The introduction of divorce into the Sheriff Court in 1984 had a dramatic effect on the number of ordinary civil cases in the court. The sudden inflow of divorce cases (something in the region of 13,000) meant that the rules of the Sheriff Court and the way in which cases were processed by the court required considerable change and not least to handle the immense pressure on limited physical resources.

Apart from the sheer volume of these cases it was identified, at least in the larger sheriff courts, that on each occasion that an action might be subject of a motion for contact or custody, a different sheriff could be dealing with that case. Also it was noticed that this problem resulted in repetitive submissions to different sheriffs at different times with different results. Some sheriffs began a practice of trying to retain such cases so that an interim order for contact or residence could be capable of being reviewed. It was felt that there might be merit in changing this procedure. At the same time the legislation began to focus more on the welfare of the children in broken relationships rather than the parents.

It seemed that there was scope for a rather different approach. I adopted a practice of speaking to the parents, of trying to get a consensus about their children and generally acting as a mediator. In 1996 there was a meeting of some of the Glasgow sheriffs and the Family Law Association in which inter alia specialisation was mooted – but at that time the prevailing view of most sheriffs was against it.

In 1998 I went to a conference in Vancouver and was absolutely staggered, although perhaps I should not have been, to find that in almost every other jurisdiction in the civilised word there are specialist family courts, specialist family judges and their approach more akin to mediation than confrontation was the norm.

Within a day of my return from the conference I went to see the sheriff principal and asked if I could set up a specialised family court in Glasgow. I was all ready with my brief and argument but Ted Bowen just said “Excellent idea I am about to start a commercial court here and your idea will dovetail very nicely into my plans for that. Just get on with it.” So I did – I recruited three other sheriffs who I thought had the communication and empathetic skills to deal with these cases in the way I had been doing and we set off. We drew up various documents to explain to the parties and practitioners what our objectives were and made sure they were disseminated to all. The following was the outline and ethos of the new initiative.

The Glasgow Family Court initiative seeks to remove family cases from the adversarial theatre of traditional court techniques. The principle is that resolution of these cases can best be sought by negotiation, discussion and a sympathetic and conciliatory approach by the bench. A dedicated team of four sheriffs deals so far as possible with all cases in which it is thought that this approach might be appropriate.

A particular sheriff is designated to each case and remains with the case until it is resolved or it is necessary to seek other resolution methods. Furthermore, that sheriff is available to deal with future problems that may arise even after apparent resolution. In addition it is hoped that by removing the stress of confrontational legal processes for the benefit of the children and the parents the actual cost to the parties or the legal aid fund will be reduced significantly.

It was in my view and also those pioneering the scheme that the same sheriff should deal with the case throughout. It is with disappointment that we find that this is not now the case in the majority of courts. 

Another innovation which we made was to have regular monthly meetings of the family sheriffs, the family court clerks and representatives of the family practitioners in which we would review and discuss the ongoing nature of the initiative. This enabled us all to identify problems early and take steps to work round them.

When Lord Gill produced his report on his inquiry into the civil court process in Scotland he advised that the interventionist approach which we had adopted in the family court should be extended to all Sheriff Court cases and the case management aspect of the work in the family court should be used in other areas of court practice. It is, on reflection, gratifying that the interventionist approach which was subject to much criticism amongst other sheriffs has now been adopted as the proper way to deal with court actions. Court managers were reluctant to use the specialisation aspect of the model for fear of losing resources elsewhere but over time the court managers realised that the procedures of the Glasgow model far from negatively impacting the court programme were having a positive effect in reducing the number of abortive proof diets – as the expense perhaps of more frequent CHWs.

We would like to think that the Glasgow model, though perhaps not repeated completely elsewhere, had the desired effect at changing the approach to family cases. Today far from seeming to be at the less important end of the profession, family lawyers are very much to the fore as specialised practitioners.

As a new practitioner in 1983, I soon became involved and interested in family law which at that time was transitioning from being dealt with almost exclusively within the Court of Session to being dealt with in the Sheriff Court. In addition the law was changing. Not only did the jurisdiction for divorce cases change in 1983 but in 1985 the Family Law (Scotland) Act received royal assent and of course, this introduced a whole new regime for the division of matrimonial property. Lawyers were having to grapple with new and relatively complicated principles. There was a need for greater specialisation within the profession. The court system could not keep up. Family cases were being dealt with in busy ordinary civil courts where little time could be assigned to complicated and important opposed motions. There was no shrieval continuity so decisions were often inconsistent and time consuming. It seemed to many practitioners that family cases were being dealt with on a second class basis.

As a result of this problem a number of new pioneering initiatives were birthed. The first involved a number of us getting together in 1989 to form a group of lawyers dedicated to raising the profile of family law within the profession and seeking to secure better outcomes for parties who were taking their cases to court. The Family Law Association was formed and now with around 300 members the Association carries the same aims and objectives that formed the basis of its creation in 1989. 

The second innovation was the growth of mediation in family cases in an attempt to keep separating couples out of court and allowing them to negotiate their own separation agreements based on their own particular circumstances and family arrangements. CALM (Comprehensive Accredited Lawyer Mediation) was formed in 1993 and many family lawyers underwent training and accreditation. The third innovation was the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 and the new statutory requirement to take into account the views of the child in any decision being made in relation to the child. This required a whole new set of skills not just from practitioners but also the sheriffs.

How refreshing it was to hear that there was a dissatisfaction on both sides as to how these cases were being dealt with and a shared determination grew out of that meeting to make things better.

And so the Family Court was birthed. With the support, commitment and hard work of Sheriffs Graham Johnston, Susan Raeburn, Jack McGowan and Pamela Bowman new protocols and procedures were implemented and this led to the speedier, fairer and specialised resolution of family cases. Needless to say those of us who were practising family law day in and day out at Glasgow Sheriff Court were delighted to be part of this new initiative and the benefit to our clients was enormous. We had sheriffs who managed their own cases and this led to speedier and more satisfactory outcomes. 

The sheriffs knew the cases and did not have to hear the history of a case before making or reviewing a decision. Decisions were not made in a vacuum of information or context. This model was soon replicated throughout the country as family law became more specialised and demanded an appropriate response from the bench. The fact that case management and shrieval continuity are now enshrined in the new rules that came into force on 25 September 2023 is testament to the fact that this was indeed a pioneering and innovative step that we dared to take 25 years ago. It is hoped that a lack of resources and programming difficulties will not stifle the objective and aspirations of these rules.