Like all good news sources (see, for example, here and here), I am bound to report that the decree nisi in the case of The Nation's Sweetheart v Cashley Cole is due to be pronounced in the Principal Registry this morning. Contrary to what is stated in The Telegraph, this will not, of course, bring their acrimonious marriage to an end - we shall all have to wait for the decree absolute to do that.

I note that the decree is to be pronounced by District Judge Christopher Simmonds, who until recently was a solicitor practising in my local courts. I bet he can hardly contain his excitement...

Read More...

A couple of weeks back I faithfully reported that Heidi Montag and Spencer Pratt were sharing their puppies. The Daily Mail has revealed a little more detail about the arrangement. Apparently, they have four dogs, two of which stay with each 'parent' at any given time. Accordingly, at the end of each 'visit' a somewhat curious handover occurs, when one set of two dogs is exchanged for the other. Quite what effect this will have on the pooches I have no idea, but I suppose it is one way to resolve the issue.

There, I knew we could learn something from watching celebrities...

Read More...

Further to this post, Nearly Legal now reports that the LSC has changed the answer to the question on its FAQ asking what a successful applicant should do if they are not able to deliver all the matter starts that they have been allocated.

The new answer begins: "You will be required to deliver both the volume and breadth of services for which you have successfully tendered and been allocated matter starts in accordance with your bid and ranking", but goes on to say: "However, as part of the verification process the LSC is giving successful applicants who are concerned that they will not be able to deliver the volume allocated to them an opportunity to review their allocation and request a reduction".

As Nearly Legal states, the practical effect of this is still that the LSC can or will drop the required matter starts if the applicant doesn’t think they can do them, "but now hedged behind a presumption that [they] will do the matter starts and a request/considered response process on the part of the LSC". He says: "I can only assume, being a tad cynical, that this is an attempt to avoid a challenge of the kind hypothesised in my earlier post". Hmm...

What happens to the matter starts that are 'returned' remains a mystery. Nearly Legal favours the conclusion that: "The LSC is quite simply terminally confused about what the hell it is doing." I wouldn't argue with that...

Meanwhile, in the Gazette today, Law Society President Linda Lee explains why the Society had to issue formal proceedings over the family legal tender.

Read More...

My Post of the Month for August is WHY CARE? by Lucy Reed at Pink Tape. The post is a reaction to the proposition (raised in an oral evidence session for the Family Justice Review) "that in our search [for] efficiency we need to seriously scrutinise whether or not there is a need for judicial sanction along the whole process we currently know as ‘care proceedings’" (see this post).

Lucy states at the outset that the post 'is not the beautifully crafted discussion piece' that she had intended to write, but she seems to me to have done a pretty fine job. She argues strenuously in favour of retaining court scrutiny of a local authority's powers. After all, she states:

"It’s about proper limitation of the powers of the state – the most draconian of powers that the state has are to imprison us and to take away our children. If those powers are not routinely subject to the scrutiny of an independent court what is left?"

Quite.

Read More...

A salutary reminder from James Gross as to why lawyers hire experts to value assets.

Read More...

It seems that in less scrupulous areas of the media than Family Lore there is increasingly frenzied speculation as to whether the marriage of someone called 'Mel B'is over (apparently, 'Mel B' was a member of a well-known all-ladies singing combo a few years back). Of course, Family Lore would not descend to reporting such tasteless tittle-tattle...

Read More...

Not heard of this one before: a former partner in an ailing cake making business has admitted taking deductions from an employee's wages and using them to prop up the business, rather than passing them on to the Child Support Agency. Unsurprisingly: (1) the scam was noticed (although not for three years); and (2) the business has since closed.

Read More...

Long-term readers of Family Lore will no doubt remember the 'YouTube divorce' and the delightful Ms. Walsh-Smith (how could you forget her, much as you may wish to?). Who did her beleaguered husband turn to to contain the damage but one of New York's top divorce firms Sheresky Aronson Mayefsky & Sloan, LLP? Well, now it seems that Messrs. Sheresky Aronson Mayefsky & Sloan are involved in a divorce of their own, according to this report in The New York Times.

Apparently, 82-year-old Mr. Sheresky left the firm 'in a huff' last month, claiming that his former partners had reneged on an agreement to take care of him financially 'in the twilight of his career'. Mr. Aronson and Mr. Mayefsky denied that such an agreement existed, and dissolved the partnership, forming a new one with Pamela Sloan. Mr. Sheresky has now filed a $26 million lawsuit in the State Supreme Court in Manhattan, alleging breach of contract and fraud "stemming from the defendants collective and purposeful disloyalty and greed aimed at forcing Mr Sheresky from the law firm he founded and stripping him of the economic security and income to which he is entitled".

It all used to be so different. With delicious irony, the NYT tells us of a video made in honour of Mr Sheresky's 80th birthday, in which his wife asks Mr Aronson what he thinks is the secret of the three men staying together for so long. "We love each other," Mr. Aronson replied, "it goes beyond our professional relationship — the way relatives would love each other." No doubt these nauseating words are now coming back to haunt Mr Aronson.

It seems that there is no love lost now, and this particular divorce promises to be every bit as messy as any that the firm has handled. Mr. Mayefsky and Mr. Aronson dismiss Mr Sheresky's claims "as so much fantasy".

And what does Ms. Walsh-Smith think of all of this? She called the situation "poetic justice," and added: "I wish them a horrible divorce, and I hope they shed as many tears as I have." Nice to see she's got over it...

Read More...

I don't know whether this will be a regular feature, but I thought I would draw together some of the most important items that have appeared on Family Lore Focus each week, including (if appropriate) news stories, cases, articles and blog posts.

Without doubt the biggest news story of this week was the commencement by the Law Society of judicial review proceedings in respect of the Legal Services Commission's family tender. The Law Society is seeking a declaration that the family tender process and outcome are ‘unlawful’, and asking for a suspension of the new contracts. There is disappointment all round, with the Law Society saying that they are disappointed that the LSC refuses to acknowledge the detrimental effect that the tender will have on families, and the LSC expressing disappointment that the Law Society has indicated that they are issuing proceedings, with the uncertainty that such proceedings will cause.

Meanwhile, Nearly Legal has pointed out a remarkable shifting of the goalposts by the LSC, which he feels could be the basis for a challenge to the tender. I passed on his findings in this post, and the position seems to be perfectly summed up by a commenter who has been adversely affected by the tender, and says: "I have seen some mad things in my 30 years as a legal aid lawyer but we have now plunged over the edge into an abyss of lunacy". Quite.

Elsewhere, it has been a fairly typically quiet August week. On Monday the BBC Panorama programme reported on the child abuse 'nightmare' of Jake and Victoria Ward, a case that will be familiar to all family lawyers. Lucy Reed at Pink Tape expertly reviewed the programme in this post.

Lastly, two stories that perhaps wouldn't have surfaced if there had been more 'real' news about (and hopefully won't surface again): a 'top professor' arguing for irreversible sterilisation for parents who abuse their children, and a novelist calling for a two-child limit for 'the poor'. No wonder they call it the 'silly season'...

Read More...

I have just received issue 8 of their PENSION relief brief from Bradshaw Dixon Moore. Dealing with the turmoil caused by the recent change in the measure of inflation used by State and statutory pensions from the Retail Prices Index (RPI) to the Consumer Prices Index (CPI), the brief makes important reading for all dealing with pensions and divorce.

You can subscribe to PENSION relief brief here.

Read More...

Nearly Legal has pointed out what he calls 'a major shift in position' by the LSC regarding the tender for civil contracts.

A FAQ on the LSC's website includes the question: "I am concerned that I will not be able to deliver all the matter starts that I have been allocated, what should I do?", to which the answer was originally: "Under the contract, you will be required to deliver both the volume and breadth of services for which you have tendered…." Makes sense. However, the answer has now been changed to read: "If you are in any doubt as to whether you can deliver all your matter starts, please contact us through the message board and let us know how many you would like. We will then adjust your total. It is important that you receive the right allocation at the start of the contract." What??? So it doesn't matter how many you bid for, you'll still get the contract?

As Nearly Legal states, providers whose point scores were just below the ‘winners’ could "have missed out of a contract on a false premise – that the winners could deliver what was bid for – and now the LSC seeks to unilaterally alter the terms of the tender without addressing the award of contracts. To me that sounds like a basis for challenge."

Not being involved in the contract process, I am no expert on its terms, forms and inevitable acronyms. However, Nearly Legal does seem to have a very good point here, one which should be passed on to any firms wishing to mount a challenge to the family tender.

Read More...

Following on from this post and this post, here's another bad idea for those who don't like paying child support.

Let me tell you about the case of Heck v Heck, heard recently by the Court of Appeals of Missouri, Western District. It essentially concerned Mr Heck's appeal against the trial court's award of child support. Now, the charming Mr Heck had not done all he could to show himself to the court in the best light. In fact, there were one or two things that he did that didn't go down too well with the court, including:

• Disconnecting the battery cables on Mrs Heck's car


• Putting a mixture of Vaseline, mustard, brown sugar, and sardines on the doors and sidewalks at Mrs Heck's workplace;


• After she obtained an order of protection, sending Mrs Heck threatening text messages, including one warning that: "If you get sole custody, you'll never live through the night";


• Informing Mrs Heck that he would minimise his income, hide assets and do whatever was necessary to avoid obligations such as child support;


• Sending Mrs Heck photographs of a number of $100 bills while claiming he had no money; and
  


• Telling Mrs Heck that: "When you are broke, I will take the kids."

Needless to say, Mr Heck's appeal was dismissed.

Read More...

Whilst writing the previous post I was reminded of my pre-Child Support Act 1991 days, acting for mothers who sought not just maintenance from the father, but also a lump sum payment in respect of birth expenses. If I remember correctly, we called the expenses the 'layette', which for our purposes did not just include a first set of clothing for the baby, but also such essentials as a pram/pushchair, a cot and bedding. It could, therefore, amount to a fair sum, although not sufficient to warrant separate court proceedings, hence I don't recall ever coming across the layette again once the Child Support Act was implemented.

Read More...

Here's a remarkable story from Washington State, USA. I don't know if it's unique, but I don't recall ever previously hearing of a woman (allegedly) faking a pregnancy in order to claim child support. That, however, is what Carmen Lynn Johnsen is accused of doing, with the result that she received a total of $3,500 from the alleged 'father'. Quite how she expected to get away with it (if true) without producing a child is not clear.

I do like the way that (at least some) original US court documents are available to view on the internet - see below. It is also nice to see that our legal system does not have a monopoly on archaic language ('to-wit', 'by color and aid of deception', 'against the peace and dignity of the State of Washington', etc.).
CANONCIVIL1_EXCHANGE_08232010-092551

Read More...

In a not dissimilar vein to the last post, the Telegraph reports today that novelist Amanda Craig says the Government should ban 'poor' people from having more than two children, to help save the environment. I should say that the idea is not quite as appalling as it first sounds - apparently, she is not calling for a ban, rather just resurrecting the old right-wing chestnut that the state should not keep paying benefits to those filthy poor, thereby encouraging them to keep multiplying. Quite right too.

Read More...