Further detail on the divorce reform released

The government has now provided more details about its proposed reforms to the current divorce law in England and Wales.

At the moment, the only way to obtain a divorce is to prove that the marriage has broken down irretrievably and to do so by relying upon one or more reasons, or “facts.” These include the other person’s adultery or “unreasonable behaviour.” 60% of divorce petitions rely on one of these and blame the other party.

The three remaining reasons are two years separation and the other person’s consent or five year’s separation without consent and the barely used desertion.

Announcing the introduction of “no-fault” divorce, the government proposes to abolish all those reasons and replace them with just one ground, namely a statement from one, or both parties, that their marriage has broken down irretrievably.

It will be impossible to defend or resist a divorce in future.

There has been a considerable amount of research which suggests only too clearly the enormous damage which the current system of “blame” inflicts on families, the couple themselves as well as their children.

There has also been an enormous amount of pressure on successive governments to reform the divorce law in this country which has been in place for 50 years since the last time parliament was involved in 1969.

The proposals announced today represent radical social change, bring the law up-to-date and deserve widespread support both inside and outside the Houses of Parliament.

Similar reforms will be made in relation to the dissolution of civil partnerships.

There will still be a two-stage process which will have a minimum timeframe of six months. At the end of that period, the applicant for the divorce will need to affirm their decision to seek a divorce. The government explains that this will “provide a meaningful period of reflection and the opportunity to turn back.”

What is not known yet is, if and how that period might be extended. For example, will the divorce only be finalised once arrangements for any children have been made and financial matters resolved?

Our own internal research revealed last year that there was enormous support from practising family lawyers for reforms such as those announced today.

No timescale for legislation has been announced.

The hope must be that even in the present turbulent political climate that parliament will make sure it finds time to make sure that these proposals become law very soon.

GRAHAM COY
Tuesday, 9 April 2019

The post Further detail on the divorce reform released appeared first on Stowe Family Law.


Go to Source
Author: Graham Coy

Husband not bound by terms of pre-nuptial agreement

In 2010 the Supreme Court held that, whilst pre-nuptial agreements are not binding in this country, the court should usually give effect to them, unless their terms are unfair. The effect of that ruling has been that many pre-nuptial agreements have since been upheld by our courts, and this has been reflected in the reported cases. However, the recent case Ipekçi v McConnell was an example of the court giving no weight to an agreement.

A look at this case must begin with the background of the parties.

The wife is the great-granddaughter of the founder of the Avon Products business empire. As Mr Justice Mostyn, who heard the case, explained, the vast amount of money generated by the business for the family means that, along with other relatives, the wife is the beneficiary of trusts in the USA with an overall value of at least $65 million. Now, as one might imagine, the trusts, and therefore the wife’s finances, were rather complicated. For the purpose of this post I will not go into those complications. Suffice to say that the wife is, by most measurements, comfortably well off.

The husband, in contrast, is the head concierge of the London Hilton Metropole hotel, earning about £35,000 gross. He has no net capital.

The parties met in New York in 2003, at which time the husband had no money beyond his earnings. The wife lived in London. They began cohabitation in January 2005. They agreed to marry, and a pre-nuptial agreement was suggested, and drafted by the wife’s lawyer. A lawyer was found to give the husband independent legal advice. Rather worryingly, this lawyer happened to be the solicitor who acted for the wife in her divorce from her first husband. The husband met the lawyer for the first time on the 3rd of November 2005, just three weeks before the marriage, which had been fixed to take place on the 26th of November.

The terms of the agreement were also slightly complicated. Again, I will not go into the details, but the effect of the agreement was that the husband would, in the circumstances that subsequently arose, not receive anything on divorce. Needless to say, the husband was advised that the agreement was slanted heavily in favour of the wife. Despite this, he signed it on the 11th of November.

The marriage eventually broke down, and the parties separated in November 2016. Divorce proceedings ensued, and the husband issued a financial remedies application. The application was heard by Mr Justice Mostyn in the High Court.

Mr Justice Mostyn had to decide, as a preliminary issue, what weight, if any, should be given to the pre-nuptial agreement. He had “no hesitation” in deciding that it would be wholly unfair to hold the husband to the agreement. His reasons for this included the following:

  1. The agreement specifically stated that it would be governed by New York law. However, there was a defect with the agreement under New York law, which meant that would carry little or no weight there.
  2. The husband could not be said to have had a full appreciation of the implications of the agreement, having had no legal advice at all about the impact of New York law. Further, Mr Justice Mostyn was unsurprisingly not satisfied that the solicitor who gave the advice was not compromised, by virtue of having acted previously for the wife in her first divorce. It was, he said, a clear situation of apparent bias.
  3. The agreement did not meet any needs of the husband.

Mr Justice Mostyn then went on to decide what the husband was entitled to. He awarded him a lump sum of £1,333,500, of which £375,000 was subject to a charge-back to the wife (or her estate), on the death of the husband.

The case is a reminder of just what the Supreme Court said in 2010: that the courts in this country are not bound by pre-nuptial agreements, and that if it is to be upheld any agreement must be freely entered into by each party, with a full appreciation of its implications, and be fair. And one of the elements of that fairness is that is that the agreement must address the needs of the parties.

You can read the full judgment here.

The post Husband not bound by terms of pre-nuptial agreement appeared first on Stowe Family Law.


Go to Source
Author: John Bolch

Major divorce reform to be announced

As reported early this morning, Justice Secretary David Gauke has confirmed new legislation will be introduced which will scrap the ability of a partner to contest divorce and allow divorcing spouses to state that the marriage has broken down irretrievably without allocating blame.

Graham Coy, Partner at the Stowe Family Law London Chancery Lane office joins us to share his initial thoughts on this announcement this morning.

“50 years after the law was last changed, the Government is announcing today radical changes to the way in which couples can bring to an end their marriage.

Hopefully, this will also apply to civil partnerships.

The need to “blame” the other husband or wife will be abolished. 60% of all divorces are based upon blame at the moment.

Instead, one or both parties will be able to give one another and the court that their marriage has broken down irretrievably.

It will be impossible to resist or defend the divorce process.

The divorce will be finalised no earlier than 6 months later.

The details of the reform are not known as yet but this is a major step forward in making what is a very difficult period in the life of so many families  far less stressful.

The children involved will also benefit as a result of the decrease in anger, tension and acrimony between their parents.

A major and welcome social reform.”

The post Major divorce reform to be announced appeared first on Stowe Family Law.


Go to Source
Author: Graham Coy

The Egely Wheel

The Egely Wheel

Vital energy measurement for the masses

In Chinese, it’s called ch’i (or qi). In Japanese, it’s ki. Variously translated using terms like “vital force” and “internal energy,” it is the name for a type of invisible power that purportedly circulates through the human body. It can be stimulated through acupuncture or ch’i kung (qigong) exercises, blocked by bad posture, enhanced with a proper diet, and depleted by stress, illness, and negative emotions. You can’t see it, nor is it visible indirectly to the tools of modern medical science, but many people consider it every bit as real as air or blood.

I’ve been aware of this concept for many years, and it’s mentioned at least a few times in every t’ai chi class I take. Although my teacher may talk about ch’i as though it’s tangible, I’ve long thought of it as a metaphorical way of discussing a bundle of abstract concepts—a useful fiction, in other words, just like “spirit” or “love” or “peace.” No one claims to be able to locate someone’s spirit physically within the body, but it’s nevertheless a handy word for talking about certain notions that are not quite covered by more mundane terms such as “brain” or even “mind.”

The Ch’i Tricorder

Imagine my surprise and bewilderment, then, when at a t’ai chi retreat some years ago, the instructor pulled out a small, strange-looking plastic box with blinking LEDs and told us, matter-of-factly, that it was a device that measures ch’i. On the top of the box was a gearlike wheel, giving the device the overall look of a miniature, high-tech phonograph. Supposedly, when you bring your hand near the device, this wheel spins faster or slower depending on the amount of ch’i you have. It’s called an Egely Wheel, and for a mere US$189, you too can have your very own.

During a break, I tried the machine out myself. I tried holding each of my hands in turn near the device, but the wheel did not spin. I tried concentrating, mentally directing energy at the device…still nothing. Then I tried relaxing and casually intending the wheel to move. Again, nothing. Various other people tried it too—sometimes the wheel moved, sometimes it didn’t, even for the same person. But no one appeared to be able to spin the wheel very fast, regardless of their apparent proficiency in t’ai chi. One explanation, of course, is that our ch’i wasn’t very strong. The more tempting explanation is that the device doesn’t actually measure anything.

The Spin Doctor

The Egely wheel is the brainchild of Hungarian scientist Dr. George Egely. According to Egely, he discovered that small objects (such as a small strip of foil) floating in a bowl of water rotated when someone’s hand was held nearby. He initially attributed this effect to heat radiated from the bodies or small air currents generated by breathing, but found that even when shielded from heat or wind, the floating strip exhibited the same effect. His conclusion was that some other, previously unmeasurable energy was causing the motion—namely, ch’i. Egely realized that because the effect was so subtle, it could only be shown by something with extremely low friction, so he developed what he calls a Vitality Meter based on a very lightweight wheel with a specially designed low-friction pivot. As for the electronics, those are used to provide a visual and/or audio indication of the wheel’s speed; if you actually look inside the case you’ll see that there’s no motor—in fact nothing connecting physically to the wheel at all. (Indeed, there’s a non-electronic version of the same device with just the wheel, called a Vitality Indicator, for a mere $49.)

Now, supposing for the moment that this principle really does represent a display of ch’i, it’s not at all apparent to me how a $189 (or $49) gadget is better than a strip of foil floating in a bowl of water. Money aside, though, I can’t say I’m convinced that such motion—to the extent that it does occur with subjects who are obviously more talented than I am—isn’t caused by something quite simple. If not heat or air currents, my guess is that the wheel is responding to vibration. Because it has such low friction, even a tiny amount of vibration (from someone walking nearby, say), could conceivably cause it to move. Any number of devices, from self-winding watches to perpetual-motion machine wannabes, are simply clever machines that convert lateral or vertical vibration into rotation. Quite plausibly, even a vibration too weak to be felt by a person could produce motion in a wheel; nothing mysterious there.

When you get right down to it, I can no more prove that ch’i isn’t moving the wheel than that there’s no such thing as a unicorn. But I really don’t buy it. (And I’m not the only one to regard this claim with some suspicion.) Even if ch’i truly does exist in a non-metaphorical form, I have no particular reason to expect it would cause an object nearby to rotate. On the other hand, if I needed some way of assessing my mental or physical health other than introspection, there are any number of gadgets I could buy for that same $189 that would tell me things I find genuinely useful, such as my body temperature, blood pressure, skin resistance, or brainwave activity. And saving money definitely enhances my ch’i.

Note: This is an updated version of an article that originally appeared on Interesting Thing of the Day on October 8, 2004.

Image credit: Photo courtesy of Aimslab LTD. Used by permission.


Go to Source
Author: Joe Kissell

Post Divorce Therapy For The Sake Of The Kids

When people hear about couples’ counseling, they usually think about couples that are trying to make their relationship work but are struggling, and that the goal of such counseling is to save the marriage or relationship and that if one decides to get divorced it is a failure. In recent posts I already knocked that notion, that divorcing isn’t a failure and counseling doesn’t fail if divorce


Go to Source
Author: Penniless Parenting

How to Live Frugally with a Chronic Illness

Being ill can get expensive, and when your illness is a chronic one, this is an expense that won’t ever go away. I have some dear friends with chronic illnesses, and therefore I really appreciate these tips sent from a reader as to how to live frugally with a chronic illness.

As if both your physical and emotional stress wasn’t enough, when you go through life with a chronic illness, you


Go to Source
Author: Penniless Parenting

President updates on family justice changes

Last Friday the President of the Family Division Sir Andrew McFarlane gave the ‘keynote address’ at the 2019 conference of Resolution, the association of family lawyers. (I tire of having to give that explanation of who Resolution are, particularly as they used to be more helpfully called the ‘Solicitors Family Law Association’, but the word ‘Resolution’ does not of course explain to the uninitiated who the organisation are. ‘Resolution’ was chosen as their name as it denotes that its members are devoted to trying to resolve family disputes amicably, although it could just as easily be taken in the entirely opposite sense of ‘resolute’, i.e. obstinately refusing to move from one’s negotiating position. Such are the hazards of nomenclature.)

Anyway, on to the speech.

The theme of the speech was the change presently occurring on all fronts in the family justice system. Changes referred to by the President included those caused by Brexit, changes in response to the increasing caseload in the family courts, changes consequent upon the court reform programme such as regional divorce centres and online divorce, and the introduction of specialist financial remedies courts. I see no point in repeating all that the President said here, and in any event much of what he said is not of course new, so I will mention just a couple of things that caught my eye.

The first thing was something quite small: the use of telephone hearings for (usually urgent) matters, where the other party is not notified. As the President pointed out, other courts have been doing this for some while, and he considered it sensible for them to become the norm in the family courts. This seems like an excellent idea.

The next thing relates to the establishment of a ‘database’ of financial remedy outcomes, which could provide practitioners (and presumably litigants in person) with guidance as to the ‘going rate’ in ‘ordinary’ (i.e. not big money) financial remedy cases, thus making it easier to advise on what the outcome of a case is likely to be The database would be created by a computerised process, whereby at the end of every single case, it will be provided with basic information as to the key financial components and facts, together with the outcome of the proceedings. Researchers could then “produce schedules or tables identifying the preponderant outcome in typical cases across a range of set variables.” Sounds like an interesting idea, although whether it would actually produce anything useful in practice, we will have to see.

The last thing I want to mention comes from what the President said about private law children cases (i.e. children cases not involving a local authority). He began by doubting the often-quoted figure (including by myself) that only one in ten couples have to apply to the court to sort out arrangements for their children, rather than sorting out those arrangements themselves. He believes that the figure is more like 40%. That seems rather high to me, based upon my experience practising as a family lawyer for about a quarter of a century – my memory was that most parents sorted things out themselves without needing a lawyer (remember this was back in the days before legal aid was abolished, and therefore lawyers were available to all), and most of the cases where lawyers were involved were sorted out without court proceedings.

Anyway, the argument of the President was that a large proportion of those cases that now go to court should not have to.

He said:

…using the Family Court to resolve straightforward, non-abusive, relationship difficulties between parents who separate is unlikely to be an effective course to follow, costs a great deal of money and is not seen, by many of its users, to be working effectively.”

There has to be a better way, he said. This includes improving co-parenting between separated parents, although that is not a matter for the courts. What the courts can do, however, is to have “a much keener focus on a ‘solutions-based process’ engaging a ‘dispute resolution alliance’ of local services with court reserved only for those cases which absolutely have a justiciable problem.” It all sounds very good, but as all family lawyers will have witnessed, keeping parents who are determined to have their ‘day in court’ away from the court building can be easier said than done.

In his conclusion the President speaks of this cycle of change settling down “in a year or so”, after which “we will live with the resulting processes for some time to come thereafter.” I am not so sure. As I said here just recently, we have had virtually continual change in the family justice system for some years. Change these days is seemingly constant. In fact, it is a feature of the modern world that those in positions of power see it as their main function to institute change to resolve the problems around them. The thinking seems to be that change must always be a good thing. Of course that is not so: sometimes change can make no significant difference, sometimes it can make things worse, and sometimes it can introduce entirely new problems. There can actually be merit in leaving things the same, so that people are familiar with how they work. Whatever, I do not see things “settling down” any time soon, and possibly not any time at all. Change is with us, get used to it.

You can read the full speech here.

The post President updates on family justice changes appeared first on Stowe Family Law.


Go to Source
Author: John Bolch

Dave Stewart & Barbara Gaskin

Dave Stewart & Barbara Gaskin CDs

Serious pop from the other Dave Stewart

In 1985 I was attending college in New York, and in the great tradition of young people wasting the best years of their lives “experimenting,” I developed an addiction—to synthesizers. I bought what was to be the first of many keyboards and spent countless hours tweaking sounds when ordinary people my age were busy getting drunk and forming bad social habits. I wasn’t much interested in writing songs; what fascinated me most was the process of creating interesting timbres.

I subscribed to Keyboard Magazine, which encouraged my habit in two different ways. First, each issue convinced me that I absolutely needed the latest electronic musical gadgets, thus ensuring a state of perpetual credit card debt. But the magazine also taught me a number of practical skills for making music. One of the magazine’s features at that time was called a Soundpage—a tear-out “Flexidisc” plastic phonograph record. Each month, some well-known keyboard player would put together a special recording, along with an article describing the music and the techniques used to create it.

These Are the Daves I Know

Dave Stewart was the featured artist in the December 1985 issue. The Soundpage article began: “Dave Stewart insists that the other Dave Stewart, co-founding member of the Eurythmics, is not related to him, even though they’re both British, play keyboards, accompany female vocalists, and wear glasses.” (This Dave Stewart had been in the bands Egg, Hatfield & the North, and Bruford; vocalist Barbara Gaskin was once in Spirogyra.) I listened to the recording of “Henry and James” and was instantly hooked. Though the style could be called “synth-pop,” I had never heard music like this. The instrumentation was entirely electronic, but the sounds had been crafted with such skill and care that you could easily forget that fact. In contrast to the prevailing custom, synthesizers were used to maximum musical effect, not to call attention to the fact that the artist was using the latest gear. Meanwhile, Barbara Gaskin’s vocals were hauntingly beautiful, utterly obscuring the song’s rather odd subject matter: two dronelike office workers. I played the single until it was nearly worn out.

Naturally, I had to have more. But their first album, Up From the Dark, was available only on CD. I didn’t have a CD player at the time or even know anyone who did, but I decided I’d buy the CD anyway and figure out how to play it later. I looked in record stores for the next five years and simply couldn’t find it anywhere. Once a store said they’d special-order the CD for me, but it never arrived. I wondered if I would ever hear more of Dave Stewart & Barbara Gaskin.

Then, in 1990, I casually mentioned Up From the Dark to a friend of mine in Texas. “Oh yeah, I have that,” he said. “It has the ‘Siamese Cat Song’ on it; I bought it for my kids.” I was flabbergasted: my quest had ended. After listening to a cassette copy for a few months, I finally tracked down the CD in a used record store. Shortly thereafter, Dave Stewart & Barbara Gaskin released another album, The Big Idea, followed by Spin in 1991.

Extended Coverage

The music on those three albums is quite diverse. Many of the songs are extremely inventive covers—including such strange bedfellows as “Subterranean Homesick Blues” (Bob Dylan), “Amelia” (Joni Mitchell), and “Leipzig” (Thomas Dolby). It was also on Stewart & Gaskin CDs that I first heard “8 Miles High,” “Walking the Dog,” and “It’s My Party,” their version of which became a #1 hit in the U.K. But Stewart’s original compositions, like “Henry and James,” “The Cloths of Heaven” (based on a poem by Yeats), and “Golden Rain,” are my favorites. Although the styles of music vary, the masterful orchestrations, clever interpretations, and luscious vocals give it all a distinctive coherence.

Stewart & Gaskin refer to their work as “pop music for grown-ups.” That’s a terrifically apt description. The songs’ subject matter is sometimes serious and sometimes silly, but it never degenerates into the meaninglessness of most commercial pop music. The duo’s unique mixture of intelligent lyrics and interesting music results in a distinctive style. I think of it as the musical equivalent of gourmet macaroni and cheese: familiar and comforting, yet rich and sophisticated—skillfully made with quality ingredients and adorned with subtle garnishes. The songs tend to have the overall structure, rhythm, and length of pop songs, but an entirely different texture, if you will—one that especially appeals to people who appreciate technical excellence in musical composition, performance, and yes, synthesizer programming.

What Goes Around

After the major labels dismissed Stewart & Gaskin’s music as “too uncommercial,” they started their own label, Broken Records. The lack of commercial pressure allows them an unusual level of artistic integrity and creative freedom. But apart from the occasional odd remix, re-release of a CD single, or compilation album the duo produced no new music for many years after 1991. Every now and then I’d check in on their website, which perpetually promised that a new album was in the works, but after 18 years, I’d pretty much given up hope.

And then, in 2009, much to my surprise and delight, that long-promised album, Green and Blue, finally appeared. In fact, because Stewart & Gaskin had accumulated more new music than would fit on a single CD, they simultaneously released a five-track EP called Hour Moon with the remaining songs (including the Soundpage version of “Henry and James” I’d fallen in love with back in 1985), followed several months later by the 14-track The TLG Collection, featuring rare and unreleased tracks. The following year, they released two new Special Edition CDs: Broken Records: The Singles and As Far As Dreams Can Go, both of which include reworked and extended versions of earlier tracks. The following year, two more Special Edition CDs appeared—updated versions of The Big Idea and Spin.

Apparently Stewart & Gaskin felt that collection of music should be enough to last fans for quite a while, because more than seven additional years would pass before their next offering. In January 2019, the duo released another full-length studio album, Star Clocks. The sound is just what I’ve come to expect from Stewart & Gaskin, including occasional lyrical and musical callbacks to their earlier hits. But as an example of how thoroughly they’ve rejected commercial pop expectations, the average song length on this 11-track album is a full seven minutes.

My one fond wish, which will probably never come true, would be to see a live performance by Dave Stewart & Barbara Gaskin. The duo rarely tours—I’ve found records of a handful of concerts over the years in the U.K. and in Japan, as well as one in Los Angeles back in 1991. But that’s about it. Furthermore, Stewart & Gaskin apparently have a philosophical objection to releasing video recordings of their concerts, so I may not even get a second-hand impression of what their live performances are like. On the other hand, Stewart says that they have no plans to retire and expect to keep making new music for years to come. I sure hope so.

Note: This is an updated version of an article that originally appeared on Interesting Thing of the Day on April 19, 2003, and again in a slightly revised form on March 18, 2005.


Go to Source
Author: Joe Kissell

Take Control of Slack

Take Control of Slack cover

The Slack group messaging system has become an integral part of work life (and even social life) for millions of people. It’s a feature of the modern business landscape (and even, increasingly, a less-creepy alternative to Facebook). But how can you make the best use of this powerful, 21st-century tool to both get your job done and have fun? In Take Control of Slack, my colleague Glenn Fleishman addresses every major type of Slack user—new, experienced, and even reluctant—with concrete advice on how Slack can make your work and personal life better. It shows you things you’ll never learn by reading the online documentation or simply poking around, based on Glenn’s years of experience in multiple Slack teams.

This book, like all Take Control titles, comes as an ebook, and you can download any combination of formats—PDF, EPUB, and/or Kindle’s Mobipocket format—so you can read it on pretty much any computer, smartphone, tablet, or ebook reader. The cover price is $14.99, but as an Interesting Thing of the Day reader, you can buy it this week for 30% off, or just $10.49.


Go to Source
Author: Joe Kissell