The first of the new petitions is PE2166, which was lodged by John Watson McMaster. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to establish a standardised timeframe for civil proceedings that relate to child custody cases, including a 14-day timeframe for proof hearings. The SPICe briefing explains that section 11 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 gives courts various powers to decide an issue in a dispute about parental responsibilities and rights.
The briefing states that relatively few section 11 cases tend to get as far as a proof hearing. Instead, they are typically settled during child welfare hearings, which are relatively informal, private proceedings. The briefing also notes that there have been long-standing policy concerns about delays in cases that affect children, including in section 11 cases, and inconsistencies in how such cases are managed. To address that, the Children (Scotland) Act 2020 will, when in force, require courts to consider whether any delay in proceedings would negatively affect a child’s welfare. The length of delay is not specified in the legislation, with the explanatory notes for the bill stating that the length
“would vary from case to case.”
The Scottish Government’s response to the petition states that it does not consider the specific asks of the petition to be practical or achievable. Its submission notes that a standardised timetable would not recognise the different complexities in individual cases. The submission also highlights the case management rules that are in place for family actions, which includes a key aim of bringing greater judicial case management to resolve cases more quickly.
The petitioner has provided a written submission calling for the committee to reconsider the timeframe that was set out in the petition. Following a meeting with the Scottish Government, he is now calling for a considered timeframe of four to six weeks rather than 14 days for a proof hearing. He states that that timeframe is pragmatic, because it aligns with the operational realities of the courts while still drastically accelerating the process. He also states that the timeframe would protect child welfare by prioritising swift resolution and improve system efficiency by reducing opportunistic and malicious litigation.
The petitioner’s submission states that the core issue is not a lack of rules but a systemic failure to enforce them consistently. He believes that the social damage that is caused by those procedural failures is measurable not only in the immense emotional toll on families but in the long-term costs to public services, including mental health support and social work intervention.
Do colleagues have any comments or suggestions for action in the light of what we have received?