This content reflects observational insights and lived community experiences. It does not constitute legal advice — always consult a qualified professional for your specific circumstances.
Litigants assume legal aid was removed for sound, evidence-based reasons.
In 2012 the government's own impact statement acknowledged the cuts would disproportionately affect women, ethnic minorities, and people with disabilities — and proceeded anyway. The stated reason was that family cases were unlikely to be legally complex. At least 65% of cases now coming to court involve domestic abuse. The minister had never practised family law. This wasn't an oversight. It was a political decision made without understanding what family court actually looks like.
Download the card and post it on Facebook, LinkedIn, or wherever you're active. Every share helps another litigant find this before their hearing.
The Gap?
"Legal aid was removed from family cases for good reasons — the government knew what it was doing."
Court Reality
In 2012 the government's own impact statement acknowledged the cuts would disproportionately affect women, ethnic minorities, and people with disabilities — and proceeded anyway. The stated reason was that family cases were unlikely to be legally complex. At least 65% of cases now coming to court involve domestic abuse. The minister had never practised family law. This wasn't an oversight. It was a political decision made without understanding what family court actually looks like.
Experienced a gap between what you thought you knew about family court and the reality? Share your own and get credited.
familycourtbridge.org
Navigating court alone?
A McKenzie Friend can help you make sense of this in the context of your own case.
Find your supportWe use essential cookies only to provide you with the best experience on our website. No tracking or analytics cookies are used.