Popular (and Parliamentary) imagination often blames the ills of the Family Court on overly adversarial lawyers. However, qualitative research has long shown a more complicated picture: Most lawyers embrace a “hybrid” model, working hard to resolve disputes, melding duties to client with an allegiance to the reconstituted family. However, research has also raised concerns that some lawyers go too far, bullying vulnerable clients and urging unsafe settlements.
This presentation describes findings from qualitative interviews with sixteen experienced NZ Family Court lawyers on their ethical allegiances when working for parents in child-care disputes. It finds they adhere strongly to the hybrid ideal. Questions explicitly drilled into their ethical duties, finding they had a very different sense of professional responsibility to the point that they stated conventional legal ethics were unsuited to the Family Court and made for a “bad” Family lawyer. However, the study also found (as have previous studies) that overbearing paternalistic conduct is normal, that they frequently undermine client confidentiality and agency, and also that their paternalism is founded on their sense of clients’ incompetence to make good decisions. Their advice often included areas in which they were unqualified, including child development, child abuse and mental health and addiction, intensifying the risks of their overbearing behaviour.
The paper suggests that these behaviours, from overbearing clients to disclosing confidential information, are unintended consequences of the hybrid model which has strained lawyers’ traditional ethical framework while providing no sufficient alternative. It suggests that work needs to start on developing a new ethical model and to train lawyers to undertake work for which they have no proper education.

International law requires decisionmakers to involve children in custody and contact proceedings, either directly or through an intermediary. In both Belgium and the Netherlands steps have been taken to ensure that children as of a certain age can participate in contact and custody proceedings either directly, or indirectly for instance through a guardian ad litem. In case of direct participation through hearings in the family court, there is debate in both countries about the question whether the child can bring a support person of their own choosing. In this context a number of other questions arise: If the child can bring a support person of their own choosing, can this be any person, including a parent that is involved in the proceedings, or are there guidelines that prevent the child from bringing a person too close to the case? And are there guidelines as to what (if anything) such a support person may tell others about what was discussed between the judge and the child?

Recent Belgian and Dutch research among children shows that children feel unsupported in the current system. In response, Dutch courts started a pilot with a buddy system. This buddy is an independent person who can answer questions and come to the hearing with the child. The Belgian legislator recently strengthened the rights of children during hearings in the family court. It is now possible for the child to bring a support person to the hearing with the family judge. Additionally, pilot projects have been launched in Flemish family courts in this regard. In this paper we aim to make a comparative study of the possibilities for children to bring a support person to the hearing with the judge and the safeguards that are in place to ensure child centered use of support persons.