FAMILY JUSTICE COURTS – INNOVATIONS, INITIATIVES AND PROGRAMMES
| Published date | 01 December 2018 |
| Date | 01 December 2018 |
| Author | Kevin NG LLB (National University of Singapore); Accredited Family Mediator (Singapore Mediation Centre); SIMI Certified Mediator (Singapore International Mediation Institute); Advocate and Solicitor (Singapore) |
| Citation | (2018) 30 SAcLJ 617 |
An Evolution over Time *
Through the years, the Singapore courts have increasingly recognised that the resolution of family disputes requires an interdisciplinary therapeutic jurisprudential approach. The seeds of such an approach were first planted in 1995 when the family and juvenile courts were brought together as a single division in the then Subordinate Courts. Court-based mediation was introduced and a counselling division was established as the social science arm of the courts. The establishment of the Family Justice Courts in 2014 ushered in a second wave of reforms. Fresh initiatives have been put in place to help spread therapeutic jurisprudential principles and techniques throughout the family justice ecosystem, providing an opportunity for all stakeholders to co-create a new paradigm.
1 The family is the basic unit of society, predating both state and government. Healthy families are essential for raising well-adjusted children, and building a healthy and flourishing society. The institution of marriage as a legal construct is integral in enforcing the family structure, and stipulating the obligations and duties of husbands and wives, parents and children. When marriages crumble and parties are unable to resolve their issues amicably, they turn to another institution for help, that is, the courts. The courts represent a fundamental institution of government, set up to perform the judicial function of helping parties resolve disagreements by upholding the rule of law.
2 Yet, family disputes are unlike commercial disputes. Underlying each legal dispute are fractured family ties and broken relationships that endure long after the legal dispute has played out in the courts. More importantly, family disputes often involve innocent children caught in the conflict. According to social science research, continued exposure to interparental conflict and violence during marriage can have long-lasting and adverse psychological, emotional and behavioural effects on children.2
3 From the mid-1990s, the Singapore courts have recognised that courts cannot dispense “justice” simpliciter when handling family-related disputes. It is not just about resolving the legal dispute which is important, but about how the courts go about helping parties resolve their disputes that can have a powerful impact on families and children. Recognising the limits of relying purely on legal jurisprudence, the courts have been applying principles of therapeutic jurisprudence, actively drawing on the knowledge, resources and expertise of specialists in other social science disciplines, to enhance and improve the way disputes are resolved and “justice” dispensed, whilst upholding the law.3
4 This article will chart the evolution of the various innovations and initiatives driven by the Family Justice Courts (“FJC”), working closely with government and community partners, in continuing efforts to improve the way the courts meet and serve the needs of distressed families and children. The evolution tells a story of the (continuing) co-creation efforts of all the stakeholders, as co-authors of the family justice ecosystem and co-labourers in the enterprise of building and creating something even better.
5 The court is the place where parties turn to in order to receive help to resolve their disputes which they have not been able to resolve themselves. The original court model which Singapore had inherited from the British was an adversarial adjudication model, developed in the common law tradition. In addition, family-related disputes were heard in several different fora. For example, divorce petitions were heard in the High Court, while juvenile matters were heard in the then Subordinate Courts.
6 Starting around 1995 or 1996, there was growing recognition that adversarial processes were not always best suited to resolve family disputes. Alternative dispute resolution (“ADR”) options which were initially introduced by the courts for reasons of expediency, eventually became the mainstay when the courts came to realise that their facilitative (instead of litigious) methodologies were in fact very appropriate for resolving already acrimonious family disputes.
7 On 1 March 1995, the Family and Juvenile Justice Division (“FJJD”) was established under the then Subordinate Courts (now known as State Courts) to bring together the Family Court and the Juvenile Court. Initially, the Family Court only heard cases involving applications for maintenance and protection orders under the Women's Charter. In 1996, divorce, matrimonial, maintenance and guardianship jurisdiction which used to reside in the High Court was transferred to the Family Court.4 The Juvenile Court dealt with proceedings under the Children and Young Persons Act (“CYPA”).5
8 Meanwhile, in the mid-1990s, concerned that Singaporeans were becoming excessively litigious, ADR methods (primarily, mediation) were promoted throughout the legal landscape.6 It was believed that mediation was particularly suited for Asian cultures which cherished social order and harmony.7 As such, in around 1994, court-based mediation was introduced in the civil courts.8
9 As a result of the successful run in the civil courts, court-based mediation was extended to family proceedings as well; and in 1996, amendments were passed to the Women's Charter to give the court the power to refer parties to mediation, with their consent.9 This was offered
as an alternative, more expedient and less confrontational option for the resolution of family disputes. The guiding philosophy was to resolve family disputes expeditiously and equitably, and to protect the welfare of children.10 Mediation was conducted on a “without prejudice” basis by district judges and deputy registrars, and also professional and volunteer mediators.10 The 1996 amendments also gave the court the power to direct parties to attend counselling for selected cases in the interests of the parties and/or their children. There was increasing awareness that there were inherent limits to pure judicial legal intervention, as the root cause of family problems could often be traced to psychological and emotional wounds.
11 An in-house court counselling unit known as FAMCARE11 was therefore formed in 1996. Meanwhile, the Psychological Services Unit (“PSU”) was formed in 2000 to support the work of the Juvenile Court.12
12 Shortly after, when the Family Court and Juvenile Court physically came together under one roof in the same building in 2001, FAMCARE and PSU merged to form the Family and Juvenile Justice Centre (“FJJC”). In a speech delivered by then Chief Justice Yong Pung How at the Opening of the Family and Juvenile Court Building on 11 January 2002, his Honour voiced the need for an integrated approach to family and juvenile issues; and articulated principles that were consistent with therapeutic and transformative justice:
[The] time has come for the Court to develop a new family and juvenile justice pathway … (taking) an integrated approach to tackling the problems of marital breakdown and poor parenting, which in turn lead to problems of juvenile delinquency, and, in a vicious circle, lead to problems of marital breakdown and poor parenting in the next generation …
13 Subsequently, in 2009, FJJC was renamed the Counselling and Psychological Services (“CAPS”). Today, CAPS professionals who are trained in disciplines such as psychology, social work and counselling,
are known as court family specialists. CAPS continues to play a pivotal role as the social science arm for family disputes in the courts. Through therapeutic interventions across the wide spectrum of family court work, court family specialists help identify and address underlying interests and issues behind legal disputes that are often critical for a sustainable resolution of the dispute. They provide short-term confidential counselling in divorce cases to help parties manage their emotions, explore the possibility of reconciliation, facilitate discussions between parties and assist them in arriving at informed decisions by addressing psychological and emotional issues underlying the marital breakdown, and provide families with psychological resources to aid them in the process of restoration even after the case has ended in court. 13 Court family specialists also prepare court-ordered evaluation reports for custody disputes14 and provide support to families involved in family violence cases.1514 The benefits of ADR became quickly apparent and in 2006, the Family Resolution Chambers (“FRC”) was set up. It is a dedicated division consolidating all the mediation programmes in FJJD.16 The resolution rate at FRC was promising,17 and this continued to change the mindset of family lawyers, “encouraging more lawyers and their clients to turn to mediation to resolve their disputes without resorting to full-fledged litigation”.18 More than just a case management tool, mediation was now recognised as a valuable and appropriate platform for parties to reach an amicable resolution sooner rather than later.
15 The effectiveness of mediation as a means of resolving disputes also led to the establishment of the Maintenance Mediation Chambers (“MMC”) in 2007. MMC was set up as a specialised unit to deal with applications for spousal and child maintenance, as well as the enforcement of maintenance payments, which typically involve litigants-in-person (“LIPs”). Mediations are routinely conducted for such applications, save for exceptional cases. They are conducted by trained staff mediators and volunteer mediators. The MMC scheme has resulted in a...
To continue reading
Request your trial