Family Lore

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

NG v SG: Dealing with wiful non-disclosure

2011-12-10T10:14:00.001Z

Mr Justice Mostyn

The judgment in NG v SG [2011] EWHC 3270 (Fam) is perhaps most notable for the fact that Mr Justice Mostyn spends the first sixteen paragraphs discussing how the Court should deal with wilful non-disclosure in relation to financial remedies following divorce, before he even mentions the case itself. In the last of those paragraphs he sets out the approach that the Court should follow where it is satisfied that the disclosure given by one party has been materially deficient:

i) The Court is duty bound to consider by the process of drawing adverse inferences whether funds have been hidden.

ii) But such inferences must be properly drawn and reasonable. It would be wrong to draw inferences that a party has assets which, on an assessment of the evidence, the Court is satisfied he has not got.

iii) If the Court concludes that funds have been hidden then it should attempt a realistic and reasonable quantification of those funds, even in the broadest terms.

iv) In making its judgment as to quantification the Court will first look to direct evidence such as documentation and observations made by the other party.

v) The Court will then look to the scale of business activities and at lifestyle.

vi) Vague evidence of reputation or the opinions or beliefs of third parties is inadmissible in the exercise.

vii) The Al-Khatib v Masry [[2002] 1 FLR 1053] technique of concluding that the non-discloser must have assets of at least twice what the Claimant is seeking should not be used as the sole metric of quantification.

viii) The Court must be astute to ensure that a non-discloser should not be able to procure a result from his non-disclosure better than that which would be ordered if the truth were told. If the result is an order that is unfair to the non-discloser it is better that than that the Court should be drawn into making an order that is unfair to the Claimant.

The case itself concerned an application by the (ex-)husband ('H') for downward variation of a maintenance order and remission of arrears. The (ex-)wife ('W') made a cross-application for variation and for leave to enforce arrears that were more than 12 months old.

The District Judge found that on the basis of ten findings "of evasiveness and opacity", H was "a serious and serial non-discloser", and ordered him to pay to W a total of £996,419.40. H appealed.

I will not go into the details of the appeal and his judgment, but Mr Justice Mostyn found (at paragraph 48) that the District Judge had not worked through the steps set out above, and that:

"Most significantly he at no point attempted even a broad estimation of what he believed H had hidden away in residue. It may be said that tacitly he must have found that H had access to around £2m, of which he was awarding £1m to W. But how do his ten findings lead to that conclusion? In many respects they strike me as either stale or inconsequential and incapable of leading to a tenable finding that H had salted away a vast sum."

In the circumstances, the appeal was allowed. The District Judge's order was set aside and a retrial was directed.

Something for the Weekend: Too Late

2011-12-10T00:01:00.000Z

This amused me when I found it during the week (not for the squeamish):

(Via BuzzFeed.)

Engaging The Enemy

2011-12-09T12:37:00.000Z

In Practice: Is it time to talk about fusion again?

2011-12-09T09:52:00.001Z

Two stories in the Gazette grabbed my attention over the last week. First, we had the eye-catching headline last Friday: Bar aiming to bypass ‘superfluous’ solicitors and this was followed on Tuesday by Barristers plan escrow scheme for holding client money.

A little explanation. The first story informs us that the Bar Standards Board is examining whether barristers should be able to accept direct instructions from clients eligible for public funding. In a consultation paper it says that:

"The purpose of allowing lay clients to instruct barristers directly is to remove unnecessary barriers to the provision of barristers’ services and to save costs by cutting out superfluous intermediaries."

Sounds all very noble, but such a change would also of course have the effect of increasing business for barristers in hard economic times. A problem, however, that barristers have when it comes to taking business from solicitors is that they are not, of course, allowed to handle client money. Well, the second story tells us that the Bar is working on a solution. Incoming Chairman Michael Todd QC has said in a speech that he is chairing a working group led by the Bar Council’s member services team to examine the feasibility of a service that would provide entities regulated by the Bar Standards Board and public access barristers with an escrow account facility in which client monies could be placed.

I'm not going to make any comment upon whether these developments represent a serious threat to solicitors, but if barriers are going to be broken down, then why not go the whole hog and fuse the profession? That would certainly be a lot simpler (and less confusing) for the public.

Early in my career there used to be quite a debate about fusion, but that largely subsided after solicitors were given greater rights of audience and direct access to barristers was allowed. Is it time to revisit that debate, particularly given the present economic situation? After all, the reduced cost of only having to instruct one lawyer was always one of the biggest arguments in favour of fusion. Also, with more lawyers on both sides dealing with cases from start to finish the lack of a 'second opinion' (i.e. from a barrister), one of the alleged disadvantages of fusion, is becoming more and more irrelevant.

Just a thought.

AJ v JJ & Ors: The wishes of the children in abduction cases

2011-12-08T14:31:00.001Z

In AJ v JJ & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 1448 the court was required to deal with the situation where the children wished to have their views heard in an abduction case.

Lord Justice Thorpe

The Facts: As Lord Justice Thorpe said giving the leading judgment, on the face of it this was a paradigm case for a return order. The parents are Polish and had three children, now aged 15, 13 and 10. They separated in 2005 and in 2006 the Polish court awarded custody to the father.

The mother subsequently emigrated to this country and obtained an order in Poland providing for her to have holiday contact with the children in this country. Pursuant to that order, she collected the children on the 5th July this year, and was due to return them on the 26th July. However, on the 25th July she issued an application to the Polish court for custody, and for the children's relocation to this jurisdiction.

When the mother failed to return the children on the 26th July, the father issued an application for their return under the Hague Convention.

The mother raised an Article 13b defence, but this was "hardly pursued", and effectively the only issue for trial was her other defence, i.e. the children's stated objections to return.

The Judge granted the application for return, although it was not clear whether he did not find that the children objected, or whether he found that they did object, but he nevertheless ordered their return, exercising his discretion under Article 13.

The children then applied for leave to intervene and for permission to appeal.

Held: Counsel for the children submitted that he was entitled to succeed on two grounds.

The first ground was that the Judge had fallen into error by not of his own motion ordering separate representation for the (mature and articulate) children, or alternatively that the Judge should of his own motion have required a meeting with the children to gauge their true positions and particularly to involve them in the process, as "it was simply unacceptable for the Judge to impose on the children the return that they dreaded without engaging them in the process".

The second ground was that the Judge had failed to make a clear finding on what was effectively the primary issue in the case, namely did the children object to return.

Lord Justice Thorpe held that the children should succeed on the second ground. He said (at paragraph 29):

"A clear finding that the children's objection had not been made good would have been the end of case and presented the mother with a single and clear ground of appeal. Equally a proper exercise of the discretion would only be triggered and conducted by an unequivocal finding that the objections had been made good."

As to the first ground, he held (at paragraph 30) that the submission that the Judge of his own motion should have joined the children as parties was unsustainable. However, he was "impressed" by the submission that the Judge should of his own motion have engaged the children in the process (paragraph 31), and felt that he had erred by not at least raising with the parties the need for him to meet the children face to face (paragraph 41), particularly in the light of recent guidance, such as Lord Justice Thorpe's own judgment in Re G (Abduction: Children's Objections) [2011] 1FLR 1645.

Sir Mark Potter and Lady Justice Hallett agreed.

The application was therefore granted and the case remitted for re-hearing.

Venal & Grabbit welcome rise in divorce rate

2011-12-08T12:04:00.001Z

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

===PRESS RELEASE===

London, 8th December 2011: Leading firm of divorce lawyers Venal & Grabbit have welcomed the rise in the number of divorces in England and Wales, as disclosed today by the latest figures from the Office for National Statistics.

Senior Partner Edgar Venal said: "So much for all the doom-merchants who were predicting that the divorce rate would continue to fall. This will bring Christmas cheer for deserving divorce lawyers everywhere.

"And if the speculation that the rise is due to the effect of the present economic hardship on marriages is correct, then it just goes to show that the recession is not all bad news.

"Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to have my Bugatti Veyron gold-plated..."

===ENDS===

Latest divorce statistics released

2011-12-08T09:31:00.001Z

The Office for National Statistics has released the latest statistics for divorce in England and Wales, for divorces which took place in 2010. The Statistical Bulletin may be found here.

The key findings were:

The number of divorces in England and Wales in 2010 was 119,589, an increase of 4.9 per cent since 2009, when there were 113,949 divorces
The divorce rate rose in 2010 to 11.1 divorcing people per thousand married population from 10.5 in 2009
22 per cent of marriages in 1970 had ended in divorce by the 15th wedding anniversary, whereas 33 per cent of marriages in 1995 had ended after the same period of time
The number of divorces in 2010 was highest among men and women aged 40 to 44

Transparency in New York

2011-12-07T10:38:00.001Z

Interesting to see that transparency in the family courts is also an issue in the US. There, however, it is not that a change in the law is being sought to open up the family courts, but rather that an existing transparency law is not being adhered to.

According to this article in the New York Times last month, New York law has specifically said for more than a century that "the sittings of every court within the state shall be public", and that was confirmed by the state's Chief Judge in 1997, when a new rule was issued setting out a presumption that Family Court hearings be open to the public and news organizations, with judges having a discretion to close cases, but only for compelling and specific reasons.

However, recent visits to courts across New York City by a reporter have "revealed officials and security officers routinely disregarding the open-courts rule in ways both large and small, direct and implied, insistent and even hostile". During one week the reporter tried to enter 40 courtrooms, but was only allowed into five, some where no case was under way.

Responding to this, the administrative judge of the New York City Family Courts said she was troubled to hear that courts around the city had not been open and that she planned a review.

I don't know what the rules are in other US states, save that Florida Divorce, where I found the link to this story, says that in general Florida courtrooms are open, even in family court.

Incidentally, and off-topic, I notice again from the NYT article that some things about family justice systems worldwide appear to be universal, viz: "people waited in bleak assembly areas for their cases to be called" and: "resource-starved system plagued by delays".

Venal & Grabbit Xmas eCard

2011-12-07T08:53:00.001Z

What is "a family"?

2011-12-06T08:45:00.001Z

Stock image of 'traditional family'

It seems like a simple question, but it doesn't necessarily have a simple answer. Research by a new "think tank" (why do I hate that expression?) tells us that:

"The traditional 2.4 British family is a thing of the past, with eight out of 10 people now describing their family set-up as not traditional, or not conforming to the stereotypical two married parents with two or more children. The majority of people feel their family is unrepresented by politicians, the media and advertising with 52 per cent claiming the Government does not take their family set-up into account."

The above is the first paragraph of a press release from the Centre for the Modern Family, which "aims to improve the understanding of the challenges facing British families, by providing insight and perspectives for Government, businesses, media, communities and faith groups to help improve family lives". The press release tells us that the research and further information on the panel of experts that analysed it can be found on the Centre's website, but at the time of writing this, clicking that link merely tells us that the website is 'coming soon', so I've not seen the research, which was apparently based upon "a nationally representative survey of 3,000 adults aged 16 and over living in Great Britain".

The press release goes on to tell us however that the research:

"...reveals that just 16 per cent of people define themselves as part of a 'traditional' family of two married parents living together with two or more children. Instead, the findings indicate family structures are becoming increasingly diverse. A quarter of all couples are childless, and one in five lives alone.

As a result of this, half of the population believe society is out of date in its view of the family. In addition to married mums and dads with two or more children, Britons are increasingly likely to describe single-parent, same-sex, or unmarried couples as 'proper' families."

There was, however, a significant minority of those canvassed who disagreed with these views:

"A third, 34 per cent, thinks that a couple should be married to be a family. Just under a third, 29 per cent, believe that same sex couples are not a proper family, and almost one in five, 17 per cent, feel that single parents are not a proper family."

Such feelings have unsurprisingly been echoed by the Daily Mail, which dismisses the research as the work of a "trendy thinktank" that is trying to kill off the 'traditional' family.

LoreCast for the week to the 5th December

2011-12-05T10:25:00.000Z

The penultimate LoreCast of the year, with all the top family law news stories from the last week:

(Those without Flash can listen here.)

Fun-ambulist Wedding

2011-12-05T06:48:00.001Z

Just shows that the idea of getting married in a crazy place is nothing new:

(Found on BuzzFeed.)

Whingeing fathers? You've never had it so good!

2011-12-04T07:51:00.001Z

Fleet Debtor's Prison, from A Rake's Progress, Hogarth

Over the years I've had many comments on this blog from absent fathers complaining bitterly about the unfairness of the child support system. This recent example from 'Lee', responding to the new child maintenance proposals (under which absent fathers will have to pay more, according to The Telegraph) may seem somewhat extreme, but is not untypical:

"If this goes through I'd probably take to beating up me ex and he [sic] new boyfriend out of frustration and annoyance out of being treated in this appauling [sic] manner. I'd rather live in the gutter than pay it and wish it doesn't happen."

Well Lee, if you think things are going to be bad, then perhaps you should spare a thought for absent fathers two hundred years ago, who faced the prospect of a spell at His Majesty's pleasure if they were caught.

In an article about the British Library's online newspaper collection, the BBC reports a story in the Manchester Mercury of 1811 with the headline: "Runaway Husbands from Bury, Lancashire", which goes on to name four men: Thomas Crompton, George Booth, Robert Wardle or Leach and William Kay. The story continues:

"The above persons have left their Wives and Families Chargeable to Bury. Any person apprehending any of the above persons, and lodging them in any of his Majesty's gaols shall receive Two Guineas reward for each on application to the Churchwarden or Overseers of the Poor of Bury."

Things did not get much easier for absent fathers as the nineteenth century progressed. The BBC article goes on to tell us that:

"The issue of runaway husbands was one that became so prevalent during that century that newspapers in the 1870s started to report incidents of lashings being meted out as punishment."

Certainly makes the new child maintenance proposals seem a bit tame.

Right, I'm off to turn in a runaway husband I know and claim my two guineas...

Something for the Weekend: Giuseppe Verdi -- La Traviata - Preludio

2011-12-03T00:01:00.000Z

Quite simply, one of my favourite pieces:

Best Law Firm Domain Name: EverArguedWithAWoman.com

2011-12-02T07:40:00.001Z

Time for another special award (well, I've got to get rid of these old trophies somehow).

Melissa A. Wilson Esq.

The legal profession in this country has a lot to learn about marketing from its American cousins. Meet Melissa A. Wilson, Esquire, the attorney at Advocate Law Firm, P.A., of Lakeland, Florida. Her firm's website uses the irresistible domain name EverArguedWithAWoman.com, a sentiment repeated at the top of the home page. How could you not instruct a lawyer with a domain name/slogan like that? I certainly wouldn't fancy being on the other side to her or, come to that, being a judge before whom she appeared.

Melissa's areas of work include family law. Something tells me that most of her cases settle in her client's favour. As for mediation, forget it.

You can see an example of the firm's advertising, here.

Legal aid reforms postponed: Venal & Grabbit statement

2011-12-02T06:03:00.001Z

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

===PRESS RELEASE===

London, 2nd December 2011: Responding to the Government’s announcement that legal aid reforms are to be postponed from October 2012 to April 2013, Senior Partner Edgar Venal said:

"We are dismayed at yesterday's announcement, and are appalled that Ministers have listened to the very self-serving concerns expressed by family lawyers who are only interested in preserving their legal aid income. At the same time, it is important to remember that this is only a delay in implementation, rather than a significant policy change, so it's not as bad as some mistakenly think.

"Nevertheless, we hope that the Government will take this opportunity to think again about the Legal Aid Bill. We have said from the start of the process that the proposed reforms will have a detrimental impact on access to justice for the most affluent people in society, by clogging up the courts with more of those awful unwashed litigants in person (who should be refused access to justice at all), and will not go far enough to reduce the burden on honest taxpayers like ourselves (well, we would pay tax if we weren't able to avoid it).

"We know that around 90% of divorce cases are resolved outside the courtroom. We will continue to work to reduce this figure, but this can only happen with the support of well-paid legal professionals.

"We are therefore looking forward to working with Ministers to ensure that there are more people having to pay their lawyers, by taking legal aid away from families who just sponge on the state."

===ENDS===

* * * * *

Legal aid reforms postponed: Resolution statement, 1st December 2011

In Practice: Personal tragedies

2011-12-02T06:00:00.000Z

I was going to write about something else in this week's In Practice post, but then I read the list of SRA interventions in the Gazette yesterday, and noticed that one of the firms mentioned was local and (in my previous life as a practising solicitor) well known to me. The firm had been practising, in one guise or another, for as long as I can remember. The principal has been suspended from practice for an indefinite period. I did not know him very well, but I knew others who worked for the firm.

This is not the first time that a firm or solicitor I know of has fallen foul of the profession's regulators, but it still comes as something of a shock to see a name you know appearing in the 'wrong place' in the Gazette. The report says that the grounds for intervention included failure to comply with both the Accounts Rules and the Code of Conduct, but otherwise I have no idea of the detailed reasons for the intervention. The firm (to my knowledge) used to be perfectly respectable.

This got me thinking: what goes wrong when a previously reputable firm finds itself in such a position? I'm not talking of what they did wrong, but why they did it. I don't know whether any research has ever been done into this, but here are some of my thoughts.

In the present economic climate, money problems must come high on the list of possible factors. Things are extremely hard out there, particularly for small high street firms which were once dependent on conveyancing for the bulk of their income. I can imagine how easy it must be for money worries to escalate, and for a 'head in the sand' mentality to take over, with creditors unpaid and essential practice tasks being left undone. There must also be a temptation to 'resolve' problems by breaking the rules, for example using clients' money.

Another possibility is that personal problems could be the cause - perhaps relationship problems, or health problems. In a small firm with little support, or especially with sole practitioners, such issues could easily have a serious adverse effect upon the practice. Consciously or not, practitioners might quite understandably take the view that their own welfare is more important than that of the firm.

The last possibility that springs to mind is, of course, criminal intent. Unfortunately, some unscrupulous practitioners may set out with the intent to defraud, usually for monetary gain. Obviously, such people deserve no sympathy, and if the regulators catch up with them, then that is to the good of all others.

Leaving that last category aside however, many of the rules transgressions must hide stories of personal tragedies, of differing scales. I wonder whether more could be done to prevent them.

Proposals for new child maintenance scheme unveiled

2011-12-01T13:42:00.001Z

Detailed proposals for the new child maintenance scheme have been published today, in a consultation document snappily entitled The Child Support Maintenance Calculation Regulations 2012 – A technical consultation on the draft regulations. In a deluge of information from CMEC, you can also find a news summary here, an Impact Assessment here, an Equality Impact Assessment here, a draft of The Child Support Maintenance Calculation Regulations 2012 here and a draft of The Child Support (New Calculation Rules)(Consequential and Miscellaneous Amendment) Regulations 2012 here. Got all that?

Some key changes:

Payments will usually be based on the non-resident parent’s latest tax-year gross income, sourced directly from HM Revenue & Customs (which it is hoped will reduce application times).
The 'flat-rate' will be increased from £5 to £7, with the Government consulting on whether this should be increased further.
Addition of a second level within the basic rate for those non-resident parents with weekly income in excess of £800.
Annual reviews of the maintenance calculation by using updated income information supplied by HMRC.
Parents who share the care of their children exactly equally will no longer be required to pay maintenance through the statutory scheme, although it is recognised that this will be a small minority of cases.
Maintenance calculations will take account of a child supported by a non-resident parent outside of the statutory scheme.
No need to adjust calculations for small changes in income.

The closing date for submissions in respect of the consultation is 23rd February 2012.

Strong stuff from the President

2011-11-30T14:29:00.001Z

I just thought I should do a quick post linking to the speech Changing the culture, given by Sir Nicholas Wall, President of the Family Division, to the Law Reform Committee of the Bar Council last night. You can find the full speech here, and a summary in Solicitors Journal, here. In the speech the President made a number of important points, including the headline-grabbing one that he does not consider that a Family Justice Service, as recommended by the Family Justice Review, is either practical (at least in the short term) or necessary. In any event, he doubts that the recommendation will be implemented by the government, for cost reasons.

He also sprang to the defence of family lawyers, saying that in his experience, they do not prolong cases or cause undue expense, and that good ones give "sensible, realistic advice". "Against this background", he says, "it is a matter of considerable anxiety to me that the government propose to take nearly all private law family work out of the scope of public funding". He has "considerable concern" that the public funding of mediation "will not be sufficient to resolve the problems of the myriad of unrepresented litigants who will come before the family courts".

Venal & Grabbit launch Uncollaborative Family Law

2011-11-30T08:28:00.001Z

Twenty of the country’s leading family lawyers, Judges and other family professionals gathered at the Honest Lawyer pub in King's Lynn last night to celebrate the launch of Venal & Grabbit's latest initiative, Uncollaborative Family Law. Uncollaborative Family Law is a group of lawyers who share the aim of ridding the family justice system of expensive mediators and collaborative lawyers, and getting back to couples dealing with their breakup in an adversarial manner, through non-cooperation and respectless bickering.

Senior Partner Edgar Venal said: "We are a group of leading family lawyers committed to resolving family differences through litigation and argument. Instruct an Uncollaborative Family Lawyer and you will get someone who will fight your case tooth and nail. You know the old ways are the best."

* * * * *

The launch of Collaborative Family Law - Press Release

Fame!

2011-11-29T14:54:00.001Z

What a handsome devil...

My In Practice post last week has clearly been picked up by the Solicitors From Hell 2 website, which has honoured me with the above post. In answer to the question posed in the post, no I certainly don't mind, just so long as no one thinks I'm a solicitor from hell...

I'm Sorry.

2011-11-29T14:48:00.001Z

Bedlam, from A Rake's Progress, Hogarth

I've just noticed that I've now written six hundred posts this year. I apologise to all readers for putting them through such torment, and hope that their therapy is going well. As for anyone foolish enough to have read all six hundred, I hear that these days Care in the Community isn't so bad...

Meanwhile, I'm off to find a darkened room (well, until the next post...)

Fathers4Justice response to the Family Justice Review

2011-11-29T12:03:00.001Z

To get a different perspective, I've been looking at the response of fathers' rights group Fathers4Justice to the Family Justice Review. Their website states that:

In a detailed response to David Norgrove, Chairman of the panel, F4J Campaign Director Nadine O’Connor wrote [my (purposely brief) comments in italics]:

This was a review the Conservative Party committed to scrapping before it was elected in a coalition government, saying it was not ‘credible nor far reaching enough’ in terms of its remit. The reports primary function was to look at procedure, not principle. I don't know what promises the Conservatives made, or whether they had to drop a promise to scrap the Review as part of the coalition agreement, but if F4J are saying they want another review, that seems highly unlikely now.
The review panel was not impartial – it excluded parents and users of the system. Would Sir Bob Geldof be impartial (see below)? I'm not sure that someone who is or has been 'just' a 'user' of the system would have sufficient expertise to be on the panel.
The report has rejected the testimony of over 10,000 parents submitted by Fathers 4 Justice. Sounds impressive, but this isn't a numbers game.
The report supports secret courts and rejects transparency and public accountability. I'm not sure that's true - the terms of reference did mention transparency, but the Review didn't really deal with it.
The report rejects a parents right in law to see their children. Surely, we should be talking about children's rights, rather than parents' rights?
The report rejects claims of gender bias despite 93% of residencies being awarded to mothers. But is this due to a 'gender bias', or other (societal) factors, which make it more appropriate for children to reside with their mother?
The report rejects the principle of equality and shared parenting, saying it was ‘not in the bests interests of the child’. Yes, but I don't think there is any 'establishment' bias here - many family lawyers are in favour of such a presumption.
The report states that grandparents ‘can be a risk to their grandchildren.’ I don't know where it said this, but grandparents can be unhelpful, especially when they 'take sides' with their own child.
Yet the report acknowledges that no records have been kept on the outcomes for children. How can the Family Justice Review panel know what is in the ‘best interests of a child’ without empirical evidence? Yes, but the Ministry of Justice did of course undertake research on outcomes, to provide evidence for the Review.
The report fails to address the massive increase in the number of warring parents going to court and the impact government cuts to legal aid will have in the increase in the number of unrepresented parents going to court. Well, yes (save for saying that the impact of the reforms should be monitored), but the reforms were, of course, announced long after the Review was commissioned.
On the issue of delay, F4J says delay is caused by through the systemic incompetence of organisations like Cafcass who have been repeatedly condemned by Ofted and the court system itself which is run by an ‘unelected, unaccountable and unsackable judiciary operating in complete secrecy.’ I'll make no comment on that, but I do find the Review's proposals for dealing with delay to be somewhat unconvincing.
F4J says the courts are for criminals and are entirely inappropriate for dealing with family cases. Well, not all courts are for criminals, but they may have a point here. Certainly, family cases should not be dealt with alongside criminal cases, as I've said before.
F4J is calling for a full, independent public enquiry into the Family Courts headed by Sir Bob Geldof and former Home Secretary David Blunkett. He may be a saint, but I'm not sure how the Sir Bob is qualified for such a task...

Trashy

2011-11-29T10:36:00.000Z

This has been around for a few years, but I only came across it today:

Cute, but it gives me a much better idea: a bin that asks if you want a divorce! It could say something like: "Is there any other rubbish you'd like to get rid of, such as your spouse? If so call [insert name of solicitors here]."

Right, now if I can just find a bin big enough to fit in...

LoreCast for the week to the 28th November

2011-11-28T10:02:00.001Z

Natasha and I bring you this week's helping of the top family law news stories, in a short, easy-to-digest podcast:

(Those without Flash can listen here.)

Record rant

2011-11-27T08:50:00.001Z

As we all know (and as I've commented about before) lawyers do like to hyperventilate. I had noticed over the last couple of days Lucy Reed of Pink Tape, Giles Peaker of Nearly Legal and others on Twitter getting all of a lather over Ken Clarke's recent comments about the profession's opposition to the proposed legal aid cuts (I thought he made the comments several weeks ago, but the reason for the delayed reaction may be that this interview has only just gone online). Sure enough, last night Lucy published a real humdinger of a rant, launching into poor old Ken. By my calculation (or, more accurately, Microsoft Word's calculation), the rant comes to a massive 3,110 words. As can be seen above, I've notified the ghost of Norris McWhirter.

Firms encourage staff to divorce

2011-11-26T17:53:00.001Z

Small British firms are encouraging staff to get divorced, to keep them focused on work, a law firm has said.

Venal & Grabbit, the London-based law firm, said that bosses were increasingly taking a "divisive" approach to their employees' marriages, so that they concentrated on their work, rather than their spouses.

It said that there had been a "marked increase" in the number of companies contributing to legal costs for divorces. Some firms even considered their employee so vital they were willing to arrange for them to have affairs where they did not have grounds for divorce, so that their spouses would divorce them.

The law firm said it had not heard of any cases of employers encouraging divorces until five years ago. But the number of cases has doubled in the last three years.

It said that "economic necessities" in the recession made small companies increasingly concerned to do whatever it took to retain the full attention of skilled and experienced members of staff.

Edgar Venal, Senior Partner at the law firm, said: "They notice the effect which a spouse can have on someone's productivity far more than a much larger company would. Given the current economic climate, they can ill afford such distractions, especially if the individuals involved are senior and important to a business's fortunes.

"More than doing someone a favour which allows them to sort out their private life while keeping a career on-track, getting rid of a spouse represents a gesture of commitment and support from the firm which, in turn, generates reciprocal loyalty from the staff concerned."

Firms weigh up the cost of encouraging divorce against their profitability, the law firm said.

Marriages can last up to 40 years and can affect an employee's ability to concentrate on work, it added.

Mr Venal said: "The firms with which we have had dealings are quite pragmatic. They regard any contribution to an employee's divorce as money well spent if it helps maintain the volume and quality of work done."

* * * * *

Firms help staff pay for divorces - The Guardian, 26th November 2011