High Court & Principal Registry Family Contacts

The Law Society has published a very helpful list of key contacts at the High Court & PRFD for family cases .

PLO: local practice

As a footnote to the post immediately below, I would be very glad to hear of any other local practice directions / plans for PLO implementation and to have a copy of them so that they can be publicised to other practitioners. I don't know why these important documents always seem to be so difficult to get hold of. It's rather difficult to follow a practice direction if you haven't seen it. I suppose it may be that it will be distributed to all parties when the application notice is served. I will try to find this out.

Public Law Outline: Initial Local Plan for London

Judge Altman, the Designated Judge for London, has issued an Initial Local Plan for London dated 10th April 2008in respect of the implementation of the Public Law Outline (which is already in force). It applies to the London Care Centre which means the PRFD & Barnet, Kingston & Croydon County Courts & is relevant also to cases transferred into those courts from the FPCs.

The guidance deals with:

• the documentation which the LA must file on application, what it is expected to file if practicable, that reasons must be given for non-filing of any required document, recognising that it is not always possible to have everything ready on issue and that proceedings should not be delayed for the preparation or collection of any document provided an explanation is given, and that the pre-proceedings aspect of the PLO may not be achievable in cases where there is urgency in getting before the court;
• the need to deal with disclosure from the police at an early stage;
• a new procedure for the renewal of interim care orders - in particular on application for renewal there is a form which the LA should complete notifyin the court whether case management directiosn have been completed or are at risk of non-completion;
• the need for the child's solicitor to monitor the progress of the case bringing any appropriate matter to the attention of the court and the other parties;
• the procedure on transfer from the FPC, including a standard direction that the instruction of experts should be considered and agreed if possible so that decisions can be made at the CMC where all parties should attend with full information about proposed experts & availability etc as well as information relevant to the listing of the IRH and final hearing, and notifying that there will be no allocation hearing on transfer - the first hearing will be the CMC which is expected to be listed within 14 - 28 days after transfer is ordered (FPC clerk to get hearing listed before transfer, the DFJ to assign the case to a Judge for the CMC);
• Advocates' meetings must take place at least 5 days before the CMC;
• PLO3 (draft template order) must be completed (on court service website in the forms & guidance - Children Act 1989 section);
• There will generally be no directions hearings between the CMC & the IRH;
• Potential alternative carers should be identified by the CMC so they can be assessed;
• Transfer to the High Court must involve consultation with Hedley J or the DFJ (again if transferred the first hearing is likely to be the CMC);
• guidance on single issue transfer;
• the need for expeditious planning of fact finding hearings to avoid delay;
• Target times for the listing of hearings - 12 weeks for a fact finding, 25 weeks for the IRH & 40 weeks for the final hearing;
• Barnet, Kingston & Croydon will not generally list the final hearing before the IRH. The PRFD will continue to list at the CMC but plans to move to listing at the IRH in time.
• Informal recordings of proceedings or judgments are not permitted in London;
• Professionals' meetings as opposed to chaired experts' meetings are not sanctioned;
• LAs should provide a genogram with the application.

At the moment this document does not appear to have been published online. If you would like a copy immediately please email me at jacqui.gilliatt@4bc.co.uk In due course it may be published online, possibly on the main website and this post will be updated and a new post published announcing its publication wherever that may be.

Applications for leave to revoke placement orders

In Re F (A Child) [2008] EWCA Civ 439 the Court of Appeal has considered the effect of human rights on the interpretation of s 24 of the Adoption & Children Act 1989. The court declined to allow the appeal holding that a local authority had not acted unlawfully in placing a child for adoption when an application for leave to apply to revoke a placement order had been made but not yet heard by the court.

Wall LJ & Wilson LJ dismissed the appeal (Thorpe LJ dissenting) on the basis that the statutory wording was clear and unambiguous. However, they described the actions of the local authority (East Sussex County Council) in the case as a "travesty of good practice which the 2002 Act happens to permit" and "disgraceful" and "the worst I have ever encountered in a career now spanning nearly 40 years". They set out their views which have the approval of the President as to the practice to be followed by local authorities in future and suggest that those who do not observe the good practice recommended will be susceptible to judicial review.

The court recommended that those representing applicants for leave should invite local authorities to give an undertaking that they will take no steps to place (the child) with prospective adopters pending the hearing of the application & if such an undertaking is not given to apply without notice in the first instance to the county court for an order in those terms restraining placement.

Wall & Wilson LJJ concluded without hesitation that the county court has jurisdiction to grant injunctions restraining placement as a temporary, holding measure, until both sides could be before the court. The court could either then give directions for a swift hearing, or resolve the matter summarily.

Local authorities who become aware of applications for leave to apply should have reply promptly providing information as to the state of preparation of its plans and likely timescale for implementation and should themselves apply to the court, on short notice, for leave to place the child for adoption under section 24(5) of the 2002 Act.

Family Procedure Rule Commitee Open Meeting

The Ministry of Justice has announced that there is to be an open meeting of the FPR Committee on 11 July 2008 from 10.30 - 1.30. You must apply for a place by 23 May 2008.

Foster care assessment placements

Community Care starts an interesting debate on the anecdotal rise in mother & baby foster placements as an alternative to residential assessments. My experience is that some local authorities have been encouraging this alternative to residential assessments for some time if they have the right pool of professional foster carers to deal with the parents in appropriate cases. It can offer a lot better and less bruising experience to parents than residential but it is never available to couples. It would be fascinating to know what your experience is nationwide on the effect of the public funding changes on the use of residential assessment units? Comments please.

Video Links & the magistrates courts

And another thing ... I have just been told by a magistrates court outside London that magistrates have no power to receive evidence by video link. I am not aware of any procedural or statutory bar on this but perhaps I am missing something. It makes a bit of a mockery of the references scattered throughout the PLO about all family courts making greater use of video link and similar technology to minimise the inconvenience to experts who might be in South Africa at a conference or having accidents in the Antipodes. Has anyone else come across this problem? Does it have a legal basis?

Floating like a butterfly, not stinging anyone

I was recently in a case in the RCJ which should not have been floating but ended up doing so. For those of you not familiar with this predicament, in the RCJ you are usually given a fixture date ie a date where the court says you will be listed for hearing on such and such a date with a specific time estimate and barring Acts of God you will get on at the appointed hour or near enough. Or you can take an at risk hearing which means you turn up and hang around and hope to get a Judge if one of the other 50 million cases that day collapse. The RCJ has a relatively good track record of getting you before a Judge for at least some time even if you are listed at risk. But this is not much good when you need a whole day of court time. It is particularly galling therefore to turn up thinking you have a fixture only to find you are floating ie they haven't in fact got a Judge to hear the case but one might turn up. You only find out you are unexpectedly floating at about 3pm the day before. You are not generally given any explanation of the reason for this unless you specifically ask. You do not want to be the one jumping up and down about it as you are usually trying to negotiate with listing to get an alternative and one that fits everyone's availability so you need to be ultra-charming and not snarling about why you haven't got a Judge in the first place. Possbily your Judge went sick, possibly something else more urgent came along or something has overrun. In fairness to listing, I have not yet managed to find out what this is all about or the reason for the system they adopt to deal with floating cases but it is absolutely maddening and a huge waste of (usually public) funds. The other day there were 5 counsel, 2 lay parties, 2 social workers & a Guardian all hanging about. We go to court 33 and sit and wait. No one comes to speak to us to tell us what is going on or why we have been bumped off or when we might get heard. The pack of us had to troup up to the list office to find out when we might get another fixture (by this time our time estimate had expanded up to 2 days). Everyone is wildly inconvenienced - cases have to be returned to accommodate the new listing etc. In fairness, the court staff worked a miracle and are able to offer a date in 3 weeks. But who knows whether the same thing will happen all over again on the next occasion. Would it be too much to ask to install some kind of direct line to the list office from outside court 33 so that communication could be facilitated (a bit like the cab freephone in a supermarket)? Or that we could have somewhere to go an work while we wait or an indication of being released until 12 or something? And how do we then get the agreed directions approved and our wretched SIP form stamped. I will try to speak to the list office about this to hear it from their point of view and I appreciate they have a lot of their time taken up with Counsel having a hissy fit and managing the impossible but it does seem to me at least that in this day and age of technology, emails, mobile phones, & video links there must be a better way. Any thoughts?

PLO in Practice

It would be great to hear from other practitioners about how they are finding the PLO and what different courts are up to. For example, are courts changing their listing practices and not listing cases until the IRH? I am aware that in Medway the court is using Fridays as a directions day, Monday to Thursdays are being used for hearings and cases are no longer being listed for 5 days but for 4 on the basis that each case should get a clear start and the undivided attention of the Judges. Some Judges are refusing to hear cases unless the PLO documentation is submitted by email by a certain time the day before the listed hearing. Some Judges are insisting that hearings should only be referred to as one of the stages of the PLO and not called directions hearings (ie they are CMCs or IRHs). FPCs are taking even more of an age to wade through the checklists and standard directions. Also anecdotal evidence suggests that a lot of local authorities are issuing cases like fury before the fee increase expected on 5th May. What's happening in your neck of the woods?

And by the way have you signed up to the Family Law Week CPD service and looked at / listened to my slides / podcast on the PLO?

Special Guardianship Resources

For an introductory article on Special Guardianship which includes the relevant sections of the Children Act see 4 Brick Court's seminar handout on the subject.

BAAF has a great platform page with information about SGOs and links to the legislation, regulations & DFCS Guidance.

The DFCS Guidance is now on the Every Child Matters website, together with the regulations and a guide to assessing the support needs of applicants.

The Court of Appeal has dealt with appeals in three important cases concerning Special Guardianship:

Re S (A Child) (2007) EWCA Civ 54 . The applicant was a foster carer with a very good relationship with mother (who was likely to have ongoing relationship with the child) but who would have preferred adoption – the SGO was upheld by the Court of Appeal.

Re A-J (A Child) (2007) EWCA Civ 55 . The child was placed with the paternal uncle & aunt who feared that the parents would not co-operate and that future litigation would be a burden. Adoption was preferred at first instance & upheld on appeal.

Re M-J (A Child) (2007) EWCA Civ 56 . The child was placed with maternal half-sister – mother with history of drug abuse and recent relapse who was not truly accepting the need for permanence away from her – adoption was preferred to SGO & s 91(14) & this was upheld on appeal.

The following principles can be distilled from these cases:

the fundamental differences between the status & power of adopters & special guardians must be considered when the court is applying the welfare checklist;

The level of care required before a SGO is made is evident from the requirement to give notice and for the local authority to prepare a detailed report;

The court must give full reasons for preferring one order over another;

Trial judges have a broad discretion when weighing the competing advantages of each type of order such that appeals will rarely be justified (in none of the above cases was the appeal successful);

An SGO may be imposed on a party who would prefer a different order;

The SGO regime is less intrusive than adoption and the fact that it therefore involves a less fundamental interference with existing relationships may be a determining factor;

Adoption can involve a ‘skewing or distorting’ of family relationships and this too may tip the balance in favour of the SGO;

On the other hand, the greater protection from future litigation afforded by the adoption order may be determinative in some cases;

Similarly, the greater permanence of adoption may offer the greatest welfare advantage.

In the case of Re (A Child) [2007] EWCA Civ 1748 , the first case to reach the Court of Appeal on special guardianship, the court considered various issues relating to the special guardianship report & the investigations of the local authority. It held that it was not open to the court to define or limit the scope of the special guardianship report or restrict or reduce any of the matters which the regulations stipulated needed to be considered. The court further held that, where an prospective applicant for a special guardianship order required the leave of the court to make an application it was not possible for that person to give notice to the local authority of their intention to do so before they had obtained that permission. Finally the court decided that a judge should not invoke section 14A(9) to compel a local authority to perform its obligations under section 14A(8) at the instance of a person who needs but has not obtained permission to apply for a SGO unless section 14A(6)(b) applies.

The CA again considered the question of the nature of the Special Guardianship report in an addendum to Re S - Re S ((a Child) (No. 2) 2007 EWCA Civ 90 . It transpired that the court at first instance had made a SGO without having the benefit of a special guardianship report. The CA held that strictly speaking a report of some sort was required and that the court could not make an order without it. However, only minimal data would have been in the report which was not already available and the gap could be plugged by filing a report which cross referenced material already filed and added any missing information. Generally whenever a special guardianship report was needed, the court should consider the form it should take if it would be right to depart from the form and if a fresh investigation was not necessary.


In Re L (Special Guardianship: Surname) [2007] EWCA Civ 196 the Court of Appeal refused permission to a special guardian to change the surname of the child. The child was placed under an SGO with the maternal grandparents. The parents were both drug addicts (though attempting to abstain) & there were issues of domestic violence. The relationship between mother & the grandparents was complex and the father was hostile and the subject of an injunction. The grandparents wanted the child to be known by their surname. The child had already been known by several surnames and the grandparents wanted to ‘normalise’ the situation and give the child a sense of belonging. The Judge refused their application saying that it was contrary to the child’s interests to be known by a different surname and her circumstances needed to remain as faithful to the reality and truth of her situation as possible, notwithstanding the complication of having to explain the different surname to professionals dealing with her as part of the grandparents’ family unit. The Court of Appeal agreed holding that ‘honesty is the best policy. This family must honestly face up to its fractured constitution. E must learn to live with the fact that she is being brought up by her grandparents not her parents.’ The fact that the court is reminded by the legislation to consider the issue of surname when making an SGO did not create any presumption or bias towards doing so.

DNA Testing & the instruction of 'experts'

The main website has published a case dealing with DNA evidence: F (Children) (DNA Evidence) [2007] EWHC 3235 (Fam)

The judgment is of interest because it sets out some conclusions arising from difficulties and errors in the DNA testing. During the course of the proceedings, involving several adults and children, it had emerged that there was doubt over the parentage of the children involved. The judge therefore ordered that DNA testing should be undertaken. In the event, it was found that the firm chosen to undertake the testing had procedural defects that meant that the result could not be relied on. A result of a second test, carried out by another firm, was challenged by the alleged parents and so the judge allowed a third test from a third different firm. Their results supported that challenge and the second firm, on review, changed their opinion to agree with the third firm.

In the light of these difficulties, the judge issued this judgment in open court to highlight some of the issues involved in DNA testing and in paragraph 32 sets out a series of points concerning the appointment of DNA testers and what a letter of instruction should contain. He also describes the mechanics of DNA testing, how the difference in opinons between the DNA testers arose and makes some points about their expert role as part of the wider proceedings.

I was fascinated by the case which I think is the first to consider these issues having recently had a case involving two different firms concluding that two different men were the father of the same child. I do not know whether DNA Diagnostics was involved in my case but practitioners would be well advised to read the judgment in full before deciding to instruct or consent to the instruction of any particular DNA testing service. DNA Diagnostics is not on the MoJ accredited list for DNA testing and the court held it should never have been instructed. The Judge was also concerned that the firm's literature gave the misleading impression that it was a large national outfit when it fact it operated behind a number of PO boxes and that it was accredited. The reported case was further complicated by the second two firms instructed appearing to disagree with each other radically when in fact they did not. A salutary lesson in the need to dig a little deeper when instructing experts (see also this earlier post on City University's research on lawyers' use of experts (3/4 fail to check qualifications) and then to be careful exactly what you ask them!

For some scientific background on DNA see DNA From the Beginning .

Family Procedure Rules

The Ministry of Justice has published the responses to the consultation paper on the FPR.

In the new proposals, archaic terms will be replaced with easier to understand language, a decree nisi will be known as a conditional order and a divorce petition will become an application for a divorce order. In a customer survey court-users identified simpler language in court documents as a key requirement.

A single unified code for family proceedings will mean that those using the family courts need only refer to one source for guidance. Currently users may need to refer to at least three different sets of rules.

The next step in developing the Family Procedure Rules will be when the Family Procedure Rule Committee consults on the draft rules themselves. This is currently planned for the end of the year.

Experts: New Practice Direction

Along with the Public Law Outline (see Family Law Week news item ) a new Practice Direction has been published on the use of experts in cases relating to children which supercedes the guidance contained in the Protocol at Appendix C. The new guidance is to take effect from 1st April 2008 but may be followed immediately if the court wishes to do so. Much of the guidance is similar to that in Appendix C but I will highlight what is new.

• The guidance contains a welcome reference to following the same principles when instructing of experts before the issue of proceedings and broadly takes account of recent judicial views as to what experts should include in their reports (see the judgment of Ryder J in the Oldham case ): experts should be asked to describe any ethnic, cultural or linguistic factors they have taken into account, any research or literature considered, to describe any process of risk assessment or differential diagnosis noting any unusual, contradictory or inconsistent features of the case & highlighting any hypotheses relied on.
  
• There is specific guidance on how the expert should deal with any question on which there is a range of scientific opinion with reference to factors which or support the opinion expressed within that range.
  
• Parties who wish to instruct experts are to submit draft directions dealing with the instruction by 11am on the business day before the relevant hearing.
  
• The guidance provides that it shall be standard for letters of instruction to be prepared, agreed, filed & served by the lead solicitor within 5 business days of the relevant hearing. If parties cannot agree the contents of the letter the guidance proposes a mechanism for the Judge to deal with the letter by email if at all possible, thus avoiding the need for a hearing.
  
• If parties wish to ask further questions of the expert this is supposed to be done by not later than 10 business days after receipt of the report.
  
• There is a detailed section on the arrangement of experts’ meetings (nominated professional to take the lead, agenda by way of a list of questions (which should not be a mere repetition of questions asked in the original letter of instruction) to be agreed in advance, nominated professional to chair, a minute to be taken of the answers to the questions, a statement of agreement / disagreement to be prepared).
  
• At frequent points the guidance reminds practitioners of the need to be considerate of the experts other professional commitments & encourages greater use of video links & telephone conferences to minimise disruption to them.
  
• A key change is that where a party refuses to be bound by an agreement that has been reached at an experts’ discussion or meeting, that party must inform the court and the other parties in writing within 10 business days after the discussion or meeting, or where an IRH is to be held, not less than 5 business days before the IRH and must specify the reasons for refusing to accept the agreement.
  
• Finally, in an annex to the guidance are some suggested questions, drafted by the Family Justice Council for mental health professionals, paediatricians, adult psychiatrists & applied psychologists.
  

The draft letter of instruction on 4 Brick Court’s website has been amended to take account of the Practice Direction and includes possible questions to experts from other sources as well as the FJC questions.

Adoption : leave to apply

As an addition to the cases referred to in the earlier post on Adoption Resources, the Court of Appeal has granted an appeal to a foster carer who was refused leave to apply for an adoption order, in the case of Re A sub nom TL v Coventry City Council and taken the opportunity to comment on the principles which should be applied in a leave application: welfare is relevant but not paramount as is whether or not the applicant has a real prospect of success. The same principles should be applied in applications for leave to adopt as in applications for leave to apply to revoke a placement order and the decision of the Court of Appeal in Warwickshire CC v M was applied.

The text of this post has been added to the earlier post for completeness.

Nottingham Baby Case

The judgment of Mr Justice Munby in the Nottingham baby case has now been published on Family Law Week in which he sets out the background to the initial unlawful removal of the child from her mother, explains in crystal clear terms what can and cannot be done by way of removal with or without court approval and takes the opportunity to comment on the fact that the case only came to public attention because of the mother's own judicial review of her leaving care plan which was listed before him in the Administrative Court. His point being, that had it been in front of him as an urgent application in the Family Division it would have been heard in private. Readers may be aware that since his original decision a County Court Judge in Nottingham has granted an interim care order and the baby has once again been removed. The reasons for this, of course, cannot be made public.

For an interesting comment on the case see this piece by Liz Davies, social worker in the Guardian.

Adoption Resources

There are a huge number of useful websites relevant to adoption in the UK which family lawyers may find useful. The links which follow will all open in a new window.

The Adoption Rules website maintained by the Ministry of Justice follows the CJR model and contains all the rules & practice directions as well as court forms, is fully searchable and kept up-to-date.

For an overview of the Adoption & Children Act 2002 and the main changes it introduced see this article by the Family Team at 4 Brick Court .

The main BAAF (British Association for Adoption & Fostering is packed full of useful materials such as news, research, links and guidance on legislation and has an adoption subsite .

There are various useful sites under the Every Child Matters main page: adoption training materials where you can download workbooks, trainer packs or register for e-learning & the main adoption platform page has links to legislation & practice guidance.

The President's Guidance on Adoption is available online as a pdf file.

The Court Service also publishes introductory booklets on adoption & intercountry adoption and you can download the adoption forms by searching for worktype adoption in the forms section.

The Adoption Information Line is allegedly the most popular adoption internet site in the UK. It certainly deserves to be and has a good database of information and articles about the law, practice and processes of adoption though it is not primarily aimed at lawyers.

The Post Adoption Centre is a long-standing charity providing a range of services related to adoption and another adoption support agency Family Futures provides services to adopted children and their families but also provides assessments in care proceedings, particularly on attachment.

The DCFS Intercountry Adoption site is a comprehensive resource for materials and legislation related to adoptions of foreign children (incoming to the UK).

Other sites include the Independent Review Mechanism is a panel to which would-be adopters can apply for a review of a decision to refuse to approve them as adopters & the Adoption Register is a national resource for linking children to prospective adopters.

Recent cases on adoption on the Family Law Week website include :
Re A : appeal granted to foster carer refused leave to apply to adopt;

Re C : a local authority did not have to make enquiries about extended family members where mother wanted the child, who was the result of a one-night stand, to be adopted.

Re L : a local authority did not have to pursue the natural father or maternal family in circumstances where mother would not give any information about his identity or whereabouts and did not want her family to know about the child.

Three cases on adoption versus special guardianship from 2007 are AJ ((child placed with paternal uncle & aunt who feared that the parents would not co-operate and that future litigation would be a burden – adoption preferred & upheld on appeal), S (applicant was foster carer with very good relationship with mother (who was likely to have ongoing relationship with the child) but who would have preferred adoption – SGO upheld by CA) and M-J (child placed with maternal half-sister – mother with history of drug abuse and recent relapse, not truly accepting need for permanence away from her – adoption preferred to SGO & s 91(14) & upheld on appeal).

In relation to leave applications, the Court of Appeal has granted an appeal to a foster carer who was refused leave to apply for an adoption order, in the case of Re A sub nom TL v Coventry City Council and taken the opportunity to comment on the principles which should be applied in a leave application: welfare is relevant but not paramount as is whether or not the applicant has a real prospect of success. The same principles should be applied in applications for leave to adopt as in applications for leave to apply to revoke a placement order and the decision of the Court of Appeal in Warwickshire CC v M was applied.

Watch this space

The Court of Appeal has listed an application for permission to appeal, with appeal to follow if granted, to a mother in
Re P (30.1.08) which will give it the opportunity to look at the interelationship of representation by the OS & the ECHR. The full hearing of the permission application is on 4th March 2008.

The Court of Appeal has also granted permission to appeal to the House of Lords in A Council v B & Others [2007] EWHC 2395 (Fam) (and see the schedule to the judgment on the law here . This case will provide the House of Lords with an opportunity to reconsider their decision in Re H & R both as to whether there should be some variation in the court's approach to the satisfaction of the threshold test, and as to the court being able to take account at the welfare stage of a possibility of harm which has not been proved to the requisite standard at the fact finding stage.

The Law Society is about to launch its second judicial review against the Legal Services Commission in an attempt to force it to comply with the previous declaration of the Court of Appeal.

Truth, Lies & Sexual Abuse Allegations

On the website Teaching Expertise I came across this article: Do children tell lies about sexual abuse? And can we tell if they are lying? written by Jenni Whitehead (a child protection development coordinator) in which she talks about her experience as an expert witness asked to assist in disciplinary tribunals involving allegations made against members of staff. She outlines her approach using the model developed by Undeutsch et al and the criteria they suggest should be considered when assessing the truth or otherwise of allegations. Undeutsch’s hypothesis was that statements about actually experienced events differ in content and quality from statements based upon fantasy, fiction & coercion. Jenni Whitehead also refers to the validity checklist developed by Steller & Boychuck. Although the article is aimed at education professionals, it is useful background reading in analysing children’s accounts and preparing cross-examination. David Bedingfield’s extremely thoughtful book Advocacy in Family Proceedings also contains a helpful and detailed consideration of this subject in the chapter on Child Protection Litigation.

EU is or EU aint my baby

Lest we have fallen into a tickbox mentality (have considered impact of the Human Rights Act etc) Tim Scott QC & Clare Renton have written the first in a series of updates about the impact of the European Law on domestic family cases which has been published on the main Family Law Week website.

PLO / Children Act Guidance to local authorities

The DCSF has sent a letter to Chief Executives and Directors of Children's Services introducing revised statutory guidance about Children Act 1989 court orders, which comes into effect on 1 April 2008, alongside a revised Practice Direction (the 'Public Law Outline', which provides guidance to judges/magistrates). The new Volume 1 'Court Orders' guidance replaces the guidance issued in 1991.
The guidance includes the draft notice to parents of intended proceedings, a pre-proceedings checklist & draft directions.