Go to Source
Author:
For an Asian-American Family, the Cost of Education
Go to Source
Author:
I Made A Bed From Scratch All By Myself!
Go to Source
Author: Penniless Parenting
The Secret to Prioritizing Health as A Family
It is no secret that your health is incredibly important, and it must be properly looked after. You don’t only want to take care of your health, but that of your family’s as well. After all, you want your loved ones to live a long and happy life. The question is, how can you all achieve this?
This
Go to Source
Author: Penniless Parenting
Divorce tips: Managing financial disclosure in divorce
Making the decision to get divorced, painful as it is, is just the beginning of the many decisions that you will make through the process of separating. Regardless of your situation, there will always be financial issues that need to be addressed.
Financial decisions potentially have far-reaching effects on your and your family’s future. So, we asked Mark Chapman, Partner, at the Stowe office in Reading to join us on the blog with advice on how to best manage financial disclosure in divorce.
Getting the right divorce lawyer
The first thing to do to secure a fair financial settlement in your divorce is to choose the right divorce lawyer for you. (We recently shared our top seven tips to help with this on the blog. You can watch our short video here)
With the right divorce lawyer by your side, there are a number of ways a fair settlement can be reached and in light of your circumstances, what is the right avenue for you to go down.
Now, this article is not about the different approaches to divorce settlements but, in short, they are, your solicitor dealing with the cases and leading negotiations for you, dealing with matters collaboratively, mediating, arbitration, the use of private judicial hearings for a neutral evaluation of your case and lastly, court hearings.
Plenty of options to consider, however, they all have the same conclusion: to come away with a legally binding financial settlement, set down in a document called a Consent Order. Or if reached by agreement or following arbitration or in the case of a Court imposed decision, a Court Order. Both will confirm how matrimonial finances are to be dealt with.
A fair settlement
The concept of fairness can be difficult to quantify however in a legal sense, it is what is reasonable and equitable considering the financial circumstances of both parties in the marriage. To establish this, there needs to be a detailed understanding of what is in the ‘matrimonial pot.’ You cannot fairly split the assets until you know what they are.
Most financial settlements will consider capital, income and pension. Often it is the house which is the most valuable asset but if it is burdened with a large mortgage there may be limited capital. It may be your pension which has the greater value, but you may not be able to access it for many years due to your age. It may be a business which has provided the family with an income, but it may also have a capital value which needs to be considered.
All such assets need to be dealt with. In some of my cases, there has not been enough sufficient income to warrant an award for spousal maintenance. In other cases, pensions have been non-existent or of such a low value that they had no impact on the settlement. Often the equity in the house, when combined with other savings, is insufficient to buy both parties houses without relying on mortgage borrowing. In those instances, one party may “need” more money than the other, often because they have a lower earning potential.
The form E
Before one gets to answer these questions however, a full and frank financial disclosure will be facilitated by both parties using the standard Form E. You can get advice on how to fill in Form E here. You will need to provide information on any mortgages, bank accounts, debts, pension, tax etc.
Whilst it is an onerous form to complete it is thorough. The risk of just providing disclosure without completing this form is that something maybe omitted either accidentally or deliberately. However, if the financial resources are simple, sometimes the parties choose to avoid completing the form E but be aware of the risk of trying to cut corners.
Once completed the financial information is exchanged with the other party and this should take place at the same time. Once you have the other party’s detailed financial information, you can then start to consider what a fair financial agreement may look like.
Hidden assets?
When reviewing the details, I always advise my clients to not take the information at face value. Use your instincts and if there are any gaps you have the right to ask the other party to clarify those issues, before entering negotiations. You need a clear understanding to ensure that the final settlement reflects yours, and possibly your children’s needs, whilst also not ignoring the needs of the other party.
In many commercial transactions e.g. before a business is purchased you would expect there to be a process of “due diligence” to ensure that you have a full understanding of what there is. When you buy a house, you undertake a proper survey, when you have a medical procedure this is often preceded by an X-ray. The reason is that you don’t want to be making important decisions without full knowledge. It is very difficult to undo mistakes made in haste, desperate to reach a quick settlement or to save costs. When the mistake is realised later, it can be too late.
If someone is not willing to provide full and frank financial disclosure, then it may be necessary to issue court proceedings and place the division of the matrimonial finances in the hands of the court. As lawyers, we cannot force someone to deal with matters on a voluntary basis, but a Judge has various powers at their disposal to ensure that the correct procedures are adhered to so that matters can be resolved.
We also have an in-house team of forensic accountants who can help. Highly experienced accountants they can advise on valuations, businesses, tax, trust and pensions. The team is also highly experienced in uncovering hidden assets. You can read more reasons why you may need to use them here on the blog.
To close, the key to achieving a fair settlement in your divorce is to have a clear picture of both parties’ financial circumstances, backed up with the appropriate evidence. Once this is in place, we can make sure an offer is made and the best settlement achieved for you.
Get in touch
If you require advice on how to achieve a fair settlement in your divorce please do contact us at the details below or send us an email. All enquiries are strictly confidential.
The post Divorce tips: Managing financial disclosure in divorce appeared first on Stowe Family Law.
Go to Source
Author: Mark Chapman
Sir James Munby finds that irregularity in divorce did not make it invalid
“Rules are rules, and must be obeyed”. Or so we are often told. However, even that rule has exceptions, as the remarkable case M v P demonstrates.
The rule in question is quite simple: that if you wish to divorce on the basis that you and the other party have been separated for a particular period (i.e. use that basis to prove the ground for divorce: that the marriage has irretrievably broken down), then that period must have been completed before the divorce petition is presented to the court. Thus if, as in this case, the petitioner wishes to divorce on the basis that he and the respondent have been separated for at least two years and the respondent consents to the divorce, that two year period must have been completed before the petitioner presents his petition. (It should be noted in passing that it will not be necessary to prove irretrievable breakdown under the proposed no-fault divorce system, so the particular problem in this case will no longer arise if we get no-fault divorce.)
And what if the separation period has not been completed? Well, prior to this case I’m sure any family lawyer would have said that the petitioner has not proved that the marriage has broken down irretrievably, and cannot therefore have his divorce. But it seems that things are not quite that straightforward…
The facts in M v P were somewhat unusual. The parties were married on the 19th of September 2011. It appears that they never lived together (the husband claimed that the wife refused to share the same household as him). The husband, who was not legally represented, presented a divorce petition on the 14th of June 2013, on the basis that he and the wife had been separated for at least two years, and the wife consented to the divorce. The wife confirmed in her acknowledgement of the divorce petition that she consented to the divorce. The divorce proceeded, and a decree nisi was pronounced on the 21st of November 2013, and made absolute on the 24th of February 2014. Both the husband and the wife subsequently remarried.
I’m sure at this point that the reader will have spotted the problem in this case. If the parties were married on the 19th of September 2011 then they could not have been separated for two years by the time the petition was presented on the 14th of June 2013. The problem finally came to the attention of the court staff in October 2016. The matter went before a district judge, who allowed the husband to amend his petition to rely upon the wife’s ‘unreasonable behaviour’, and directed that the decree absolute remained valid.
The matter was then referred to the Queen’s Proctor. The Queen’s Proctor is an officer of the judiciary, who may intervene in divorce proceedings “to argue before the court any question in relation to the matter which the court considers it necessary or expedient to have fully argued”. The Queen’s Proctor did intervene here, applying to have the decree nisi set aside as it was a ‘nullity’, because the requisite period of separation had not expired before the divorce petition was presented, and the district judge had not had the power to cure the defect by allowing the petition to be amended. Obviously, if the application succeeded, the husband and wife were still married to one another, and had therefore committed bigamy by remarrying.
The Queen’s Proctor’s application was heard by Sir James Munby, the former President of the Family Division. To keep this post to a reasonable length, I will summarise his judgment very briefly. The central question, he said, was: was whether the decrees made by the court were void, or merely voidable. If they were void, then they were nullities, and the parties were still married to one another. If they were merely voidable, on the other hand, he could decide not to have them set aside. He decided that they were voidable (you can read his reasons for this in paragraph 103 of the judgment) and that they would not be set aside. The district judge was right to amend the petition, and therefore the decree nisi would be amended to reflect that the divorce was on the basis of behaviour, rather than separation and consent. Accordingly, the decree absolute remained valid – the parties were divorced, and had not committed bigamy.
To be honest, I found my eyebrows rising a little when I read the judgment. Whilst one obviously has enormous sympathies with the parties – they were victims of the failure of the court to spot the irregularity – the law seems to me to be quite clear, and it had not been followed. It is all very well to say, as Sir James did, that “the modern judicial conscience would revolt” if it were compelled to say that the divorce was a nullity, but the simple fact remained that parliament had decreed that the two years must elapse before the presentation of the petition, and it had not. And to retrospectively alter the divorce to behaviour after the event seems to me to be stretching logic beyond breaking point – the divorce had never happened, so it could not be amended. Still, what do I know, I am just a humble hack, not the former President of the Family Division.
You can read Sir James’s full judgment, including his searing criticism of the unavailability of legal aid for the wife (see paragraphs 116 to 122), here.
The post Sir James Munby finds that irregularity in divorce did not make it invalid appeared first on Stowe Family Law.
Go to Source
Author: John Bolch
Brain Machines
Blinking your way to relaxation
I love gadgets, as a quick glance around my office would confirm. In particular, I seem to have the gene that favors small, battery-powered boxes that light up—my iPhone, iPad, Apple Watch, digital camera, digital name tag, and laser pointers, for example, all meet that general description. Even so, I buy only those gadgets that I think will actually perform a useful activity or make my life better in some way. I reject otherwise cool gadgets that would not in fact be valuable as part of my lifestyle. It was therefore with a mixture of gadget-crazed glee and circumspect puzzlement that I first looked at a device sometimes known as a “brain machine” or “mind machine” a couple of decades ago at a Sharper Image store.
Relaxation in a Box
That it was a small box containing batteries and blinking lights was enough to induce me to pick it up; it also had cables running to a set of headphones and what appeared to be sunglasses with a bunch of LEDs mounted on the inside. The marketing propaganda said that the device was supposed to promote relaxation and “synchronize” one’s brain waves, whatever that meant. Out of idle curiosity I put the apparatus on and pressed the button. The LEDs on the glasses started blinking and synthesized sounds poured out of the headphones. I only used the device for a minute or so, but I was almost immediately struck by the sensation that I was somehow moving into an altered state of consciousness. To be quite honest, it was a bit freaky—fascinating, sure, but not something I really cared to experience standing in the middle of a store. I thought it would be well worth about US$50 to take home and experiment with, but the cost was quite a few times that, and I really couldn’t bring myself to spend hundreds of dollars on a box that made sunglasses light up.
Years later, I stumbled upon a much lower-tech (and cheaper) version of the device in another store, and I decided the price was low enough for me to satisfy my latent curiosity. Once again, the literature stated that it aided relaxation, promoted mental clarity, relieved tension, improved creativity and learning ability and so on—all rather vague and unfalsifiable claims. I took it home and tried out several of the programs.
This Is Your Brain on a Machine
The first thing I noticed was that the blinking lights—which you see through closed eyelids—produce a subjective impression of complex patterns, colors, and motion, even though the only things that vary are the rate of blinking and alternations between the lights on left and right sides. Depending on which program I chose, the pattern of blinking differed significantly over a period ranging from 10 minutes to an hour. All the while, a wavelike drone of white noise came through the headphones—a distinct disappointment compared to the higher quality (and more interesting) synthesized tones of that first unit I tried. I could have just plugged in another audio source and listened to whatever I wanted, but I was hoping for an integrated audiovisual experience.
Using the brain machine was indeed relaxing, though some sessions were more successful than others. On a few occasions, I had the distinct impression of viewing a scene before me—such as a room full of furniture—even though my eyes were closed and the only visual stimulus was the blinking LEDs. And once or twice, I spontaneously felt a very strong emotional response, almost like the terror of falling, that I could not attribute to anything external. So clearly the device had some effect, though precisely what it was doing I can’t say. It’s also not clear whether my experience would have been the same with other models; it seemed the particular device I chose was designed rather sloppily, without any real attention to the underlying principles of how the brain works.
That Syncing Feeling
And what are those principles? The idea behind brain machines is relatively straightforward and scientifically sound (as far as it goes). For many years, medical researchers have known that there is a correlation between the frequency of people’s brainwaves and their mental states. Higher frequencies are associated with normal waking consciousness; progressively lower frequencies correspond to relaxation, sleep, and deep meditation. The brain also has a tendency to synchronize its frequency with external stimuli such as lights and sounds, in much the same way as a tuning fork vibrates when exposed to a sound of the right pitch. The brain’s synchronization process is called entrainment, and it is exactly what the brain machines aim to produce. In theory, at least, by blinking lights or playing sounds at certain frequencies, the machines can encourage the brain to fall into sync, inducing very relaxed, meditative states.
Every brain machine on the market—and there are many different varieties—claims to aid relaxation, and used properly, they usually will. Other claims are somewhat more dubious. For example, I’ve read in several places that by using a brain machine, one can achieve meditative states that would take a monk or yogi 20 years of training to reach. I have to wonder about that. For one thing, most brain machines don’t include EEG circuitry to produce a record of the actual state of your brain or provide biofeedback, making claims about meditative states hard to verify. But even if it is true that one’s brain is operating at the same frequency as a Zen master’s, that by itself doesn’t mean much; the same could also be true of someone on drugs. I’m not sure it’s fair to say that simply reaching a certain brainwave frequency is somehow equivalent to the experience of spending years of disciplined training in meditation. On the other hand, unlike drugs, brain machines are legal, safe, and nonaddictive—which must count for something.
Making Light of It
In addition to the standard “light and sound” brain machines, there are several audio-only programs that purport to have approximately the same effect. You can also buy machines that eschew light and sound altogether for a more direct approach: delivering tiny electrical pulses through electrodes attached to your head. Supposedly this accomplishes the same thing, but I find the idea of zapping my skull a bit off-putting.
Without question, not all brain machines are created equal, but there is no good way to evaluate competing models objectively; you have to try them out. Unfortunately, nearly all of them are far too expensive for what they do, so experimenting with a range of models is not a reasonable prospect for most people. Still, the experience of using a brain machine is one worth having, and depending on what type of machine you have and how you use it, you may find its value in promoting relaxation or reducing stress well worth the price. As for me, I’ll be looking on eBay for a high-end unit whose owner says they’re selling it because they’ve achieved enlightenment and want money to give to the poor.
Note: This is an updated version of an article that originally appeared on Interesting Thing of the Day on June 25, 2003, and again in a slightly revised form on June 9, 2004.
Image credit: Kemitsv [CC BY-SA 3.0], via Wikimedia Commons
Go to Source
Author: Joe Kissell
National Spinach Day
Yesterday was Waffle Day, and I did in fact make waffles for the family. Mmmmmm. So what delicious, sweet, crispy treat awaits us today? (Checks notes.) Oh. Well, spinach may not be terribly exciting, but…wow, so much nutrition!
Spinach is one of those foods that, as a kid, I was so thoroughly convinced I’d hate (based on its appearance and smell) that I would not, under any circumstances, allow it near my mouth. And let’s face it, cooked spinach is kinda gross looking. But fresh baby spinach is great in a salad, and cooked spinach has really grown on me too, as long as it’s not mushy. (So, sorry, but no canned or frozen spinach for me. I have to draw the line somewhere.)
It so happens we have no spinach in the house right now, but we do have leftover waffles, so I may just have to pretend.
Image credit: Tiia Monto [CC BY-SA 4.0], via Wikimedia Commons
Go to Source
Author: Joe Kissell
The Risks to Babies of Older Fathers
Go to Source
Author:
A million words …and hopefully the odd wise one
The other night whilst waiting for sleep to overtake me I was idly wondering how many words I had written for the Stowe Family Law Blog (don’t ask me why!). I tried to make the calculation in my head, but it was too much for my tired mind. So the next morning I got out the calculator.
I began writing for Stowe Family Law in late 2013. Since then, I have written five posts a week, excluding Xmas/New Year week, bank holidays, and one week when I had the flu. In total that comes to about 1,350 posts. Taking an average of 750 words per post, that comes to some 1,012,000 words. Now, I realise that that is a very rough calculation, but it is still a lot of words.
What on Earth have all of those words been about? Well, mostly about developments in family law: news, legislation and, above all, cases. And what developments there have been over those five and a half years. In fact, so great have they been that the whole family law landscape has changed almost beyond recognition. I really don’t think that there has ever been a period of such rapid change. And, as we will see in a moment, it is not over.
When I began writing here we were still trying to understand the effect of the legal aid cuts that had occurred earlier in 2013, removing legal aid from most types of private family law work. In the following six years all of our worst fears have been realised: most litigants unrepresented, many cases with no lawyers at all to help the court, court lists lengthening, more delays, more stress for judges, litigants being taken advantage of by unqualified charlatans, litigants struggling to represent themselves (frequently against the inequality of the other party being represented), and often people deciding that they would rather not go to court at all, than have to go through the process without legal help. These have all, sadly, been recurring themes in my posts here.
But the family law world when I began writing here was so different in many ways from how it is now.
Who, for example, can remember a world in which the word ‘transparency’ referred only to whether you could see through something? All that changed early in 2014 when our then President Sir James Munby introduced his ‘Transparency Guidance’, supposedly requiring most family law judgments to be published, to better inform the public of what goes on in the family courts. Now, for better or worse, ‘transparency’ is a word that you can hardly avoid in family law circles.
Moving on to issues of rather greater significance, who now can remember a time when same-sex couples could not marry? In fact, that was the case as recently as March 2014, when the first marriages between couples of the same gender took place.
And who can now remember a time when we didn’t use the term ‘child arrangements order’ when referring to what were previously ‘residence’ and ‘contact’ orders. Since 2014 we have had to get used to rather more awkward terms such as ‘lives with’ orders and ‘spends time with’ orders. Such is progress.
And the other big change of 2014 was the introduction of the Family Court. For the first time, we would actually have a court dedicated to family law, rather than have to share courts used for other civil, or even criminal, law purposes. Of course, this did not mean that family courts would have their own buildings. That, of course, would have been too expensive. We have therefore had to settle for the rather cheaper option of simply changing a few nameplates and letter headings. Litigants still use the same buildings, and most would probably not notice the difference.
But there were more changes for the courts to follow. In 2015, we were given regional divorce centres. Another cost-cutting exercise, this meant that no longer could you go to a local court to issue your divorce. Instead, you had to use a regional centre, which could be hundreds of miles away. And, surprise, surprise, the centres were over-worked and under-staffed, resulting in inevitable delays to the divorce process. Progress again.
Other changes to the courts have included the introduction of specialist courts to deal with financial remedy cases and, of course, the introduction of the online court. Both of these will, hopefully, prove to be of benefit.
Back to the law itself, there have been several notable Supreme Court cases dealing with family law issues. In particular, we had the Owens divorce case and the Steinfeld & Keidan civil partnership case, both of which had a huge effect upon the future of family law: the forthcoming introduction of no-fault divorce and civil partnerships for opposite-sex couples.
So writing for Stowe Family Law has been a tumultuous ride, and one which I have enjoyed immensely. I know that some people have taken exception to some of the things I have said here. That’s not a problem – it is the nature of family law that it evokes different views, often very strongly held. I hope, though, that at least some of my words here have displayed at least a modicum of wisdom, and that readers have found them informative. Thank you for reading them (or at least some of them!).
The post A million words …and hopefully the odd wise one appeared first on Stowe Family Law.
Go to Source
Author: John Bolch