ – judicial allocation decision making and the Family Court

References

• Allocation and Transfer of Proceedings Order. (2008). SI 2008/2836.
   Google Scholar
• Ambrus, A., Greiner, B., & Pathak, P. (2009). Group versus individual decision-making: Is there a shift?  No 91, Economics Working Papers from Institute for Advanced Study, School of Social Science. Persistent Link: http://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:ads:wpaper:0091. Download (external link): http://www.sss.ias.edu/publications/papers/econpaper91.pdf. [Last accessed 09/07/2014].
   Google Scholar
• Arksey, H., & O'Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8, 19–32. doi:10.1080/1364557032000119616.
   Google Scholar
• Boeije, H. (2002). A purposeful approach to the constant comparative method in the analysis of qualitative interviews. Quality and Quantity, 36, 391–409. doi:10.1023/A:1020909529486.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Booth, Dame Margaret DBE. (1996). Avoiding delay in children act cases. London: Lord Chancellor's Department.
   Google Scholar
• Brophy, J. (2006). Research review: Child care proceedings under the children Act 1989 London: Department for Constitutional Affairs Research Series 5/06.
   Google Scholar
• Children (Allocation of Proceedings) Order. (1991). SI 1991/1677.
   Google Scholar
• Cowan, D., & Hitchings, E. (2007). ‘Pretty boring stuff’: District judges and housing possession proceedings. Social & Legal Studies, 16, 363–382. doi:10.1177/0964663907079764.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Creswell, J. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches (2nd edn.). London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Department for Constitutional Affairs. (2005a). Judicial review team, thematic review of the protocol for judicial case management in public law children act cases. Judicial Resources Review.
   Google Scholar
• Department for Constitutional Affairs. (2005b). Focusing judicial resources appropriately – the right judge for the right case. Judicial Resources Review.
   Google Scholar
• Department for Constitutional Affairs. (2006). Review of the child care proceedings system in England and Wales. London: The Stationery Office.
   Google Scholar
• Department for Constitutional Affairs Select Committee Report. (2006). Family justice: The operation of the family courts revisited, HC 1086. London: The Stationery Office Limited.
   Google Scholar
• Designated Family Judge for Greater Manchester. (2012). Gate Keeping and Allocation Pilot Greater Manchester 2012: Public Law Care and Supervision Proceedings: Explanatory Note: Judiciary of England and Wales.
   Google Scholar
• Doughty, J., & Murch, M. (2012). Judicial independence and the restructuring family courts and their support services. Child and Family Law Quarterly, 24, 333–354.
   Google Scholar
• Eekelar, J., & Maclean, M. (2013). Family justice: The work of family judges in uncertain times. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Fielding, N. G. (2011). Judges and their work. Social & Legal Studies, 20, 97–115. doi:10.1177/0964663910388857.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Finer Committee. (1974). Report of the committee on one-parent families, Cmnd 5629. London: HMSO.
   Google Scholar
• Heenan, A., & Heenan, S. (2012). Norgrove and after: An overview of the Family Justice Review and the government's response. Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, 34, 381–394. doi:10.1080/09649069.2012.750486.
   Google Scholar
• Hoggett, B. (1986). Family courts or family law reform – which should come first? Legal Studies, 6(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-121X.1986.tb00334.x.
   Google Scholar
• Judicial Review Team. (2005). Thematic review of judicial protocol. Download (external link): http://www.familylaw.co.uk/system/uploads/attachments/0000/2140/Care_protocol.pdf [last accessed 09/07/2014].
   Google Scholar
• Lord Chancellor's Department. (2002). Scoping study on delay in children act cases findings and action taken. London: Lord Chancellor's Department.
   Google Scholar
• Mack, K., & Anleu, S. (2007). ‘Getting through the list’: Judgecraft and legitimacy in the lower courts. Social & Legal Studies, 16, 341–361. doi:10.1177/0964663907079763.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Masson, J. (2008). Controlling costs and maintaining services – the reform of legal aid fees for care proceedings. Child and Family Law Quarterly, 20, 425–448.
   Google Scholar
• Masson, J. (2010). Judging the Children Act 1989: courts and the administration of family justice. Journal of Children's Services, 5, 52–59. doi:10.5042/jcs.2010.0301.
   Google Scholar
• Masson, J., Pearce, J., Bader, K., Joyner, J., Marsden, J., & Westlake, D. (2008). Care profiling study ministry of justice research report 4/08. London: Ministry of Justice.
   Google Scholar
• McKeigue, B., & Beckett, C. (2004). Care proceedings under the 1989 children Act: Rhetoric and reality. British Journal of Social Work, 34, 831–849. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bch104.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McLaughlin, H., Newton, K., & Potter, A. (2013). Evaluation of the greater Manchester Gatekeeping and allocation pilot: Care proceedings. Manchester Metropolitan University. ISBN: 978-1-905476-86-2. http://www.rihsc.mmu.ac.uk/docs/MMU Evaluation of the Gtr Mcr Gatekeeping and Allocation Pilot 07082013.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Michaelsen, L. K., Watson, W. E., & Black, R. H. (1989). A realistic test of individual versus group consensus decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 834–839. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.74.5.834.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ministry of Justice. (2008). The public law outline. Guide to case management in public law Proceedings. London: Ministry of Justice.
   Google Scholar
• Ministry of Justice. (2010). Public law outline 2010 practice direction: Public law proceedings guide to case management. London: Ministry of Justice.
   Google Scholar
• Ministry of Justice. (2011a). Family justice review interim report. London: Ministry of Justice/Department for Education.
   Google Scholar
• Ministry of Justice. (2011b). Family justice review final report. London: Ministry of Justice/Department for Education.
   Google Scholar
• Ministry of Justice. (2013a). Family justice board action plan. London: Ministry of Justice.
   Google Scholar
• Ministry of Justice. (2013b). Family justice board action plan to improve the performance of the family justice system 2013-15. London: Ministry of Justice.
   Google Scholar
• Ministry of Justice. (2013c). Practice direction 36C – Pilot scheme: Care and supervision proceedings and other proceedings under part 4 of the Children Act 1989.
   Google Scholar
• Ministry of Justice. (2013d). Revised PLO pilot practice direction 12A – care, supervision and other part 4 proceedings: Guide to Case Management.
   Google Scholar
• Ministry of Justice. (2014). Practice direction 12a care, supervision and other part 4 proceedings: guide to case management.
   Google Scholar
• Ministry of Justice Analytical Series. (2014). Action research to explore the implementation and early impacts of the revised Public Law Outline (PLO). https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/action-research-to-explore-the-implementation-and-early-impacts-of-the-revised-public-law-outline [last accessed 09/07/2014].
   Google Scholar
• Ministry of Justice/Department for Education. (2012). The government response to the family justice review: A system with children and families at its heart  Cm 8273.
   Google Scholar
• Moorhead, R., & Cowan, D. (2007). Judgecraft: An introduction. Social & Legal Studies, 16, 315–320. doi:10.1177/0964663907079761.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moran-Ellis, J., Alexander, V. D., Cronin, A., Dickinson, M., Fielding, J., Sleney, J., & Thomas, H. (2004). ‘Following a thread – an approach to integrating multi-method data sets. Paper given at ESRC Research Methods Programme, Methods Festival Conference, Oxford, July 2004.
   Google Scholar
• Moran-Ellis, J., Alexander, V. D., Cronin, A., Dickinson, M., Fielding, J., Sleney, J., & Thomas, H. (2006). Triangulation and integration: Processes, claims and implications. Qualitative Research, 6, 45–59. doi:10.1177/1468794106058870.
   Google Scholar
• Paterson. (2013). Final judgment: The last law lords and the supreme court. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Paterson, A. (1982). The law lords. London and Basingstoke: The Macmillan Press Ltd.
   Google Scholar
• President of the Family Division and Lord Chancellor. (2003). The protocol for judicial case management in public law children Act cases. London: Lord Chancellor's Department.
   Google Scholar