Ministry of Justice
The number of separated parents applying to court to resolve their child arrangements disputes - such as where children should live - has been increasing each year since legal aid was abolished for private law matters in 2013.
As of 2017, cases where neither parent had legal representation had increased 50%, while there was a decrease in out-of-court dispute resolutions - for instance, mediation saw a 50% reduction in intake meetings.
The increasing demand on the Family Court causes delays for vulnerable families who really need to attend court - along with increasing pressure and costs for the courts. Evidence also shows that court entrenches conflict between parents, leading to less sustainable agreements, which in turn has a negative impact on children.
I led the design as part of a multidisciplinary team with embedded policy members, partnering with representatives from Cafcass, working together to develop a coherent service alongside a new policy initiative in Family Justice.
We built on existing research from the Ministry of Justice and Cafcass to get a head start. Through a synthesis of quantitative and qualitative data we identified behavioural patterns, along with gaps in knowledge, which required further investigation to discover and understand the problems and opportunities.
I mapped the existing experience, including needs, touchpoints, systems, costs and pain points, and worked with stakeholders to identify opportunities and prioritise problems throughout the journey.
I planned and executed workshops for the core team and stakeholders to generate ideas and build consensus. For example, I created condensed variations of the design sprint focused around prioritised problems in order to generate and rapidly develop future ideas for research with separating parents.
We tested and iterated solutions around a series of themed hypotheses - interaction between parents (including high conflict relationships), information and guidance, making informed choices, and the process of applying to court.
In the case that our hypotheses were false - and user needs were not being met - we were trusted as a team to recommend parking initiatives based on evidence.
We validated existing insights - for example, there is a lack of adequate information for separating parents, and that they find it difficult to engage and communicate with each other.
We also discovered fresh insights - for example abolishing legal aid had inadvertently promoted attending court without legal representation as the cheapest option for resolving child arrangement disputes; while mediation was perceived as costly (also no longer eligible for Legal Aid), time consuming, and with no guarantee of resolution.
The wider team and stakeholders developed a deep understanding of the needs of separating parents and policy initiative. By understanding how parents are currently achieving their needs, we produced a coherent vision for a future service - joining together proposed and existing services to help separating parents make suitable, sustainable child arrangements.
The court application (“C100”) form was identified and prioritised to develop further, in which I led the design. The existing solution was a lengthy, complicated, paper-only form that was full of legal jargon. In order to attend court, applicants have to show evidence in their application that they have attempted mediation, which had come to be perceived as a hurdle in which the other parent wasn’t engaged in the process - contrary to the intent of the policy initiative.
Working with Andrew has been a pleasure. His character makes it easy to plan and adapt to different policy steers. He always has a positive attitude and I really hope I am able to work with him again in the future.
Mohini Jannath Policy Manager at Ministry of Justice