Premium
Therapeutic Justice ‐ What It Means for the Family Justice System in Singapore †
Author(s) -
Loi Yarni,
Chin Suzanne
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
family court review
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.171
H-Index - 4
eISSN - 1744-1617
pISSN - 1531-2445
DOI - 10.1111/fcre.12587
Subject(s) - economic justice , adversarial system , mediation , family mediation , redress , law , family law , therapeutic jurisprudence , agency (philosophy) , political science , milestone , alternative dispute resolution , sociology , psychology , social science , mental health , psychotherapist , archaeology , history
For some time now, the family courts in Singapore have recognised that in the area of family disputes, a more conciliatory and less adversarial approach is required to achieve better outcomes for families. Hence, since the mid‐1990s, mediation and counselling programs have been incrementally introduced into the family justice process, culminating in compulsory court mediation and counselling for divorcing couples with minor children. Building on these efforts, and pursuant to the recommendations of an inter‐agency committee, a second wave of wide‐ranging reforms were introduced in 2014 to further transform the family justice system. The reforms included the setting up of a unified family court, namely, the Family Justice Courts (FJC), the introduction of a differentiated case management system and the introduction of the “judge‐led” approach to empower the judge to more effectively manage a case. Building on this momentum and in yet another milestone moment, Presiding Judge Debbie Ong recently announced in FJC's workplan speech in May 2020 that the family justice system in Singapore will seek to deliver “Therapeutic Justice.” Expressly embracing and articulating TJ at this point of FJC's journey provides an important organising framework within which, and lens through which, the family justice system can pull together the threads of its past efforts and, at the same time, collectively co‐create a truly transformative TJ vision for the future. Since her announcement, the apex court in Singapore has, in published case law, stated that “TJ is not merely an ideal it is a necessity. It is not merely theoretical but it is intensely practical. It is axiomatic that relationships constitute the very pith and marrow of a family. When familial relationships break down, those relationships (between spouses and between each spouse and the children) are damaged. Such damage cannot be repaired (completely at least) by way of material recompense; healing needs to take place.” TJ is now firmly established in the lexicon of family justice in Singapore. The challenge and task ahead is for all the family justice professionals including law and policy makers, universities, academics and teachers of family law, family judges, family lawyers, psychologists, counsellors and other allied mental health professionals who operate within the family justice eco‐system to work together, to build on what adopting TJ means for family justice in Singapore, in refining our TJ narrative and implementing TJ in practical terms, entailing both the therapeutic design of family law and the therapeutic application of family law.