Abstract It is widely documented that the formal family justice system in England and Wales is in crisis. The family courts are plagued by delays and backlogs, whilst parties struggle to secure access to advice and representation due to cuts to public funding. Increasingly, litigants face economic, physical and cultural barriers to courts brought about by rising court fees, reforms to the court system and demographic changes which have resulted in diverse family forms for whom the family courts may have little legitimacy. The first part of this article examines how recent changes to family law and policy in England and Wales have reduced the ease with which parties are able to achieve procedural and substantive justice through the family courts. The second part of the article analyses how forums of dispute resolution which are delivered by non-state actors, but which rely on the state for their authority, have evolved to fill this justice gap and are therefore indicative of a move towards ‘weak’ legal pluralism in the context of family justice. It is argued that although the family courts are still an important cornerstone of the justice landscape, alternative forums of dispute resolution increasingly play a positive role in enabling disputants to achieve their procedural and substantive goals and this is strengthened by a weak approach to legal pluralism which upholds the autonomy of the parties whilst also ensuring necessary protections and safeguards for vulnerable litigants. The article therefore challenges critics of weak pluralism, who perceive that reliance on state recognition precludes institutions playing an important role outside of the state hierarchy.

中文翻译：

---

刚刚？英格兰和威尔士家庭法纠纷中的司法途径分析

摘要 英格兰和威尔士的正式家庭司法系统正处于危机之中，这一点已被广泛记录。家庭法院受到延误和积压的困扰，而由于公共资金削减，各方难以获得建议和代表。由于法院费用上涨、法院系统改革和人口结构变化导致家庭形式多样化，家庭法院对这些家庭形式几乎没有合法性，因此诉讼当事人越来越多地面临着进入法院的经济、物质和文化障碍。本文的第一部分探讨了最近英格兰和威尔士家庭法和政策的变化如何降低了当事人通过家庭法院实现程序和实体正义的难易程度。文章的第二部分分析了由非国家行为者提供但依赖国家权威的争端解决论坛如何演变以填补这一正义鸿沟，并因此表明向“弱”法律迈进。家庭正义背景下的多元主义。有人认为，虽然家庭法院仍然是司法领域的重要基石，但替代性争议解决平台在使争议者实现其程序性和实体性目标方面越来越多地发挥积极作用，而这一点因法律多元化的薄弱方法而得到加强。维护当事人的自主权，同时也确保对弱势诉讼当事人提供必要的保护和保障。因此，这篇文章挑战了弱多元主义的批评者，