The areas where these reforms should address are twofold. One argument that Judge Ross repeatedly raises is that steps should be taken to ensure the sustainability of Family Court employees through more manageable workloads. The need for this change is evident in the countless examples of children suffering under poor and constantly changing staff. In one particular case, a six-month-old child abuse case is adjourned because “they don't have the medical records” in time (128). The second argument that can be implicitly made based on the frustrations expressed by Judge Ross is that, if adequate time was allowed for consideration, there should be more scope for consideration of the circumstances in the family court. From a legal perspective, there is substantial evidence for the validity of a common law approach to family court compared to traditional civil law. Judge Ross states that ideally “in every case protecting children, ensuring due process, remaining neutral until the facts are established, applying common sense and good judgment within the law in making decisions – it is up to the Family Judge entirely outside the arena of public policy, commentary and debate” (104). However, as seen in many of his cases, the combination of the excessive workload and the inability to apply proper consideration to every circumstance makes it impossible for the pre-existing