4. Current Judicial and Administrative Practices in the FCD

This modern court model emphasises child-sensitive environments, multidisciplinary collaboration, and the use of technology to enhance efficiency and support vulnerable families and children. The following summary outlines the key structural and operational features that define the FCD’s current innovative approach to delivering justice.¹

1. Multiple court locations. The FCD has enhanced access to justice by establishing several court locations across the country.
   • Children Court: St Clair (Port of Spain), Fyzabad and Scarborough (Tobago).
   • Family Court: Port of Spain, Princes Town and Scarborough (Tobago).
     Plans are underway to open an additional location in southern Trinidad.
2. Specially designed court environments. The FCD courts are designed to be more comfortable and less intimidating.
   • Hearing rooms: Facilitate open discussions, allowing parties to feel heard.
   • Child and youth waiting rooms: Provide safe, youth-friendly spaces for children awaiting hearings.
3. One-stop-shop court systems. The FCD integrates a team of professionals, including judicial officers, social workers, psychologists, family mediators and court administration personnel, to provide comprehensive support services. This collaborative approach aims to help court customers resolve conflicts and improve social functioning.
4. Automated court services. The FCD utilises technology to enhance court services.
   • Remote hearings: Conducted via telephone and video conferencing.
   • E-filing: Court applications can be filed online through the Judiciary’s e-services platform.
   • Online payments: CourtPay facilitates the payment of court-ordered maintenance, lawyers’ practising fees and court fines.
5. Automated and timely court processes. Each court is fully computerised, with automated case management systems improving the speed and efficiency of routine operations. Digital voice writing using transcription software enhances the creation of electronic court records.
6. Fair and reliable judicial process. The FCD issues various court orders to help customers resolve conflicts and improve social functioning, including psychological assessments, family and individual counselling, mediation, and programmes targeting issues such as domestic violence, parenting and drug abuse.
7. Specialised staff. The FCD is staffed with more than 500 qualified professionals specially trained to operate in a child- and family-sensitive, rehabilitative environment.
8. Responsive customer education and service. To assist individuals unfamiliar with the court process, the FCD provides proactive customer education and service.
   • Court services officers: Greet customers and provide information and support.
   • Intake conference: A court representative explains the court process and guides the next steps in the case.

4.1 Programmes and services

Family Court

The Family Court operates under the Family and Children Division of the High Court, Judiciary of Trinidad and Tobago.² It is a problem-solving court designed to resolve family conflicts holistically, offering specialised support services as needed. Matters handled by the court include divorce, legal custody, maintenance, property disputes and access to children.

In addressing these issues, the Family Court facilitates a wide range of services, including the following.

• Filing of new court applications and variations to existing court orders.
• Requests for certified copies of court orders.
• Access to domestic violence court services, including protection orders.
• Registration for online payment of court-ordered maintenance.
• Enforcement of maintenance orders, including the preparation of warrants.
• Family mediation to assist in resolving disputes.
• Supervised access visits for parents or guardians.
• Psychosocial enquiries to inform court decisions.
• Referrals for psychosocial assessments and evaluations related to court matters.
• Counselling services for children, parents, guardians and other family members.
• DNA testing as ordered by the court.
• Divorce proceedings and finalisation.
• Assistance with the adoption process.

The Family Court functions as a ‘one-stop-shop’, providing a comprehensive range of legal and support services under one roof. Mediation and counselling services are readily available, and the court can refer parties to these resources. When additional support is needed, such as psychological or psychiatric assistance, referrals are made to appropriate external service providers.

A core principle of the Family Court is to promote collaboration and reduce intimidation, creating an environment that supports constructive conflict resolution. To this end, the court is fully computerised and uses the Trinidad and Tobago Judicial Information Management System (TT.jim). This system enables fast and efficient handling of core operations, such as case filing, processing and information retrieval.

Court proceedings are conducted in hearing rooms, which are designed to be comfortable, private and less formal than traditional courtrooms. These spaces encourage open discussion, reduce stress and allow parties to speak directly with the judge or master in a respectful setting that empowers all involved.

To further support families, the Family Court provides child-friendly waiting areas for children whose parents or guardians are attending court hearings, filing documents or meeting with the Social Services Unit. These rooms are supervised by trained court staff and are equipped with books, toys and educational materials to keep children engaged in a safe and welcoming environment.

The Family Court also provides guidance and support to help ensure that all parties, whether represented by an attorney or not, can effectively participate in the legal process. Individuals who choose to represent themselves in court proceedings are referred to as ‘self-represented litigants’. As a self-represented litigant, the individual may file an application and have their matter heard.

Figure 4.1. Family Court milestones

_{Source: adapted from Judiciary of Trinidad and Tobago (2020), ‘Family Court Fact Sheet’. www.ttlawcourts.org/images/FCD/Family%20Court%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf.}

Children Court

The Children Court is a specialised court for individuals under the age of 18.³ It became operational on 28 February 2018, and handles matters involving children who are:

• accused of breaking the law
• in need of supervision (CHINS)
• in need of care and protection.

Additionally, the Children Court hears cases related to children’s drug use and mental health concerns. The types of matters filed at the Children Court are highlighted below.

Children’s Authority applications

The Children’s Authority of Trinidad and Tobago (CATT) may bring various applications under its mandate as the guardian of the nation’s children, pursuant to the Children’s Authority Act Chap. 46:10 and related legislation. These include applications for:

• wardship
• interim supervision orders
• care orders
• recovery orders
• private applications.

Private applications are criminal complaints filed by private individuals rather than law enforcement. Such matters may include accusations of criminal behaviour and applications for protection orders.

Child in need of supervision (CHINS) applications

Under Section 50A of the Children Act (2012, as amended), a parent, guardian or responsible adult who is unable to manage a child’s behaviour may apply to the Children Court for an order deeming the child to be in need of supervision.

Criminal indictable matters

These involve serious criminal offences. Indictable matters begin with a preliminary inquiry or committal proceedings before a Master of the Children Court. The master determines whether there is a prima facie case. If so, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) files an indictment and the matter proceeds to trial before a judge.

Criminal summary matters

These are less serious offences, typically governed by the Summary Offences Act Chap. 11:02. They are tried directly by a Master of the Children Court without the need for a preliminary inquiry.

Child participation and the intake conference

Children appearing before the court must attend an intake conference, during which a court representative engages with the child to understand the circumstances leading to their court appearance. The Children Court may appoint a children’s attorney to ensure the child’s voice is heard throughout the legal process.

A problem-solving approach: support and accountability

As a problem-solving court, the Children Court provides both accountability and support for child offenders and CHINS. While custodial sentences are used when necessary, the court also offers a variety of non-custodial interventions aimed at rehabilitation and reintegration.

These include the following.

• Individual counselling. Social workers conduct assessments to identify challenges and develop intervention plans. Counselling helps children better understand themselves, set goals and work through emotional or behavioural issues.
• Family counselling. Family therapy supports improved communication, addresses special challenges (such as illness or trauma) and fosters a healthier home environment.
• Parent counselling. Educational sessions equip parents with the tools to respond constructively to their child’s needs, improve their parenting skills and build stronger parent–child relationships.
• Court-annexed peer resolution. In minor offence cases, the Children Court may invite trained youth volunteers (aged 13–17 years) to recommend appropriate, constructive sanctions for child respondents.

Specialised programmes

These programmes include the following.

• Children Drug Treatment Court Process. This programme supports children facing drug-related offences or substance use issues. It offers structured treatment options to help youth manage or overcome addiction.
• Life Lessons Programme. Children are taught essential life skills, values and strategies to face life’s challenges and adopt healthier behaviours and attitudes.
• Imani Healing Circle. Focused on boys, this programme helps participants reflect on and process difficult life experiences, offering support and tools for positive change.
• A Girl Like Me – Girls Circle. Designed for girls, this programme addresses issues that negatively affect their lives. It helps participants build decision-making skills, confidence and emotional resilience.

4.2 Ongoing challenges in addressing domestic violence and gender equality in the Family Court

Despite legislative reforms and institutional efforts, ongoing challenges persist, particularly in the equitable handling of domestic violence and gender-based family matters. Two critical areas highlight these issues: the failure of key stakeholders to adequately protect victims of domestic violence, and concerns regarding gender bias in custody decisions by the Family Court. These issues are examined here, underscoring these systemic shortcomings and efforts at redress.

Failure of key stakeholders in domestic violence matters

In Tot Lampkin v The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago,⁴ the High Court found that the state failed to protect Samantha Stacey Isaacs, a victim of prolonged domestic violence, resulting in her death in 2017. Despite multiple reports to the Trinidad and Tobago Police Service (TTPS) and an application for a Protection Order, neither the police nor the judiciary acted with due diligence.

The court ruled that the TTPS and judiciary violated Samantha’s constitutional rights, including the right to life, equality before the law and protection of the law, and respect for family life as guaranteed under sections of the Constitution. Declarations of these violations were made, and compensation was awarded to her mother and guardian of her son.

In response to such failures, the judiciary established a Domestic Violence Process Review Committee in 2020. It recommended procedural reforms, infrastructure improvements and stakeholder training. Legislative amendments to the Domestic Violence Act in 2020 enabled Emergency Protection Orders, mandatory reporting and a Domestic Violence Register. Remote services and specialised hearing rooms were also introduced. In 2021, more than 500 justice sector stakeholders were trained through the Spotlight Initiative.⁵

Gender bias in family court custody decisions

The Single Fathers Association of Trinidad and Tobago (SFATT), with partners, reviewed 50 Family Court judgments (1996–2017) and found a trend of mothers receiving custody or care and control in the majority of cases. Fathers received care and control in only 32 per cent of cases, and structured access was often limited.

Interviews with fathers and a Joint Select Committee report highlighted perceptions of unfair treatment. Though the judiciary stated that laws are gender-neutral, the committee acknowledged that traditional gender roles may still influence custody decisions.

In 2018, the judiciary launched the Gender Equality Protocol for Judicial Officers, advising against gender stereotypes in custody rulings. Training and continuing education aim to promote gender-sensitive adjudication and improve fairness in family law matters.

4.3 Stakeholders’ perspectives on the family and children courts

As part of an ongoing review of the Family Court and Children Court systems in Trinidad and Tobago, a series of consultations were conducted with key stakeholders to gain insight into the functioning and effectiveness of these courts. These stakeholders included judicial officers, court administrators, legal professionals, social service providers and state agencies. They were invited to share their views and assess how the system is functioning, what is working well, what requires improvement and how the courts might evolve to meet emerging needs more effectively. This evaluation encompasses operational, legislative, technological and procedural dimensions, capturing distinct experiences from stakeholders, including access to justice, procedural efficiency, use of technology, emotional support mechanisms and the adequacy of legislation. A consistent theme across feedback is the need for a more co-ordinated, trauma-informed and child-centred approach, especially in cases involving domestic violence, custody and maintenance. While wrap-around services and hybrid hearing options are seen as progressive steps, stakeholders also highlight gaps in training, enforcement and resourcing that, if addressed, could enhance the courts’ ability to protect and empower families.

The following sub-sections present a structured discussion of stakeholder perspectives on the Family and Children Courts. Organised by key questions, the summaries highlight what is working well, what improvements are needed, and how various actors perceive the role of the courts in facilitating justice, healing and family rebuilding.

Family Court

The stakeholders’ insights provide an understanding of the Family Court’s strengths, challenges and areas in need of reform. The discussion organises their views around key operational, procedural and legislative questions to highlight how the court is functioning and how it might evolve to better serve families in crisis.

What are the most important features of the Family Court?

The Family Court is widely recognised for its specialised and supportive approach to family matters. Judges and masters emphasised the critical role of the Social Services Unit (SSU) in providing counselling and monitoring, which helps build trust and encourages parties toward settlement or dialogue. The Social Services Unit highlighted the importance of a multidisciplinary, case-managed system where one judge oversees a family’s case, reducing confusion and ensuring consistent handling, especially in domestic violence cases.

Attorneys at law emphasised efficiency and timely delivery of orders and hearings, the value of mediation and judicial conferencing for speedy resolutions, and the necessity of fully staffed social services to address emotional and psychological issues. Other stakeholders, such as the Father’s Association of Trinidad and Tobago (TFATT), The Single Mothers Association of Trinidad and Tobago (SMATT) and the Coalition Against Domestic Violence (CADV), noted the benefits of technology, responsive court administration, understanding clerks and better handling of domestic violence situations compared to Magistrates’ Courts.

What can be done to make the Family Court more effective?

All groups agreed that effectiveness can be improved through better case and mediation management. Judges and masters advocated for faster assignment and listing of mediation and settlement conferences to avoid delays. Court administration suggested re-establishing a monitoring committee for stakeholder feedback to guide improvements.

Social workers called for clarity on roles between judicial officers, social services and mediation units, alongside integrated information systems to improve communication within courts and related agencies. Attorneys highlighted the need for more staffing, better training, timely issuance of orders and enhanced facilities to improve productivity. TFATT and SMATT focused on public sensitisation and education about court services and mediation, while CADV emphasised better support for self-represented litigants and managing court delays.

How can time to disposition be speeded up?

There was strong consensus on the need for interventions before hearings, especially for unrepresented parties, to help navigate complex issues and reduce court time. Judges suggested compulsory pre-hearing interventions and legal aid support. Social workers recommended early assessment, triaging and mandatory informational sessions for parties on custody and parenting issues.

Attorneys proposed more extensive use of alternative dispute resolution methods like judicial settlement conferencing and mediation, firmer judicial enforcement of compliance and delegation of routine hearings to assistants. They also recommended managing judicial caseloads and setting deadlines for decisions. TFATT advocated staff capacity assessments and promoting a mediation culture, while SMATT called for mandatory time frames. CADV emphasised collaboration among stakeholders and raising awareness of available services.

What are views on hybrid hearings?

Hybrid hearings⁶ were generally welcomed as improving access and flexibility, particularly for clients who are unable to travel or are living abroad. Judges and masters appreciated how hybrid systems made communication more efficient, but noted their success depended on internet quality and party co-operation. Attorneys valued the option to choose virtual or in-person hearings depending on the nature of the case, and recognised that hybrid hearings facilitated more efficient case management.

TFATT endorsed hybrid hearings but called for more public sensitisation and improved electronic payment systems. SMATT and CADV supported the convenience of hybrid hearings and emphasised the need for greater advertising of Virtual Access Customer Centres (VACCs).

What changes are required generally?

There was broad agreement on the need for enhanced mediation staffing and enforcement of court rules and timelines. Attorneys urged the involvement of legal academia in policy-making and substantial amendments to procedural rules. TFATT opposed criminalising non-payment of maintenance via incarceration, suggesting electronic monitoring devices instead and emphasised continual training of judicial officers with a child-centred focus.

Are the laws governing family matters adequate?

Judges and masters generally found the current laws workable but pointed to specific legislative gaps, such as the lack of joint custody provisions for unmarried parents and limited pre-hearing oversight in domestic violence cases. Attorneys agreed the laws are mostly sufficient but highlighted implementation challenges and called for updates to accommodate modern family structures like same-sex couples and streamlined divorce procedures.

TFATT focused on custody, access and maintenance issues, advocating for joint custody beyond married couples, better enforcement of access orders, paternity testing prior to maintenance orders, and alternatives to imprisonment for non-payment. SMATT supported stronger mediation mandates and legislated timelines. CADV considered the laws adequate but noted enforcement as the primary issue.

What legislative changes are needed?

Judges recommended legislating compulsory pre-hearing case reviews to resolve matters earlier and to explore more equitable property settlement processes modelled on other jurisdictions. Attorneys emphasised enforcement of existing rules over new legislation. TFATT supported the introduction of electronic monitoring (ankle bracelets) for maintenance defaulters and opposed incarceration as ineffective and costly.

How have wrap-around services assisted?

Wrap-around services were seen as beneficial but underutilised. Judges affirmed their positive role but expressed concern about voluntary mediation and resistance to co-parenting counselling. Attorneys noted limited exposure and sometimes contentious family dynamics that worsen with social work intervention, and that child advocate roles were often misunderstood. TFATT warned of potential biases among social workers and probation officers.

SMATT cited effective emergency housing support for domestic violence cases. CADV reported limited court referrals but general satisfaction with parenting programmes and a need for better follow-up.

What are the strengths and weaknesses of wrap-around services?

Strengths included good communication between the Social Services Unit and court teams, a structured approach to intervention stages (engagement, referral, transition), and the ability to provide families with a voice and support through difficult times. Attorneys appreciated the seamless contact the services allowed and the sense that the state cares.

Weaknesses included delayed reports and communication challenges, insufficient professional training, potential personal biases of service providers, inadequate listening to children, and unsafe placement of parties with protection orders together. Additionally, staff often worked under challenging conditions.

Conclusion

Based on these perspectives, there is a clear call for better management of mediation and case processes, more staffing and training, timely enforcement of orders, legislative updates, and improved communication and public awareness. Addressing these areas will enhance the court’s efficiency, effectiveness and responsiveness to the needs of families and children.

Children Court

The discussion explores stakeholder perspectives on the key features, effectiveness, challenges and opportunities for improvement in the Children Court, organised around central questions that explore the court’s mission and service delivery.

What are the most important features of the Children Court?

Stakeholders emphasised that the Children Court should prioritise the best interests of the child, ensuring a child-friendly environment that minimised trauma. Judges and masters emphasised the importance of specialised judicial officers trained in child welfare and the involvement of social services in supporting the court process. The court’s ability to manage cases with sensitivity and provide wrap-around support services, such as counselling and social work interventions, was also highlighted as crucial.

Attorneys pointed out the necessity of timely hearings to reduce the emotional stress on children and families. They also valued alternative dispute resolution and mediation to resolve matters without protracted litigation. The involvement of child advocates and experts ensured that children’s voices were heard, and their needs were adequately represented.

How effective are the current services and procedures in the Children Court?

Views varied regarding effectiveness. Judges acknowledged that while the court’s specialised focus was a strength, there were challenges like delays in case disposition and inconsistent follow-up on social service referrals. Social Services Units were said to generally provide valuable interventions but these were sometimes hampered by staffing shortages and insufficient training.

Attorneys observed that families often face high costs and logistical challenges in accessing services, which can delay resolutions. They noted that social workers sometimes lack adequate training or resources to engage effectively with contentious family situations, potentially alienating parties rather than assisting them.

How can the Children Court improve case management and speed up dispositions?

All stakeholders agreed that pre-hearing interventions, including mandatory mediation and social service assessments, can significantly improve case management. Judges recommended compulsory case reviews before hearings to resolve matters early and reduce court backlog. Social workers suggested clearer guidelines on referral processes and better communication between the court and social service providers. Attorneys advocated for more training on children’s issues and enforcement of strict timelines for hearings and decisions. Some proposed increased use of alternative dispute resolution and better resourcing of the court to handle cases more efficiently.

What is the role of wrap-around services in supporting the Children Court?

Wrap-around services were widely regarded as essential in addressing the complex needs of children and families. They provided counselling, parenting support and social work interventions that can prevent escalation to court or aid smoother case resolution.

Judges and masters noted that these services helped to formulate care plans and assist in co-parenting counselling, though voluntary participation sometimes limits effectiveness. Attorneys raised concerns about the limited awareness and accessibility of these services, and occasional bias or lack of professionalism among social workers.

What are the strengths and weaknesses of wrap-around services?

Strengths included the services’ holistic approach in addressing emotional, psychological and social factors affecting children and families. In addition, the co-ordinated communication between social services and the court enhanced intervention planning and follow-up.

Weaknesses involved delays in report submissions, inadequate training of personnel, potential personal biases of service providers and challenges in fully engaging parties. Additionally, resource constraints and a lack of follow-up on referrals reduced the overall impact of these services.

Are the laws and policies governing children’s matters adequate?

Judges generally found the legislative framework sufficient but highlighted areas needing reform, such as more explicit provisions for joint custody and improved protections in domestic violence contexts. Attorneys pointed out that laws are often adequate in theory but poorly implemented in practice.

Some stakeholders suggested updating the laws to reflect contemporary family dynamics, including provisions for cohabiting and same-sex parents, and streamlining procedures for child welfare cases. They also emphasised the need for stronger enforcement mechanisms to ensure compliance with court orders.

What legislative or policy changes are recommended?

Recommendations included introducing compulsory pre-hearing reviews to expedite case resolution and formalising pathways for mediation and alternative dispute resolution in children’s matters. Stakeholders called for increased funding and staffing of social services to better support court operations.

There were also calls to amend existing statutes to provide clearer guidelines on custody, access, maintenance and parental responsibilities, emphasising child-centred approaches. Some stakeholders also suggested improved training standards and accountability measures for social workers and judicial officers handling children’s cases.

How can public awareness and access to the Children Court be improved?

Stakeholders agreed that public education on the court’s role, services and procedures was critical to improving access and outcomes. Judges and social workers advocated for outreach programmes and collaboration with community organisations to raise awareness.

Attorneys emphasised the importance of making services affordable and accessible, especially for vulnerable families. They also called for better communication strategies to inform families about mediation options, wrap-around services and their rights within the court system.

Conclusion

These findings underscore that while the Children Court has demonstrated strong potential through its integrated and child-focused approach, systemic issues, including staffing constraints, legislative gaps, training deficiencies and communication inefficiencies, have hindered its full effectiveness. Stakeholders agreed that more resourcing, better co-ordination, and cultural shifts in parenting and dispute resolution are critical to moving the court toward optimal service delivery.

4.4 Opportunities for strengthening the FCD

The FCD has made significant strides in improving access to justice, particularly through dedicated courts, revised rules and increased use of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms. However, several critical challenges continue to impede the full realisation of a responsive, integrated family justice system. These include forum shopping due to procedural gaps, delays in adjudication and service delivery, and limited integration between the Family and Children Courts. There is an urgent need to strengthen interagency collaboration, streamline the intake process, and enhance the availability of social and adjunct services. Challenges related to infrastructure, staffing and judicial workload also hinder optimal performance. Moreover, enhanced public awareness, technological integration and consistent programme evaluation are essential to support a unified and efficient family justice system. Addressing these gaps holistically, with targeted reforms across institutional, operational and community-facing areas, will be key to realising the full potential of an Integrated Family Court model.

Limiting opportunities for forum shopping

Forum shopping remains a concern in the justice system, particularly in family matters. For instance, protection orders in domestic violence cases can be filed either as standalone applications or within broader family proceedings. This fragmented approach may lead to inconsistent handling and duplicated efforts. To address this, procedural reforms and inter-court co-ordination must be enhanced to ensure related matters are heard collectively and consistently.

Reducing delays in proceedings

Delays in the resolution of family cases, especially non-complex ones, were highlighted as a major concern by judges, administrators and attorneys. Long adjournments and untimely delivery of court orders are impacting the effectiveness of the courts, particularly when cases involve urgent needs such as child protection or asset division. These delays can cause uncertainty and distress for litigants. Enforcing judicial time standards, prioritising high-impact cases and streamlining internal processes are necessary to ensure timelier resolution and decision-making.

Improving delivery of adjunct services

The effectiveness of the courts heavily depends on timely support from adjunct services, such as therapy, mediation and social work. Focus group participants expressed concern over delays in referrals and service delivery, particularly in priority cases. Additionally, it was noted that state agencies have, in some instances, reduced their engagement, placing greater strain on court-provided services. Stronger partnerships with external agencies, better resourcing of support units and clear timelines for service provision are crucial for meeting the complex needs of families and children.

Retooling the intake function

The initial intake function, intended as a critical triage tool, has suffered due to inadequate staffing and resource limitations. Originally designed to assess and direct cases toward appropriate interventions early in the process, intake services have become reactive. Revitalising this function with sufficient human resources and support systems is essential. An efficient intake process ensures that litigants are appropriately guided and potential issues are identified early, reducing reliance on adversarial proceedings.

Expanding dedicated facilities for family matters

The full integration of family matters within a single court structure is hindered by infrastructure limitations. Although new facilities are being developed, the transition is not yet complete. Adequate court buildings, staff and technological support are necessary to centralise family case processing and support an integrated model. Continued collaboration with the executive is needed to accelerate this infrastructure expansion and provide courts with the tools required to operate effectively.

Enhancing litigant participation and engagement

Active engagement of litigants in the judicial process can improve trust and understanding of legal proceedings. Suggestions from practitioners included judges issuing deadlines for decisions during open court hearings and explaining procedures directly to litigants. This practice would foster transparency and allow parties, especially those without legal representation, to better understand delays, next steps and the overall process. Improved communication can help mitigate frustration and increase confidence in the system.

Strengthening social services and human resources

The Social Services Unit (SSU) is considered integral to the family justice process. However, increased caseloads and complex family dynamics have overwhelmed current resources. There is an urgent need for more trained professionals – social workers, therapists and counsellors – to ensure timely and effective interventions. Delays in access to such services can be detrimental to children and families in crisis. Increased staffing, funding and professional development are critical to the SSU’s success.

Supporting judges, judicial officers and staff

Judges and judicial officers face mounting workloads, impacting both their efficiency and well-being. Recommendations included structured court calendars that allow designated time for writing decisions, as well as specialised training in emotional intelligence, financial analysis and judgment writing. Addressing burnout through support systems and workload redistribution is vital for sustaining the quality and effectiveness of judicial services.

Enhancing use of alternative dispute resolution (ADR)

While ADR mechanisms like mediation and conferencing are available, their full potential remains untapped. There is a need for a cultural and procedural shift to prioritise these methods, particularly before litigation is initiated. Greater public awareness, improved mediator certification processes and clearer guidance on the benefits of ADR would promote wider adoption. Expanding ADR use would alleviate pressure on courts and foster more collaborative resolution of family disputes.

Reviewing and strengthening court rules

The Family Proceedings Rules provide the procedural framework for family cases, but they require comprehensive review to ensure they are meeting current demands. This includes revising timelines, simplifying forms, and enhancing clarity for litigants and attorneys. Regular updates and consultations with stakeholders are necessary to ensure the rules support efficient, accessible and fair judicial processes.

Ensuring programme fidelity and quality monitoring

Continuous evaluation of Family and Children’s Court programmes is necessary to uphold service quality and relevance. Stakeholders emphasised the importance of aligning programmes with clearly defined outcomes, supported by regular performance reviews. Establishing quality assurance frameworks and collecting outcome-based data will guide improvements and ensure interventions are meeting families’ needs effectively.

Implementing an integrated information management system

The current lack of a shared information system between the Family and Children Courts creates inefficiencies, especially when identifying related cases or co-ordinating services. A unified digital case management platform would enable better data sharing, reduce duplication and support more holistic decision-making. Investment in such technology is essential to modernise the justice system.

Strengthening interagency collaboration

Key stakeholders often operate in isolation, leading to fragmented service delivery and delays in urgent interventions. Effective interagency collaboration, through formal protocols, shared accountability measures and regular communication, will improve the quality and speed of support provided to families. Breaking down institutional silos is a necessary step toward an integrated justice model.

Increasing public awareness and access to information

Public understanding of the services offered by the Family and Children Courts remains limited. Stakeholders advocated for expanded outreach via media campaigns, educational materials and community events. This would help ensure that litigants, particularly vulnerable and unrepresented individuals, are aware of their options and know how to access court-related services, including virtual access, legal aid and support services.

Footnotes

1 Judiciary of Trinidad and Tobago (2020), ‘Family and Children Division: Overview’. www.ttlawcourts.org/index.php/2020-01-28-18-30-04/2020-01-28-18-52-21/overview.  |  [back]

2 Judiciary of Trinidad and Tobago (2020), ‘Family Court Overview’. www.ttlawcourts.org/index.php/2020-01-28-18-30-04/2020-01-28-18-53-05/family-court-overview.  |  [back]

3 Judiciary of Trinidad and Tobago (2020), ‘Children Court Overview’. www.ttlawcourts.org/index.php/2020-01-28-18-30-04/2020-01-28-18-54-02/children-court-overview.  |  [back]

4 Tot Lampkin (Administratrix ad litem) v The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago (CV2021-03178).  |  [back]

5 Spotlight Initiative (2024), Trinidad & Tobago: Narrative Programme Report: 01 January 2020 – 31 December 2023. https://spotlightinitiative.org/publications/spotlight-initiative-trinidad-and-tobago-final-cumulative-report.  |  [back]

6 A hybrid hearing is a court hearing in which some participants attend in person while others join remotely using audio-visual or online technology.  |  [back]