Friday Review: Not a lot going on

 It's been a strangely quiet week, especially as far as reported cases go. There have been a couple of 'forum shopping' cases, in particular Jefferson v O'Connor, but not a lot else. Perhaps everyone is waiting for the President's transparency guidance to kick off next week, when just about every judgment will have to be published. Or something like that.

There have, however, been a few family law news items. For example, Resolution has said there is "no justification" for government plans to increase the court fee for a divorce from £410 to £750 (a statement of the bleeding obvious, given that the MoJ has admitted that the current fee is already "above cost price"), a report by the Tavistock Institute for the Department for Education has said that marriage guidance could save the country 'billions' by reducing family break-ups and, my favourite story, a millionaire could not understand why his ex-wife became "so aggressive" when he asked her to stay on in the marital home as a housekeeper for him and his new partner.

"For about the past four years now I have been indulging in that respected pass time [sic] of Arguing With People who are Wrong on the Internet." Says guest poster Sarah Phillimore on Pink Tape. Arguing with idiots on the internet, especially those from the 'corrupt family courts brigade' is, of course, an utterly futile 'pass time', hence I gave up doing it long ago. However, Sarah has learnt one thing from it, albeit an obvious thing: there is a need for information for families involved in the child protection system. Accordingly, says Phillimore, "we decided to create this resource", cunningly entitled the Child Protection Resource. I've had a look around the site and it's not clear who 'we' are (perhaps it's the Royal 'We'), but no doubt the site will be of great use.


  1. Thank you for the effusive praise for our new endeavour. I can clarify that the 'we' is real and not royal - brilliant and talented though I undoubtedly am, this endeavour is beyond my brilliance alone.

    There are many of us worried enough to want to do something constructive.

    1. Thank you for your modest comment.


    2. If ti was so obvious to you that there was a need for information for families involved in the child protection system, how come you haven't done something about supplying it?

    3. It is obvious to me that there is a need for information in many areas, but I'm afraid I don't have time to do something about supplying it in all of them.

      I have, however, supplied a huge amount of free information on family law on this blog over the last 8 years, plus I have done other things aimed at informing, including writing a book advising upon divorce and running my Family Lore Focus site (and free weekly email Newsletter), which provides links to family law news, cases, articles and more.

      I would respectfully suggest that that is more than most family lawyers have done to provide information on the subject.


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.

Popular posts from this blog

‘Nineteen Child Homicides’: Women’s Aid launches new report and campaign to protect children in the family courts and prevent further avoidable child deaths

News Essentials: 2nd December 2019

News Essentials: 9th December 2019