Language is a powerful tool that shapes our mindsets, influences how we think, and directs our behaviour. This holds especially true in family court proceedings, where adversarial and divisive language has prevailed historically.
This article delves into the transformative initiative inspired by the Family Solutions Group’s “What about me?” report and the subsequent commissioned report, “Language Matters.” Often called the five ‘P’s, the report advocates for a linguistic overhaul to shift mindsets from adversarial battles to safety, well-being, and child welfare.
The Language Matters Report
The “Language Matters” report responds to the inherent adversarial language in family court proceedings, emphasising the need for a fresh perspective on how family law is framed and communicated. Grounded in five core principles, the report calls for a move from accusatory language to one that fosters safety, well-being, and child welfare.
These principles, dubbed the five ‘P’s, include Plain English, Personalisation, Proportionality, Problem-Solving, and Positive Futures.
Plain English
One of the primary tenets of the report is adopting Plain English, discouraging legal jargon and promoting language that is easily understood by all parties involved. This shift aims to make family law more accessible, particularly for those who may not be legally trained or have English as their first language.
Personalisation
The report advocates for a shift towards more humane and personal language. It recommends using family names instead of legal labels, recognising the dehumanising impact of formal labels in the context of family court proceedings. The importance of referring to family members and how they choose to be addressed is underscored.
Proportionality
Acknowledging the diversity of family court cases, the report suggests tailoring language proportionate to the issues identified in the risk assessment process. While severe cases may necessitate more formal language, it encourages a framework in less severe cases that promotes cooperation, accommodates differing perspectives, and focuses on future solutions rather than past conflicts.
Problem-Solving
The language employed in family court should foster problem-solving mindsets rather than perpetuate adversarial battles. The report argues that using language associated with warfare leads to aggression and defensiveness, hindering the potential for constructive solutions. It emphasises the importance of a collaborative language shift to encourage parental responsibility over parental rights.
Positive Futures
The overarching theme of the report is the promotion of future-focused mindsets. The report aims to create a paradigm where families can thrive following separation by redirecting language away from past recriminations and towards positive futures. This shift, it suggests, will lead to a more hopeful and cooperative atmosphere.
Implementation and Future Steps
The report proposes several avenues for implementing these language changes, from updates to court forms, case headings, and the Family Procedure Rules to a broader public education campaign. It calls for the active involvement of legal professionals, magistrates, and court staff in embracing and enforcing these language shifts. The report also suggests a review of directories that promote adversarial language, encouraging a revaluation of how family law professionals are portrayed.
Language in Family Court Proceedings: A Comprehensive Guide
Building upon the insightful research conducted by FJYPB’s ‘Mind your language’ paper, let’s delve into specific language changes recommended by young people and legal professionals. It addresses the challenges of current terminology and provides alternatives to create a more compassionate and constructive environment.
Feedback from Young People
The FJYPB’s ‘Mind your language’ paper highlighted crucial comments from young people regarding the use of language in family court proceedings. Three key points stand out:
Recognition of Personhood
Current Language: “I am not a case or a number. I am a person, and this is my family.”
Suggested Alternative: Reframe case titles and headings to focus on family names rather than adversarial terms like “vs” or “between.”
Personalisation
Current Language: “I would like to be referred to by my name. These proceedings are about my life.”
Suggested Alternative: Allow participants to choose how they wish to be referred to, promoting a more personalised and respectful approach.
Clarity over Legalese
Current Language: “Please don’t use acronyms or legal terms, as I don’t understand what they mean.”
Suggested Alternative: Minimise the use of acronyms and, when necessary, provide clear definitions for better comprehension.
Universal Terms to Avoid
Specific terms, often entrenched in legal discourse, were universally highlighted as unhelpful and should be avoided:
Battle Language
Unhelpful Terms: ‘Shah v Shah,’ ‘The other side,’ ‘Custody battle.’
Suggested Alternatives: Replace battle-related terminology with factual language to maintain a constructive atmosphere, even in severe issues.
Custody and Contact
Unhelpful Terms: ‘Custody,’ ‘Contact.’
Suggested Alternatives: Replace ‘custody’ with ‘parental responsibility’ and ‘contact’ with more descriptive terms like ‘a child’s time with a parent’ or ‘parent time.’
Problematic Use of ‘Position’
Unhelpful Term: ‘Position Statement.’
Suggested Alternatives: Replace with ‘Approach’ or consider filing a joint ‘Statement of Common Agreement’ or ‘Interests Statement’ to encourage problem-solving.
Glossaries for Language Change
To facilitate language change, we propose glossaries for four categories influencing families in separation:
Language of Court in Written Form
Case Titles and Headings: Use family names, listing all members.
How People Are Named: Allow participants to choose how they wish to be referred to.
Acronyms: Minimize usage and provide clear definitions.
Language of Court Spoken
Introductions: Greet all participants to foster inclusivity.
Form of Address: Professionals use their preferred title and surname; participants decide on a form of address.
Language Used by Solicitors:
Communication with Clients: Emphasize the well-being of children and use respectful language.
Communication with Other Party: Consider the impact of words; prefer phone calls over letters.
Purpose of Solicitors’ Letters: Focus on constructive proposals for change and consensus.
Enforcement of Guidelines and Charters
Despite existing guidelines and charters, their enforcement remains a challenge within the legal profession. Advocacy for implementing these standards is crucial, ensuring accountability among legal professionals to adhere to protocols.
Language plays a pivotal role in shaping the narrative of family court proceedings. By implementing these suggested language changes, we can foster an environment that prioritises empathy, collaboration, and the well-being of everyone involved, especially the children. It’s time to create a linguistic landscape that reflects the ideals of a compassionate and constructive family justice system.
