Editorial
Newsday
Saira Lakhan, president of the Assembly of Southern Lawyers (ASL) fired a signal flare of warning to the Judiciary on May 1 about the family courts in their districts.
The Family Court was established to offer a more welcoming face for the administration of justice, emphasising the safety and support that families should expect from the Judiciary.
Ms Lakhan pointed to a reality of unfortunate and lengthy delays in administrative matters, issues with complying with statutory timelines and even more troubling, lapses that put citizens seeking the safety and protection of the court at risk.
The first family court opened in May 2004 as an experiment in managing family matters in the St George West magisterial district.
Key to its operations was an attempt to replace the cold menace of the civil and criminal court system with a softer approach.
Mediation and social intervention were offered as conflict resolution options before formal court matters were heard before a magistrate or judge.
The court emphasises conciliation and counsel over adversarial combativeness, but it is also called on to manage matters which by their very nature are both emotionally and physically challenging, such as protection orders and divorce proceedings.
After 21 years, there are only three formal family court locations in Trinidad and Tobago, the original institution in Port of Spain and one each in Princes Town and Scarborough.
The concept has also been rolled out to the High Court through its Family and Children Division, which has a presence at the Hall of Justice, the Waterfront Judicial Centre, the San Fernando Supreme Court, Arima’s Judicial Centre and Children’s Courts in Port of Spain, Fyzabad and Tobago.
These courts have also been key to driving the CourtPay initiative as a solution to core family order issues, such as the payment of maintenance.
Given the positive outlook that accompanied the foundation of the Family Court system, the issues that Ms Lakhan has raised are even more troubling.
An accusation that the court was becoming “less responsive, less transparent and more delayed” is a troubling assessment of a concept that was founded on the idea that delicate family matters need sensitive, prompt and appropriate attention from TT’s legal system.
It should not be possible that a court system based on those principles could order an interim protection order under the Domestic Violence Act only to have that order expire before the matter can be heard.
Clearly this is not a case of bad mind, though the ASL has raised concerns about docketing systems and the performance of masters in the Family Court system.
The Judiciary has its own well-documented and clearly articulated issues that continue to be spottily addressed, but families, the fabric of our nation, should not be unnecessarily put at risk or inconvenience in the very courts designed to make their cases more humane.
It’s an issue the new government, under its administration of justice arms, may want to urgently address among its early assignments.
