Category: Family Law

Posted on

Week in family law: Support for abuse survivors, questions over divorce centres and calls for an inquiry

“Thousands of survivors fleeing abusive and violent relationships will receive greater protection thanks to a new package of support.”

So says a press release published on Monday by the Prime Minister’s Office, amongst others. It continues:

“For the first time ever, councils across the country will be legally required to provide vital life-saving support in secure accommodation for survivors of domestic abuse and their children – ensuring need in their local area is met.”

We are also told that:

“Local authorities will also be required to work together with neighbouring councils to ensure domestic abuse services reflects the needs of local people – including targeted, specialist support for BAME, LGBT and Gypsy, Roma and Traveller survivors.”

The Prime Minister herself commented:

“I’ve always vowed to leave no stone unturned in tackling domestic abuse – this abhorrent crime has no place in our country. And today we are ending the postcode lottery by placing on local authorities a legal duty to deliver support, including secure housing, to survivors of domestic abuse and their children. Whoever you are, wherever you live and whatever the abuse you face, you will have access to the services you need to be safe.”

It all sounds good, but obviously there is no point giving a duty to local authorities if those authorities do not have the funds to comply with the duty. I am aware that some new funding has been made available, but whether it is enough, I don’t know. And obviously extra funding will be required not just now, but into the future.

Moving on, questions are being raised over the future of the eleven regional divorce centres, which were established in 2015 to handle all divorce cases in England and Wales. As I mentioned here, in his latest View from the President’s Chambers the President of the Family Division Sir Andrew McFarlane said that the centres

“are being phased out during the current 12-month period and replaced by an online system based in the new national Civil and Family Service Centre at Stoke on Trent.”

However, a government spokesperson has said that no final decision has been made on the divorce centres. The centres, whose performance has recently been criticised both by Sir Andrew and the previous President Sir James Munby, may have their problems, but I’m not sure it’s a good idea to transfer to an entirely online system, if that is what Sir Andrew is suggesting. We must remember that there are still many people, particularly of the older generation, who are not online, and in any event I’m not sure I would like a world in which we are all required to be.

The latest figures for care applications and private law demand, for April 2019, have been published by Cafcass. In that month the service received 1,084 new care applications. This is 2.3 per cent (25 applications) lower than April 2018. As to private law demand, Cafcass received 3,719 new cases during April 2019. This is 7.5 per cent (258 cases) higher than April 2018. We are now having a clear picture of a long-term downward trend in care cases, and a long-term upward trend in private law cases.

And finally, the family justice system has come under scrutiny this week from the BBC’s Victoria Derbyshire current affairs programme. On Wednesday we had a headline on BBC News which originally read “Children killed by parents after court-ordered access”, but was subsequently changed to “Call for inquiry into abusive parents’ access to children”, and yesterday we had a headline which read “Voices of children overlooked in family courts, says ex-head”.

Each headline was accompanied by much BBC television (and doubtless radio) coverage, not just on the programme but also on the news and elsewhere. The call for an inquiry came from a group of over 120 MPs, who wrote to the Secretary of State for Justice (and Lord Chancellor) David Gauke asking for the inquiry to look “into the treatment of victims of domestic abuse and violence in the family courts to establish the extent of the problem [i.e. of courts granting contact to parents who are known to be abusive] and if more fundamental reform is required to address this issue.” The call was rejected by the Prime Minister at Prime Minister’s Question Time on Wednesday, but I suspect that we have not heard the last of it.

Have a good weekend.

The post Week in family law: Support for abuse survivors, questions over divorce centres and calls for an inquiry appeared first on Stowe Family Law.


Go to Source
Author: John Bolch

Posted on

An introduction to mediation and collaborative law

Whether your marriage is months, years or decades old there may come a day when you and your partner decide it is time to go your separate ways. There can be many reasons behind this, or just a single reason. Either way, if you and your soon-to-be ex-spouse are communicating well before and during the split, your divorce could be a candidate for alternative dispute resolution. “ADR” is not right for everyone, but it could be a good option for many approaching a divorce case.

Alternative dispute resolution is an umbrella term for collaborative divorce processes. Mediation is one of those divorce processes, in which a negotiation between the parties is facilitated by a neutral third-party, but not decided by that third-party. It allows the parties to speak directly with each other in order to communicate and to come to a resolution that they both can agree on. Negotiating often goes on between the parties, but they may include their own counsel with them during these mediation conversations.

If you and your partner are completely unable to get through a conversation without aggression or a breakdown in communication, mediation probably isn’t for you. However, many are able to communicate in a civil manner and mediation can be a great process by which a couple can help to decide their divorce resolution. This can be extremely helpful for child custody and parenting plan decisions that can be a factor in many divorces.

Understanding what process is right for you during a life-changing event like a divorce can make a huge difference in your personal experience and, potentially, the final outcome. It is up to you and your spouse to decide how to proceed. Obviously, both parties would need to agree in order for a mediation and collaborative law divorce strategy to be a viable and successful option.


Go to Source
Author: On behalf of Katie L. Lewis of Katie L. Lewis, P.C. Family Law

Posted on

Dealing with an intractable children dispute, Part 2

Following on from my post yesterday, I now turn to the second Court of Appeal decision from early April concerning an intractable children dispute: L (A Child), which concerned an appeal by a mother against an order transferring the home of the child from that of mother and maternal grandmother in London, to that of father and the father’s new partner in Northern Ireland.

The appeal was heard by the President of the Family Division Sir Andrew McFarlane. As he explained in the first paragraph of his judgment, the appeal concerned the approach to be taken in a case which, on the judge’s finding, falls short of attracting the labels “intractable hostility” or “parental alienation” (but nevertheless could certainly be described as an “intractable dispute”).

The facts of the case were that the parents separated some six years ago, when the child was two years old. He went to live with the mother and maternal grandmother, and he had had his main home with them since that time. In words sadly very similar to those of Lord Justice Jackson in yesterday’s case, the President explained that the child has been the subject of litigation in the Family Court since 2013.

In 2016 the court made an order by consent that the child should live with his mother, but providing for regular time with his father every third weekend in England, and for substantial periods in Northern Ireland during the school holidays.

In 2017 the child gave an interview to the local police in which he made assertions which, if true, indicated a lack of sufficient sexual boundaries in the father’s home. The matter was investigated by the court and in May 2018 His Honour Judge Tolson QC dismissed the allegations upon which the mother relied and found “to a very high standard of proof” that there had been no sexual or physical abuse by the father of his son. The child had been put up to say things to the police. The allegations, however, tainted all that followed.

The father applied for a change of residence. The application was heard by HHJ Tolson, who handed down judgment on the 3rd of December last. He noted various matters, including that Cafcass officers had outlined similar concerns since the litigation began. For example, a Cafcass officer had reported in July 2017 that they had significant concerns that the child was “caught up in a very acrimonious dispute between his parents and that inevitably he must be picking up on this.” Six months later another Cafcass officer reported that the child “described his mother entirely positively and his father entirely negatively.” Yet another Cafcass officer said that the child “was being emotionally harmed from the parental conflict”. Judge Tolson found that the mother and maternal grandmother had influenced the child against his father albeit, as indicated above, not to the degree that could be labelled “parental alienation”. He held that maintaining the placement with his mother and grandmother would not meet the child’s emotional needs and would cause him emotional harm in the future. He therefore concluded that the balance of advantage lay in a move to Northern Ireland.

The mother appealed to the Court of Appeal, arguing that the decision to transfer residence was premature, that the court had failed to ascertain the child’s wishes and feelings, and that the judge’s conclusions in respect of the balance of harm (i.e. between staying with the mother or moving to live with the father) were arguably wrong or insufficiently evidenced.

Before dealing with these three arguments the President made an important point. It has often been said that a transfer of residence is a “weapon of last resort” for the court to use when the primary carer is frustrating the wishes of the court. The President said that there was a danger in placing too much emphasis on the phrase “last resort”. He said that the test is, and must always be, based on a comprehensive analysis of the child’s welfare and a determination of where the welfare balance points in terms of outcome. Use of phrases such as “last resort” cannot and should not indicate a different or enhanced welfare test.

As to the child’s wishes and feelings, the President found that, in the circumstances of the case, the child’s Guardian had made the decision that to ask the question and to put this eight year old boy on the spot of expressing a choice would itself be emotionally harmful. Nevertheless, the Guardian had ensured that his voice had been heard “loud and clear” by the judge.

As to the arguments regarding balance of harm and prematurity of the decision, the President said that it may have been that the decision to move the child was finely balanced, but, as is well known, finely balanced welfare decisions are not susceptible to a successful appeal. It was not possible to say that the Judge was “wrong” in fixing the balance as he did in this case. The decision was not premature, as concern about the impact on the child of being at the centre of parental conflict was identified as long ago as 2013.

In short, the mother’s arguments had not been sustained. Accordingly, her appeal would be dismissed.

As I indicated at the beginning of my post yesterday, I believe that this case has useful things to say about intractable disputes between parents over arrangements for their children. It shows that the failure of a parent to address the court’s concerns can tip the balance in favour of a change of residence. And in particular it demonstrates once more that parental conflict must be cast aside, and the welfare of the child put first.

You can read the full judgment here.

The post Dealing with an intractable children dispute, Part 2 appeared first on Stowe Family Law.


Go to Source
Author: John Bolch

Posted on

Coping with divorce and depression

Marriage break-ups can often be followed by periods of depression and anxiety for divorcing husbands and wives.

And no wonder. The end of a long-term relationship can spark a range of emotions and fears for the future. It is important to remember that this is completely normal. You will have good days and bad days, just as everyone else does.

Below, we have detailed five tips that will help you to build resilience to navigate the process of separation. And remember, marriage takes two, and if one person is unhappy the other will suffer. Try to shift your thinking from “it’s the end of the world” to “it’s the beginning of the new.”

Feel your feelings

Feeling emotions helps you deal with them. It’s completely natural to feel sad, disappointed, angry, scared… sometimes all in one hour. Do not shy away from them. Burying these feelings leads to bitterness and you will not move forward. Don’t carry the undealt negative emotions into the next stage of your life.

Stop thinking you are a failure

Divorce can rock your self-esteem and self-worth.  Whatever the circumstances, you will ask yourself, what went wrong? Was it my fault? Am I not good enough? However, remember this is your bruised confidence talking. Of course, your self-esteem takes a hit when a relationship ends, but the way to fill the hole left by divorce is through acceptance of and kindness to yourself.  Learn to believe in you again.

Surround yourself with support

Identify your support network and talk to them.  This is the best way to stop yourself from becoming isolated. Connect with friends and family who are supportive and boost your mood. This is not the time for judgement. Often people who have been through a break-up themselves and know what you are going through can offer useful advice.

If you prefer to talk to people you do not know, then seek out a counsellor or local support group. There is a list of useful contact numbers at the end of this article.

Meet a new side of you

You are no less by being single. You are just not part of a couple which is okay.  Often, in a long-term relationship, you can lose a part of your identity which is normal, but you were your own person before and you will be again. Think about what you like doing but stopped because married life took over. Return to them again, or think about what you have always wanted to do and give it a try.

Be kind to yourself

Take time to do something purely for you. Think about what you enjoy, such as a long walk, a soak in the bath, get out running, practice yoga, read a book or bake for friends and family. Also, remember to cover the basics: eat well, get plenty of sleep and rest when you need to.

Getting help for depression

If you’re struggling with the emotional aspects of separation and are concerned about depression and anxiety there are some useful contacts below. Please do seek professional help and support.

Mind Information, advice and support on all aspects of mental health

0300 123 3393

NHS Provides information on what depression is, its causes, how to spot the signs, where to get help, and treatment.

Samaritans Provides confidential emotional support for those experiencing feelings of distress or despair, including suicidal feelings.

116 123 (Freephone number)

SANE A national helpline offering emotional support and information to anyone affected by mental illness.

0300 304 7000

Hopeline UK Non-judgmental support and advice for children and people under the age of 35 who are experiencing thoughts of suicide.

Call: 0800 068 41 41 / Text: 0778 620 9697

The post Coping with divorce and depression appeared first on Stowe Family Law.


Go to Source
Author: Stowe Family Law

Posted on

Dealing with an intractable children dispute, Part 1

In early April the Court of Appeal handed down its decision in two private law children appeals, within five days of one another. Between them, I think the two cases have useful things to say about intractable disputes between parents over arrangements for their children, in cases where ‘parental alienation’ is not an issue. I shall deal with the first case in this post, and the second case in my next post.

The first case which, as we will see in a moment, I have previously written about here, is G (Children : Intractable Dispute), which concerned an appeal by a father against the refusal of an application for orders that his two children should live with him or have contact with him, and an order preventing him from bringing any further applications relating to the children for three years, without the permission of the court.

The facts of the case were that the parents lived together for some years, separating in May 2013. They had two children, both girls, now aged 11 and 8. The girls live with their mother. Since the separation there has been uninterrupted litigation between the parents about the children, and other matters (how often do we hear this?).

I couldn’t possibly detail all of that litigation (as far as it relates to the children) here, but these are the main points:

  1. In August 2014 a fact-finding hearing took place at which the judge made adverse findings against the father, relying in part upon two reports from a social worker, which supported the mother’s allegations of domestic abuse against the father. As I explained here, in 2015 the father succeeded in appealing against the findings, after the social worker was found to be biased.
  2. A ‘final’ hearing took place in early 2017. The mother wanted the court to make a final order, but the father sought a further psychological assessment of the older child, who indicated she did not wish to see her father. The judge preferred the father’s case, and ordered the assessment, which was extended to the whole family.
  3. A ‘final’ final hearing took place in April 2018, with judgment being handed down in July. The judge made a number of damning findings against the father, including that he was openly hostile towards the mother, that he was hostile towards the professionals involved in the case, that he was “the main if not principal source of conflict”, that he was unable to prioritise the children’s welfare above his own wishes, and that he had “completely lost sight of the welfare of the children”. In consequence of these findings, the judge refused the father’s application for orders that the children should live with him or have contact with him, and prevented him from bringing further applications without permission for three years.
  4. The father had had no proper direct contact with the older child since April 2014, and no contact with the younger child since September 2016.

The father appealed to the Court of Appeal, claiming, amongst other things, that the proceedings were procedurally unfair and infringed the children and father’s right to respect for private and family life under Article 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights, by virtue either of the absence of contact or the length of the proceedings. It was also claimed that the judge had not pursued all reasonable routes available to him.

Giving the leading judgment of the Court of Appeal Lord Justice Peter Jackson found that there had been no breach of the human rights of the children or the father. Although the length of the proceedings was a matter of concern, that did not of itself amount to a rights infringement. “What is more relevant”, he said, “is that since 2015 the Judge has diligently and sympathetically attempted to revive the father’s relationship with his children but has been forestalled by the mother’s earlier lack of support for contact and by the father’s increasingly extreme attitude.” He went on:

“The father’s self-description as “free of findings, risks or concerns throughout” confirms that he currently has little if any insight into his own difficulties. As time has gone on, his self-defeating stance has become the main obstacle to progress. To be clear, Art. 8 rights are not reserved for irreproachable parents, but a parent who is only willing to participate in the delicate work of family reconstruction on his own uncompromising terms cannot hold others responsible when the work does not succeed.”

As to the routes available to the judge, Lord Justice Jackson said that there were only really two options:

“…the orders made by the Judge or the order sought by the father for the children to live with him, notwithstanding what the Judge described as the lack of any coherent planning for matters such as accommodation. Of these options, only one was realistic in the absence of a finding of severe parental alienation and the Judge’s choice was all but inevitable.”

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

Whilst the father in this case clearly had reason to be aggrieved by how the ‘system’ had treated him, the case demonstrates the futility of continued hostility towards that system, and the other party. If you want the best outcome, then you must put aside any hatred of the other parent, cooperate fully with the ‘system’ and, above all, ensure that you put the welfare of the children above your own wishes.

You can read the full judgment here.

The post Dealing with an intractable children dispute, Part 1 appeared first on Stowe Family Law.


Go to Source
Author: John Bolch

Posted on

The emotional stages of divorce

Divorce can often be followed by periods of depression and anxiety for separating husbands and wives. So, in honour of Mental Health Awareness Week, we have created a short video on the journey through the six emotional stages of divorce.

Based on the five stages of grief identified by the psychiatrist Elisabeth Kubler-Ross back in 1969 in her book On Death and Dying, the end of a marriage or relationship is a bereavement: a loss of the life you once had and of the future, you believed you would have.

Understanding the emotional stages will help you to deal with them.

You can read the whole article here.

The post The emotional stages of divorce appeared first on Stowe Family Law.


Go to Source
Author: Stowe Family Law

Posted on

A clean break conditional on a Jewish religious divorce – right or wrong?

As a Jewish businessman criticises the Family Court for putting him in a catch-22 situation that allegedly traps him between family law and religious law, Julian Hawkhead, Senior Partner joins us on the blog to look at the case in more detail.

“A recent article in the press told of a Jewish “property millionaire” husband Mr Alan Moher who was denied a clean break by the Court. This left him required to pay his wife, Mrs Caroline Moher, ongoing maintenance despite her being awarded £1.6m until he granted his wife a Get (Jewish religious divorce). He protested to the Court of Appeal that he was being discriminated by being denied the clean break because he had religious faith-based objections to granting his wife the Get.

The decision of the Court of Appeal is awaited but the article throws up some interesting questions. Why should the Court make a clean break award conditional upon the husband granting his wife the religious divorce she seeks? Why should money and the full legal and religious termination of the marriage go hand in hand?

A Get is a Jewish certificate of divorce granted by the husband to his wife which will permit her to remarry in a Jewish religious ceremony and returns her rights to her that a husband holds on marriage. It is essential to a woman who holds Orthodox Jewish beliefs. A Get must be given of the husband’s free will.

In this case, the husband has argued that the conditional discharge of a maintenance order upon him granting his wife a Get means that he is not acting of his own free will. As a result, he does not consider the Jewish religious authorities would accept the Get he presented as valid in any event.

According to the article, the husband’s counsel Brent Molyneux QC was quoted as saying that the Get “is something which has to be given freely, after financial ties between the parties have come to an end” and “ The husband is thus left in a position where, due to the element of compulsion placed on him by the order of the court, he is unable to grant a valid Get.” By way of a summary of the husband’s case he said: “It is wrong for the wife to receive a financial benefit and the husband a financial penalty by virtue of their religious beliefs.”

However, was this just clever wordplay? Religious divorces are not rare. The pronouncement of a Decree Absolute is the certificate of the Courts of England and Wales that the marriage has been legally dissolved. However, in certain faiths and indeed in some countries, a legal certificate of divorce is not enough to fully dissolve all marital links between husband and wife. The Get is one such example.

Why then is a religious divorce withheld in this way? It can be for several different reasons. In some instances, the party who withholds the issuing of the religious divorce has such fundamental beliefs based on their religion that they feel a marriage cannot be ended. So, whilst they can do nothing ultimately to stop the legal divorce, if the ability to grant the religious divorce remains within their power then they will hold onto it. This will prevent their spouse from being able to remarry within the same faith in the future.

Sometimes withholding has financial motives:  that the spouse who could grant it uses their ability to do so, to try to secure a better financial settlement knowing that their spouse is so desperate for the religious divorce that they would make financial sacrifices to obtain it. Others are just being obstructive, knowing it will cause their spouse the most amount of upset.

In other situations, when it is the husband who wants the legal divorce, but the wife is concerned that he will not grant the Get or another religious divorce, it is possible for the Court to make an order holding up the pronouncement of Decree Absolute until that religious divorce has been granted.

Charlotte Newman, Solicitor from the Stowe Family Law office in Leeds office comments

“It is true to say that the Orthodox Jewish divorce law, rests power with the man. However, the Beth Din have, and continue to work with many women being denied a Get and unable to move on with their lives.

These women have often been termed ‘Agunot,’ which translates to chained women. The effects of being in this situation can be more far-reaching than being unable to remarry within the faith; the children of the new marriage may also find themselves in difficulty marrying in an Orthodox Synagogue.

As such, the Beth Din has seen the refusal of a husband to provide a Get a form of abuse and caseworkers work with wives to ‘unchain’ them, allowing them to live freely. I personally second this view and (reluctantly) agree that a financial consequence may be the only way to ensure that the husband, in this case, stops using religion to justify his behaviour and perhaps as a wider issue, distract the court from his other behaviour within the proceedings”.

There will be different opinions on the husband’s motives, the wife’s counsel Sally Harrison QC indicated that the option to link the termination of the husband’s maintenance obligations with the granting of a Get was the option of last resort. He had been asked to simply promise to the Court that he would do so, and he had apparently refused. This would suggest that the husband’s account of his reasons for not granting the Get are disingenuous however the Court of Appeal is yet to make its own determination.

What we do see here though is that the Court will do what it can to support the vulnerable party, accepting creative ways to protect them or ensure that they get what they need to secure an autonomous future for themselves.

The issue over the Get is part of a wider appeal made by the husband against the financial award made in favour of his wife. Indeed, the quantum of the maintenance order of £1,850 is small amount when compared to the costs the parties will have incurred in proceeding to the Court of Appeal (probably running into the hundreds of thousands of pounds) in which case why is this issue even being pursued.

Looking at the wider commentary on the case it would seem the husband had failed to provide financial disclosure or to co-operate with the Court process. As a result, it was not possible to get a full picture of his financial resources. Nevertheless, the husband claims that the award of £1.6m represents 85% of the overall wealth.

But is this true? The husband’s conduct was described as “appalling and contemptuous”. Such dishonest behaviour never finds favour with the Court and I cannot count the number of people who have thought they could mislead the Court by hiding or transferring assets and failing. Dishonesty is probably the worst trait to take into Court with you as it tarnishes everything you try to persuade the Court about. I suspect that this is another litigant who has tried and failed.

We have a team of expert lawyers who specialise in untangling complex financial situations and dealing with difficult divorce scenarios. If any of the issues I have commented on in this article affect you, whether it is a dishonest spouse, or you are stuck in a marriage and do not know what your options are to get out of it, do get in touch with me to discuss your situation.”

The post A clean break conditional on a Jewish religious divorce – right or wrong? appeared first on Stowe Family Law.


Go to Source
Author: Julian Hawkhead

Posted on

The President’s annual ‘state of the nation’ address

I wrote here yesterday about the latest edition of the View from the President’s Chambers, the periodic update by the President of the Family Division upon the latest developments in the field of family law, and his views thereon. My post concentrated on the announcement by the President of a transparency review. What else did the President talk about?

Well, the first thing to say is that this View is rather more special than others. As the President explains at the outset, it comprises his annual ‘state of the nation’ address, delivering his perspective on the current state of affairs so far as the Family Justice system is concerned.

And what, apart from that transparency review, is happening within the nation? Here is a summary of some of the main points:

Firstly, the President is continuing his stately progression around the 44 Designated Family Judge Family Court Centres in England and Wales (together with some additional courts), “in order to understand just how the current unprecedented burden of work was being experienced at each place and, hopefully, to learn something of the causes of the rise in caseload and to identify strategies that may improve our ability to cope with this volume of work.” The President reports that he has thus far visited 24 courts, and aims “to complete this initial ‘drains-up’ familiarisation with the system by October, or early November.” He says that the visits have shown that different courts seem to approach common tasks in very different ways, and that such diversity provides useful information as we try to identify what does, or does not, ‘work’ in terms of efficient and effective case progression. The visits have “provided a rich harvest of information and ideas”, which have been fed into two central working groups that he has established, to focus on Public Law and Private Law. The two groups are shortly to publish interim reports looking at process and practice in both areas.

Moving on, the President reported briefly upon the piloting of specialist financial remedy courts, although I don’t think he told us anything we did not already know.

He also reported briefly upon the failure of the eleven regional divorce centres to provide an adequate service for the progress of divorce petitions and the making of Financial Remedy consent orders. He says that the centres are being phased out during the current 12-month period, and replaced by an online system based in the new national Civil and Family Service Centre at Stoke on Trent, although my understanding is that the Ministry of Justice has not yet made a final decision upon the fate of the centres. He says that he is “confident that the senior staff at HM Courts and Tribunals Service [‘HMCTS’] are entirely clear that the unacceptable service levels currently experienced from the paper-based centres is not to be repeated as Stoke gradually takes on more and more of this work.” He says that he has already visited the new centre at Stoke and, while he was impressed by what he saw there, he intends “to keep a continuous and keen eye on the process as it moves forward.”

Moving on again, the President says that: “The HMCTS Reform Programme continues to develop and is, increasingly, producing online processes which will in time include every aspect of the work of the Family Court.” He also says that, irrespective of the progress of ‘Reform’, he considers that the Family Court should be making full use of the current technology to conduct short, without notice, hearings by telephone, typically at the first hearing of a Family Law Act injunction application.

Lastly, the President concludes with one further observation from the court visits he has made, and I shall set it out in full:

“It is simply to acknowledge my appreciation for the HMCTS Staff who keep our system running to the best of their ability in a period that has been made difficult for them, not only by the rise in the number of cases, and not only by the need for the staff to take on board new systems of working that are gradually being rolled out as part of the Reform Programme, but also to undertake their work having been informed that, in due course, a consequence of ‘Reform’ will be a reduction in staff levels at each court centre. I have been extremely impressed by the commitment to the work and the good humour that I have experienced on meeting very many staff members all over the country and, in closing this ‘View’, I simply wish to record my thanks to each and every one of them.”

I’m sure we would all agree with those sentiments.

You can read the full View here.

 

 

The post The President’s annual ‘state of the nation’ address appeared first on Stowe Family Law.


Go to Source
Author: John Bolch

Posted on

President announces transparency review

It seems that the issue of ‘transparency’, i.e. openness about the workings of the family justice system, aimed at countering the charge that it is a system of secret and unaccountable justice, is just as much a pet subject of the new President of the Family Division Sir Andrew McFarlane as it was for his predecessor Sir James Munby. I suppose we should not be surprised at this, as anyone in charge of any organisation would surely be anxious to defend the reputation of that organisation.

The new President has also inherited his predecessor’s habit of updating the profession, and indeed anyone interested, in the latest developments in the field of family law and his views thereon, in a periodical missive, cunningly entitled ‘View from the President’s Chambers’, the latest edition of which was published on the 7th of May. Sure enough, the President had a few things to say about transparency.

We were told that: “It is important that the issue of Transparency should be kept under active review.” Fighting a sinking feeling, I read on to find that the President intends:

“…to establish a ‘Transparency Review’, during which all available evidence and the full range of views on this important topic can be considered (including evidence of how this issue is addressed in other countries).”

The aim of the review will be: “to consider whether the current degree of openness should be extended, rather than reduced.” It will be conducted over the next nine months, with a view to producing a report and recommendations by this time next year.

I hear that the President says he is open to listening to views either for or against increased transparency, but somehow I can’t envisage him agreeing that openness should be reduced. The undercurrent is strongly in favour of openness being increased, for better or worse.

I am always reminded of King Cnut when I consider the call for greater transparency. It is as if those making the call seek to stem the tide of misinformation surrounding the family justice system generally, and the family courts in particular. But that tide is far too strong: the general public already have access to an ocean of misinformation regarding the family justice system, both in the mainstream media and elsewhere, and a few more ‘correctly’ reported cases will do nothing to stem the flow. If you choose to follow the narrative that the system is biased, secretive, unaccountable, or even corrupt, then you will not be interested in anything that does not fit in to that narrative. And if your business is selling newspapers, you will only be interested in publishing stories that will sell those newspapers, not in whether those stories are accurate.

It should also be remembered, as the President hinted at, that many users of the family courts would actually prefer their private affairs not to be made public. Just the other day, a report of a Court of Protection case was published in which the judge took the unusual step of hearing the case in private, because the man at the centre of the case (which concerned such personal matters as whether he had the capacity to marry) was worried about the possibility of members of the public being present at the hearing. So the argument is not, as some may perhaps perceive it, simply between those within the system who have a vested interest in keeping its workings ‘secret’, and the general populace, whose sole interest lies in opening up the system to public scrutiny.

Another question must be: does it really matter what some people choose to think about the family justice system? In the end, the only thing that matters is that those who know the truth remain in charge of the asylum. Obviously, we cannot have importance decisions made by those who do not understand their consequences. Is it really the case that the calls from the ‘corrupt family courts’ brigade will actually be listened to by those in power, who will feel it necessary to assuage them by making the changes they seek? I’m not so sure it is. Perhaps we should concentrate upon the welfare of those unfortunates who find themselves at the mercy of the family justice system, rather than the misinformed hordes baying for change.

In short, I’m not certain that this modern fixation with transparency is as important as is claimed. I am sure that the resources being devoted to it could be more fruitfully directed elsewhere.

The post President announces transparency review appeared first on Stowe Family Law.


Go to Source
Author: John Bolch

Posted on

Get the balance right with shared parenting

When a couple decides to separate, one of the most important decisions to make is how much time each parent spends with the children. So, we asked Kaleel Anwar, Senior Solicitor from our Manchester office to join us to look at how you can balance your working life with shared parenting.

“The term ‘custody’ is now redundant in law, despite it still appearing in the media, and instead more flexible, shared parenting solutions are preferred.

But there is still a lot of misconception about this area and I work with many clients who have made assumptions that their job, business or even gender will hinder their ability to co-parent.

Courts favour the mother

I frequently hear from clients that the law is “in favour of the mother”. This is simply not true.

There is absolutely no discrimination on the basis of gender by the Courts when determining whether a mother or father would be better suited to caring for their children either during the school week or spending quality time with them during the weekends.

Your business vs your children

I have worked on a number of cases where my clients are of the view that being a business owner, which demands long working hours, is going to act to their detriment if they find themselves in the hands of the Court.

The reality is this is far from the truth.  You do not need to choose between running a business or spending time with your children. In fact, the law is tailored to ensure parents can effectively co-parent and share care.

Working hours

Working hours will dictate which times and days work best for a parent to be responsible for their care. Today, most employers will take childcare into account and arrangements can be made to ensure parents can work the hours needed to fit their circumstances.

Owning your own business can increase your flexibility when deciding working hours, which in turn means that you are far more able to share the care of the children

Shared parenting

Shared parenting means that children have two homes where they can feel secure and continue to have a real family life with both parents.

As parents, you are in the best position to decide as to when your children spend time with both of you. Hopefully, a shared parenting schedule can be agreed on by negotiations between your solicitors or using meditation. However, if it cannot be resolved then court intervention may be necessary.

The Court can grant a shared care order allowing children to live and spend time with both parents. Useful to note here that a shared care order does not always mean that the time spent with each parent will be equal.

There has been a significant increase in the number of shared care orders granted by the courts over the past few years given the overwhelming evidence that having a healthy relationship with both parents is in the best interest for the children.

Support network

Many working parents utilise the help of their friends and family to ensure that they can balance their work requirements with time with their children, for example someone helping by collecting your children from school until you have finished a meeting. This support is invaluable and helps you to avoid becoming a “weekend parent”.

Every child, family and case are unique so it is always advisable to obtain specialist advice in relation to your situation and your legal rights.”

For more advice on parenting options available following a divorce or separation please contact our Client Care Team at the number below or by email here. 

The post Get the balance right with shared parenting appeared first on Stowe Family Law.


Go to Source
Author: Kaleel Anwar