Money, poverty and acrimony

I suppose it would be a bit cynical to say, but those words sort of sum up family law work, as evidenced by my posts this week on Marilyn Stowe’s Family Law & Divorce Blog, which included:

The tragic myth of the ‘gold digger’ - How a stereotype may have left many wives in poverty.

Should family firms refuse legal aid work if it is uneconomical? - Now that the Law Society have given the go ahead for criminal practitioners to do just that.

The return of acrimony to divorce proceedings - The inevitable consequence of Owens v Owens.

The perils of the litigious litigant - As demonstrated by the Irish High Court case R.K.A. -v- P.T.P..

Have a good weekend.

Call to separate divorce processes from money disputes

A leading family charity has welcomed “refreshing” comments by Sir James Munby, President of the Family Division of the High Court, calling for divorce process to become completely separated from money disputes.

Sir James’ comments would mean a reduction in pressures on family courts by unlinking “administrative and bureaucratic” divorce work from the more complicated legal arguments about dividing assets following marriage breakdown.

Jane Robey, CEO of National Family Mediation, said: “It is refreshing and overdue to know that the judiciary is looking more closely at just how much ‘legal’ input is actually needed when a couple divorces.

“The court forms that separating couples are expected to use belong to a bygone age. The arcane language that talks about ‘plaintiffs’, ‘respondents’ and so on is hardly fit for the late 20th century, let alone the 21st.

“It’s true that, as Sir James says, divorce is largely “bureaucratic and administrative”, but this is often the starting point for sending divorcing couples down the legal route, which almost always comes at huge personal cost.

“Couples separate. It’s always been that way. But it’s high time to start demystifying the processes involved so we can help people help themselves through the divorce maze.

“That’s what family mediators have been doing for years. Mediation empowers people to take charge of their affairs and feel in control of the decisions that need to be made, whereas the legal route fosters the sense of helplessness that often accompanies the emotional turmoil of a divorce.”

Sir James Munby made his “unequivocal and emphatic” comments in his 17th View from the President’s Chambers.

The Biggest Little Blog Posts in the World

Well, maybe not, but I certainly got a large amount of enjoyment writing my posts for Marilyn Stowe’s Family Law & Divorce Blog this week, which included:

Going to Reno - Once the Divorce Capital of the World.

Mother ordered to return children to US after blatant abduction - The case H v K (Return Order).

Is it the duty of the family courts to support families? - As suggested by the Tory manifesto.

The broken record of commenting - An (almost certainly futile) attempt to raise the standard of commenting, aimed at those who abuse the privilege.

Have a good weekend, and Spring bank holiday.

All about money...

One way or another all of my posts this week on Marilyn Stowe’s Family Law & Divorce Blog were about money. They included:

A detailed look at that ‘record’ divorce award case - The case, of course, being AAZ v BBZ.

Is it time for a new word for ‘needs’? - In the light of Mr Justice Mostyn's comments in FF v KF.

A system in which divorce and finances are dealt with separately - As suggested by the President in the latest View from his Chambers.

Magistrates given teeth to deal with maintenance defaulters - The case K (Remo -Power of Magistrates To Issue Bench Warrant).

Have a good weekend.

A short but enjoyable week

I have thoroughly enjoyed writing my posts this week on Marilyn Stowe’s Family Law & Divorce Blog. I hope that those who read the posts also enjoy the experience. The posts included:

The great pro bono debate: is it a good or a bad thing? - Should lawyers stop doing pro bono work, to allow the system to descend into chaos, thereby forcing the Government to reinstate legal aid?

You can’t circumvent the system - Just because you are aggrieved by a decision of the family justice system does not entitle you to circumvent it.

Family law can be better - The Sensible Party's manifesto for Election 2017.

Have a good weekend.

Outdated divorce laws create bidding war of couples’ anger: charity

Jane Robey

Outdated divorce laws which mean someone has to be proved ‘at fault’ - even when a couple agrees on the need to separate - creates a ‘bidding war’ of resentment and anger, says a leading family charity.

As new research indicates courts can actually create conflict and encourage litigation, National Family Mediation (NFM) is renewing calls on Ministers to reform family law by introducing ‘no fault’ divorce.

“The current legal need to prove a spouse’s ‘unreasonable behaviour’ itself fuels bad feeling between a couple,” says Jane Robey, NFM’s CEO.

Referring to the new research from The Nuffield Foundation, she says “For anyone who’s worked in family law, or has been through a divorce, it’s a case of ‘tell us something we didn’t already know.’

“We know from experience that very often a couple that has decided to separate just wants to get on with it, so they can make a fresh start. Yet outdated laws that mean someone has to be proved at fault creates a bidding war which then often escalates to a full-blown courtroom battle.

“This is a huge issue. Over 100,000 couples divorce each year. For each and every adult involved, let alone the children, the stress, time and expense involved is staggering.”

Noting the Queen’s Speech is likely to take place next month, she points out previous failed attempts to reform divorce law because legislation has been introduced privately, without the weight of government backing that would see it reach the Statute Book.

“It doesn’t have to be this way. If the government took the opportunity to bring forward its own legislation for no-fault divorce, time would be allocated and the Bill would be passed.

“For Ministers it’s not a question of the volume of people affected, or the impact of legislative change. That’s undeniable. It’s one of will. It’s high time for Ministers to take long-awaited steps to divorce reform,” she concludes in a new article for Huffington Post.

You can read the article in full here.

Everyone has their limit...

...and sometimes the system pushes them beyond it. This was one of the topics I explored in my posts this week on Marilyn Stowe’s Family Law & Divorce Blog, which included:

A sad tale of a father pushed to the limit - As the title says.

Hague case “a very real and humanly painful dilemma” - The case being T (A Child : Hague Convention proceedings).

Don’t expect much sympathy from the court if you don’t obey its orders - As in Assoun v Assoun [No 1].

Celebrating fifty years of freedom in relationships - When I'm sixty-four (and it ain't long now...).

Have a good weekend.

600 people every day “running the gauntlet” of a divorce system that encourages conflict, says top family lawyer

Nigel Shepherd

Family lawyers have today demanded that Parliamentarians do not allow Brexit negotiations to stop the momentum that is building for no fault divorce.

At a major national gathering, members of the family justice organisation Resolution highlighted steps they are taking to ensure this and other family law issues do not get forgotten, as Britain prepares to leave the European Union.

Speaking in front of 600 family lawyers in Birmingham, Nigel Shepherd, the national chair of Resolution, highlighted that no fault divorce has received increasing levels of support from the public and leading members of the family law community.

Mr Shepherd pointed to the recent judgment in the Owens v Owens case -  which effectively forced a woman to remain in a marriage she does not want to continue - as a situation that underlines the need for no fault divorce. He said:

“It’s simply wrong in this day and age that someone should be forced to stay in a loveless marriage because the behaviour in the divorce petition wasn’t deemed ‘unreasonable’ enough”.

Nigel Shepherd said it is time to “end the blame game” and said the Government must not let Brexit get in the way of it acting quickly to ensure there are no more cases like Owens. Mr Shepherd said:

“In the face of this overwhelming support for a change in law to allow for no fault divorce, it does beg the question, what is the Government waiting for?

“There are more than 110,000 divorces each year - every day the government delays, more than 300 couples get a divorce. That’s 600 people, every day, running the gauntlet of a system that actively encourages conflict and blame”.

Nigel Shepherd said the issue of no fault divorce was made more critical in the context of Government reductions in funding for legal aid, which leave more people to deal with their legal issues “with minimal or often no support from professionals”.

Mr Shepherd also paid tribute to Resolution members and their commitment to reducing conflict and helping parents to put their children first. He said the recent lobby of Parliament, which saw 150 Resolution members travel to Parliament to talk to MPs about the need for no fault divorce, was “a testament to the true strength and collective power of our membership”.

The Resolution conference is an annual two-day event for its members to come together and discuss the latest developments in family law and identify practical ways to support people going through separation.

History, behaviour, a translation and temporary removal

My posts this week on Marilyn Stowe’s Family Law & Divorce Blog were on an assortment of topics, drawn from the mixed bag that is family law. They included:

If you’re going to complain about the family justice system, get your facts right - A short history lesson, on the subject of the 'natural guardian' of a child.

Is the act of refusing a divorce itself unreasonable behaviour? - A thought on the Owens case.

Father denied contact claims violation of his right to respect for family life - The ECHR case Endrizzi v Italy, as translated by Google.

Father allowed to take son to non-Convention country - Mr Justice Peter Jackson’s judgment in W (A Child: Temporary Removal From the Jurisdiction).

Have a good weekend.

In which Jeremy Paxman interviews a High Court judge...

...or not. My posts this week on Marilyn Stowe’s Family Law & Divorce Blog included the following:

Wife is allowed to proceed with divorce in England - Newsnight interviews Mr Justice Cobb, possibly, regarding the case J v U; U v J (No.2) (Domicile).

Contributions and the suspension of disbelief - Equating the contributions of the breadwinner and the homemaker.

Irish court refuses return of ‘settled’ child to Poland - The High Court of Ireland case JJ -v- PJ.

The other woman and the perils of DIY divorce - As in the Inheritance Act case Martin v Williams.

Have a good weekend.

Resolution welcomes Economist call for the introduction of no-fault divorce in England and Wales

Nigel Shepherd

This week’s Economist calls for the introduction of no-fault divorce in England and Wales. In response to the article, Resolution chair Nigel Shepherd said:

“It is hugely encouraging to see the national media taking a much bigger interest in no-fault divorce following our lobby of Parliament in November, that saw 150 family lawyers meet with MPs.

“We welcome the Economist’s contribution to this debate and note it follows recent calls for change from Sir Paul Coleridge, chairman of the Marriage Foundation and Lord Wilson of Culworth, a Supreme Court judge. They are the latest in a long line of senior figures, including the President of the Family Division, who have urged the Government to introduce no-fault divorce.

"The public also backs no-fault divorce, with a recent YouGov poll finding 69% believing “people should be able to seek a divorce without having to show their spouse is at fault."

“The current Owens v Owens case illustrates why reform is urgently needed. It is simply wrong that in 2017 anyone can be forced to remain in a marriage that they no longer wish to be in. Current divorce law, as demonstrated in this case, so often introduces or exaggerates conflict in family disputes.

“The Government needs to remove the need for blame from the divorce process at the earliest opportunity. Not only would it create a more civilised approach to family separation, it would also help it achieve its objective of helping more couples resolve issues out of court.

“We live in a modern society. It’s time for a modern divorce law.”

From everyone’s favourite family law blogger...

...or maybe not. Whatever, my posts this week on Marilyn Stowe’s Family Law & Divorce Blog included the following:

Yes, the welfare of the child is still paramount - Contrary to what some may believe (they also believe I am everyone's favourite family law blogger). Looking at the proposed amendments to PD 12J.

Court rules that child should have cataract surgery - In the case Re EQ.

A non-sequitur from Sir Paul Coleridge - Don't laugh, but Sir Paul thinks that Brexit will reverse the decline in marriage.

What exactly is a consent order, and why do I need one? - I try to answer that question.

Have a good weekend.

Wise words...

Well, on this day when we welcome a new leader of the free world, we could surely use a few. Hopefully, my posts this week on Marilyn Stowe’s Family Law & Divorce Blog include some:

Breaking out of the bubble - President Obama was right about so many things. His last speech included a lesson relevant to the family law debate.

ECHR case demonstrates why it is pointless having a law that prevents anyone from getting divorced - The ECHR case being Babiarz v. Poland.

Towards a virtual divorce system at last? - Could online divorce finally be coming? (And how it might be improved.)

Orders made in his absence breach father’s right to a fair hearing - Another ECHR case, Gakharia v Georgia.

Have a good weekend.

Old and...

My posts this week on Marilyn Stowe’s Family Law & Divorce Blog were mainly about the past and the future. They included:

Response and responsibility - Newly qualified lawyers must be nurtured.

Dowry: the problem that won’t go away - The subject of an old House of Lords judgment is not as archaic as some might think.

A lot of progress, and none - Looking at some more old House of Lords judgments.

A system that does not unnecessarily pry into private lives - A plea to modernise our family justice system.

Have a good weekend.

The blame game...

My posts this week on Marilyn Stowe’s Family Law & Divorce Blog were dominated by the concept of blame, not just for marriage breakdown but also for courts not making the decisions you want them to make. They included:

Could blame in divorce actually reduce conflict? - As has been suggested recently.

A few thoughts on the election of judges - I chip in to the debate about accountability.

What are we to make of the falling divorce rate? - Looking at the latest ONS figures.

Chancery Division confirms what we already knew: financial claims end on death - The case Robert v Woodall.

Have a good weekend.

ONS divorce stats release: Resolution response

Nigel Shepherd

The Office of National Statistics’ latest figures on divorce in England and Wales show there were 111,169 divorces in England and Wales in 2014, a drop of 3.1% compared to 2013. The divorce rate has also fallen by 5.3% from 2013 to 2014, to 9.3 divorces per thousand men and women.
 
Analysis of the 2014 figures shows that roughly 60% of all divorces in England and Wales cite either adultery or unreasonable behaviour (66,588).
   
Responding to the data, Nigel Shepherd, National Chair of campaigning family law organisation Resolution, said:
 
"The latest figures from the Office of National Statistics show that both divorce numbers and the divorce rate have fallen. As the ONS highlight, this could be due to both the rise in the number of cohabiting couples, and the reduction in the number of weaker relationships progressing to marriage as a result.
 
"For those 111,169 of couples that did divorce however, we know that nearly two-thirds will have apportioned blame - whether they wanted to or not. At Resolution, we believe in a better way for separating couples that allows them to divorce without blame, conflict or argument. Over 90% of our members support a move to No Fault Divorce, and last week 150 family lawyers gathered in Parliament to meet with MPs and lobby for change.
 
“We are pleased with the positive reception our calls for no fault divorce received among MPs and we will continue our call for this much required, widely supported legislative change.
 
"Other statistics recently released shows that the number of cohabiting couples has also risen - this means it is even more important that they have some basic rights under the law should they separate."

Resolution introduces new Code

Resolution has launched a new Code of Practice for its members.

The organisation, which represents 6,500 family justice professionals who are committed to supporting couples to reach constructive solutions to family disputes, says it chose to revise the Code of Practice to reflect the changing family justice environment.

Nigel Shepherd, Chair of Resolution, said:

“This is a further significant development in Resolution’s evolution.

“When we first began in the 1980s, the world of family justice was very different. If you were getting divorced, you almost always ended up in court, and it was invariably acrimonious.

“Resolution’s founder, John Cornwell, had the vision to recognise that there had to be a better way, and from those initial meetings that he had with a number of like-minded family lawyers our organisation - and subsequently our Code of Practice - was born.

“Now the environment in which we all work is changing beyond recognition and our Code needed to be updated in order to reflect the way in which all our members support people.

“I’m proud of the way our members have come together to draft and launch this new Code, which for the first time now also explains to the public how the Code helps them.”

Since its inception, Resolution has been at the forefront of promoting best practice, as well as launching and promoting new ways to support people through separation, including mediation, collaborative practice, and more recently, family arbitration.

It has also campaigned on issues such as legal aid - for family and care work - domestic violence, no fault divorce, rights for cohabitants and court closures.

Welcoming the new Code of Practice, Resolution members have today taken to social media with the hashtag #abetterway to share in their own words what being a Resolution member means to them.

Mr Shepherd added:

“The new Code is an important step forward for our organisation, and demonstrates our ongoing commitment to supporting our members, and the clients they help, to promote those values espoused by John Cornwell and others more than 30 years ago.

“The Code also been written to reflect the changing face of our organisation. Although we started as a membership organisation primarily for family lawyers, we’re now proud to have family mediators, financial planners, counsellors and family therapists among our ranks.

“If you subscribe to our principles and are passionate about the work Resolution does, you are welcome in our organisation.”

The new Code of Practice is being launched as part of Resolution’s Good Divorce Week, an annual awareness raising week to promote constructive resolutions to family issues. In addition to the launch of their new Code, Resolution is organising a major lobby of Parliament on Wednesday 30 November that will see 150 of its members meet with MPs in Westminster to promote their campaign for no fault divorce and rights for cohabiting couples.

Posting potpourri

My posts this week on Marilyn Stowe’s Family Law & Divorce Blog may not have been fragrant, but they certainly covered a varied a mixture of topics:

A rare example of a ‘modest means’ appeal - The case C v C.

What exactly is ‘unreasonable behaviour’? - My attempt to answer the question.

An alternate future for the family - I look into my crystal ball...

The welfare checklist, Irish style - A comparison of the Irish and English/Welsh versions of the welfare checklist.

Have a good weekend.

A worrying week

This song seems relevant this worrying week, and not just because of the title.

Albeit on a lower level, there were also some things to worry about referred to in my posts this week on Marilyn Stowe’s Family Law & Divorce Blog, which included:

An advert for no-fault divorce - A recently published judgment is a clear reminder of just why we must consign the idea of fault to history.

Encouraging the judicial bias culture - As in the media reaction to the Article 50 judgment.

The end of marriage? - The implications of the statistics showing that cohabiting couple families remain the fastest growing family type in the UK.

The sad case of the parents who totally failed their child - Re G (A Child) (Fact Finding).

Have a good weekend.

Nothing but the truth...

Well, what else would you expect from my posts this week on Marilyn Stowe’s Family Law & Divorce Blog, which included:

Family law in a post-truth world - Despite what some will say, the truth does matter.

Sun loungers and seisin: serving divorce petitions - Mr Justice Mostyn's judgment in Thum v Thum.

No summary return principle in internal child ‘abduction’ - Looking at the Court of Appeal decision Re R (Child).

Parents in child support dispute over two nights shared care a year - JH v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and LH (CSM) (Child support : other).

Have a good weekend.