Stowe guests: Top tips on how to tell the children you are separating by Turner & Johnson Mediation

In this instalment of Stowe guests, we are joined by Sheila Turner from Turner & Johnson Mediation.

Based in central London, Sheila Turner and Philippa Johnson offer families a professional and sensitive mediation service, working alongside other professionals including legal advisers, as appropriate, to help couples to identify alternatives to going to court.

Today we are joined by Sheila as she gives some valuable advice on how to tell the children you are separating and what to say afterwards.

There is no question this is a really difficult conversation to have; you are probably dreading it. Nothing will make it ‘easy’ but here are some guidelines that should help to make it a less traumatic experience for all of you.

Most importantly tell your child together

If you have more than one child tell all the children together as an entire family – even if you want to be a million miles away from your co-parent you need to show your child that you can still present a united front. Every time you want to convey a piece of information always start the sentence, “Dad/Mum and I have discussed ************** and we both think that we should try ******”. It helps children to deal with their changing circumstances when they feel that both parents have made the decision to separate.

Discuss with your ex-partner a clear and simple narrative explaining why your relationship has broken down and stick to the agreed narrative. Too many details will only muddy the waters and can often be information overload. However, the older the child the more questions you will be asked. Try to be as honest as possible without criticising your co-parent as the child will take this criticism personally and hear it as criticism about them.

Explain that you are still both your child’s parents and that just because you will be living in two separate homes that doesn’t mean that you are not still a family. Your child’s sense of family is really important.

Keep information short and concise.

Your child will not want to hear the emotional bits around the edge. He or she will only be interested in what is happening to them. Much better to answer questions as they come up rather than bombard your child with too much information. You should expect to have many more conversations with your child over the coming months – stick to the agreed narrative whether you are together or on your own with your child.

Make sure that you say very clearly that this is a grown-up problem and not in any way the children’s responsibility. You may well feel that an honest narrative involves blame – but blame won’t help your child, who needs to love and respect both of you and if blame is flying around your child is most likely to blame him or herself.

It is OK to say that you don’t know the answer to a particular question but you will need to reassure your child that once a decision has been made WE will talk about it with you.

Let your child deal with the conversation as they want to.

Be prepared for an emotional response and acknowledge that this is a very difficult time for everyone – equally, it may be that your child closes down and doesn’t want to talk to you about their emotional response then and there. That too is OK. Take your lead from the child.

It is normal for children to want their parents to be back together. They might engineer occasions when this happens, poor behaviour at school, the school calls both parents in to discuss, mystery illness etc. The sooner you can get to a good working co-parenting relationship so that your child knows that you are working together for them, the better.

If you are considering mediation, as part of the mediation process children aged 10 and over (and sometimes younger) are invited to speak to a specially trained family mediator, to discuss how they are feeling, if anything can be done better or what might be difficult for them. With the child’s permission, the mediator will feedback to the parents the messages that their child wanted the mediator to pass on. In our experience children enjoy these meetings; many say that they liked being given the chance to explain what is important to them.

Sheila Turner
Turner & Johnson Mediation

sheila@turnerjohnsonmediation.co.uk

The post Stowe guests: Top tips on how to tell the children you are separating by Turner & Johnson Mediation appeared first on Stowe Family Law.


Go to Source
Author: Stowe Family Law

Judge bemoans lack of legal aid in complex children cases

As I reported here on Friday, last week the Government published its long-awaited review of the effects of the legal aid cuts introduced in 2013. To deal with the problems identified in the review an additional £8 million of funding was announced. But that is little more than a sticking plaster to cover the gaping wound caused by cutting £350 million per year from the legal aid budget. The problems will continue.

Those problems were highlighted in a judgment published just one day after the review: the judgment of Mr Justice Williams in R (A Child: Appeal: Termination of Contact).

The judgment concerned an appeal by a father against orders made in child arrangements proceedings in relation to his 12 year old son. In particular, the father was appealing against an order that he have only indirect contact with his son.

The case was complicated. It had a long history, stretching back to 2013. It involved findings against both parties, including serious findings against the mother, the most serious of which was that she had alienated the child from his father, as a result of which the child had suffered and/or remained at risk of suffering from significant long-term emotional harm. It also involved the local authority, and expert evidence from a clinical psychologist. There had been five ring binders of evidence at the hearing from which the appeal was made. If all of that were not enough, the case had an added complication in that the mother is profoundly deaf, and had to be assisted at court by both a deaf intermediary and two British Sign Language interpreters.

The judge in the court below had ordered that the boy should live with the mother, and that he was only to have indirect contact with his father by means of the father sending letters cards or gifts by post once per month for six months, and thereafter fortnightly. The judge also ordered that the father could not make any further applications without the leave of the court.

The father appealed against these orders, to the High Court.

Neither the father nor the mother could afford legal representation at the hearing in the High Court. They were, however, both represented by barristers acting ‘pro bono’, i.e. without charge, which led Mr Justice Williams to say this:

“That counsel for the father and for the mother should appear pro bono in such a complex case as this is in the finest traditions of the legal profession. Up and down the country, counsel, solicitors and legal executives fill the gaping holes in the fabric of legal aid in private law cases because of their commitment to the delivery of justice.”

He went on:

“Without such public-spirited lawyers how would those such as the father and mother in this case navigate the process and present their cases? How judges manage to deliver justice to the parties and an appropriate judgment for the child without such assistance in cases like this begs the question. It is a blight on the current legal aid system that cases such as this do not attract public funding.”

And he concluded with a swipe at the stereotype so many people have of lawyers:

“So far removed from the stereotyped ‘fat-cat,’ the legal profession in cases such as this are more akin to Boxer in George Orwell’s ‘Animal Farm’ always telling themselves “I will work harder.”

“It is a blight on the current legal aid system that cases such as this do not attract public funding.” So says a High Court judge. And yet nowhere amongst the measures set out by the government in its “new vision for legal support” published alongside the review is a commitment to provide legal aid for cases such as this.

And what happens if one or both of the parents is not lucky enough to secure free representation? It must happen. There is only so much that lawyers can do for free, and it is nowhere remotely near what used to be done under legal aid. The answer is that parents, and more importantly children, will not receive justice, as simple as that.

For the purpose of this post I need not go into the detail of Mr Justice Williams’ decision on the appeal, save to say that it was allowed. If you want all of the details you can read the full judgment here.

The post Judge bemoans lack of legal aid in complex children cases appeared first on Stowe Family Law.


Go to Source
Author: John Bolch

How can a postnup protect your retirement accounts?

Getting married is an exciting time. And even if a marriage does fail, many are able to find love again and enter into another marriage. Because the chances of another divorce occurring the second time around is fairly high, it is important that these spouses take the time to understand ways they can protect themselves and their future, especially when it comes to their assets and retirement benefits.

How can a postnup protect your retirement accounts? Much like discussing a prenuptial agreement before marriage, bringing up a postnuptial agreement during a marriage is a difficult task. Nonetheless, it is an important topic to handle, especially when one remarries.

There are many reasons to get a postnup, one of them being to protect assets, property and retirement benefits. By entering into this marital agreement, spouses are able to lay everything out on the table, allowing them to see everything they have, whether owned solely or jointly.

And while a postnuptial agreement can address the many concerns one might have going into a second, third or even fourth marriage, it is always crucial to understand other documents that can add some protection. Because a person is remarried, it is vital to update one’s estate plan and will. If these documents are not updated, this could pose problems for a current spouse, such as the inability to enjoy certain benefits or inheritances.

Divorce can be a very messy and complex process. Even though the mere thought of ending a marriage is unpleasant, it is important to consider ways to protect oneself in the event of divorce. Those considering a postnuptial or prenuptial agreement should understand how these documents could benefit one in the event of a divorce.


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

Stowe guests: Divorcing your mortgage by James Harris of J P Mortgages

In this instalment of Stowe guests, we are joined by James Harris of J P Mortgages

J P Mortgages is a whole of market independent mortgage brokers so clients can be confident that they will find the best the best mortgage deal available.

Today, James offers his expert advice on mortgage options when you are separating or getting a divorce

Divorce and separation can be a very stressful event. In the midst of all of this, you may ask: Where am I going to live?

Whilst things were going well, you may have bought a house with your partner and you may want to continue to live in that house – especially if you have children. But what do you do about your mortgage?

In an ideal world, you might keep your mortgage, or re-mortgage to get a better deal, whilst getting the house and the mortgage in your sole name. This is referred to as a Transfer of Equity – one person agrees to come off the property title, typically as part of a larger agreement, or in return for a sum of money. From then on, you would be the sole owner of your property. So, what’s stopping you?

Firstly, you’ll need to negotiate with the other party to the mortgage, possibly via your solicitor: Will they agree to come off the mortgage? How much money do they want for their share of the property? Will this affect any other agreements (i.e. maintenance payments). Speak to your solicitor about this before making an agreement. As part of these discussions you should determine how much you can borrow – after all, if no financial institution will lend you enough to take over the mortgage on one income, this will affect what you plan to do.

Once you have reached an agreement, you will need to get your mortgage sorted. This will take time, and there may be additional fees involved; taking someone’s name off a property requires a solicitor – and the solicitor representing you in your separation may not be able to act for you.

When applying for a mortgage, you may encounter some difficulties; the first of these is affordability. A joint mortgage underwritten on two incomes, may not pass the lender’s affordability test with just one income – even if you’re not asking for any more money, and even if you have been paying it on your own for some time.

The other big problem that some people have is credit scoring. Prior to separating, you may have had money worries, or built up big credit card balances, or perhaps you’ve kept your finances in good order whilst your partner has not. By taking a joint credit agreement (such as a mortgage) you’ve linked your credit files held by the Credit Reference Agencies, so even if you’ve kept your accounts in perfect order, if your credit file is linked to another file with a low score, this will drag your score down.

Credit scoring is a complex topic, but the key point is that it will take a long time to repair the damage done to your credit score – years perhaps. So if you’re re-mortgaging whilst separating, you will have to do so with your current credit file.

So how are you to solve these problems? Well, as a Mortgage Broker who has been giving mortgage advice for 7 years, I’d say: see a Mortgage Broker. If you’re not sure how to find one, or which is the right broker to use, talk to your solicitor – they will have had contact with Mortgage Brokers who have helped people in a similar situation to yourself and can recommend those who have helped their clients in the past.

There are over 300 mortgage lenders in the UK, and there is a huge difference in their rates, terms, and most importantly, their lending criteria: many lenders will not lend a mortgage that is more than 4.5 times your gross income (salary multiple), others may lend up to 6 times, or will use strict affordability instead of a salary multiple cap; many lenders have very low tolerance for missed credit card payments and defaults, others will lend to those with County Court Judgements, debt management plans, individual voluntary arrangements and even historic bankruptcies; some will use only the basic salary of the full-time permanently employed, others will lend to the self-employed, contractors, people on zero hour contracts and use overtime and bonuses to calculate if the mortgage is affordable. These are just some of the hundreds of things a lender will consider when they look at your application.

Every lender has a little box they like to fit their clients into – if you don’t fit into that box, they will not lend to you. An Independent Broker has access to lenders you’ve never heard of, a good broker can easily match you to a lender who is going to get you the mortgage you need, without you needing to spend days and weeks talking to every bank on the high street yourself.

In summary, sorting your finances out is just part of separating from your partner, and your mortgage is a big part of that. Obtaining a mortgage whilst going through a divorce can be complex and difficult, engaging the services of a professional as early as possible, can save you a lot of time, money and stress.

I’ve helped dozens of people in this situation during my career. Let’s look at the common thoughts of people in your situation.

Am I going to be on a very high rate?

That depends very much on your personal circumstances. A broker would first look at a high street lender to get you the best rates, if possible.  However, if your financial circumstances are not ideal, he may need to look at other options. If, for example, your credit history is in poor shape, he may need to put you with a higher-rate lender for several years, before arranging a re-mortgage to another lender after your credit file has recovered. Many lenders only look back a set time (24 months, 48 months etc) for any missed payments, defaults or other issues. So, after paying a higher rate for a few years, there may be much better options available to you.

I’ll just keep my current mortgage – I don’t need to borrow extra money.

If this is possible, it may be the best solution. However, even if the lender is not lending you any extra money, from their point of view, this reduces the security of their loan – they’ll go from having 2 people with separate incomes they can chase for the monthly payment, to only having 1. If you can meet all their lending criteria, they’ll almost certainly agree, but if you can’t (and it may take a long time to get a definite answer), then they won’t agree to it.

I don’t want to pay a broker to find a mortgage – I’d rather do it myself.

I wish you the best of luck! I say that with utmost sincerity; I’ve been a mortgage broker for years, and I’m constantly learning and sometimes asking other brokers for ideas with complex cases. I regularly attend workshops run by the lender’s representatives to keep up to date on their constantly changing criteria.

Ultimately, it’s a matter of time and money; A broker might need only 2-3 hours of your time during the whole process, and you could have your new mortgage in place in a matter of weeks. To research lenders and personally handle the application on your own, could take hundreds of hours – if you’re spending 2 hours every day on it, you might still be working at it 6 months later.

We’ll just write up an agreement with my partner – I’ll pay the mortgage and stay in the house.

In some cases, this might be the only option available to you. I’d advise talking to your solicitor about the ramifications of this before you finalise any agreement. From a mortgage lenders point of view, these agreements don’t absolve the other person of the mortgage obligation, and credit reference agencies don’t record them.

Or to put it another way; if your partner was the one living in the house and paying the mortgage, and you were moving out but were still named on the mortgage, would you want to buy a new house?

If you do, your credit file still says you’re named on a mortgage; failing to disclose this during an application will almost certainly result in a lender refusing your application. Many lenders will refuse to consider your application for (from their point of view) a second mortgage, those that do consider you, will include the full mortgage as a regular outgoing – even if you are not actually paying it.

Don’t assume everything will go smoothly – always talk to an expert.

Written by

James Harris of J P Mortgages

www.jp-mortgages.co.uk

4 The Crescent Adel, Leeds West Yorkshire LS16 6AA

Tel: 01132 677391 Mobile: 07912754191

The post Stowe guests: Divorcing your mortgage by James Harris of J P Mortgages appeared first on Stowe Family Law.


Go to Source
Author: Stowe Family Law

Are the proposed divorce reforms just about changing timeframes?

When the news broke the other day that the Lord Chancellor, David Gauke, has confirmed that he will introduce legislation enacting no-fault divorce in the next session of parliament I tweeted a link to the story on Twitter. My tweet received a response suggesting that in the view of the tweeter the introduction of no-fault divorce will change little, save for the timeframes involved in getting divorced. I have heard this before, and suspect that it is a widely-held view. But is it correct?

To answer the question one obviously needs to look at the current law and the proposed new law. A look at the figures for the number of divorces granted per fact proven (I will explain this in a moment if you do not know what ‘fact proven’ means) will also not go amiss.

Let us begin with the current law. There is only one ground for divorce: that the marriage has irretrievably broken down. This will not actually change under the government’s proposals for reform. However, under the current law it is necessary to demonstrate irretrievable breakdown by proving one of five facts: that the other party has committed adultery and the petitioner finds it intolerable to live with them; that the other party has behaved in such a way that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with them; that the other party has deserted the petitioner for a continuous period of at least two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition; that the parties to the marriage have lived apart for a continuous period of at least two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition and the other party consents to the divorce; or that the parties to the marriage have lived apart for a continuous period of at least five years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition.

Note that fault is only attributable in relation to the first two facts. However, those two facts account for the majority of divorces. The most recent figures available are for 2017. In that year there were a total of 101,337 divorces granted. Of those 58,234 were on the basis of adultery or ‘unreasonable behaviour’, or a combination of both. In other words, some 57 per cent of divorces were fault-based.

There is one more thing to consider before moving to the reform proposals. How long does a divorce actually take? Well, it varies greatly, depending upon many factors, including how quickly the parties deal with the divorce (or how quickly they want to deal with it), and of course how quickly the court/divorce centre deals with it. However, if it is dealt with as quickly as possible I suppose it could go through within three months, although that is very unusual – three to six months is more likely, according to the latest figures. That figure includes a statutory minimum period of six weeks between the decree nisi and the decree absolute.

So it could be said that under the current law a divorce could in theory go through within three months of the ‘moment of breakdown’ if a ‘fault’ fact is proved, assuming that the ‘moment of breakdown’ is when one party decides the marriage is over and they want a divorce. On the other hand, if the only fault provable is five years separation it would take a minimum of five years from the moment of breakdown (assuming the beginning of the separation was the ‘moment of breakdown’ – it may not be) plus three months, i.e. five years and three months.

And what does the government propose?

It proposes that the five ‘facts’ be done away with, i.e. the petitioner will no longer have to prove one of them. A statement by one or both parties that the marriage has irretrievably broken down will suffice. However, the government believes that there should be a minimum timeframe for the divorce “to allow due consideration of the decision to divorce”. To achieve this they suggest that the period between decree nisi and decree absolute be increased to a minimum of six months.

So it could be argued that the reform will change the timeframes involved in divorce. And not just by reducing them, as in desertion and separation cases. For some it may actually take longer to divorce, if the six month ‘period for consideration’ is brought in. Assuming that under the new law it could still be possible to get a decree nisi within a month and a half of issuing proceedings, the minimum time for a divorce could be some seven and a half months, in all cases.

In summary, the minimum time for a divorce under the government’s proposed new system will reduce from five years and three months for a non-consent separation divorce, to just seven and a half months. On the other hand, the minimum in a ‘fault-based’ divorce would actually increase, from three months to seven and a half months.

But all of this is of course missing the main point of no-fault divorce. As we have seen, currently in 57% of cases petitioners are attributing blame for the marriage breakdown on the other party. They are doing this because they don’t want to wait two (or, worse still, five) years before they can issue divorce proceedings. And why should they have to wait?

So in nearly two-thirds of divorces we have the spectacle of blame. OK, in many cases the other party may not be too bothered about being blamed, or about the allegations of their unreasonable behaviour made by the petitioner. But in a lot of cases they will be bothered. This will make them less amenable to resolving other issues by agreement, such as in relation to finances and arrangements for children. It may even make them want to enter into the disaster that is a defended divorce. In both cases (issues not resolved by agreement and defended divorce) long, acrimonious, expensive and stressful contested court proceedings could ensue.

Attributing fault for the breakdown of the marriage can have awful consequences, not just for the parties but also for any children involved. And it is entirely unnecessary. As must now be clear to all, there is no need whatsoever to attribute fault for the breakdown of a marriage. So why not do away with it, and its consequences? That is really what the reforms are about.

The post Are the proposed divorce reforms just about changing timeframes? appeared first on Stowe Family Law.


Go to Source
Author: John Bolch

Divorce reform: Is the end in sight by Graham Coy

This morning, “The Times”, reported that the Justice Secretary, David Gaulke, has accepted that the current divorce law based largely on “fault” needs to be replaced.

His plans, apparently, are to introduce a Bill before Parliament sometime after May this year to introduce “no-fault divorce”.

Stowe Family Law along with many other solicitors, barristers, judges and others have been campaigning for a long time for the government to replace the current law which is based on an Act of Parliament introduced in 1969.

Many other countries including Scotland, most countries in mainland Europe and most states in North America already have a system which does not require one person to blame another before they can get divorced.

Currently, there are about 110,000 divorces each year in England and Wales and in 60% of those, one person relies either upon adultery or behaviour.

There is nearly universal acceptance that this does not help couples sort things out between them, issues concerning their children and issues about their finances, and does enormous harm to a relationship that has already broken down.

The paper reports David Gaulke as saying that the current law “needlessly rakes up the past to justify the legal ending of a relationship that is no longer a beneficial and functioning one. Where a marriage has irretrievably broken down, the law should not frustrate achieving better outcomes, especially for children.”

Sir Paul Coleridge, a former High Court Judge of the Family Division, and now Chairman of the Marriage Foundation, also welcomed this development saying that no-fault divorce “stops divorce being a sterile blame game and allows people to make the most important decision in their lives in a right and considered way.”

As the largest specialist family law firm in the country, Stowe Family Law welcomes this development and hopes that legislation will be introduced as early as possible and that Parliament will give its approval as quickly as possible. It should attract all parties support.

Reform is desperately overdue and politicians of all parties need to ensure that reform isn’t delayed any longer.

Graham Coy
8 February 2019

The post Divorce reform: Is the end in sight by Graham Coy appeared first on Stowe Family Law.


Go to Source
Author: Graham Coy

Husband fails in lump sum claim centred on trust funds

“I perfectly understand, and, indeed, have some sympathy with, the frustration that one party of no, or only relatively modest means must feel when he or she is aware that there is great wealth on the other side of the family, but is unable to tap into it even for the purpose of buying a home.  But this tragic and destructive case should stand as a cautionary tale to those who would embark on expensive litigation which they can ill afford in the hope of prising money from a discretionary trust.  A very careful and cool appraisal needs to be made at the very outset as to how realistic a prospect that really is.”

That quote, from early in the judgment of Mr Justice Holman in the case Daga v Bangur, really encapsulates all I want to say in this post. I think Mr Justice Holman’s point actually applies far more widely than just to cases involving discretionary trusts (i.e. trusts where the trustees have a discretion as to which beneficiaries receive money from the trust fund, how much they receive, and when). It applies to all financial claims on divorce: no matter how strongly you feel about the matter, think carefully about whether your claim is likely to succeed, before rushing off to court.

OK, I suppose I should say just a little bit more about this case. It concerned a husband’s claim for a lump sum payment, or other capital provision, from the wife. At the outset of the hearing before Mr Justice Holman the claim was for a lump sum of £2.5 million, but by the time of his closing submissions, his counsel had moderated that claim to one of the order of £1-1.5 million. The focus or target of the husband’s claim was two discretionary trust funds of which the wife is a beneficiary, and which have combined assets of the equivalent of about £17.5 million sterling. The husband, on the other hand, had debts of about £72,000 (he had savings of about £150,000 at the time of the separation, but they were spent on legal costs), and pension funds of around £220,000.

The parties were married in 2007, and have one child. The marriage broke down in 2016, and the husband issued divorce proceedings in October of that year.

And why did the husband’s claim fail? Quite simply, because Mr Justice Holman found that the trust funds were not an available resource in reliance upon which any award could be made. Further to this, the husband did not demonstrate a need for any substantial capital payment (although for the purpose of this post I will concentrate on the first point, regarding the trusts).

As I said, the two trusts are discretionary, the beneficiaries being members of the wife’s family. Mr Justice Holman found that whatever order he may make, the trustees were highly unlikely to make funds available to benefit the husband. Accordingly, he could not make an order in reliance upon the funds in the trusts, and to treat the wife as having about £20 million plus “available” to her, as the husband’s counsel did, was “frankly, fanciful.”

In the circumstances, the husband’s claims against the wife (and, indeed, the wife’s claims against the husband) were dismissed. In other words, there would be a complete clean break.

But that was not of course the full extent of the matter. As Mr Justice Holman also stated early in his judgment:

“How tragic it is that … the parties have spent or incurred between them over £1 million on legal costs.  Of that figure about £380,000 related to litigation about their son.  But almost £650,000 has been spent litigating over finance.  £650,000 could have made a very large contribution to the purchase cost of the sort of flat the husband now aspires to buy.  As it is, the savings of around £150,000 which the husband had accumulated during the course of the marriage by the time of separation have been wiped out, and each party now has considerable debts.  There are now in this case no liquid matrimonial assets nor any “acquest” at all, but only large debts.”

Ouch. As I said: always think very carefully before you rush off to court.

You can read Mr Justice Holman’s full judgment here.

The post Husband fails in lump sum claim centred on trust funds appeared first on Stowe Family Law.


Go to Source
Author: John Bolch

A week in family law: reform, legal aid, twitter and the B-word

I was one of the relatively early adopters of Twitter, joining in May 2008. Back then there were very few lawyers using the platform, and most of those that did, including myself, did not take it seriously. We certainly would never have imagined that a High Court judge would have used the platform as a tool in a family law case. But that is what has happened. Mr Justice Williams has used Twitter to urge a mother who vanished with her three-year-old son to return home. Ellie Yarrow-Sanders disappeared with Olly Sheridan in July, after becoming involved in family court litigation with Olly’s father, Patrick Sheridan. It is believed to be the first time a judge has used Twitter in this way. Mr Justice Williams said that he was gravely concerned that a child had been missing for so long and made an appeal directly to Ellie to bring him back, promising to deal with her case fairly. Let us hope the appeal does the trick, and that Olly is returned.

New research published yesterday by the Nuffield Foundation reinforces the case for reform of the overly complex divorce system in England and Wales. The research found that the current system can fuel conflict and disadvantages people who represent themselves, and those alleging abuse as grounds for divorce. It recommended that the proposed notification period of six months should begin before decree nisi, to avoid people being subject to unpredictable variations in processing times; that the ability to defend a divorce should be removed; and that the significant minority (14%) of cases in which one party does not respond to the divorce petition needs to be addressed. The research was undertaken by Professor Liz Trinder at the University of Exeter, who said: “This new research reinforces the case for divorce law reform along the lines proposed by the Ministry of Justice. The current system is complex, confusing and creates unnecessary conflict. The proposal to allow divorce only after a ‘cooling off’ period will help families focus on the future, not on an unhelpful ‘blame game’. Our new research also finds that the Ministry of Justice is right to propose removing the outdated right to defend a divorce.”

And it looks like those calling for no-fault divorce are going to get their wish. Just today the news broke that the Lord Chancellor, David Gauke, has confirmed that he will introduce legislation enacting the reform in the next session of parliament. Let us just hope they do not make a mess of it this time around, as they did with the ill-fated Family Law Act 1996.

Moving on, the Government has published its long-awaited review of the effects of the legal aid cuts introduced in 2013 by the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (‘LASPO’). Unsurprisingly, the review concedes that LASPO was “not entirely successful at discouraging unnecessary and adversarial litigation at public expense”, and that there is “limited quantitative evidence to demonstrate” that money saved by cutting legal aid simply transferred costs to other departments. Ouch. To deal with the problems caused by LASPO the government has announced a ‘Legal Support Action Plan’, including “An investment of up to £5 million in developing innovative technologies and testing new methods of delivering support”. An additional £3 million will also be invested over the next two years to support those representing themselves through the court system. Legal aid will also be restored for a few limited cases involving children. Considering that LASPO reduced annual spending on legal aid by at least £350 million, this money is just a drop in the ocean. Undaunted, Justice Minister Lucy Frazer, said: “Legal aid will continue to play an important role and we are committed to ensuring people can access the help they need into the future. However, in seeking to bolster legal aid as a key part of helping people with a diverse range of problems, we are clear that there is much to do aside from legal aid, so we are emphasising the need for new technologies and new ideas to catch people early, before their problems escalate to the courtroom.”

And finally, dare I mention the B-word? Yes, Brexit has cropped up again in the family law news headlines. Twice. First of all, Resolution, the association of family lawyers, and The Law Society issued a joint note for family lawyers in England and Wales, with recommendations in the event of no-deal in relation to Brexit on areas of family law including divorce, maintenance and children proceedings, which you can find here. Secondly, and similarly, the Ministry of Justice and the Foreign & Commonwealth Office published guidance on what to do if the UK leaves the EU without a deal on the 29th of March and you are involved in a family law dispute (including divorce and child maintenance) with someone living in the EU. You can find that guidance here. So, whether you are a family lawyer or just someone unfortunate enough to be involved in a family law dispute, at least you will know what to do should we have a no-deal Brexit. Which may be more than you can say for our politicians…

Have a good weekend.

The post A week in family law: reform, legal aid, twitter and the B-word appeared first on Stowe Family Law.


Go to Source
Author: John Bolch

Your divorce choices will determine your future

Divorce is not an easy process, even when two parties resolve to work amicably and reach a reasonable, sustainable final order. It is complicated and emotional to walk through the steps required to end a marriage, and as a result, you may be more prone to making certain mistakes than you realize. It is smart to learn about common mistakes and work to avoid them.

When there is a lot at stake, it is in your interests to be thoughtful and careful about the choices you make. Preparation and a focus on the future are the keys to a strong post-divorce future. 

Look out for these mistakes

There are a few common mistakes that may not seem like a big deal at the time, but in reality, they can lead to significant trouble and financial issues down the road. The unintended impact of the choices you make during the divorce process can impact you for years, even decades, to come. Some of the missteps you will want to avoid include:

  • Sharing your feelings about your divorce on social media can be a big temptation, but it is actually best to avoid this entirely. Some things should not be public.
  • As you walk through divorce, make sure you have all the important paperwork regarding all marital finances. If you do not have all the necessary information, it can lead to lopsided property division settlements.
  • It is a mistake to leave any joint credit accounts open after making the decision to divorce. This can lead to more debt and more disagreements over who is responsible for it.
  • Many people believe they have no option but to go to court, but that is not true. It is often possible to secure a reasonable, fair settlement through out-of-court negotiations and other methods. 

One of the most crucial elements to securing a fair divorce settlement is to think about your long-term interests instead of how you feel in the moment. Emotions are poor indicators of what will truly be best long term. When you understand common divorce mistakes and how to avoid them, you can intentionally pursue the security and stability you deserve. You may want to start by seeking an evaluation of your case.


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