« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
IMPROVING FAMILY LAW IN SCOTLAND: ANALYSIS OF WRITTEN CONSULTATION RESPONSES
CHAPTER THREE REFLECTIONS ON THE CONSULTATION PROCESS
The Research View
The consultation attracted a substantial volume of responses from a wide range of respondents representing both professional and lay views with no obvious gap in respondent type emerging.
The consultation topics touched upon issues of which many respondents had first-hand experience and the views of many reflected very strong emotions attached to this experience. Taken overall, the consultation responses were rounded in providing a broad mix of views from moral, personal, idealist, legal and pragmatic perspectives.
Whilst the consultation document served on the whole to facilitate a systematic ordering of topics and responses, it also appeared to create 2 particular difficulties for the consultation process. Firstly, although stating that there are a number of firm proposals which the Executive plans to include in a future Family Law Bill and highlighting that consultation responses were not specifically sought on these issues, these topics were placed at the beginning of the consultation response form and attracted the largest volume of comments. Secondly, and as pointed out by several respondents, one specific consultation question (4(a)) relating to the right of contact for grandparents, was not drafted as clearly as the other questions which perhaps led to some of the apparent inconsistency in arguments within individual responses to emerge for this item.
The Respondents' View
Several respondents from a range of different respondent categories commented on the consultation document itself and/or the consultation process. Many respondents welcomed the exercise with typical comments being:
"… commend the Executive for its efforts to consult widely on aspects of this complex subject" (Faith 162)
" it is entirely appropriate that family law should reflect the actuality of family structures in society today and to anticipate the needs of those families and the implications of varied family relationships" (Char 187)
However, criticisms were also levelled at the consultation process and document. Many respondents expressed their concern that in their view the overall package of measures proposed would run counter to traditional family units and marriage. For example:
" frankly, instead of protecting marriage and the family, you seem dedicated to its destruction, blatantly ignoring the best evidence" (Indiv 120)
" the proposals will not actually improve family law at all" (Char 175)
Contrasting with these opinions however, were the views of those who saw the proposals as serving to support and strengthen contemporary family life:
" encouraged that family law is being considered at this time and by the Executive's clear view that marriage has a special place in society" (Faith 318)
Other concerns focused on perceptions of:
Lack of weight of consultation in relation to the importance of the topics under discussion " consultation period too short" (Indiv 1) " the consultation does not go to the heart of a great many issues" (Indiv 43) Lack of focus on child's perspective " the consultation document does not approach the problems from the perspective of the child very often" (Faith 163) " wish to see the views of children and young people being much more explicitly set out as key principles throughout" (Char 262) " there is much in this consultation in respect of third parties entitlement to "rights" over children, with little consideration of the rights and entitlements of children to have a say in their own upbringing and destiny" (Misc 267) Lack of reference to LGBT and same sex couple relationships " invisibility of families with LGBT or same-sex couple elements in the consultation document" (Misc 202) " an example of making the consultation more inclusive would have been to make one example one of a non-heterosexual family structure" (Char 258) Difficulties with the wording of the consultation and format of questions posed As mentioned previously, the double-negative contained in question 4(a) of the consultation led to different interpretations by various respondents. In addition, there were a few concerns that the format of response paper, " is likely to discourage strategic, principled and where appropriate detailed responses" (Legal 208). Another comment was that the " survey" format " requires me to agree when this is broadly not my view" (Indiv 47). |
Despite such reservations of a minority of respondents, there was considerable evidence that some respondents put much effort into widening the consultative process by, for example:
- holding a consultation event to discuss the proposals (Char 128)
- canvassing a range of views from professionals within the organisation (Char 184)
- consulting with members at a local level (Legal 186)
- providing a collective view from a network of 39 groups (Misc 267)
- hosting a policy forum at which the consultation was discussed by over 30 staff (Char 317)
Many other examples existed of such wider distribution and discussion of the document and demonstrate a broad respondent base and significant depth of engagement with the consultation exercise.
The following 6 Chapters document the substance of the analysis, presenting the main issues, arguments and recommendations contained in the responses. These follow broadly the ordering of issues raised in the consultation document and outlined in the response form.
« Previous | Contents | Next »