The Establishment of the Family and Children Division

Share

3.1 Background

The creation of the Family and Children Division (FCD) of the High Court represents the culmination of several decades of policy, legislative and institutional evolution.

This journey, shown in Table 3.1, reflects:

persistent challenges in securing legislative consensus
a strategic use of pilot projects to test and refine the model
a clear shift toward problem-solving, multidisciplinary justice
the importance of harmonising social services and judicial functions for family and child justice.

The Family and Children Division Act, 2016, stands as a transformative statute, enabling the judiciary to address family and juvenile matters with the nuance, specialisation and care they require.

Table 3.1. Key events in the creation of the FCD

Year/Date	Milestone	Details
2003	Family Court Committee formed	Committee was tasked with designing a pilot Family Court structure for Trinidad and Tobago; emphasised co-ordinated services, trained personnel and integrated social support.
17 May 2004	Launch of the Family Court Pilot Project	Pilot Family Court opened in Port of Spain to serve High Court and Magistracy matters with unified registry, social services, court-annexed mediation and caseflow reforms.
2004–2014	Expansion and Evaluation of Family Court Pilot Project	Lessons learned informed plans for national rollout; tested tech-based innovations, customer service philosophy and specialised judicial training.
24 November 2014	Launch of the Juvenile Court Project	A USAID- and UNDP-funded initiative aimed at establishing Children Courts and supporting the Children Act, 2012; promoted diversion, risk assessment and restorative justice.
2012–2015	Enactment of supporting legislation	Key children and family legislation passed, including the Children Act, 2012, Children’s Authority Act and Adoption of Children Amendment Act.
2016	Enactment of the Family and Children Division Act (Act No. 6 of 2016)	Established the Family and Children Division (FCD) of the High Court with two sub-divisions: Family Court and Children Court. Created formal administrative structures.
28 February 2018	Establishment of the FCD	Proclamation of the Family and Children Division Act, leading to the establishment of the FCD.
	Official opening of the Children Court	Children Courts established in North and South Trinidad, and Tobago; focused on rehabilitative, rights-based judicial treatment of minors.
2018–2024	National expansion of Family Courts	Family Courts opened in Princes Town; plans for additional courts in South and North-East Trinidad to ensure nationwide access.

The Family and Children Division (FCD) of the High Court, established by the Family and Children Division Act, 2016, became operational in March 2018, and serves as a specialised arm of the judiciary dedicated to family- and child-related matters.¹ The FCD structure reflects a modern, specialised approach to the adjudication of family-related matters, emphasising accessibility, child-centred justice and integration of support services. It consists of the following.

Family Court. This court addresses family disputes such as divorce, custody, maintenance and domestic violence.
Children Court. This court handles cases involving children in need of supervision, child protection and juvenile offences.
Court Administration Department. This arm provides administrative support, including case management, social services and policy development.

The FCD has exclusive jurisdiction over a range of family matters, including:

divorce and separation
custody, access and guardianship of children
spousal and child maintenance
adoption
domestic violence
paternity and affiliation proceedings
protection and care of children under the Children Act.

The FCD hears both civil and criminal matters related to the family, integrating legal, social and psychological dimensions into its operations.

The FCD is staffed by a multidisciplinary team, including:

judges and masters assigned specifically to family law matters
family court mediators
social workers and psychologists
court-annexed support services (CASS) professionals
registry officers and case managers.

These professionals collaborate to provide comprehensive support, including counselling, mediation, risk assessments and parental education programmes.

3.2 Enactment of the Family and Children Division Act

The Family and Children Division Act, 2016, establishes a specialised division within the High Court to address family- and child-related matters. Proclaimed on 28 February 2018, the Act aims to provide a dedicated legal framework for resolving family disputes, safeguarding children’s rights and promoting rehabilitative justice.²^, ³

The Act formally establishes the Family and Children Division (FCD or ‘the Division’) of the High Court, comprising the Family Court, the Children Court and the FCD Court Administration Department. The Act further defines the jurisdiction and functions of the Division in which the Family Court handles civil matters such as divorce, custody and maintenance, while the Children Court addresses cases involving children in need of care and protection and those accused of criminal offences. The section also outlines the powers of the courts to issue orders aimed at protecting children and promoting rehabilitation.

The administrative infrastructure of the Division mandates the establishment of a specialised Court Administration Department tasked with case management, record keeping and provision of support services, including mediators and social workers. Reflecting the judiciary’s commitment to restorative justice and amicable settlement, the Act explicitly promotes the use of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms such as mediation and counselling.

In recognition of the paramount importance of child welfare, the Act enables the Children Court to issue protection orders, appoint guardians ad litem,⁴ and place children into state or supervised care, thereby reinforcing the best interests of the child as the guiding principle. The Act also includes enforcement mechanisms, which outline penalties for obstruction of justice, non-compliance with court orders and provision of false information, ensuring accountability within the system.

The Act also addresses procedural and administrative matters such as confidentiality of proceedings, representation of parties, and the issuance of regulations and rules to support the Division’s operations.

The expansive definitions of ‘children matter’ and ‘family matter’ ensure that Children Court can comprehensively address all legal issues where a child’s well-being, safety or legal status is involved and that the Family Court handles a wide array of civil and protective issues within the context of family and domestic life:

‘“children matter” includes any—

children charge matter;
children care matter;
children drug matter;
children mental health matter;
matter which is not a family matter within the meaning of this Act, but the primary issue in the matter is the care and protection of a child;
matter, in relation to a child, where there is an application for and issuance of a Protection Order and its enforcement under the Domestic Violence Act, and where the child is a victim or an affected bystander; and
matter in which a child is required to appear in Court;

“family matter” means any cause, matter or legal proceeding—

concerning—

any applications under the Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Act;
maintenance;
guardianship;
wardship;
custody and access;
applications for orders made to the Family Court under section 25 of the Children’s Authority Act;
adoption;
civil child abduction;
succession and inheritance, excluding probate and the administration of estates; and
any matter in relation to the application for and issuance of a Protection Order and its enforcement under the Domestic Violence Act other than those which are children matters; and

arising out of the written laws listed in Schedule 1 or any other written law and which is connected with, or arises out of a matrimonial, familial or other domestic relationship and is not a matter in which a child is charged or arrested;’

Schedule 1 of the Act lists the specific statutes that govern family matters for the purposes of the Act. These laws cover a wide range of familial, matrimonial and child-related legal issues. The key areas addressed include the following.

Marriage and divorce laws, such as the Marriage Act, Muslim Marriage and Divorce Act, Hindu Marriage Act and Orisa Marriage Act.
Matrimonial and domestic relationships, through the Married Persons Act, Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Act and Cohabitational Relationships Act.
Maintenance and support enforcement, addressed by the Attachment of Earnings (Maintenance) Act and Maintenance Orders (Facilities for Enforcement) Act.
Child welfare and custody, including the Children Act, Adoption of Children Act, Children’s Authority Act and the Family Law (Guardianship of Minors, Domicile and Maintenance) Act.
Inheritance and succession, via the Administration of Estates Act and Succession Act (Part VIII).
Domestic violence and protection, under the Domestic Violence Act.
Other child-related legislation, such as the Infants Act, Status of Children Act, Children’s Community Residences, Foster Care and Nurseries Act, International Child Abduction Act, and parts of the Occupational Safety and Health Act related to minors.
Age and legal status, as provided for in the Age of Majority Act.

3.3 Establishing the Family and Children Division (post-2016)

The journey toward a unified Family and Children Division was marked by two distinct reform periods: the Family Court Pilot Project (2004–2016) and the Juvenile Court Project (2014–2018). Both projects served as critical phases in transforming Trinidad and Tobago’s justice system, culminating in a modern, rehabilitative and accessible court structure that better reflects the needs of families and children. In short, these two court initiatives culminated in the formal establishment of the Family and Children Division through the 2016 Act.

As a result, the Family and Children Division of the High Court was established by the Family and Children Division Act No. 6 of 2016, creating two key sub-divisions: the Family Court and the Children Court. The Children Court was formally established and opened on 28 February 2018, completing the structure of the new Division.

In addition, the legislation established an administration department for the FCD, the Family and Children Court Administration Department as a sub-department of the Department of Court Administration. According to section 7 of the Act, the Family and Children Court Administration Department shall comprise:

the Central Coordinating Office
the Family Court Administrative Office
the Children Court Administrative Office.

The Central Coordinating Office shall comprise:

the Social Services Unit
the Human Resource Management Unit
the Finance, Accounts and Investment Unit
the Communications and Information Unit
the Records Management, Court and Law Reporting Unit
the Children’s Authority Liaison Unit
the Statistical and Evaluation Unit
such other units as may be determined by the Chief Justice.

The Family Court Administrative Office shall comprise:

the Family Court Office
the Family Mediation Unit
sub-units of the Central Coordinating Office Units
such other units and sub-units as may be determined by the Chief Justice.

The Children Court Administrative Office shall comprise:

the Children Court Office
the following units: (i) the Peer Resolution Centre Coordination Unit; (ii) the Children Drug Treatment Process Unit; (iii) the Auxiliary Programmes Coordination and Monitoring Unit; (iv) the Children Court Information Technology Unit; and (v) the Children Court Witness Support Unit
sub-units of the Central Coordinating Office
such other units and sub-units as may be determined by the Chief Justice.

Section 8 of the Act outlines certain governance and accountability matters of the Family and Children Court Administration Department.

Leadership structure. The Family and Children Court Administration Department is overseen by the deputy court executive administrator, who is supported by both a family court administrator and a children court administrator.
Administrative offices. The Family Court Administrative Office is managed by the family court administrator, while the Children Court Administrative Office is led by the children court administrator.
Reporting hierarchy. The deputy court executive administrator reports to the court executive administrator, and the family court administrator and children court administrator report to the deputy court executive administrator. The deputy court executive administrator holds overall administrative responsibility for the Division, while the family court administrator and children court administrator manage their respective offices.
Qualifications. All three administrative positions must possess appropriate training and experience as mandated by the judiciary.
Staffing and assignments. The department must be staffed with enough qualified personnel, as determined by the court executive administrator. The deputy court executive administrator has the authority to assign personnel within the Family and Children Court Administration Department to either the Family Court or the Children Court.

Issues, interventions and outcomes

The FCD was established to address long-standing challenges within the family and juvenile justice systems. Six critical areas of concern were identified in family matters.

Inefficiencies in the court process.
Inadequate attention to child-related issues.
Underutilisation of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms.
Lack of co-ordination in litigation involving the same family.
Insufficient judicial training and temperament for family matters.
Barriers faced by unrepresented and under-resourced litigants.

In response, the FCD introduced a range of targeted interventions, including specialised rules of procedure, court-annexed mediation, modern case management systems and structured training programmes for judicial officers. These reforms aimed to streamline processes, enhance child-focused justice, foster holistic dispute resolution and ensure accessible and equitable legal services.

These reforms and the outcomes from both courts are examined below.

Family Court

This section outlines key issues encountered, interventions implemented and the outcomes observed for the Family Court.

Court process inefficiencies

Issue	Interventions	Outcomes
The traditional court process was often time-consuming, expensive, cumbersome and duplicative, leading to delays and increased costs for families and children seeking justice.	To address these challenges, the Family Proceedings Rules and the Children Court Rules were introduced. The Family Proceedings Rules aimed to streamline court procedures to reduce time and costs, while the Children Court Rules focused on establishing appropriate procedures for dealing with children in the legal system.	Both sets of rules were successfully implemented. However, there are opportunities to review and update them to ensure compliance with time standards, affordability and the elimination of inefficiencies. Additionally, enhancing collaboration between agencies interacting with the court could further improve outcomes for children and families.

2. Inadequate attention to child-related issues

Issue	Interventions	Outcomes
There was insufficient attention to child-related issues within the legal system, leading to fragmented services and a lack of holistic support for children and families.	The establishment of the Family Court introduced a holistic approach to addressing family issues, integrating various support services within the court system. Additionally, the implementation of a Children Court provided a specialised forum for dealing with matters concerning children.	While the Family Court’s holistic approach has been effective, connectivity between divisions and collaboration with external agencies, such as non-governmental organisations (NGOs), can be improved. Establishing formal working groups and protocols for continuous collaboration would enhance the effectiveness of interventions.

3. Underutilisation of alternative dispute resolution (ADR)

Issue	Interventions	Outcomes
There was insufficient use of alternative dispute resolution methods, such as mediation, leading to prolonged litigation and adversarial proceedings.	The Mediation Act was passed to certify mediators, ensuring quality control and greater trust in mediation services. Court-annexed mediation was introduced as a standard component of the dispute resolution process, with provisions for referrals to both internal and external certified mediators.	While mediation has been successfully implemented, there are opportunities to increase its use as a viable alternative to trials. Challenges include delays in certifying mediators and inadequate remuneration, which impact the availability and effectiveness of mediation services.

4. Lack of co-ordination in family-related litigation

Issue	Interventions	Outcomes
There was a lack of co-ordination in litigation involving the same family, leading to inconsistent decisions and fragmented services.	The introduction of a case management information system allowed for the identification of associated cases, ensuring they were assigned to the same judge for consistent handling.	The implementation of the case management system has improved co-ordination; however, further enhancements are needed to ensure timely access to information and efficient assignment of resources.

5. Inadequate continuing training and support for judicial officers

Issue	Interventions	Outcomes
Some judges lacked the appropriate temperament and understanding for presiding over family cases, affecting the quality of decisions and the overall judicial process.	The Family and Children Division Act mandated appropriate training and temperament for all judges, judicial officers and staff. Additionally, job descriptions were updated to reflect these requirements.	While training has been provided, there is a need for continuous professional development, including training in therapeutic jurisprudence, to better equip judicial officers in handling family and children law matters.

6. Challenges faced by unrepresented parties

Issue	Interventions	Outcomes
Unrepresented litigants, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds, faced barriers in accessing justice, including a lack of legal representation and understanding of court procedures.	Provisions were made for litigants in person to be assisted by a special unit within the court in preparing their documents. Informational materials were provided to guide individuals, and state legal aid was made available for qualifying litigants.	While assistance has been provided, there is a need for increased public engagement and information dissemination to ensure that unrepresented litigants are aware of and can access available services. Additionally, the means test for legal aid may require reassessment to reflect changing socio-economic conditions.

Children Court

This section outlines key issues encountered, interventions implemented and the outcomes observed for the Children Court.

1. Inefficiencies in the court process

Issue	Interventions	Outcomes
The court process was often time-consuming, expensive, cumbersome and duplicative, especially in matters involving children.	The introduction of the Children Court Rules provided a structured and efficient framework for handling juvenile matters. These rules establish timelines for filings, hearings and case management while also offering guidance on electronic evidence, special measures for vulnerable children and standardised forms for legal submissions. Importantly, these rules work alongside the Criminal Procedure Rules 2023, ensuring up-to-date best practices are applied in juvenile justice.	The rules have proved effective in streamlining procedures and improving case flow. Matters involving children that were previously heard in District Courts alongside adults are now redirected to the Children Court, allowing for more appropriate handling. However, continued review and refinement are necessary to ensure consistency and jurisdictional clarity across all courts.

2. Inadequate attention to child-related issues

Issue	Interventions	Outcomes
Child-related legal matters lacked focused attention, resulting in fragmented services and outcomes that did not fully consider the rights and needs of the child.	A dedicated Children Court was established to provide a holistic, rehabilitative approach to juvenile justice. This was part of a broader strategy initiated through the Juvenile Court Project (JCP) to address children’s rights comprehensively and facilitate access to services such as diversionary programmes, psychological support and family engagement.	This intervention has been highly successful, marking a significant departure from punitive models of justice to one that is rehabilitative and rights-based. Nonetheless, continued cross-agency collaboration is needed to strengthen service delivery and consistency in case outcomes.

3. Underutilisation of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) and diversionary programmes

Issue	Interventions	Outcomes
There was limited use of non-litigious mechanisms to resolve disputes or address root causes of juvenile delinquency and family conflict.	The FCD employed a suite of ADR methods, including mediation, drug treatment programmes, peer resolution and various forms of counselling (individual, co-parenting, family and relationship-building).	ADR has been embraced within both the Family and Children Courts, helping to reduce trial rates and encourage more constructive resolutions. However, greater uptake of ADR, especially at earlier case stages, would further minimise adversarial proceedings. The success of peer resolution programmes at the Children Court is particularly noteworthy.

4. Lack of co-ordination in litigation involving the same family

Issue	Interventions	Outcomes
Matters involving the same family were often handled separately, leading to fragmented decisions, inefficiencies and sometimes conflicting orders.	A case management and docket system was introduced to identify related matters and assign them to the same judge or judicial officer, improving consistency and efficiency.	While this approach has improved co-ordination, challenges remain. In particular, resource limitations and ‘forum shopping’⁵ persist. The expansion of Family and Children Division Courts in underserved regions is underway, which is expected to further streamline the co-ordination of related matters.

5. Lack of judicial sensitivity and appropriate temperament

Issue	Interventions	Outcomes
Some judges presiding over family matters lacked the temperament or training required given the sensitive nature of these cases.	Extensive training programmes were implemented for judges, judicial officers and staff. These programmes emphasised trauma-informed practice, child psychology and therapeutic jurisprudence. They have been updated periodically.	Initial training was impactful, leading to improved judicial handling of sensitive matters. However, regular and in-depth refresher training is recommended every few years. The judiciary continues to explore mechanisms for ongoing professional development and support, including measures to address vicarious trauma.

6. Inadequate support for poor and unrepresented litigants

Issue	Interventions	Outcomes
Access to justice was limited for individuals who could not afford legal representation, particularly in family law matters.	The Family Court provides a dedicated unit to assist litigants in person, along with simplified forms and procedures. Additional support includes Virtual Access Customer Centres (VACCs) for remote filing and information, public education campaigns, legal aid partnerships, and collaboration with the Hugh Wooding Law School Legal Aid Clinic.	These interventions have significantly improved access for self-represented litigants. However, further simplification of procedures and greater public engagement are needed. Focus groups suggest that underserved populations, especially those without internet access, still face barriers. A review of the legal aid means test is also necessary to reflect modern economic conditions.

Summary

The Family Court and Children Court have made significant strides in addressing key issues within the judicial system, but their effectiveness differs in certain areas. Both courts provide valuable lessons on the importance of ongoing reforms and the need for targeted interventions to fully address the needs of families and children within the justice system.

Table 3.2. Summary of issues and interventions in the FCD

Issue	Family Court – Intervention	Family Court – Outcome	Children Court – Intervention	Children Court – Outcome
1. Time-consuming, expensive and duplicative court processes	Implementation of Family Proceedings Rules to streamline processes, reduce duplication and introduce time standards.	Improved efficiency, but opportunities remain to refine rules for specific case types and enhance compliance.	Implementation of Children Court Rules and linkage with Criminal Procedure Rules 2023 to set time frames and consolidate applications.	Effective application with improved speed and clarity. More consistent processing of cases involving children. Ongoing need to improve interagency integration.
2. Inadequate attention to child-related issues	Adoption of a holistic family-centred approach across family matters; cross-agency interactions initiated, though still inconsistent.	Improved recognition of child-focused outcomes, but inconsistent collaboration. Need for protocols to strengthen agency alignment.	Establishment of a dedicated Children Court with a whole-of-society approach. Focus on the rights of the child and rehabilitative outcomes.	Highly successful; enhanced access to diversionary programmes and improved life outcomes for children. Further interagency collaboration is still required.
3. Insufficient use of ADR and diversionary programmes	Enacted Mediation Act, introduced court-annexed mediation, hired mediators and enabled referrals from intake stage.	Increased ADR access, but low uptake due to delays in certification and inadequate compensation for mediators.	Use of ADR programmes such as mediation, peer resolution, counselling and drug treatment from inception.	Peer resolution particularly effective; continued praise for ADR use. Desire for increased ADR uptake at earlier stages.
4. Lack of co-ordination of litigation involving the same family/child	Case management information system to track and assign associated family cases to one judge.	Improved co-ordination, but needs system upgrades and review of automated linkages between family and child matters.	Case management and docket system promote joint hearing of related matters; District Court referrals enabled.	Co-ordination better when matters remain in Children Court. Referrals from District Courts enhance consistency. Still resource limitations in new court locations.
5. Inappropriate temperament or lack of understanding by judges	All roles defined with temperament criteria; continuous training mandated. However, concerns over burnout and suitability for some judges remain.	Initial training effective; need for periodic reassessment and support for vicarious trauma. Improved recruitment and training continue.	Specialised training for judges and judicial officers in child psychology, trauma and restorative practices.	Significant improvements in judicial approach. Need for ongoing, focused retraining every 2–3 years noted.
6. Inadequate attention to poor and unrepresented litigants	Established support unit, provided simplified forms and legal aid options, and partnered with Law School for additional assistance.	Greater support for litigants in person. Still gaps in outreach and complexity of processes. Virtual Access Customer Centres (VACCs) show promise but need more visibility.	Children appearing unrepresented are given assistance; District Courts now refer children to Children Court for access to its services.	Simplified procedures help access. More outreach and simplification still needed, especially in District Courts.

The integration of IFC features

To determine the extent to which Trinidad and Tobago’s FCD embodies the principles and elements of an IFC, the following evaluation assesses the FCD’s alignment with recognised UFC components. These include structural unification, judicial continuity, integrated services, early intervention, caseflow management, user accessibility and a therapeutic court environment.

Table 3.3 presents an examination of each IFC element as identified in the literature,⁶ its implementation status in the FCD, specific court practices or structures, and relevant contextual commentary highlighting strengths, challenges and areas for future enhancement.

Table 3.3. IFC features in FCD

IFC element grouping	Element description	Used in FCD
1. Features of unification	Single designated court for all family and child matters	Yes, under the FCD Act; phased implementation ongoing.
	One judge/team per family where possible	Partially used; challenges with blended families and procedural issues.
	Standard definition of family used	No formal definition; cultural and legal terms like ‘domestic’ and ‘familial’ used.
	Single point of social service referral	Yes; managed by the Social Services Unit (SSU), though national services not always accessible.
	Dedicated intake services	Yes; intake officers assist early in the process and offer service guidance.
	Dedicated facilities	Yes; court facilities are purpose-built to support family services.
	Dedicated support services for children and families	Yes; SSU provides in-house and external referrals for therapeutic support.
	Established case timelines	Yes; governed by Family Proceedings and Children Court Rules with ongoing review.
	Integrated information systems	Yes, but systems for Family and Children Courts are separate; full integration planned.
2. Other essential features	Specialist training for staff and judiciary	Yes; JEITT offers training. More frequent and specialised content recommended.
	Specialised family court structure with equal resources	Yes; FCD is equal in status and resources to generalist courts.
	Full jurisdiction over family and child matters	Yes; conferred by the FCD Act, though not fully implemented nationwide.
	Unified case management and judicial assignment	Yes; matters assigned to a judge from inception using case management software.
	Court-provided or facilitated social services	Yes; SSU facilitates in-house and external services.
	User-friendly access for self-represented litigants (SRLs)	Yes; services available via court office and email; SRLs common in domestic violence and maintenance cases.
	Therapeutic and culturally sensitive court approach	Yes; court design and service model support therapeutic jurisprudence.
3. Court structure	Specialised separate division within judiciary	Yes; formalised under the FCD Act.
	Specialised judges assigned to family matters	Yes; judicial officers are designated to family and children matters.
4. Comprehensive jurisdiction	FCD jurisdiction over all family and children matters	Yes; includes High Court and Summary Court jurisdiction under the FCD Act.
5. Specialised case management	Early hands-on processing and assignment	Yes; automated assignment and early judicial contact used.
	Linking litigants to needed services	Yes; SSU connects families to counselling, mediation, etc.
	Ongoing management and tailored legal outcomes	Yes; promotes rehabilitation and family restoration.
6. Services	Court-supplied and connected services	Yes; internal and external service providers are engaged.
	Community involvement with court services	Yes; collaborations underway with community programmes.
	Timely service delivery through referral system	Yes; guided by court rules and co-ordinated by SSU.
7. User-friendly court	Accessibility for all, including SRLs	Yes; support provided through walk-in and digital channels.
	Comfortable and non-intimidating physical design	Yes; layout intended to be therapeutic and welcoming.

The application of IFC principles within the FCD demonstrates meaningful progress toward a unified, therapeutic and responsive justice system for families and children. The FCD has successfully implemented several foundational elements of the IFC model, including the establishment of a specialised court structure, the provision of dedicated facilities and social support services, and the introduction of case management and intake systems designed to guide families through the legal process in a supportive manner. Timelines for case flow, judicial training and access to services for self-represented litigants further reflect the Division’s commitment to procedural fairness and accessibility.

However, certain elements remain underdeveloped or inconsistently applied, such as the uniform definition of ‘family’, full integration of case management information systems across the Family and Children Courts, and universal rollout of the court’s jurisdiction nationwide. Cultural complexities, evolving family structures and resource limitations challenge the consistent application of some IFC features, particularly around judicial continuity and service accessibility. While the foundation of the IFC model is clearly embedded in the FCD’s design and operations, continuous improvements are required, especially in interagency co-ordination, digital integration and service delivery mechanisms, to fully realise the IFC vision of a holistic, family-centred justice system.

Key lessons

The principal lessons derived from the IFC implementation are summarised below.

1. Standardise implementation

The IFC model should be implemented across all locations to ensure standardised procedures and best practices in handling family and child matters.
Strong court administration is required to maintain standards, processes and procedures across the system.

2. Invest in resources and workforce capacity

The IFC model must be sufficiently resourced to meet increasing caseloads and service demands.
Adequate numbers of judges, judicial officers, court staff, social workers, attorneys, prosecutors, police, psychologists, mediators and counsellors are essential to support the system.
Maintaining a high-performing IFC model requires continuous support and dedicated technological, human and operational resources.
Judicial and staff rotation may be considered to address psychosocial needs, given their exposure to challenging and traumatic cases.

3. Modernise data management and information systems

Improved statistical data collection and reporting across all IFC agencies are essential.
Case management information systems should allow for efficient access to information across courts and agencies, replacing manual systems to improve decision-making and streamline service delivery for families.

4. Optimise judicial processes

The judiciary/court should assess whether to retool the service delivery model so that pro se litigants undergo intake, with the possibility of diverting certain cases to pre-litigation settlement processes, thereby reducing the court’s workload.
IFC protocols and working groups are critical for:
- improving communication and collaboration among agencies
- streamlining procedures, processes and standards
- ensuring the resolution of family conflicts with a child-centred approach
- facilitating access to the most appropriate treatment and educational programmes.

5. Increase public awareness and accessibility

Work must be undertaken to increase awareness, understanding and literacy regarding the IFC system, ensuring that the public is informed about available options for managing family conflicts.
Socio-economic factors, including literacy, parenting styles, income disparities and geographic locations, impact access to and the delivery of justice. Justice sector organisations must adopt a whole-of-society approach in collaboration with state and community organisations.

6. Enhance holistic support and wrap-around services

Wrap-around social services are critical to the success of the IFC model, necessitating:
- strong internal referral processes and partnerships with external social service agencies
- rigorous internal monitoring, standards-setting and programme assessment.
Ideally, internal wrap-around services should be maintained to the highest possible extent.
Training for judges, judicial officers and court staff should include accommodations for psychosocial support and acknowledging their exposure to emotionally demanding cases.

7. Ensure personnel fit

The importance of fit and temperament for everyone working in this court system is crucial in optimising services.

Footnotes

1 The 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 Parliament of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago (2016), The Family and Children Division Act, 2016. Act No. 6 of 2016. www.ttparliament.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/a2016-6.pdf. | [back]

3 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]

4 A guardian ad litemis a person appointed by a court to represent the best interests of a child during legal proceedings. | [back]

5 Forum shopping involves applicants filing related cases in different courts based on procedural preferences or perceived advantages. | [back]

6 See for example Babb B A (1997), ‘Fashioning an interdisciplinary framework for court reform in family law: A blueprint to construct a unified family court’, Southern California Law Review, Vol. 71, 469. | [back]

Chapters

Downloads

Additional Downloads

Download full report (PDF)

3. The Establishment of the Family and Children Division