Family Lore

Happy Valentine's Day

2012-02-14T00:01:00.000Z

News for the week to the 13th of February 2012

2012-02-13T11:52:00.000Z

This week, I'm afraid you will have to put up with me alone bringing you the top family law news stories:

(Those without Flash can listen here.)

A second-to-none marriage proposal

2012-02-12T07:39:00.002Z

These days, men are always looking for new and unique ways to propose marriage (well, some men are). The trouble is, most of these methods are completely lacking in class. Well, help is now at hand for those who want to propose in style.

Pizza Hut is offering ten exclusive Valentine's Day Proposal Packages, based upon their $10 Dinner Box, "which includes a medium one-topping rectangular pan pizza, five breadsticks with marinara sauce and 10 cinnamon sticks with a sweet icing cup in one box". For 'only' $10,010 (plus tax), customers will get:

A Ruby Engagement Ring: a "stunning ruby stone flanked by shimmering diamonds". Wow.
Limo Service, so you can "pick up your sweetheart in style before popping the question." Hopefully, one of those really classy stretched limo jobs, with a jacuzzi in the back.
Flowers, because "no proposal is complete without a spectacular bouquet of her favorite flowers". How could it be?
Fireworks: a perfectly-timed fireworks display will vault this proposal into the record books. After all, you have to have fireworks, don't you?
Photographer: photos taken of the happy couple before, during and after the moment. If you're lucky, you might get other customers in the background, caught stuffing their ultimate cheese lover's pizzas into their gobs.
Videographer: capturing video of the moment she says “yes”. Or the moment she runs away in tears, as appropriate.
Last, but not least, the $10 Dinner Box: "hands-down the most vital, and appetizing, piece of the package".

As Kurt Kane, Pizza Hut CMO says: “If we’re able to fit pizza, breadsticks and dessert into one box for only $10, why stop there? Our customers want the best of everything, from their food to memorable life experiences. So we decided to make one of those experiences – the marriage proposal – second-to-none and offer it at PizzaHut.com right alongside the new $10 Dinner Box.” Who could argue with that?

And it gets better: if she says 'yes' (she will say yes, won't she?), "a Pizza Hut-themed wedding at Pizza Hut headquarters could be in order."

Darwin Day

2012-02-12T00:01:00.000Z

Today, the 12th of February, is Darwin Day, "a global celebration of science and reason" held on (or around) the birthday anniversary of evolutionary biologist Charles Darwin. As my small part of that celebration, here is a video in which Sir David Attenborough presents his views on Darwin, natural selection, and how the Bible has put the natural world in peril:

Something for the Weekend: Spike Milligan Fly in My Soup

2012-02-11T00:01:00.000Z

These days, the political correctness police may have a thing or two to say about this, but I still love it, particularly when Spike (inevitably) ends up in hysterics:

In Practice: A class apart

2012-02-10T10:58:00.000Z

It's been something of a quiet week for professional news.

I suppose I should mention that the SRA has extended the deadline for renewing practising certificates to the end of February. This applies to all those renewing, irrespective of name. The SRA does emphasise that it is still important to renew as soon as possible, presumably in case of (further) problems.

Returning to the issue of fusion, solicitor Richard Burnett-Hall wrote a letter that was published in the Gazette yesterday, in favour of the President of the Law Society's idea that solicitors and barristers should undergo the same training. He pointed out the costs of training for the Bar and the risk of meagre earnings for newly-qualified barristers, all of which:

"...means that the intake is substantially skewed towards those with independent means who are often privately educated. This not only discourages able candidates from other backgrounds, but more insidiously maintains the public’s impression that the bar and the judiciary are predominantly public school- and Oxbridge-educated, and from a class apart."

All very commendable, although if this is the same Richard Burnett-Hall who works as a consultant at Bristows, I note that not only does he have a double-barrelled surname, he also has an MA from Cambridge. Perhaps some solicitors are also a class apart...

And that's about it for this week. As I have finished early, I shall now retire to my club, where I shall have a G and T whilst gazing out of the window, watching the great unwashed go about their menial lives...

Win a Divorce - On Valentine's Day!

2012-02-10T07:05:00.000Z

What could be better - and more fun - than telling your wife live on the radio on Valentine's Day that you are divorcing her?

This hilarious stunt is to be carried out by those wacky DJs Robert and Jono at crazy New Zealand radio station The Rock FM. In return for doing the dirty deed, the husband, known as 'Sam', will have his divorce paid for by the radio station. According to The Rock:

"Across our fair land there are hundreds of poor blokes who thought they married an angel who, in fact, turned out to be Satan in a dress.

So Robert and Jono have put it on themselves to help one of those blokes out.

But this won't be your standard marital break-up. This will be aired live on the radio. On Valentine's Day.

Robert and Jono have found their Divorcer - Sam - and are helping him prepare to get his life back by ditching the ball and chain."

Classy.

As for Sam, who won a competition to be the lucky 'divorcer', he says that he: "Is confident nothing is going to go wrong."

Well, what could go wrong?

* * * * *

UPDATE: It seems that a lot more could go wrong than The Rock FM bargained for. 'Sam' (who was actually (thought to be) the wife, rather than the husband, which doesn't fit with the quote I gave above) was in fact one half of a lesbian couple who sabotaged the radio station's contest. For the details, see this report in NZ Herald News.

Two lessons for separated fathers

2012-02-09T13:44:00.000Z

Autor y su Hijo by Carlos Vergel Frorentti

Two lessons for separated fathers, neither of which is new, but both of which cropped up this week:

Lesson number 1: The world ain't out to get you
I was reminded of this just this morning, when I read a comment on this post that I wrote on Monday. The commenter, clearly a fathers' rights supporter from his name, repeatedly (mis-)used the word 'misandry' when talking about a poll in the Guardian regarding fathers' contact rights.

I hate to disappoint, but whilst there may be a few misandrists working in the family justice system, there is no conspiracy against fathers. Why should there be? For example, the accusation is often made against family lawyers, but it simply doesn't make sense: family lawyers act for mothers and fathers - why should they discriminate against half of their clientele? When I acted for a father in a residence/contact dispute I did the same job as I did for a mother.

The law, in fact, is gender-neutral (there is nothing in the Children Act that favours mothers over fathers), and it has long been acknowledged by the courts that that the welfare of children is usually best served if they continue to have a proper relationship with both parents (see, for example, Re O (Contact: Imposition of Conditions) [1995] 2 FLR 124).

So why, a fathers' rights supporter would say, are the vast majority of residence orders made in favour of mothers, and why are the courts so bad at enforcing contact orders in favour of fathers? As to the former, this simply follows from the fact that, in our society, mothers are usually better placed than fathers to be residential parents - it is simply down to what is best for the welfare of the child, not any conspiracy against fathers. As to the latter, this ultimately (i.e. once it has been established that the mother is entirely at fault, which is actually quite rare) flows from the obvious practical difficulties in taking enforcement action against someone caring for one or more children. If she ignores other methods of enforcement, the ultimate sanction is prison, but then: (a) who then looks after the children and (b) what will be the effect upon the children of such action?

Another aspect of the 'world is against me' paranoia is, of course, a desire by some fathers to blame anyone and everyone for the situation they find themselves in, when they only need to look in the mirror for the source of their troubles. I'm not for one moment saying that all fathers who fail to get contact with their children are to blame for that, but everyone who has worked within the family justice system has seen many examples of fathers who are their own worst enemies. Aggression towards the mother and hostility towards the court (and, when things don't go their way, even towards their own lawyers) are not likely to achieve satisfactory outcomes.

So, my suggestion is that the 'victim mentality' of many fathers is not only wrong, it can be counter-productive, masking the true reasons for some fathers losing contact with their children.

Lesson number 2: You can't solve every problem by changing the law
It is a common theme amongst fathers' rights supporters that the law is to blame for so many fathers losing contact with their parents. Such an argument loses some of its strength when one thinks that in 90% of cases arrangements for children are agreed between the parents without recourse to the courts, and that in 2010 the courts refused only 300 of 95,000 contact applications. Nevertheless, fathers' rights groups call for a change in the law, giving fathers equal 'rights' in respect of their children, usually along the lines of a presumption of shared residence. They seem to think that this is the panacea that will lead them to their parenting nirvana.

You can't blame them; you only have to watch the news or read the Daily Mail any day to see 'experts' and politicians calling for a change in the law to resolve the latest issue of the moment. More often than not though, when one examines the problem in detail one realises that the present law is quite adequate, or that the problem is just not so straightforward that a simple change in the law will cure it.

This issue of shared parenting has, of course, been in the news this week with the publication of the Government's Response to the Family Justice Review. Contrary to the recommendation of the Review, the Government has chosen to give the matter further consideration, believing "that legislation may have a role to play in supporting shared parenting".

Well, I don't want to dash anyone's hopes, but I think it may be somewhat optimistic to expect any such legislation to have any significant impact upon the outcomes of future children cases. Whatever the guidance from parliament, the courts will still be dealing with the same difficult practical problems as before, with the same limited options as to satisfactory outcomes.

In any event, I have news for you: the courts have already for some years been fully conscious of the possibility that some sort of shared residence/parenting arrangement may be in the best interests of the children (see, for example, D v D (Shared Residence Order) [2001] 1 FLR 495), and many shared residence orders have been made. Any change in the law is likely to have little effect upon the way the courts already look at things.

* * * * *

[This post was in part inspired by this excellent Comment is free article in the Guardian on Monday by Liz Trinder, professor of socio-legal studies in the Law School at Exeter University.]

Music to a divorce lawyer's ears...

2012-02-08T15:02:00.000Z

On a slow day for family law news, I came across this story, of what must be one of the shortest marriages ever, certainly the shortest I have come across. It is not entirely surprising, however, that the bride changed her mind only one hour after the wedding, as she was 20 and her groom was 80...

Knight Ryder

2012-02-07T14:49:00.002Z

[Don't blame me, blame @SobukiRa.]

MIAM should be compulsory, say Venal & Grabbit

2012-02-07T10:14:00.000Z

I have received the following press release from Messrs. Venal & Grabbit, Solicitors:

===PRESS RELEASE===

London, 7th February 2012: Leading firm of divorce lawyers Venal & Grabbit think all husbands should be advised to use MIAM™, their new method for hiding assets from greedy vindictive wives. Short for 'Move and Insulate All the Money', MIAM™ teaches wealthy husbands unbeatable methods for salting away property, in such a way that avaricious wives and interfering judges will never be able to find it.

Senior Partner Edgar Venal said: "These days many lily-livered lawyers fail in their duty to protect rich husbands from money-grabbing wives, resulting in many such men losing large parts of their hard-earned fortunes. We at Venal & Grabbit teach husbands the principles of MIAM™, to ensure they keep everything they deserve. We believe that all lawyers should advise their husband clients to use MIAM™ ...provided, of course, that they pay us an appropriate fee for doing so."

===ENDS===

Happy Birthday Charles Dickens!

2012-02-07T09:04:00.000Z

Attorney and Client: Fortitude and Impatience by "Phiz" (Hablot Knight Browne) for Bleak House

In view of his obvious concerns for the welfare of children, it seems entirely appropriate to celebrate the 200th anniversary of Charles Dickens's birth on a blog devoted to family law. Of course, the law was one of his most famous targets in the wonderful Bleak House (above), but hopefully since then we have learned a thing or two, even if we may not be perfect!

62.5% think divorced fathers have sufficient access rights under current law

2012-02-06T20:15:00.000Z

According to this poll in The Guardian, 62.5% of the population think that divorced fathers have sufficient access rights under current law. Well, that was the result shortly after I voted. Strangely, the result has since gone completely the other way. This could not possibly be due to fathers' rights groups mobilising their minions to warp the result, could it? If it was, I didn't see that coming...

Of course, as @julie_doughty has quite rightly pointed out, the poll has two serious flaws: firstly, it only refers to divorced fathers, rather than all separated fathers, and secondly, it refers to 'access', rather than 'contact' - the Guardian really should know better than that. After all, it is more than 20 years since the Children Act...

* * * * *

UPDATE: Having checked with Julie, the Guardian has now amended its headline!

LoreCast for the week to the 6th February 2012

2012-02-06T13:12:00.005Z

In a bumper edition, Natasha and I bring you the top family law news stories from the last week.

(Those without Flash can listen here.)

Government Response to the Family Justice Review

2012-02-06T12:26:00.000Z

The Government has published its Response to the Family Justice Review.

The Government has accepted the majority of the Review’s recommendations, in full. Going through the detailed responses to each recommendation in the Review, I have identified the following main areas where the recommendations have been rejected, or not accepted in full:

1. The recommendation that charges to local authorities for public law applications should be removed: The Government says that the Review "did not find any evidence that court fees prevented local authorities from fulfilling their statutory duty", and that: "The cost of these fees has been built in as appropriate to the Spending Review settlements for 2010 for those departments affected."

2. The recommendation that the time limit for the completion of care and supervision proceedings should be set at six months, with a stipulation that a trial judge proposing to extend a case beyond six months would need to seek the agreement of the relevant Designated Family Judge/Family Presiding Judge, as appropriate: The Government responds: "the Panel’s proposal that extensions beyond the time limit should be agreed by a senior judge would encroach on judicial independence and may create further delay. For these reasons, the Government does not accept this part of the Panel’s recommendation, but to ensure that there is transparency about any decision to extend a case beyond the six-month time limit and that the proportion of cases requiring extensions can be kept under review, the reasons for the extension will be recorded and stated in court."

3. The recommendation that no legislation should be introduced that creates or risks creating the perception that there is a parental right to substantially shared or equal time for both parents: The Government feels that further consideration of this is needed. It says: "On careful reflection, the UK Government believes that legislation may have a role to play in supporting shared parenting and will consider legislative options for encouraging both parents to play as full a role as possible in their children’s upbringing." A working group of Ministers has been established to develop proposals for legislative change, which will be brought forward for wide debate and consultation later this year.

4. On the Review's recommendations regarding enforcement of orders: "The Government does not agree with the Review’s conclusion that additional enforcement measures are not the answer. Whilst the courts already have a number of enforcement powers (a fine or imprisonment for contempt of court; the imposition of unpaid work; and the award of compensation for financial loss suffered by the other parent) there are practical and evidential hurdles which in practice mean that these sanctions are little used. The Government therefore intends to explore the feasibility of providing the courts with wider enforcement powers so that in appropriate cases these can be used to address wilful disobedience in respect of the court’s order. Parents should also be made aware at the outset of proceedings about the potential consequences of disobeying any order made by the court and the Government believes that this could help to prevent enforcement from becoming the central issue."

5. On the recommendation that the Government should establish a separate review of financial orders to include examination of the law: "The Law Commission is already taking forward a project to look at how provision might be made for pre-nuptial, postnuptial and separation agreements to be given legal effect, so as to provide couples with more control and certainty about how their assets are to be divided on divorce. Ministers have agreed that this project should be extended to include a limited reform on the substantive law on Financial Orders relating to needs and non-matrimonial property. The project will take around 18 months to complete. The Law Commission will then undertake a separate project to make recommendations for improving the enforcement of Financial Orders. These two projects together will improve the substantive law and make it easier to enforce Financial Orders once made by the courts." In other words, the recommendation is rejected.

As to what happens next, by April this year the Family Justice Board will be established and the legislative changes that will be required will be clarified. The Government will report on progress in implementing the wider reform programme by April 2013.

For some reaction to the Response, see this article on Family Law Week, this article on Family Law and this article in The Guardian. Family Law also has a reaction from James Carroll, Co-chair of the Law Society's Family Law Committee, here. Hayley Trim on Family Law has also given her analysis of the Response, here.

Highly implausible?

2012-02-04T11:56:00.000Z

"Plainly, H is about to quit the jurisdiction. His asserted intention to travel to Africa to engage in charity work strikes me as highly implausible, and I consider that there must be some ulterior reason for his wish to leave the country." - Mr Justice Mostyn, Young v Young [2012] EWHC 138 (Fam) (03 February 2012)

Something for the Weekend: The Mavericks - Dance The Night Away

2012-02-04T00:01:00.000Z

I was reminded of this during the week. A simple 'feel-good' song:

In Practice: Fusion, training, renewals and a Charter

2012-02-03T09:00:00.000Z

Back to a slightly fuller In Practice this week:

One of the stories that I would have mentioned in last week's In Practice post but for the uncertainties of the Law Society Gazette website was the speech by the Law Society President John Wotton to the Saïd Business School in Oxford, in which he visited a subject that I have touched upon here before, i.e. fusion of the two halves of the profession. In a speech entitled Fission or Fusion, he expressed the belief that the division between solicitors and barristers will "wither away" as a result of the reforms set in motion by the Legal Services Act, and said that he thought it was "inevitable" that the professions will "need to revisit the question whether [they] should continue to be separately trained, represented and regulated".

Not everyone agrees that such a future is inevitable. One (unsurprisingly anonymous) commenter to last week's Gazette story expressed the view that: "If anyone thinks the Bar is going to do other than look after its own, they are barking mad."

Notwithstanding that, however, the Gazette reported yesterday that the chair of the Bar Standards Board Baroness Deech is actually thinking along similar lines to Wotton, at least when it comes to training. In a speech to students at Oxford University last week she proposed that barristers and solicitors should share most of their training, saying that the new structures in which lawyers can practise, and the severe shortage of pupillages, have called into question the way both branches of the profession should be trained. Her idea is that 'solicitors and barristers could do most of the core professional training together and then branch out to the bar or solicitor side towards the end' (quite where the branch should be located is not clear, but obviously somewhere in what is now the vocational stage). Such a change, she said, 'would help those uncertain which branch of the profession to train for, as well as those who realise that they made the wrong choice'.

Meanwhile, turning to more prosaic matters, the SRA has reported that it is clearing up its backlog of online practising certificate renewal applications, although if I read the report correctly, as of last Friday only 7.5% of applications had been completed, which doesn't seem much to me, given that the deadline is the 21st February (the 13th February for those whose names commence with the letters A to D). For an account of one solicitor's experience of using the new system, see this letter that was published in the Gazette yesterday.

And finally, congratulations are in order for the Institute of Legal Executives, which received a Royal Charter last week. ILEX has thus become CILEX.

Venal & Grabbit endorse Asda Valentine's Day card

2012-02-02T14:27:00.000Z

They'll understand...

Venal & Grabbit have endorsed Asda's 7p "Smart Price" Valentine's card.

Senior Partner Edgar Venal said: "In these times of economic hardship it makes sense not to spend too much on your partner's Valentine's Day card. I'm sure anyone receiving such a card will appreciate how their loved one has put frugality first when choosing how to show their affection... by the way, my telephone number is 01234 666-666."

LSC: Guilty of 'sharp practice'?

2012-02-02T09:28:00.001Z

Still on the subject of public law proceedings, it is obviously essential that parents facing the possibility that the state may remove their children from them should be properly advised and, if necessary, represented. It is therefore with considerable dismay that I hear more and more complaints about failures by the LSC to properly and promptly remunerate lawyers doing child care work.

The latest such complaint is in a letter from William Bache of William Bache & Co, published in the Gazette today. He refers to the recent closure of West Midlands legal aid firm Jewels, and agrees with Mark Jewels that that "melancholy event" was most likely caused by late payments by the LSC.

He goes on to say that his own firm's experience with the LSC has been similar, and that many other legal aid lawyers have told him that they have not received payments from the LSC for months. In fact, he believes "that some secret direction has been issued by the government to the LSC to reduce by any means possible the sums to be paid to the dedicated and hardworking (not to say long-suffering) practitioners", including:

"...reductions in amounts once allowed; rejections of major claims for the most miniscule of reasons; and disallowance of items that their declared policy says are allowable."

He says that "many would describe such tactics as sharp practice", compounding "the pre-existing scandal of lamentable rates of remuneration and the creaking administration of payments", and fears that if this situation continues:

"...more excellent firms will fail, leaving a vulnerable section of our community without the expertise they desperately need to deal with the visceral issues connected with the potential loss of their children."

It is not, of course, just that firms will fail - many others will simply choose to stop doing this vital work. What then for the likes of Tiffany and Mike?

And for any lay person thinking that this is just another example of the bleating of fat-cat lawyers, think again. Most child care lawyers are doing this very difficult and complex work for the sort of limited rewards any self-respecting fat cat would consider loose change, and at the very margin of profit.

* * * * *

UPDATE: Please read the first comment to this post, which seems to sum this issue up nicely.

Protecting Our Children: Were the parents given proper support?

2012-02-01T17:27:00.000Z

Tiffany and Mike face up to Social Services

I posted a couple of days ago about the BBC's new series on child protection, Protecting Our Children. The post attracted a number of comments, the general consensus of which was that in the case depicted in Monday's first episode Bristol Social Services had not done enough to provide support and guidance for the couple concerned, Tiffany and Mike, to help them keep their children, rather than have them taken into care.

It is therefore with some interest that I read today that family advocacy charity Family Rights Group has expressed exactly the same concerns. Now, as I said in the comments to my previous post, it may be that social services did offer support and guidance - inevitably, a film such as this only gives a very brief picture of events over a long period, although if they did then the film's failure to portray this was quite a serious oversight on the part of its makers.

Marilyn Stowe to answer readers' questions on finances and divorce

2012-02-01T16:46:00.000Z

Marilyn Stowe

Just a quick post to publicise an unmissable offer from my fellow blogger Marilyn Stowe. Next Wednesday the 8th February from 2pm to 4pm she will be answering readers’ questions on the subject of the financial implications of divorce. For further details, see this post on her blog.

Marilyn's advice will be given entirely free of charge and without liability. Note that, necessarily, Marilyn will only be able to give general advice.

This is an extremely generous offer by one of the country's top family lawyers, so if you have a question relating to financial/property matters after divorce, then go and post it on Marilyn's forums.

Game Over

2012-02-01T09:12:00.002Z

The latest in man's (men's?) never-ending search for a unique way to propose marriage:

Don't do it!

[For those who, like me, are none the wiser, this is a fake card created for the Pokémon Trading Card Game. Found on Neatorama.]

LoreCast for the week to the 31st January 2012

2012-01-31T10:39:00.001Z

Natasha and I present you with all the top family law news stories from the last week (and a bit):

(Those without Flash can listen here.)

Protecting Our Children: BBC Two 9pm tonight

2012-01-30T12:04:00.000Z

Social worker Louise takes a call

Just a quick heads-up for an important new 3-part BBC documentary series on child protection, commencing at 9pm tonight on BBC Two and BBC HD. Created with the help of the Open University, Protecting Our Children "follows Bristol's child protection teams over the course of a year [or 18 months, according to the OU] to see frontline work first-hand".

The BBC were offered special access to film the series, through a protocol drawn up with Bristol Council and ratified by the family court. The Head of Bristol Children's Services has indicated that the Council agreed to the series out of a belief that there needs to be more accurate reporting of the challenges social workers face and what they do in practice, as was the case when Bristol agreed to the 2004 BBC series Someone to Watch Over Me, and that need is perhaps even greater post-Baby P. Whether the series does improve the public understanding of social work will of course remain to be seen, but it is encouraging that the OU describes tonight's first episode as "an unbiased observational film where we get to understand both the professionals’ and parents’ points of view both revolving around [the child] and his future welfare".

You can read more about the series here.

A better way

2012-01-29T14:55:00.000Z

Ken Clarke: 'use mediation over courts' - Ministry of Justice, 23rd January 2012

Divorce apps: The lengths solicitors go to make a quick buck out of other people's misfortune

2012-01-28T08:09:00.000Z

The latest addition to the growing list of divorce-related apps comes from Colchester solicitors Armstrong Family Law. Inspirationally named Armstrong Divorce Law, the app "is designed to be a comprehensive and easy to use reference for Divorce Law in England and Wales". It "does not replace the need for a Solicitor, but provides much needed advice and explains in detail the procedures, law and key points associated with divorce and separation", including financial information. The app is available in the iTunes store for £4.99.

[The title to this post is not just me being facetious - it comes from the highly predictable first comment to this article about the app in the (Colchester) Daily Gazette.]

Something for the Weekend: Stoning

2012-01-28T00:01:00.000Z

I thought of this when I wrote a post during the week about a Jehovah's Witness - how much better the world would be if everyone could laugh at the absurdities of religion. A Python classic, and still just as funny as it was all those years (and viewings) ago:

R v Kayani and Solliman: Any damage to welfare of children does not justify reduction in sentence for abduction

2012-01-27T16:36:00.000Z

Lord Judge

Should a prison sentence for child abduction be reduced because it may adversely affect the children, who are now in the care of the abducting parent?

That was the question to be answered by the Court of Appeal in the conjoined appeals of R v Kayani and R v Solliman [2011] EWCA Crim 2871, which have just been brought to my attention thanks to Family Law.

As these are criminal cases, I will not go into detail, as there are obviously matters beyond my area of expertise, such as the discussion of sentencing under the Child Abduction Act 1984 (for which the maximum is 7 years) compared to the offence of kidnapping, for which the maximum is life. Instead, I will concentrate on those areas of interest to family lawyers.

In the Kayani case, the father abducted the two boys, then aged 5 and 4, in January 2000, and took them to Pakistan. The mother has not seen them since. In May 2009 the father returned to the United Kingdom with both boys, who continued to live with him. The boys are now 17 and 16, and refuse to have contact with their mother. In 2011 the father pleaded guilty to two offences of abducting a child and was sentenced to 5 years imprisonment. He appealed against the sentence, suggesting that the judge failed to consider the consequences of the sentence of imprisonment on him, given that he was the sole carer for the boys, and that the sentence involved serious consequences for them.

In the Solliman case, the father abducted three children, then aged 8, 7 and 5, in April 2002 and took them to Egypt, returning to the UK with them in November 2009. As a result of the abduction, "the natural bond between mother and children has been permanently severed", and there is no chance of them having any contact with her. In 2011 the father pleaded guilty to three counts of abducting a child and was sentenced to 3 years imprisonment on each count. He appealed against the sentence, claiming that the children were hugely distressed at the absence of their father in prison. The issue was whether the interests of the children should lead to a reduction in sentence.

Giving judgment, Lord Judge said (at paragraph 54):

"The abduction of children from a loving parent is an offence of unspeakable cruelty to the loving parent and to the child or children, whatever they may later think of the parent from whom they have been estranged as a result of the abduction. It is a cruel offence even if the criminal responsible for it is the other parent. Any reference in mitigation to the right to family life ... is misconceived. In effect the submission involves praying in aid and seeking to rely on the very principle which the defendant has deliberately violated, depriving the other parent of the joy of his or her children and depriving the children from contact with a loving parent with whom they no longer wish to communicate."

He continued (at paragraph 57):

"The mothers have suffered extreme emotional hardship, and although the children themselves are unaware of it, they have been deprived of one of the foundations for a fulfilling life. The periods of abduction were prolonged, many years in duration, and the relationship with the mothers was irremediably damaged. In the case of the mothers, the hardship will be life long. Given these stark facts, making every allowance for the impact on maturing teenage children of the imprisonment of their father in the light of their current living and educational arrangements, any damage to their welfare is a direct consequence of his actions. This does not justify a reduction in what would otherwise be entirely appropriate sentences."

Accordingly, both appeals were dismissed.

In Practice: Debarred and down

2012-01-27T11:13:00.000Z

A briefer than usual In Practice this week, for reasons that will shortly become obvious.

The biggest piece of professional news this week is undoubtedly that @Geeklawyer has been struck off (alright, it may not be the biggest, but I'm a bit short of other news, as will be seen). I suspect that there may be some within the profession who have been hoping for this news for years, although whether Geeklawyer actually gives a damn, I'm not too sure. The story has already been covered in detail by Charon QC, so I won't say much more, save that whatever Geeklawyer turns his hand to in future, I hope that he will continue to amuse those of us who still have a sense of humour.

OK, at this point I was going to talk about a couple of stories that appeared in the Law Society Gazette this week, but I can't, as the Gazette's website is down AGAIN. The site has been slow and unreliable for as long as I've been using it (which is about as long as it's existed), and hardly gives the best impression of the body that represents half of the entire profession. DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT LAW SOCIETY. (As I write this the Gazette has tweeted: "Apologies once more for current Gazette website issues. The site will be back up soon." Note the words "once more". As for it being back up soon, I've got other things to do, so I can't wait, sorry.)

Holocaust Memorial Day

2012-01-27T00:01:00.000Z

Wedding cake made out of divorce papers

2012-01-26T14:57:00.000Z

Not entirely sure what this is saying, but I like it:

Image and cake: ktyazoo on flickr

Child maintenance news

2012-01-25T15:32:00.000Z

It was good to see Lord Mackay opposing the government's plans to charge parents for using the CSA, although it seems that the chances of obtaining any form of concession are remote. Nevertheless, in 'response' to such opposition the Department for Work and Pensions has today announced an additional £20 million to help families work out their own child maintenance arrangements (although exactly how this money is to be used is not entirely clear).

I'm sorry, you can throw as much money as you like at helping families agree child maintenance arrangements, but that will have no effect whatsoever upon the real problem with child maintenance: the absent parents who refuse to pay. All the new system is doing is penalising the parent with care by charging them to use a service that was previously free, with no improved likelihood of the CSA actually recovering anything from recalcitrant parents.

Still, the most important thing with any government is spin, and the headline '£20 million to help separating families' looks good.

Meanwhile, the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission has today released the latest CSA performance statistics, for the quarter ending December 2011. Key facts revealed by the statistics include:

The percentage of cases with a child maintenance liability in which maintenance is being paid rose from 77.8% as at September 2011 to 78.0%.
882,600 children were benefiting from maintenance, up from 876,100 in September.
£1,180.1m maintenance was collected or arranged in the 12 months to December 2011 of which £121.1m was arrears. This is up from £1,168.7m in the 12 months to September 2011 of which £122.1m was arrears.
89.4% of cases received in September 2011 were cleared within 12 weeks, which was actually slightly down from the 89.7% figure for cases received in June 2011.

So, generally improving performance, although I can only imagine the horrific effect that the government's proposed changes are likely to have upon the figures.

Don't believe a word...

2012-01-24T13:35:00.000Z

Ken Clarke says mediation "is quicker, cheaper, less confrontational and it encourages people to resolve their issues rather than turning to judges and lawyers" - Ministry of Justice, 23rd January 2012

Religion rears its ugly head

2012-01-24T12:33:00.000Z

Causing trouble wherever it goes as usual, the subject of religion has cropped up a couple of times over the last few days in relation to family law matters.

Firstly, Carl Gardner at Head of Legal wrote a post taking issue with the absurd claim that "Islamic law can be compatible with the toughest human rights legislation", and expressing the view that decisions of sharia councils in family matters could not have legal effect through the Arbitration Act 1996. I'm afraid I rather put a spanner in the works of that argument (which I believed to be correct myself) when I referred Carl to this article on Family Law Week (after being reminded of it by Marilyn Stowe), which explains a family law arbitration scheme which is due to be launched next month. In the light of that, Carl now asks whether there is anything in the Act to prevent sharia tribunals acting as binding arbitrators in family disputes

This is a very important and disturbing question. The mere thought of family disputes being adjudicated by reference to some ancient religious text must surely be of serious concern to any right-minded person.

I don't care if sharia councils rule on religious matters - such things are of no consequence in the real world. As to matters of English family law, clearly sharia councils could not have jurisdiction to dissolve legal marriages, but they could (and may already) be used to 'resolve' financial matters on divorce and (even more worryingly) to deal with private law children disputes.

I have no expertise in arbitration whatsoever, so I will wait with interest to see what conclusion Carl reaches.

Meanwhile, yesterday Bailii reported the case of Re N (A Child: Religion: Jehovah's Witness) [2011] EWHC B26 (Fam). As the title suggests, this case dealt with the issue of one parent (the mother) being a Jehovah's Witness, and the other parent's concerns regarding the upbringing of the child.

Now, don't get me started about Jehovah's Witnesses - if dragging your children around door to door as you try to convert those with more sense than you to join such a mad sect isn't child abuse, then I don't know what is. Clearly, I'm not the best person to report on this case, so I won't. Instead, I'll leave it to the interested reader to look at and draw from it what they will.

Luck of the draw...

2012-01-23T16:24:00.000Z

New Chair of Cafcass appointed

2012-01-23T14:53:00.000Z

Baroness Tyler

The Department for Education has today confirmed the appointment of Baroness Tyler of Enfield as the new Chair of the Cafcass Board. The appointment takes effect today, and will last for three years.

Baroness Tyler has been Chief Executive Officer of Relate since 2007, and is a working Liberal Democrat Peer in the House of Lords. She previously held a number of senior positions within the government, most recently Director of the Vulnerable Children’s Group at the Department for Education and Skills. She was raised to the peerage in January 2011.

I thought I would take this opportunity to briefly explain what Cafcass is, for the benefit of the uninitiated. Cafcass (the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service, to give it its full name) was set up on 1st April 2001 under the provisions of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000. It brought together the Family Court Welfare Service (which was a subdivision of the probation service), the 57 panels of the Guardian ad Litem Service and the Children’s Division of the Official Solicitor’s Office. Cafcass is a body corporate, governed by the Board and managed by a Corporate Management Team, with Anthony Douglas as Chief Executive.

Its principal functions are to:

safeguard and promote the welfare of the children,
give advice to any court about any application made to it in such proceedings,
make provision for the children to be represented in such proceedings,
provide information, advice and other support for the children and their families.

Describing its work, Cafcass says that it "champions the interests of children involved in family proceedings, advising the family courts in England [Wales is covered by Cafcass Cymru] on what it considers to be in the best interests of individual children". The matters in connection with which Cafcass's trained Family Court Advisers advise courts include care proceedings, adoptions and private law proceedings, such as residence and contact disputes.

LoreCast for the week to the 23rd January 2012

2012-01-23T10:51:00.001Z

Natasha and I return to bring you this week's top family law news stories and cases, in a short, easy-to-listen podcast:

(Those without Flash can listen here.)

Something for the Weekend: Laurel and Hardy - Towed in a Hole

2012-01-21T00:01:00.000Z

I came across this whilst looking for another Laurel and Hardy video recently. One of my favourite clips from one of their best films:

In Practice: The Bar Barometer

2012-01-20T12:03:00.000Z

I said when I started writing these In Practice posts that I might occasionally delve into the 'dark side' of the profession, where they have strange arcane customs (i.e. the Bar), and so it is today.

On Wednesday the Bar Council and the Bar Standards Board published the first full edition of the catchily-titled Bar Barometer, an annual report on statistical trends within the Bar. The foreword tells us that this edition "considers the Bar of England and Wales over the period 2006-11, focusing in particular on the statistics and information relating to those who were successful in gaining pupillage".

I confess that I have not read all of its fifty-seven pages, but the summary of 'key facts' tells us much of what we need to know, including most of the following:

The number of practising barristers grew steadily in the five years to 2010, from 14,890 in 2006 to 15,387 in 2010, although the growth rate has actually declined.
80.7% of the total 'practising profession' in 2010 were self-employed.
The total 'practising profession' in 2010 comprised 65.2% men and 34.8% women.
Of the 15,387 barristers who held practising certificates in 2010, 1,564 were from a 'black and minority ethnic group' ('BME'), although 1,938 did not disclose their ethnicity.
1,509 students were enrolled on the Bar Professional Training Course ('BPTC') in 2009/10 (out of 2,540 applications), of which 87% passed.
There were 3,100 applications for the BPTC in 2010/11, an increase of 18% over the previous year.
In 2010/11 446 First Six pupillages were registered, a decrease of 3%, and 477 Second Six pupillages were registered, a decrease of 3.6%.
In 2010 QCs constituted 9% of the practising profession.

The chair of the Bar Standards Board Baroness Deech has expressed satisfaction that the report "demonstrates a positive representation of women, BME and disabled barristers", but the figures that have been making the headlines are the two that are not compatible: the increase in the number of applications for the BPTC and the decrease in the number of pupillages being offered. Clearly, there are going to be a lot of disappointed baby barristers out there, for whom the barometer will be registering extremely cold.

Blood on the carpet

2012-01-19T14:38:00.002Z

Just a quick heads-up for an article in the Gazette today regarding the increase in litigants in person. In it, District Judge Nick Crichton gives an excellent summary of the effect upon the family courts:

"We are getting more and more people coming to court in private law cases without the benefit of sensible, structured legal advice, wanting to spill blood on the court carpet. Angry with each other, they shout across the court, they refuse to listen when you try to calm them down and it is very difficult to find a solution that they will go away and work with."

And mediation isn't necessarily the answer:

"The government wants people to stay out of court but it is very difficult to get people to mediate when they are still very angry and haven’t had the benefit of decent legal advice. These cases take an inordinate amount of time, which is having a knock-on effect on public law cases getting before a judge."

You can read the article here.

Just an idea...

2012-01-19T10:09:00.001Z

QualitySolicitors prepares for £15m ad campaign - Law Society Gazette, 19th January 2012

The Purity Bear

2012-01-19T08:24:00.000Z

I have it on good authority that this is not a parody:

Do Your Own Divorce update

2012-01-18T10:12:00.001Z

I have added another update to Do Your Own Divorce. This one deals with the Statement of information for a consent order form. The update can be found here.

Now We Are Six

2012-01-18T05:30:00.000Z

Coloured all by myself!

It seems I've now been writing this ~~nonsense~~ blog for six years. To celebrate, here's a lovely cake that I coloured in all by myself.

When I was five,
I was just alive.
But now I am six,
I'm as clever as clever.
So I think I'll be six
now and forever.

[Image: Coloring.com. Poem: A.A.Milne.]

News for the week to the 17th January 2012

2012-01-17T11:45:00.002Z

A day later than usual, here is a summary of the top family law news for the last week (or so):

(Those without Flash can listen here.)

Trust me, I'm a lawyer

2012-01-17T11:25:00.000Z

This morning I came across a recent US Gallup poll, in which members of the public were asked to rate various professions for their honesty and ethics. It will not have made good reading for the American Bar Association, with a full 37% of respondents rating lawyers "low" or "very low":

This is even worse than the survey commissioned by the Legal Services Consumer Panel in this country last year, which found that only 47% of people in England and Wales trust lawyers to tell the truth. For a profession that is supposed to be based upon ethics and truth, the Gallup poll is not good news, and I suspect that it is indicative of a general downward trend in the public's respect for lawyers, at least in the western world.

Still, it could be worse - we could be politicians.

Google ad placement fail

2012-01-15T11:36:00.000Z

I found this the other day in Google Reader - a story in Pink News about Canadian gay marriages, with a Google ad for Muslim marriage site Muslima.com attached. Oops.

Something for the Weekend: ELECTROSHOCK

2012-01-14T00:01:00.000Z

A great little animated film made by French students, with English subtitles, found on Neatorama this week:

Oh, the irony!

2012-01-13T14:39:00.000Z

A virtual prize of £850 if you can spot the irony in this story that appeared in The Galloway Gazette:

[With thanks to the person who sent me this, who shall remain nameless.]

In Practice: Competing, paying and helping

2012-01-13T11:23:00.000Z

This week, three stories that will have a bearing upon the future of the profession:

Alternative Business Structures ('ABSs') continue to be the subject of debate. I particularly liked Catherine Baksi's post on the business blog in the Law Society Gazette, Should doom merchants have gone to Specsavers? In it, she tries to dispel fears about the competition from ABSs. She points out that a similar change took place in the optometry market in 1985, when the Opticians Act brought to an end the monopoly held by opticians to provide sight tests and dispense spectacles. At that time there were 3,500 independent optical outlets, and it was feared that most of these would be swallowed up or put out of business by new entrants to the market or established brands such as Boots. However, this did not happen and now there are more independent optical outlets than before. Of course, it remains to be seen whether the comparison between the optometry and legal services markets is valid.

Turning to other news, the SRA has announced that it is to consult on whether it should continue to set the annual minimum rate of pay for trainee solicitors. The minimum wage policy, which dates back to 1982, was designed to protect trainees from being exploited and to encourage high calibre graduates into the profession, but SRA Executive Director Samantha Barrass, said: "Our consultation paper explains that there is no clear evidence that setting a minimum salary for trainees fulfils any of the regulatory objectives within the Legal Services Act ... It would appear that setting a minimum salary does not address any identified risk to the public interest or the rule of law, nor is it clear that it improves access to the profession". The consultation will look at the potential impact of deregulation. Personally, I fear for trainees if the minimum wage does go, particularly in the present economic climate.

Lastly, on the subject of access to the profession, I have somewhat belatedly come across PRIME, an excellent initiative aimed at helping students from less privileged backgrounds get work experience in the legal profession. If you also missed the launch of PRIME, have a look at this video:

How the other half live

2012-01-13T07:35:00.000Z

St. Lawrence Giving the Wealth to the Poor, Palma Giovane

Family Law has just published a summary of a financial remedy case that took place last April, heard by Mr Justice Coleridge, no less. It states that the total assets 'amounted to £4 million', and continues: "Use of White v White etc authorities not helpful in a case in which barely enough to cover needs" (my emphasis). I'm sorry? FOUR MILLION POUNDS IS BARELY ENOUGH FOR A FAMILY'S NEEDS? What exactly do they need? Gold-plated toilet paper?

Now, I know that 'needs' are assessed with reference to the living standards previously enjoyed by the family, rather than the real needs of 'ordinary' people (you know, a roof over their heads and enough money to put a meal on the table each day, that sort of thing), but even so, I find it extremely difficult to imagine just what needs are so great as to use up such a sum. With 'only' half of a £4 million pot I could live like a Lord for the rest of my days, and still have enough left over to leave a decent inhertance for my butler.

OK, I haven't read the full report of this case (it doesn't yet seem to be available on the free web). It may be that the assessment of needs was quite reasonable in the circumstances. Still, it does make one wonder just how in touch with reality is our judiciary, and also gives an indication that 'financial suffering' in recession-hit Britain is all relative.

Hverra manna ert þú?

2012-01-12T09:22:00.000Z

Iceland: I guess when you live in an isolated country of only 300,000 people who don't use surnames, then the chance of an incestuous relationship must be pretty high, especially for those from smaller communities. This is where Íslendingabók ('The Book of Icelanders') comes in. Íslendingabók is a genealogical website linked to a database containing information on almost every Icelander since the 18th century.

To use the site (which incidentally is free), you simply input your name and that of your potential partner, and the database will return information about any family ties. Sounds like an excellent idea.

For more information about Íslendingabók (in English!) see here.

'Collaborative lawyers' is an oxymoron

2012-01-12T07:38:00.003Z

Crash Corsage - The World's First App for Wedding Crashing

2012-01-11T16:08:00.001Z

Finally, you can crash any wedding, anytime:

[Found on brandflakesforbreakfast.]

The work of Cafcass' National Business Centre

2012-01-11T12:07:00.000Z

Just a quick post to mention a short but interesting article on Community Care today regarding Cafcass' National Business Centre. Typically, the centre screens at least 200 private law applications a day, to identify any child safeguarding issues before the first court hearing.The centre received a positive rating from Ofsted in December.

Cafcass has suffered much bad press in recent times, so it makes a welcome change to see them receiving some good publicity.

Interview with Edgar Venal

2012-01-11T11:39:00.000Z

In a rare interview with Edgar Venal, Senior Partner at Venal & Grabbit, we discuss LASPO, mediation and the latest divorce statistics.

We meet him relaxing in the red leather armchair in his office, with his feet up on the back of a trainee who is acting as his footstool. Another trainee scurries in with a silver tray carrying a bottle of one of those boutique style gins for discerning high net-worth individuals who are driven by luxury and quality, together with two crystal glasses. Wishing to keep a clear head, I decline the offer to partake.

Family Lore: Thank you once again for the kind offer to give an interview to Family Lore.

Edgar Venal: The pleasure is all yours, but do do keep it brief - I have fees to earn. You do know my hourly rate, don't you?

FL: Err, well, no. How much is it?

EV: (Chuckling) As I always say, if you need to ask, you can't afford me!

FL: Quite. Moving on, the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill is of course being debated in the House of Lords this week. What are your thoughts on that?

EV: The best thing since sliced bread. Make people pay for going to law, that's what I say. In fact, I have been lobbying their Lordships in favour of the Bill. Amazing what a few backhanders in the right places can do. (He takes a sip of gin.)

FL: But what of those who can't afford to go to law?

EV: (Choking on his gin) Don't be absurd - the law is for those who can afford it, not for the great unwashed.

FL: OK, but what about all the hard-working legal aid lawyers who will be out of a job if legal aid is abolished for their area of work?

EV: Of course I always have sympathy for fellow lawyers (provided they're not in competition with me), even if they are foolish enough to do legal aid work, but they can always down-grade and become mediators. (He takes another sip of gin.)

FL: Have you ever considered training as a mediator yourself?

EV: (Choking on his gin again) Now if you're going to be offensive, you can leave my office immediately.

FL: I'm terribly sorry, I meant no offence - I hear many lawyers are doing it.

EV: (Calming down) My boy, I could not possibly be a mediator - how could one earn a decent living out of work that doesn't involve expensive court proceedings?

FL: Well, quite. Moving on, there was of course another piece of good news for divorce lawyers prior to Christmas, when it was revealed that there had been an unexpected rise in the divorce rate. What do you think of that?

EV: Yes, excellent news. Not entirely unexpected though. I don't like to take the credit, but much of the increase was due to Venal & Grabbit's advertising campaign promoting divorce. Money well spent - and tax-deductable, too.

FL: Really? So advertising does work?

EV: Of course it does. Tell the punters that life will be better if they get a divorce, and the new instructions come flooding in. (He pointedly looks at his watch.)

FL: (Taking the hint) Well, I can see you're busy. Thank you for speaking to Family Lore.

Family Lore Focus Newsletter reaches 150th Edition

2012-01-09T15:01:00.000Z

Today I sent out the 150th edition of the Family Lore Focus free weekly email Newsletter. The Newsletter contains links to all the the top family law news stories, cases, legislation, articles and blog posts that are reported on Family Lore Focus each week. You can subscribe to it here.

Seems quite reasonable to me...

2012-01-09T14:53:00.000Z

For some reason this was included in a list of vintage sexist adverts:

Summary of the news since 19th December

2012-01-09T12:56:00.003Z

A rapid audio summary of the top family law news stories since my last news podcast on the 19th of December.

(Those without Flash can listen here.)

Happy 70th Birthday Stephen Hawking

2012-01-08T10:15:00.000Z

Something for the Weekend: Time is Nothing // Around The World Time Lapse

2012-01-07T00:01:00.000Z

I don't get to travel anywhere these days, so I rather liked this video that I came across on Neatorama during the week. It comprises 6237 photographs taken around the world, made into a five minute film (each 2 second scene comprises about 40-60 photographs). Enjoy:

For more details of the video see here, and of the places visited see here.

@familylaw: Three thousand followers can't be wrong...

2012-01-06T13:18:00.000Z

...well, maybe they can, but at least the followers of my @familylaw twitter feed are keeping up with all the latest happenings in the world of family law. For those who don't already know (where have you been?), @familylaw feeds all news items, cases and articles from Family Lore Focus on to twitter, thereby providing a convenient way to stay up to date.

You can also keep up to date by subscribing to the free weekly Family Lore Focus Newsletter here - all that is required is your name and email address.

To recap, Family Lore Focus is essentially a site that aggregates freely available family law content from the web, including news, cases, statutory instruments, articles and blogs. Several times every day I check every source that I am aware of including family law sites, general law sites, blogs, newspapers, Bailii and many others, and post links to items of interest. The most recent links can be found on the front page of Family Lore Focus, and older ones on the relevant blogs: Family Lore News, Family Lore Case Digest, Family Lore Articles, and Family Lore Blogs.

[Post blatantly copied from earlier one, with minor amendments.]

In Practice: It's all happening...

2012-01-06T10:09:00.000Z

The rest of the country may may spent the last two weeks in blissful idleness, but there is no shortage of professional news to report.

The biggest story, I suppose, is that on Tuesday, the 3rd January, the SRA began accepting applications from organisations wanting to be licensed as alternative business structures ('ABSs'). Justice Minister Jonathan Djanogly was quoted on the Ministry of Justice website as saying that:

"The addition of the Solicitors Regulation Authority marks another major milestone for UK legal services and the future of Alternative Business Structures.

"Customers will find legal services more accessible, providing a much more competitive and efficient service."

That may or may not turn out to be so, but the Gazette quotes Pearse McCabe, strategy and planning director at marketing consultants Rufus Leonard, as predicting a ‘titanic battle for the hearts and minds of potential customers’, between the old order on the one hand and established brands on the other. Only time will tell who will win that battle. Incidentally, if you are a solicitor or a law firm considering setting up an ABS, the Law Society has published advice and support, here.

Meanwhile, as I reported in my last In Practice, the mySRA online renewals process is at last under way. Things have now moved on, and since the 5th January the process has been available to all firms and individuals, so get renewing, if you haven't done so already. Which reminds me, must get my membership of the roll renewed...

Just before Xmas the Law Society published a practice note on the use of social media. You can find it here. I have not read it all myself, but I must congratulate the Law Society for keeping its finger on the pulse, and being aware of such new-fangled things as "forums and comment spaces on information-based websites", "social networking websites such as Facebook", "weblogs" and Twitter.

Finally, the Law Society and the SRA are to move to 'The Cube', a new office building in Birmingham city centre, this summer. The Cube has "exceptional apartments, state-of-the-art offices, exclusive shops, water side cafe bars, Birmingham's first boutique hotel" and a "panoramic rooftop restaurant", run by Marco Pierre White, no less. I dread to think what the rent will be, but I'm sure solicitors will be glad to know that their practising certificate fees are keeping SRA employees happy in their shiny new workplace.

Government to give both parents a right to contact?

2012-01-06T07:42:00.000Z

Tim Loughton, cropped à la Legalweek

The Daily Telegraph appears to have obtained advance information regarding the Government's forthcoming response to the Family Justice Review.

In an article published last night the paper informs us that the Government has apparently rejected Norgrove's recommendation that no legislation should be introduced that creates or risks creating the perception that there is a parental right to substantially shared or equal time for both parents. On the contrary, the Government is intending to introduce legislation under which "courts will be put under a legal duty to ensure that both fathers and mothers are given access to children in divorce settlements". We are also told that: "Parents who refuse to accept the orders will be in contempt of court and risk serious penalties or even jail", as if that were something new and far stricter than the enforcement powers that the courts already have.

The paper quotes Under-Secretary of State for Children and Families Tim Loughton as saying:

"Our vision is to establish that, under normal circumstances, a child will have relationship with both his or her parents, regardless of their relationship with each other.

"We must do everything we can to improve the system so that it gives children the best chance of growing up under the guidance of two loving parents."

The news will no doubt bring much joy amongst the ragged ranks of fathers' rights campaigners. However, I'll let them and Mr Loughton into a secret: the courts already try to ensure that children have contact with both parents, so don't expect such a change in the law to have a huge effect.

Otherwise, the article tells us that the Government apparently does agree with Norgrove's recommendations to encourage parenting agreements and for the establishment of an online information hub.

* * * * *

UPDATE: According to the Telegraph today (7th January), the issue of a 'right of contact' is far from resolved within the Cabinet, with Ken Clarke apparently opposed to any change.

Do Your Own Divorce updated

2012-01-05T10:20:00.002Z

I have added another update to Do Your Own Divorce, this time dealing with completing the Statement of arrangements for children form. The update can be found here.

"Barman, a drop of the old "Wife Beater", please!"

2012-01-04T11:09:00.000Z

Reassuringly alcoholic

The somewhat inept efforts of a lobbying company to "untarnish" the reputation of Stella Artois have rather backfired.

Portland Communications decided it would be a good idea to clean up the image of Stella by removing references to its nickname "wife beater" from Wikipedia. Unfortunately for them, the changes were spotted and reversed, and now the nickname, which was probably on the wane anyway (there are now much stronger lagers available) has been revived.

Edgar Venal launches Anti-Marriage Foundation

2012-01-04T10:07:00.000Z

Edgar Venal has launced an Anti-Marriage Foundation, to lobby for family lawyer-friendly policies, hold seminars and commission research into increasing the income of divorce lawyers.

“Divorce, as the best structure with which to raise the income of lawyers, needs to be affirmed, strengthened and supported. Recycle your rubbish by all means, and that includes your partner,” he told The Times.

"We have to promote the dream that we are going to find the partner who is perfect in every way: emotionally, physically, intellectually - you know it makes sense.

"People want to change horses mid-stream - it’s the wonder of the modern age (and certainly something that never happened in the bad-old days). They should be encouraged find their new partner, and if that partner is as flawed as the last, then they should find another.”

"Families that stay together are the scourge of the legal profession”, he added. “It affects everyone, from the President of the Family Division downwards. We can't go back to the old anti-lawyer ways. Why, in about 1950 you weren’t allowed in the royal enclosure at Ascot if divorced. That would now exclude half of the judiciary.”

“It is a myth that lawyers don’t care. They care greatly and a marriage that doesn't break up shocks the whole foundation of the profession.”

“My message is end it — don’t mend it. Over 40 years of working in the family justice system, I have seen the huge profits to be made from these broken relationships. Those profits would be seriously eroded if marriage were encouraged. I personally think that would be a complete scandal.”

Sir Paul climbs back on his hobby-horse

2012-01-03T09:16:00.000Z

Sir Paul Coleridge

Sir Paul Coleridge is at it again. To coincide with 'Divorce Day', he has announced that he is launching a foundation "to defend marriage and reduce of the "scourge of society" of family breakdown".

According to this article in The Telegraph, he told The Times that: "Marriage, as the best structure in which to raise children, needs to be affirmed, strengthened and supported." He therefore "plans to open a Marriage Foundation at a cost of £150,000 a year to lobby for family-friendly policies, hold seminars and commission research into strengthening marriage."

Other family law luminaries involved in this latest attempt to turn back time are the three wise Baronesses: former President of the Family Division Baroness Butler-Sloss, chairman of the Bar Standards Board Baroness Deech and lawyer to the rich and famous Baroness Shackleton.

Venal & Grabbit gear up for Divorce Day...

2012-01-02T08:17:00.000Z

Help the Aged

2012-01-01T10:40:00.000Z

99-year-old divorces wife after he discovered 1940s affair - The Telegraph, 29th December 2011

Old John's Almanac 2012

2011-12-31T07:00:00.000Z

Following the success of my predictions for 2011, here are my predictions for 2012:

January - Fathers' rights group The Real Families Need Fathers 4 Justice carry out their most audacious protest to date, when they daub Big Ben with the words: "A farver iz 4 liff, not jest 4 contraseption".

February - The government has launched a consultation into why there are so many consultations into various aspects of family law. The closing date for the consultation is the first of April.

March - In the Budget the Government announces a 1p married tax allowance. Chancellor George Osborne says: "It was all we could afford, but we're sure it will be enough to persuade people to marry, rather than live in sin."

April - There is consternation at the High Court when the duty judge can't be found during the Easter vacation. Mr Justice Mostyn is eventually traced to a remote island in the South Pacific, where he can be contacted by carrier pidgeon.

May - The Government publishes its response to the consultation into why there are so many consultations into various aspects of family law. The response concludes that the best way forward would be to have another consultation.

June - The Government announces it will solve the debt crisis by introducing £5,000 fees for anyone wishing to apply for child support.

July - The issue of homeless families in the south-east is resolved, as the residents of London flee the capital prior to the Olympics.

August - At the Olympics there is disaster for the British Legal Aid relay team, when Ken Clarke drops the baton.

September - After further technical issues, the SRA finally admits that the Sinclair ZX81 that it bought to run the new mySRA system is not up to the task. It invests in a Commodore 64 instead.

October - The estate of the late Tarquin Farquhar-Obnoxious QC recieves payment from the LSC for some legal aid work he did in 1950. This is not believed to be a record.

November - The Government announces that it is considering banning Facebook, after the latest statistics reveal that the social networking site was not mentioned in only one divorce in the last year.

December - The Supreme Court hands down its judgment in Smith v Smith, in which it is severely critical of delays in the family justice system. The case was heard by the Supreme Court in October 2009.

Happy New Year!

Something for the Weekend: Kenny Burrell - Midnight Blue

2011-12-31T00:01:00.000Z

Time for a little jazz guitar:

Review of the Year, Part 4

2011-12-30T10:02:00.000Z

And so ~~thankfully~~ finally we come to the last part...

October
Political party conference season. If you could stay awake, David Cameron set out his plans for families, including making adoption easier (more of which below), married tax relief (again) and, perhaps most controversially (at least as far as his audience were concerned) a consultation on legalising gay marriage.

In the realm of practice, October the 6th saw the implementation of 'outcomes-focused regulation' ('OFR') for solicitors, hailed by the SRA as 'regulation in the public interest and for the benefit of clients'. Whether OFR will work better for this profession than it did for the Financial Services Authority, only time will tell...

On the 13th of October the Government published its response to the Report of the Justice Select Committee on the Operation of the Family Courts. Basically, and entirely predictably, the Government said: "Thanks very much, but we're already conducting the Family Justice Review, so let's wait for the outcome of that."

Meanwhile the 'lottery winnings' case S v AG was grabbing the headlines. In it, Mr Justice Mostyn had found that the wife's lottery winnings were non-matrimonial property (at least when she received them), which many felt would encourage spouses not to share their wealth, and cause more acrimony on marriage breakdown.

The month ended with news of the Government's initiative to improve the adoption system, including performance tables to 'name and shame' under-performing councils, and the launching of the 'Give a Child a Home' campaign.

November
November began with the publication of the final report of the Family Justice Review. Highlights, as expected, included the establishment of a Family Justice Service and a six-month time limit for the completion of care and supervision proceedings. Many of the headlines, however, were about what was not recommended: any legislation that creates or risks creating the perception that there is a parental right to substantially shared or equal time for both parents. This was greeted with a swathe of erroneous stories along the lines that fathers were being denied a right to see their children.

Then we finally got the Supreme Court's decision in Jones v Kernott, only six months after it was heard. In a unanimous judgment announced by Lady Hale (left), Ms Jones's appeal was allowed, and the order made by the county court giving her 90% of the property was restored. The judgment was generally welcomed by practitioners, as representing a fair outcome, and for providing clarification upon a difficult area of law.

After these excitements, anything else that happened in November was an anti-climax, so I shall move swiftly on...

December
December began with the unveiling of the detailed proposals for the new child maintenance scheme. Key changes included that payments will usually be based on the non-resident parent’s latest tax-year gross income, sourced directly from HM Revenue & Customs, that the 'flat-rate' will be increased from £5 to £7 and that there will be annual reviews.

The Office for National Statistics released the latest statistics for divorce in England and Wales, for divorces which took place in 2010. These showed an unexpected increase in the divorce rate, the first since 2003. So, at least some good news for divorce lawyers there...

There was still time left before the end of the year for a couple more consultations: one on the definition of domestic violence and the other on reducing the arrears owed to the Child Support Agency. Get your responses in now...

Finally, I found myself in the unusual position of agreeing with a politician, when Nick Clegg told Demos and the Open Society Foundation that we should not try to preserve the 1950s ideal of family (if indeed 1950s families were ideal), and that the state should not use the tax system to encourage a particular family form, i.e. marriage. Not everyone agrees with me and Nick, though.

New Year's Resolution

2011-12-29T13:20:00.002Z

Siren call

2011-12-28T07:54:00.000Z

Does someone know something that she doesn't?

[Found on BuzzFeed.]

Do Your Own Divorce website

2011-12-27T10:26:00.002Z

I am pleased to announce the launch of Do Your Own Divorce, a new website to complement my book by the same name. The purpose of the site is:

To provide updates to the book;
To provide readers with additional material which may be of use or interest, and useful links; and
To promote the book!

I hope that users find the site (and my book) helpful.

Review of the Year, Part 3

2011-12-26T10:18:00.002Z

Once more unto the breach...

July
On the 12th July the Government published its response to the Green Paper consultation on the future of child maintenance. The most controversial proposal, of course, is the introduction of charging for using the statutory scheme, but the Government remained adamant, saying that it would encourage parents to agree child maintenance arrangements. Yes, especially if you can't afford the fees...

On the very next day, we had another Government response, this time to Professor Eileen Munro’s recommendations to reform the child protection system. The Government confirmed its intention to "build a system focused on the needs, views and experiences of vulnerable children" and that it would "reduce central regulation and prescription and place greater trust and responsibility in skilled professionals and local leaders to bring about long-term reform".

To complete a busy week, on the following day the Justice Committee published its report on the operation of the Family Courts, one of the highlights of which was the somewhat less than surprising warning that courts are going to have to make adjustments to cope with more litigants in person as a result of cuts to legal aid. Good job we have these clever MPs to tell us things like this...

Moving on, the business of divorce in this country staggered into the twenty-first century with the launch by Mills & Reeve LLP of its Divorce UK iPhone app, aimed at helping users navigate their way through marriage breakdown, separation or divorce. According to the App Store, customers who 'bought' the app (it's actually free) also bought Tesco groceries - a precursor of Tesco Law, perhaps?

August

The flow of serious family law news somewhat dried up for the silly season. We did have some brief excitement over the Vicky Haigh case, but August was notable primarily for rather more frivolous stuff, such as the Malaysian man who is suing his former fiancée for more than $360,000 (£219,000) for leaving him six hours before their wedding, and the man who dumped a 20-tonne boulder on his ex-wife's lawn (picture).

Otherwise, Grant Thornton published its eighth annual matrimonial survey. The survey (which has nothing at all to do with getting publicity for Grant Thornton) "looks at the divorce arena in detail as well as the key issues in the forefront of the minds of family solicitors", by canvassing the opinions of 101 of the UK’s 'leading family lawyers'. As I reported, opinions were divided as to the most important nugget of information to take from the survey, ranging from fewer couples apparently thinking that an affair was a reason to divorce, to the assertion by the Daily Mail that, due to human rights laws, a third of husbands were getting away with hiding their assets from their wives, or something like that.

September
Back to more serious things, September began with the news that the Government had shelved the Law Commission's recommendations to give property rights to cohabitees. In a brief written statement by Justice Minister Jonathan Djanogly it was announced that the Government had "carefully considered the recommendations of this thorough report" and also research on similar legislation which the much more advanced Scots had passed in 2006, and decided not to take forward the Law Commission's recommendations for reform of cohabitation law in this parliamentary term. Some will say good riddance, others that it was an opportunity missed.

One of the latter were the Law Society, which responded firstly by issuing a press release plugging the benefits of cohabitation agreements (why miss a marketing opportunity?) and secondly by issuing another press release three weeks later, condemning the Government's decision.

Meanwhile, I began writing my regular weekly In Practice posts, looking at the area of professional practice and regulation. To be honest, I didn't expect to enjoy writing about such a subject as much as I have. One of the first news stories I dealt with was the implementation of mySRA, the new online system by which solicitors and other legal services providers have to 'interact' (their word) with the SRA. The implementation did not exactly go to plan...

Happy Isaac Newton Day!

2011-12-25T00:01:00.000Z

Sir Isaac Newton by Sir Godfrey Kneller (detail)

Once again it is time to celebrate the greatest person ever to be born on the 25th December: Happy Isaac Newton Day!

Something for the Weekend: Terry Gilliam - The Christmas Card

2011-12-24T00:01:00.000Z

There seems to be some Christmas-thing going on this weekend, so I thought this excellent Terry Gilliam cartoon might be appropriate:

[Found on BuzzFeed.]

In Practice: Xmas Edition

2011-12-23T08:31:00.000Z

OK, I know you've got better things to do, so I'll keep this brief.

Going back to the ~~shambolic~~ shiny new mySRA, the online renewals process finally began on the 20th December. It is slightly confusing, however, as the renewals are in two bands, depending on the first-occurring letter in the full name of the firm or individual. Thus, Fred Bloggs will be in Band E to Z, not Band A to D, as one might expect. For all the details, see here.

Meanwhile, the Gazette reported on Tuesday that The Law Society and the SRA have agreed "new arrangements for dealing with shared support services and with Law Society oversight of the SRA". I confess that I don't know what these arrangements are, and nor do I want to know. Nevertheless, it sounded like an important story that I should bring to your attention.

Finally for this year, the SRA has issued a news release warning solicitors "to ensure they pay close attention to clients' needs from the outset to make sure they deliver a proper standard of service". Apparently, the authority "is particularly alive to the risks of the most vulnerable members of society not receiving the right service". Well-meaning or meddling? I'll leave it to you to decide...

Seasonal Goodwill

2011-12-23T06:44:00.000Z

I rather liked this video, which was sent to me yesterday - relevant both to the season and this blog:

Happy Winter Solstice!

2011-12-22T00:01:00.000Z

Winter Landscape, Rembrandt

However you choose to celebrate the winter solstice (or, if you're reading this in the southern hemisphere, the summer solstice), I hope you have a good one, with a peaceful and (reasonably) prosperous New Year to follow. Thank you for reading Family Lore.

Review of the Year, Part 2

2011-12-21T14:39:00.000Z

Continuing this exciting trip down (short-term) memory lane:

April
After the compulsory initial silliness, April heralded the biggest changes to family law procedure for many a year, with the introduction of compulsory mediation assessment and the Family Procedure Rules 2010, both of which were generally favourably received. As the President said, the creation of a unified single set of rules for the family jurisdiction was a significant achievement, and also a very welcome one.

Sir Nicholas enjoys some Easter sun

Then came Easter, and with it some not particularly good publicity for the Family Justice System, when the Sunday Mail picked up on the story that the family court's duty judge Sir Nicholas Mostyn would be conducting hearings by phone from his hotel in Tenerife. As Mark Stephens was quoted as saying: "I find it remarkable that a duty judge has gone away at this time." Quite.

And that was about it for April. Oh, apart from some minor wedding taking place in London...

May
On the 4th May, the Supreme Court heard the appeal in Jones v Kernott. More of this (much) later in this Review...

Meanwhile, in the less lofty echelons of the High Court, Mr Justice Peter Jackson was dealing with yet another cautionary tale, involving "a financial disaster for a divorced couple and their child", caused by "a combination of dissension, misfortune, improvidence, and over-lengthy litigation in three courts". As a result of these things, almost nothing would be left of assets once valued at £300,000. A very sad (but unfortunately not unique) case.

On the 10th May the final report of the Munro Review of Child Protection was published. The 'headline' recommendation was that "local areas should have more freedom to develop their own effective child protection services, rather than focusing on meeting central government targets". Professor Munro urged a move away from the 'tick-box' culture of the past, and a greater focus on the needs of the child.

On the 23rd and 24th May the Supreme Court heard the appeal in Re E (Children). More of this not much later at all...

June
On the 10th June the Supreme Court delivered its judgment in Re E (Children). At issue was the correct approach to the Article 13(b) exception to the duty to return under the Hague Convention. The court considered that the words of Article 13(b) were "quite plain and required no further elaboration or "gloss"". The appeal by the mother, who had removed her two daughters to England from Norway against the wishes of the father, was dismissed.

On Father's Day David Cameron launched an attack against runaway fathers who abandon their families, calling for them to be "stigmatised" by society in the same way as drink-drivers are. Needless to say, his comments were not greeted with universal approval...

Finally (at least for this part of this Review), on the 21st June the Government published the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill. Its subsequent passage through Parliament would not go without the odd comment...

I agree with Nick Clegg

2011-12-20T10:49:00.000Z

I'm not ashamed to admit it: I agree with what Nick Clegg says regarding families and marriage.

Despite the many headlines, what Nick Clegg said regarding families and marriage in his speech to Demos and the Open Society Foundation was actually quite brief:

"The institutions of our society are constantly evolving. Just look at the way the roles of men and women, and attitudes to marriage and divorce, have changed over the last century.

"We should not take a particular version of the family institution, such as the 1950s model of suit-wearing, bread-winning dad and aproned, homemaking mother – and try and preserve it in aspic.

"That’s why open society liberals and big society conservatives will take a different view on a tax break for marriage. We can all agree that strong relationships between parents are important, but not agree that the state should use the tax system to encourage a particular family form."

I believe that all family forms people choose to enter are equally valid, and none should be picked out for special treatment by the state, in an attempt to encourage more people to choose it. In any event, it is highly doubtful that the state can do much about such choices. As Clegg said to Sky News, it is unlikely that offering them "20 quid back would make much difference to people's decisions" on whether or not to get married. The state should react to social change, not try to drive it.

Conservatives will of course say that there is overwhelming evidence that marriage produces better outcomes for children, but this is not clear, and even if it were, the simple fact is that more and more couples are choosing not to tie the knot. We must deal with the situation as it is, not how some of us may wish it to be.

I realise that there are many who take a different view, including some who I respect highly, such as Marilyn Stowe, but it is not the first time that Marilyn and I have agreed to differ. On the Tory right, others have predictably got quite hot under the collar about Clegg's comments, including the old dinosaur Norman Tebbit in The Telegraph (who seems most offended at the slur against the decade in which he got married) and the slightly hysterical Nick Wood in the Daily Mail, but I am not sorry to differ from them.

Incidentally, I also agree with Nick Clegg regarding an elected House of Lords, but don't tell anyone...

Best excuse for missing court

2011-12-20T08:56:00.000Z

Over the years I've heard many different excuses for failing to attend a court hearing, but this one is in a different league to "I thought the hearing was next week" or "I had a puncture on the way to court".

At a hearing in the High Court yesterday relating to the validity of an alleged marriage, Martin Pointer QC informed Mr Justice Bodey at the last minute that his client was unable to attend to give evidence, as he had been recalled by the ruler of Dubai to attend a meeting in Riyadh. Now, most people could not get get away with this, but when your client is Sheikh Ahmed bin Saeed al-Maktoum, the head of Emirates Airlines and a member of Dubai’s ruling family, I suppose it does have a possible ring of truth.

For this impressive piece of hearing-avoidance, the Sheikh receives my 'Best excuse for missing court' trophy.

Unfortunately, Mr Justice Bodey was not so impressed, saying that he had been left "frustrated".

Ken has his say on LASPO

2011-12-20T08:01:00.001Z

A totally unbiased (and unaltered) image of Justice Secretary Ken Clarke

Ahead of the LASPO debate in the Lords today, Ken Clarke has had his say in the Comment is free column in the Guardian.

Highlights:

"Without legal aid, and the dedicated lawyers who deliver it, our system of justice would quite simply collapse."

Ah, he admits legal aid lawyers are 'dedicated'!

"Even the lawyers who deliver legal aid tear their hair out over the bureaucratic way the scheme operates."

Agreed - it was bad when I did legal aid work years ago, what must it be like now?.

"It [legal aid] must be available where people's life, liberty or home is at stake, where they are at risk of serious physical harm or are victims of domestic violence, where they seek to challenge state action, and where their children may be taken into care."

Can't argue with that, can you?

"...we are putting a stop to routine availability of legal aid in cases involving family disputes, which can sometimes help string out cases for months or years, causing conflict not compromise."

Yes, sometimes.

"I fear that those who defend the status quo have fallen prey to a kind of well-intentioned legal paternalism."

A little patronising?

"The threat I want my reforms to pose is to a failing system, outdated methods and unreformed working practices, not to the needy."

Isn't he just a wonderful human being?

DWP consultation on child maintenance arrears management powers

2011-12-19T17:47:00.001Z

The Department for Work and Pensions has today launched a consultation on the planned implementation of two new arrears management powers within the Child Maintenance and Other Payments Act 2008 ("the 2008 Act"). The powers to be implemented are:

Section 32 - Power to accept part payment in full and final satisfaction; and
Section 33 - Power to write off arrears.

By way of background, the 2008 Act gave the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission a number of new arrears management powers designed "to allow the Commission to manage efficiently the level of child maintenance arrears that have previously accumulated and are owed to the Child Support Agency". The Government proposes to take regulations to Parliament in spring 2012 to enable the introduction of these powers.

You can find the consultation here and a news release from CMEC, here.

The consultation closes on the 12th March 2012.

News for the Week to the 19th December 2011

2011-12-19T10:01:00.001Z

An audio summary of the top family law news stories from the last week, in three minutes and thirty-one seconds.

(Those without Flash can listen here.)

Fathers could be obliged to sign birth certificates

2011-12-19T07:50:00.000Z

It wouldn't be the first time, but I'm not sure the Government has thought through this idea.

We'll take it from here

2011-12-17T16:42:00.000Z

I have already posted a video of the late and very lamented Christopher Hitchens, but this tribute is so good and such an inspiration that I had to post it as well, and I do so with no apology:

The gift for a perfect Christmas (Post sponsored by Venal & Grabbit)

2011-12-17T07:42:00.000Z

[Found on Boing Boing.]

Something for the Weekend: Laurel and Hardy dance from Way Out West

2011-12-17T00:01:00.000Z

This needs no introduction from me. You may have seen it a thousand times, but it's still as fresh and funny as ever:

In Practice: A little good news, and some practical realities

2011-12-16T12:18:00.000Z

The Law Society Gazette has reported that the number of practising solicitors hit a record high last month. They make the point that this is despite the parlous state of the economy, although cynics may suggest that it is because of the parlous state of the economy. The Gazette does point out, however, that the number of PC-holders may have been artificially inflated by this year’s phased renewals process. Even so, it is interesting to think that the profession may be weathering the economic storm.

Not all within the profession is sweetness and light, however. I discussed the Bar's proposal to seek a greater share of the pie through direct access in my In Practice post last week, and I see that Marilyn Stowe in Solicitors Journal has also raised the issue, with her thoughts also leading to the possibility of fusion. She argues that direct access is pitting solicitors and barristers against each other when instead the two sides of the profession should be working together:

"I believe it would make more sense, for the consumer and us all, if we fused our profession under one name and worked together, rather than competed to do jobs that neither profession is fully equipped or trained to complete."

As I suggested last week: Is it time to re-open the fusion debate?

To finish this short post on a lighter note, direct access was also the subject of a BabyBarista post this week. However, the members of chambers debating the idea soon perceive one of its main drawbacks - that barristers having direct access to clients also entails those clients having direct access to their barristers:

"It’s bad enough having solicitors being able to bother us day in day out,” said HeadofChambers. “But at least they filter out the worst excesses of the lay clients."

Perhaps the enthusiasm for direct access may wane a little when the hideous practical realities hit home...

Christopher Hitchens, 1949 - 2011

2011-12-16T09:19:00.000Z

I awoke this morning to the sad but not unexpected news that author and journalist Christopher Hitchens has died of pneumonia, a complication of the oesophageal cancer that he was diagnosed with in June last year. A formidable intellect, Hitchens fearlessly championed reason, against the forces of superstition and hatred. He will be sorely missed.

Here's one of my favourite videos of 'The Hitch' in action, debating free speech at Hart House, University of Toronto, in 2006:

New Year's Resolution

2011-12-15T11:18:00.000Z

Domestic Violence Consultation

2011-12-14T13:15:00.000Z

Theresa May

Home Secretary Theresa May has today launched a consultation on whether the current cross-government definition of domestic violence should be widened.

The consultation seeks views on three areas:

whether the current cross-government definition of domestic violence introduced in 2004 is working and should remain;
whether 'coercive control' should be reflected in the definition; and
whether the definition of domestic violence should include younger victims below 18 years of age.

You can find the consultation document here. The consultation closes on the 30th March 2012.

Review of the Year, Part 1

2011-12-14T10:31:00.000Z

As the year comes to an end, it has become ~~compulsory~~ traditional to review the events of the last twelve months, so I thought I would get in first with my look at what has happened in the world of family law in 2011, or at least the first part of my look at what has happened in the world of family law in 2011.

January

The year began just like any other, with newspapers predicting that the first day back at work would be 'Divorce Day', the busiest day of the year for divorce lawyers when, to use the words of the Telegraph, "thousands of couples decide that after yet another unfestive season, marked by rows, resentments and recriminations, it is time to call it a day on their marriages". Expect a spate of similar stories this coming January the 3rd.

Meanwhile, two important consultations were launched during the month. First we had the Law Commission's consultation on marital property agreements, which looked at reform of the law relating to pre-nuptial agreements, post-nuptial agreements and separation agreements. That was followed by the Department for Work and Pensions' Green Paper Strengthening families, promoting parental responsibility: the future of child maintenance, which set out the Government's controversial proposals for a new child maintenance system.

The month concluded with the entertaining Court of Appeal decision in Jones v Jones, which included this quote from barrister Ashley Murray:

"There are certain challenges each of us should attempt in our lifetime and for most these involve a particular jump, a mountain climb, etc. Akin to these in the legal world would be reading from first to last a judgment of Mr Justice Charles."

Excellent stuff.

February
February was not a day old when the second report of the Munro Review was published. This interim report dealt with the child’s journey through the courts and care proceedings, and included the recommendation that the 'core guidance' Working Together to Safeguard Children, which had bloated to 55 times longer than it was in 1974, be reduced in size. A relief to many, I'm sure.

Later in the month the Ministry of Justice announced the news we all already knew: that as from April, "Anyone setting out to contest the terms of their separation in court will first be required to consider mediation". Perish the thought that the Government was just promoting mediation to mask its planned cuts to legal aid, as the Telegraph suggested...

On the subject of the legal aid cuts, opposition began to get more organised, with the Law Society launching its high-profile Sound Off For Justice campaign, encouraging members of the public to 'sound off', by signing up to the campaign. As I write this, it seems a total of 31,498 people have done just that. A fair number, but will it be enough?

March
March began quietly enough, with no single story dominating the headlines. Then we had the case of Re T, in which the High Court dealt with the awful scenario of a contact application by a father who had been convicted of the manslaughter of the mother. As Judge Clifford Bellamy stated, the 'proverbial man on the Clapham omnibus' may be surprised to learn that a parent who has murdered the other parent should nonetheless be entitled to make an application for contact with his child, but there is of course no presumption in law that murder would be a bar to contact.

On a lighter note, I was pleased to report on the 16th of March the marketing of my favourite memento of the forthcoming royal wedding, also known as 'The Fairytale Romantic Union Of All The Centuries'. Described as "A beautiful cup to commemorate the most beautiful occasion", this bone china mug featured "an exquisite design of the happy couple". Upon closer inspection, however, I'm not entirely clear that the makers got the right 'happy couple'.

Finally, March ended with the publication of another interim report, this time of the Family Justice Review. Amongst a host of recommendations were the establishment of a Family Justice Service and a six-month time limit for care and supervision proceedings. We would hear more of these things when the final report was published later in the year...

Stay tuned for the next exciting instalment of the Review of the Year!

LoreCast for the week to the 12th December

2011-12-12T10:42:00.001Z

Natasha and I bring you the top family law news stories from the last week, in our final LoreCast for 2011.

(Those without Flash can listen here.)

The Power of Veto

2011-12-11T10:49:00.001Z