Friday, June 07, 2013

Friday Review: Mediation, committal and fancy dress (in two different forms)

Notable things this week:

Looking forward to next week may be a strange place to start a review of the last week, but perhaps the thing that is getting family lawyers the most excited is the news that the Supreme Court is to hand down its decision in Petrodel v Prest next Wednesday, the 12th of June. Prepare to be inundated by the views of the pundits...

Moving on, as I noted yesterday, the government continues to push mediation. The MoJ's press release doesn't really say anything new but does tell us that:
"Over the next two years the Government is predicting a sharp rise in the use of mediation for separating couples."
Really? I can't imagine why that may be the case...

The President
The President has issued supplemental guidance on committal for contempt of court. Lucy Reed over at Pink Tape speculates whether this may in any way be connected with this report that appeared in the Daily Fail. Lucy also notes that paragraph six of the guidance requires advocates to be robed. Presumably, a bit of 'fancy dress' (as Lucy calls it) adds to the solemnity of the occasion...

Happily, attempts in the House of Lords to 'wreck' the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill came to naught, and the Bill now proceeds to the House of Lords committee stage.

Despite the large fines imposed, Councils still seem to be finding ways of breaching the Data Protection Act. The latest authority to transgress is Halton Borough Council in Cheshire, which has been fined £70,000 for sending details of the home address of adoptive parents to the birth mother.

Away from family law, Charon QC has treated us to a four-part 'view of and from the law blogs' (and other assorted matters). You can find part 1 here, part 2 here, part 3 here and part 4 here.

And if you still have your sanity after that, head over to Babybarista, where the subject of direct access raises its head in Steering clear of the clients.

Finally, as pointed out by Legal Cheek, a father in America decided that a good way to impress the judge in his application for contact with his youngest son would be to dress in Nazi uniform. Not, in fact, the first bad decision he has made - he named his oldest son 'Adolf Hitler'.

No comments:

Post a Comment

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.

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.