Tuesday, April 29, 2014

Tuesday Review: We're all going to be replaced...

A couple of things...

According to the managing director of self-representation advice service Family Court Support John Junk (yes, really), fee-charging McKenzie Friends (initialism: 'FCMFs') will replace family law solicitors. Mr Junk believes that FCMFs may eventually be able to offer legal aid in family law cases and that the family law sector will be dominated by organised and self-regulated FCMFs and counsel only. He calls this a "nightmare scenario" for solicitors. That it may be, but I'm not sure that it would exactly be good news for the public either...

Meanwhile, professional poker player 'Tony the Hitman Hakki' hit the headlines yesterday after winning an appeal against the decision of the Upper Tribunal that he was "gainfully employed" and therefore liable to pay child support maintenance for his children. Lord Justice Longmore tells us at the beginning of his judgment that Mr Hakki supports himself from his winnings at poker, but declines to support his children, despite being "apparently quite able" to do so. The decision may be a victory for the law, but it is certainly not for the children, although Lord Justice Longmore does suggest the possibility that Tony could yet be hit for child support by way of a departure direction.

(There have, of course, been momentous happenings in the family justice system of late and whilst I may have said little about them here, I have said rather more in 'another place', otherwise known as the Marilyn Stowe Family Law & Divorce Blog. For example:

The start of the reform process

The welfare of children has always been at the heart of the system

Welcome to the future

Whatever happened to the presumption of parental involvement?)

Image: Logan Ingalls via Flickr.

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.