To achieve this, however, the project skirts the rules of evidence. It turns on its head the principle that people control their own litigation. It does away with most legal objections, legal argument - "all those things that take up time", as the judge puts it. This is nothing like the usual court combat. And for that reason it's cited by the new chief justice of the Family Court, Diana Bryant, as "the future of family law".

ON a sunny Friday just before Christmas, a divorced couple in their mid-30s has brought to the program a dispute about where their seven-year-old son will go to school. He lives alternate weeks with each, playing with siblings he's acquired as both parents remarried. He's always been at the same school, but with both parents now living elsewhere in the city, the question is should he go to school near Mum's house, Dad's house, or halfway between? It is a simple dispute compared to most, yet still intractable. When three knocks announce La Poer Trench's arrival in the courtroom, the parties rise from their places around same table. Then they're introduced to a mediator.

"That doesn't happen in any other case," says Le Poer Trench. "[In non-CCP cases] we don't have a mediator involved in the case as an adviser to the parties and to the judge." Courts usually keeps strict walls between its staff mediators and judges. Changing this is "hugely radical", Le Poer Trench says, and one of the challenges in drafting legislative changes to make the project permanent. Anyone who gets to this court has already had compulsory mediation. "But just being in the same room as an ex-partner can be so overwhelming that you don't hear anything" in early mediation sessions, says Le Poer Trench. Here, with a judge watching, mediators meet a totally different response.

Imagine yourself in a relationship break-up, says Le Poer Trench. "Most people feel very hurt, most people feel unjustly treated, and that they don't have any avenue for anybody to hear their legitimate complaints. "We [Australian family law] are a 'no fault' jurisdiction, so you can't stand up and say: 'This person has got no morals . . . they've formed an emotional relationship with someone else, and that's entirely unfair.' " In this program, they can.

Le Poer Trench begins today's case by outlining his understanding of the family situation, gleaned from questionnaires parents fill out before their first day in court. Then he asks each parent to tell him in 10 minutes what the case is about for them. "Doesn't happen in any other case," says the judge. Usually, judges do not even question the parties' lawyers until final submissions. "Parties do not get a chance to put their case directly to a judge unless they appear for themselves."

What's been amazing about the pilot, which has been operating in Sydney and Parramatta for almost a year, is how few use this time to bag their "ex". "We didn't know what was going to happen," says Le Poer Trench. "I sort of anticipated that it might become a brawl - 'Oh, that bastard over there, I need 10 minutes just to tell you what a bastard he is'. But it's quite the opposite." Project cases have been broadly representative of the range of Family Court cases. "They are not all cases where people desperately want to settle and they just need the judge to give advice and formulate it. Some of them are very bitter disputes which you would think would naturally choose the adversarial path," were it not for the financial savings of this program.

Yet in their 10 minutes, people tend to be nice. "In fact, one of the problems is ... they are not telling us important things that might be seen as being critical of the other party." Still, this unfiltered exchange allows the judge to tell where the parties are, emotionally. "If you're hearing from somebody [who] hasn't yet begun to come to grips with the emotional battle that they have to deal with, then you know you've got no prospect of really resolving anything on the first day," says the judge. (Five to 10 per cent of CCP cases settle on the first day).

The court has formed relationships with counselling agencies to handle such matters. There are increasing numbers of programs CCP judges can send parents to for help getting "to a point where they can start to appreciate what's in their interests and what's in the child's interest". Today, Le Poer Trench can hear - though it is unsaid - that Mum feels Dad is overbearing, while he believes she is emotionally manipulative. The court can make orders, lay down rules for them to live by. "But in CCP, we understand that whatever the court does in the process is not going to solve the problem that brought them here - and that is an inability to co-operatively parent the children. So from day one, I discuss with parties their becoming involved with an outside agency that can work therapeutically with them."

The couple in court 5A see the sense in this. The judge reckons they can take some tough love. He tells them to stop saying they just want what's best for the child. If that were true, he says, they'd find the best school in Australia, both move there and find new jobs and new friends. "You've got to pick your mark," he admits during a break. "[With a lot of cases] I couldn't do that, because they're too emotionally frail ... It really has to be put in proper context - not just the interests of the child, but how do we cater, as best we can, for his interests in the whole circumstances in which we live." Court mediator Paul Lodge is here as a neutral party. Le Poer Trench asks him to talk to this couple, and Lodge says it matters little, relatively, which school the boy attends. What will really affect his wellbeing is the conflict, or co-operation, between his parents. The child will know if one parent doesn't support the idea of sending him to school X and that will affect everything about his experience there.

"I don't comment on the specifics of a family," Lodge says. "Things like family violence, relocation, all those thematic things we confront in the court . . . I comment from an evidence-based research perspective." Le Poer Trench tries to convince parties that the answer is always in their relationship. "Because if you can develop a working relationship built on a foundation of respect then everything else falls into place." Today the judge tells the couple that if he has to decide where this boy goes to school, he will consider it a failure. But he will if he has to.

Le Poer Trench could dress in civvies for CCP hearings, but he chooses to wear the wig and robe. "The parties have to know that although I might engage in exploring with them possible resolutions - so that it looks a bit more like mediation than judicial determination - if we can't resolve it that way, then I make the decision. And it's not me personally . . . I am making the decision as a judge of the court. "You've still got to apply all the law."

It's the procedure that's radically new. In CCP, the same judge sees a case throughout. That judge decides what are the issues, what affidavits are needed, what witnesses, whether there can be any cross-examination. Judges spend an average of 21 hours per CCP case compared to 21 days for normal hearings, according to a Senate Legal and Constitutional Committee's estimates released last May. "Being very interactive, very directive, doing a lot of talking - it's a huge change for a judge," says Le Poer Trench.

On the first day, if the judge feels parties are "getting it", he can suspend the hearing to give them time with the mediator. Some couples work it out then. If not, they are introduced to their own case co-ordinator, whom they can call any time. The judge may order a family report to be done, or meet the children involved. Few CCP cases reach a second hearing day, and none of the CCP decisions so far has been appealed against.

(So far 28 matters have been settled by the CCP project in Sydney and another 63 are pending. There are another 100 CCP matters in Parramatta, of which 49 have been finalised.) Lodge predicts CCP outcomes will be more sustainable than those decided in less democratic courtrooms. "Parents are treated with a different sort of respect," says the mediator. "They're encouraged to speak and participate . . . that's what makes a difference. If you're feeling good about yourself, feeling part of the process, you're more likely to give a little bit." Today's case is a wrap. Before walking back out onto Goulburn Street, these parents opt for a school midway between their homes, and agree to attend a program to help them communicate better.

Le Poer Trench expects that before this year is out, Federal Parliament will agree to laws enabling this project to become permanent: "Then every children's case will be done this way."