Tulsa Family Lawyer and Mediator
Go to Source
Author: Penniless Parenting
There are quite a few careers in
Go to Source
Author: Penniless Parenting
Go to Source
Author:
Most couples seeking a divorce do not set out with a desire to go to court. In fact, a key concern that we for many of my clients is the desire to avoid protracted and expensive court proceedings, giving them a speedy end to their divorce.
And there are lots of different approaches to choose from so we asked Sarah Snow, Partner at our London Victoria office to join us on the blog to look at the different options to keeping your divorce out of court.
In the first part of the article, she looks at mediation and collaborative law.
The term divorce immediately conjures up the image of embattled ex-spouses engaged in hostile and aggressive court proceedings, which take many months and cost thousands of pounds. It doesn’t always have to be this way and below I explore the various Alternative (or Appropriate) Dispute Resolution (ADR) options which divorcing couples would be wise to consider.
First off, it is important to stress that parties will largely only engage in court proceedings if they are unable to resolve financial matters at an early stage in the process and by agreement. Unless contested, it is quite common for parties to never step foot inside the courtroom, instead, securing their divorce via a post based or online process.
Financial matters can also be resolved voluntarily between parties and an agreement drawn up and put before the court in the form of a Financial Remedy Consent Order, again without either party having to attend a hearing. The problem arises when parties are unable to reach an agreement and therefore one makes an application for a Financial Remedy Order, thus starts the long and stressful divorce process. How then do you avoid such an application?
The basis of avoiding court comes from a joint intention from both parties to adopt an amicable approach and be willing to engage in constructive, productive dialogue recognising that reasonable compromises will have to be made on both sides.
With the intention in place, an approach of ADR is a very viable alternative. But what does the term mean?
In its simplest terms, ADR is a way of resolving disputes without going to court. There are many different methods and approaches that can be adopted when looking to resolve financial matters and achieve an amicable settlement. These include the following:
Mediation
Mediation is a structured and interactive process where a neutral third-party assists divorcing parties in resolving the conflict. The trained mediator will use specialist communication and negotiation techniques to encourage parties to actively participate in the process and look at a variety of settlement options. The mediator will initially meet with each party individually to gain an understanding of what they are seeking to achieve. They will then be asked to prepare financial disclosure before meeting again on a joint basis.
Once the full financial picture has been ascertained then parties can discuss fair and reasonable settlement options. All negotiations and discussions take place on a Without Prejudice basis, which means if matters do not settle and an application to the court is made, the court will not be made aware of the proposals made. This means that parties can freely make proposals without the risk of their “bottom line” being exposed to the court later.
If engaged in productively and with a genuine desire to resolve matters, mediation can be hugely successful and beneficial for parties. Particularly divorcing couples who have children and need to maintain an amicable co-parenting relationship moving forward.
It is important to be aware however that whilst mediators may also be legally trained family lawyers, they are not able to provide legal advice. Therefore, I would recommend that both parties should instruct a solicitor to work with them alongside the process and provide ongoing advice as to the suitability or fairness of the proposals being made in mediation.
Collaborative
Collaborative law is a process founded in America in 1990 and launched in the UK in 2003 and involves divorcing couples working with their solicitor and if required, an independent financial advisor, accountant, child specialist and family consultant to reach a voluntary settlement with the aim of avoiding the uncertain outcome of court. The key goal is to achieve a settlement that best meets the specific needs of both parties and their children in a safe space without the underlying threat of going to court.
When dealing with the financial issues and trying to reach a settlement, both parties engage in four-way meetings with both of their lawyers present to first obtain a full picture of the matrimonial finances and thereafter engage in negotiations. The aim is to ensure that everyone is vested in the process with the clear aim of resolving matters without involving the courts.
If an agreement is made, both parties sign an agreement committing to the collaborative process and resolving matters without going to court. The solicitors you instruct in the collaborative process will not be able to attend court on your behalf if, for any reason, the process breaks down and an application to the court must be made.
Parties must be completely prepared to engage in the process and be committed to it. It is essential that parties are transparent and if there is a reason to suspect that one party is being secretive with financial matters there is no power to compel disclosure. However, many couples simply want to get matters sorted out, are willing to co-operate with each other and hope to find solutions in a constructive manner. The collaborative process enables couples to consider the other party’s point of view and share ideas in an open way that will encourage creative and mutually acceptable solutions to be found Often just listening to what the other party has to say can help cut through any suspicions about motives or agendas.
Like mediation, being willing to meet and discuss matters face to face is not an easy option. It can be difficult and emotions can run high, but if you are able to resolve matters by agreement, with the support of trained collaborative lawyers it is far more likely to be longer lasting and lead to a better future relationship, essential if you have children, than one where the Court or an arbitrator has imposed the outcome on you.
Get in touch
We have a number of mediators and lawyers who are experienced at advising clients going through the mediation process and also a number of qualified collaborative lawyers. For more advice on how to keep your divorce out of court you can contact our Client Care Team here or at the number below.
In how to keep divorce out of court – Part two Sarah will look at arbitration and negotiation.
The post How to keep divorce out of court (Part one) appeared first on Stowe Family Law.
Go to Source
Author: Sarah Snow
We have all seen cases in which one parent seeks to alienate the child against the other parent. In such cases there are a range of options open to the court to deal with the issue, but perhaps the most serious, where the child lives with the ‘alienating’ parent, is to order the transfer of the primary care of the child to the other parent. This was what happened in the recent High Court case MFS (Appeal: Transfer of Primary Care), which related to a mother’s appeal against such an order, made by His Honour Judge North, in September last year.
The interesting part of this case is, I think, not so much the appeal, as the original decision. I shall therefore concentrate on that.
The case concerned a boy, ‘MFS’, who was born in 2010. Unless I’ve missed it, the judgment doesn’t say when his parents separated, but it was clearly not long after he was born. MFS remained with his mother, but as long ago as 2012 there were court proceedings regarding his contact with his father.
The central feature of the case was the mother’s negative attitude towards the father, and how she transmitted that to the child. Independent evidence for this came primarily from a clinical psychologist, whose findings included the following:
These findings (and others) were accepted by Judge North, who concluded that the mother’s behaviour was causing MFS significant emotional harm. He considered the possibility of ‘threatening’ the mother with a change of residence to the father, but felt that that would not alter the mother’s behaviour. Accordingly, he made an order that MFS should immediately move to live with his father.
The mother appealed, arguing (using the words of Mr Justice Williams, who heard the appeal) that the clinical psychologist’s report was so seriously inaccurate/unreliable/biased that it could not properly be relied upon by the judge, and that in all the circumstances the decision of the court immediately to remove the child from his single primary carer was disproportionate and wrong. Mr Justice Williams did not accept either argument: the report was not open to criticism, and the overwhelming weight of the evidence supported a change of primary carer. The change of primary carer was plainly the decision that was in this child’s best interests, and it was plainly a proportionate rather than a disproportionate order on the evidence. Mr Justice Williams concluded:
“Having conducted what I consider to have been a very detailed review of the evidence before HHJ North and his judgment with the benefit of powerful written and oral advocacy in support of the parties’ cases I have reached the clear conclusion that the appeal is without merit. Whilst it was only possible to reach this clear view after that detailed consideration it is clear that neither of the grounds of appeal had any realistic prospect of success when road tested against the evidence that the judge had available to him.”
Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.
You can read the full judgment here. Warning: with respect to Mr Justice Williams, the transcript of the judgment appears to have some errors in it, which can make it a little hard to follow in places.
The post Boy ordered to leave mother after she alienated him against father appeared first on Stowe Family Law.
Go to Source
Author: John Bolch
Go to Source
Author:
Arbitration has been available for a number of years to resolve disagreements over arrangements for children when a marriage breaks down and also disputes with regard to finances.
It offers many advantages over the Court system (including speed, cost and flexibility) which is becoming slower and slower and as a result, more expensive.
Arbitration in family law cases received a significant boost in a decision by Mr Justice Moor in the High Court very recently.
The Judge was concerned with an application as to what questions should be put to an expert accountant, but the main point is that he was clearly frustrated by the valuable time of High Court Judges being wasted and endorsed arbitration as a much better way of resolving issues such as the those he had to consider.
Arbitration has been available as a means of dispute resolution for financial issues since 2012 and in relation to children since 2016.
As the largest specialist family law firm in the country, Stowe Family Law is proud to have two family arbitrators:
Graham Coy, London Chancery Lane, [email protected], 020 7421 3300
Gareth Curtis, central Manchester, [email protected], 0161 359 5534
Family Arbitration is run under The Institute of Family Law Arbitrators and their website provides some very useful guides to the procedure in relation to financial issues and the procedure in relation to problems concerning children.
Graham Coy
23 April 2019
The post A boost for arbitration appeared first on Stowe Family Law.
Go to Source
Author: Graham Coy
Last week the Department for Work and Pensions published something new, which must surely be of interest to anyone involved with the family justice system: statistics about the separated family population. We have seen something similar to this previously, but the methodology used to produce these statistics is apparently more accurate than before.
The purpose of the statistics is to provide information on child maintenance arrangements between parents in separated families. I will come to that in a moment, but first I will deal with the main figures, which must surely give pause for thought, and not just to those concerned with child maintenance.
The main figures relate to the number of separated families in Great Britain, and the number of children in those families. A ‘separated family’ is defined as one resident parent, one non-resident parent and any biological or adopted children they have between them who are either under 16 or under 20 and in full-time non-tertiary education. Obviously, a ‘resident parent’ is the parent who has the main day-to-day care of any relevant children, and a ‘non-resident parent’ is the other parent. The terminology, of course, is similar to that used in the child support system.
So to the figures, which are for the period April 2014 to March 2017. They show that at any point during that time there were around 2.5 million separated families in Great Britain, which included about 3.9 million children. Just let that sink in for a moment. Roughly 20% of the population are children, and the total population is about 65 million. By my calculation that means there are about 13 million children. That in turn means that getting on for one in every three children comes from a separated family. OK, I realise that my own methodology here leaves something to be desired, but you get the point: a very large proportion of children in this country come from a separated (some might say ‘broken’) family.
I’m sure a lot of people would be appalled by these figures. However, it would be quite wrong to assume that all of these children are unhappy or deprived. How the separation of their parents has affected them depends upon many factors, not least how well the parents have managed the separation, including in terms of ensuring that the children continue to have a close relationship with both parents. The cliché that children are resilient has some truth in it: children are perfectly capable of adapting to the separation of their parents, provided the conditions are right.
OK, to the child maintenance aspect of the statistics (child maintenance, of course, being one of the matters that separating parents usually have to deal with). The headline figure is that in 2016/17 around 48% of separated families had a child maintenance arrangement, down from 55% in the previous two years. This seems like a significant drop, although it may be due to child support arrangements being moved from the Child Support Agency (‘CSA’) to the Child Maintenance Service (‘CMS’) – it will be interesting to see if there is any further drop in the coming years. Whatever, less than half of separated families having any child maintenance arrangement seems pretty low to me. How many children suffering from economic hardship does that represent?
Lastly, the statistics look at the different types of child maintenance arrangement. These are defined as either ‘statutory arrangements’ or (you’ve guessed it) ‘non-statutory arrangements’. Statutory arrangements are those which have been arranged with the CSA or the CMS. Non-statutory arrangements include all other arrangements, such as: voluntary financial arrangements which involve direct monetary payments between parents where the CMS or CSA have not been involved; voluntary non-financial arrangements involving payments in kind; other types of arrangements including shared care arrangements; and court orders requiring parents to make financial payments.
The figures show that in 2016/17 17% of separated families had statutory arrangements, and 29% had non-statutory arrangements (the other 2% were cases which had both). In other words, if there is a maintenance arrangement, it is considerably more likely not to involve the CMS.
All of this seems to me to indicate a victory of sorts for the government’s child support policy. The main aim of that policy was clearly to save money by not involving the state in sorting out child maintenance whenever possible, and the statistics show that in only less than a fifth of cases is the state having to get fully involved. Whether this is a victory for children is another matter entirely…
You can find the full statistics here.
The post Separated families statistics give pause for thought appeared first on Stowe Family Law.
Go to Source
Author: John Bolch
Big changes coming to service areas on turnpike between Tulsa and OKC
A turnpike service area between Tulsa and Oklahoma City that provides a meeting point for people exchanging kids, pets and valuables is going away as a halfway stop serving both directions.
The Stroud service area on the Turner Turnpike will undergo major renovations and become a westbound-only stop in the next two or three years.
The change is part of major overhauls to the turnpike’s service areas designed to improve safety, said Oklahoma Turnpike Authority spokesman Jack Damrill.
“That service area, as it is now, is going away,” he said. “Parents who exchange kids will have to find a new location to meet up, probably the (other) McDonald’s (just east on Oklahoma 99) in Stroud.”
The current service area — located almost exactly halfway between the state’s two largest cities — has become congested with semi-tractor trailer parking, and its outdated design isn’t safe for motorists, he said.
“You have high-speed traffic merging with low speed traffic in the left lane(s)” when traffic from the service area merges onto the turnpike, he said. “That curve is dangerous.”
The service area was designed when the speed limit was 55 mph, not 75 mph, he said. A bill signed by Gov. Kevin Stitt last week would allow the OTA to raise the speed limit to 80 mph.
Plans call for the OTA to straighten the highway on the south side of the current service area, as well as construction of a new building that will house both a McDonald’s restaurant and an EZ-Go convenience store, Damrill said.
Currently, the two are in separate buildings.
Only traffic heading toward Oklahoma City will have access to the new service area, he said.
Another, new service area for eastbound traffic heading toward Tulsa is being constructed about 4 miles east of the Chandler exit, he said.
That service area will also have a McDonald’s and EZ-Go, he said.
In addition, both new service areas will have about 125 semi-truck parking spaces.
The current service area in Stroud has about 75 semi parking spaces for both directions of traffic. The new spaces will more than triple the current truck parking available at the Stroud service area.
Damrill said he was driving west to Oklahoma City on the turnpike on a recent late night and went through the Stroud service area.
“There were (semi) trucks parked on the entry ramp. They were parked on the exit ramp. It was a mess,” he said.
The OTA approved the projects last year. They are part of its capital plan, Damrill said.
An exact timetable of when the changes will take effect has not yet been set, but work on the new service area in Chandler has already begun.
The new Chandler service area will cost about $9.5 million (not including the vendor’s cost for the building and adjacent parking), and the new Stroud area’s preliminary cost is about $6.5 million (with plans at 50%), he said. Funding is coming from tolls.
The current McDonald’s on the Turner Turnpike — Interstate 44 — was completed in 1987. Before that, the site had a Howard Johnson restaurant and a gas station, he said.
Damrill said plans call for the current McDonald’s and EZ-Go to remain open as long as possible while the highway is being realigned and until the new building housing both can open.
Damrill said he realizes parents and others who have been meeting halfway between Tulsa and Oklahoma City at the Stroud turnpike service area to exchange kids and other reasons will be disappointed that the site will be changing.
“We have to take safety into consideration,” he said. “Traffic for us is growing. Safety is always our No. 1 concern.”
The Turner Turnpike has about 14,300 vehicles passing each direction through Stroud each day, according to 2017 OTA traffic counts, the most recent available.
That number is up more than 17% from about 12,200 vehicles per day in each direction in 2007.
My current car is a hybrid, and if current trends continue, I imagine any future cars I buy will be fully electric. But a century ago, I might have been tempted by one of the last steam-powered cars…at least, if I’d been extremely wealthy. I’m speaking of Doble steam cars, designed and manufactured by Abner Doble and his three brothers. On the plus side, they required very little maintenance, accelerated rapidly, handled smoothly, had low emissions, and were virtually silent. On the minus side…pretty much everything else.
In the early years of the 20th century, some cars were powered by steam engines, based on the same tried-and-true technology that had already powered locomotives for a long time. The newfangled internal combustion engines rapidly stole the show, though. Unlike steam engines, which sometimes took as long as a half hour to heat up before the car could even move, internal combustion engines started immediately. They didn’t require the driver to stop every hundred miles to refill a water tank, and they generally had fewer mechanical problems. By around 1910, the only major steam-powered car still in production was the Stanley Steamer—and its days were numbered. The battle had been decided.
Not everyone was convinced, though. Abner Doble was a San Francisco native who had moved to Massachusetts in 1910 to attend M.I.T. He dropped out after just one semester and, along with his three brothers, began working on improving the design of steam engines for cars. Doble’s first major innovation was extending the steam car’s range. All existing steam-powered cars lost a lot of water and had to be refilled frequently. Doble made innovative changes to the condenser system that recirculated water; in so doing he increased the car’s range to as much as 1500 miles (2400km) with a full 24-gallon (91-liter) water tank. (Of course, that was only the distance it could travel without a water refill. It used kerosene to heat the water, and the fuel mileage per gallon was not great, but it was still similar to that of conventional cars of that era.)
After building a couple of prototype vehicles, the Doble brothers moved to Detroit in 1915, where they set up shop as the General Engineering Company to design and build steam-powered cars. Doble’s next challenge was to solve the long start-up problem. He did this by using a flash-steam generator rather than heating a huge tank of water, and adding ignition and carburetor systems similar to those used by internal combustion engines. With these improvements, his car could start in as little as 30 seconds. This design also had the side-effect of reducing leaks and making the steam engine safer. The Dobles began advertising their car—the Doble Series C, also known as the Doble-Detroit—long before they’d worked out the rest of the design and manufacturing issues. Although the Doble-Detroit got a lot of press and generated thousands of orders, very few were built. (Some sources say only 11 were manufactured, others as many as 80—but in any case, it was just a handful.) Doble blamed his company’s failure to produce cars on steel shortages caused by World War I, but ongoing engineering difficulties were the real problem. By 1918, the Detroit operation had shut down.
In 1921, after the death of John Doble, Abner and his two remaining brothers moved back to California to give the car business another go, this time as Doble Steam Motors. They solved most of the outstanding engineering problems and added several more innovations, increasing the car’s acceleration and improving its reliability. Unlike other steam cars—and most internal-combustion-engine cars—their new Series E car could start almost instantly even in freezing weather, and could go from 0 to 75 miles per hour (120kph) in a respectable 10 seconds. Because steam engines produce a great deal of torque at almost any speed, the car required no transmission, clutch, or gear shifting. And because the kerosene fuel was burned at very high temperatures but low pressure, almost all the waste carbon was consumed, while certain other common pollutants were never generated in the first place.
And yet, for all those innovations, Doble cars were still hindered by two major problems. First was the price: the chassis alone cost $9,500; add the body, and the price nearly doubled. In the 1920s, that sort of price made the car a luxury item that only the extremely wealthy could afford. The other problem was Abner Doble himself: he was such a perfectionist that he was seldom willing to stop tinkering and tweaking and actually release an automobile for sale.
The first Doble Series E was sold in 1924, and Doble Steam Motors continued to manufacture steam-powered cars—very slowly—for the next seven years. The total number produced before the company went out of business in 1931 has been reported variously as 24, 42, or 43. A few of those cars are still on the road, having racked up hundreds of thousands of miles. But despite the cars’ reliability, Doble simply couldn’t compete against the cheaper mass-produced internal-combustion-engine cars.
Today most people think of the steam engine (an external combustion engine) as a quaint artifact of history, but every few years or so, someone tries to come up with a new spin on using steam to power cars. Given current trends, I have little hope of seeing a practical, fuel-efficient steam car in the future. But I have to admire the Doble brothers’ dedication to overcoming engineering problems and making the best steam car they could given the technology of the time and the resources at hand.
Note: This is an updated version of an article that originally appeared on Interesting Thing of the Day on September 1, 2006.
Image credit: NAParish [CC BY-SA 2.0], via Wikimedia Commons
Go to Source
Author: Joe Kissell
