Wednesday, July 30, 2008

The long arm of the law

The BBC reports today a case of an English lecturer at the University of Kent who is apparently being held in jail in Sao Paulo, Brazil, on suspicion of not paying child support. Martin Boyle had travelled to the city to try to see his 16-year-old daughter, who lives with his Brazilian former wife. He is believed to owe 6,000 Brazilian Real (about £2,500) in child support payments, although his family and friends think that the failure to pay was an oversight on his part. Whatever the truth, this is a useful reminder of the 'long arm of the law', when it comes to maintenance. In fact, the mother could have pursued the maintenance claim in this country, and if successful an order would have been made by Mr Boyle's local Magistrates' Court, requiring him to make payment to that court.
Posted by John Bolch at 12:13 pm
Labels:

8 comments:

  1. Brazilian courts can order maintenance payments of up to 30% of the father's income, much higher than the 15% which is usual in the UK. Would such a Brazilian court order be upheld and enforced in the UK, or would the Magistrates' Court review the decision by the Brazilian judge and adjust where needed?

    ReplyDelete

  2. My understanding (without looking it up!) is that the English courts can't reciprocally enforce a Brazilian order. Even if they could, the father could apply to the English court for a downward variation.

    ReplyDelete

  3. There is a reciprocal arrangement with Brazil: see http://www.csa.gov.uk/en/case/remo.asp#S5
    but it is interesting to know that a father isn't just at the mercy of the judiciary system of a foreign country but, if I understand you correctly, has the right to apply to pay less than the 30% in this case.

    ReplyDelete

  4. Yes, I know that Brazil is a party to the Convention, but I'm not sure that a Brazilian maintenance order can be registered over here - I think that the Brazilian applicant has to apply to the English court for an order, but I may be wrong (it can be quite difficult to work out how the Convention applies to a particular country). Even if a Brazilian order can be registered over here, the English court would not be bound by Brazilian law when considering a variation application.

    ReplyDelete

  5. Perhaps this has something to do with the number of street children in Brazil. They do seem to have a problem, just an idea.

    It would be good if there was a 'right' figure. But that is most of the problem. I think I agree with the Guardian bird, think Polly Toignby. 15% of net income, regardless of number of children, ridgidly imposed. Anything larger is a well dodgy (expensive) price for a shag. Which is what we are talking about.

    I thought was 15% for 1, 20% for 2 and 25% for 3 or more in UK. this is too high. Also the rich are capped which makes it even more morally indefensible.

    ReplyDelete

  6. Hmm, not sure 15% for any number of children is enough. Interesting idea though.

    ReplyDelete

  7. There is never enough money. I think 15% is more than enough, especially by historical standards,and this invention of no such thing as fault.

    ReplyDelete

  8. Meant conduct.

    ReplyDelete

Thank you for taking the time to comment on this post. Constructive comments are always welcome, even if they do not coincide with my views! Please note, however, that comments will be removed or not published if I consider that:
* They are not relevant to the subject of this post; or
* They are (or are possibly) defamatory; or
* They breach court reporting rules; or
* They contain derogatory, abusive or threatening language; or
* They contain 'spam' advertisements (including links to any commercial websites).
Please also note that I am unable to give advice.

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)