Category: Industry News

It’s been a strangely quiet week for family law news. Perhaps there has been some other big news story happening, I don’t know. Still, I did come up with the following:

The NSPCC has said that the law must recognise children as victims of domestic abuse between parents. They point out that Department for Education figures for 2017/18 show domestic abuse was a factor in 246,720 child protection assessments across England – more than half of all child protection assessments, where factors were identified, during that period. The government are yet to publish the outcomes of last year’s consultation on domestic abuse, but their proposed new definition of domestic abuse only refers to the effects of abuse on those aged 16 and over, leaving younger children unrecognised by the justice system. The charity says that legal recognition would give children greater protection through domestic abuse protection orders, help professionals take action to protect children at risk, and help authorities ensure there are specific support services for children and young people.

Almudena Lara, Head of Policy at the NSPCC, said:

“It is quite astonishing that the government is dragging its feet when deciding whether to recognise young people as victims when almost a quarter of a million children that we know of are living with domestic abuse in England alone. As well as the day-to-day distress that living with domestic abuse creates, it can cause long-term problems into adulthood that can only be addressed through targeted services that understand the complex trauma children living with domestic abuse experience. For this to be done effectively we need government to open their eyes to the harm domestic abuse has on children and give them victim status in the upcoming White Paper to ensure they receive the services they need.”

All of which appears very sensible.

A consultation has been launched by the Department for Work and Pensions seeking views on changes to the powers that the Child Maintenance Service (‘CMS’) use to calculate child maintenance and enforce payments. The proposals in the consultation seek to strengthen the current, 2012, child maintenance scheme. The CMS has a range of powers to obtain information necessary to ensure child maintenance liabilities can be accurately calculated and, where necessary, enforced. The consultation seeks views on changes to two particular aspects of these powers: qualifying a CMS inspector’s ability to enter private property and widening of the current list of organisations with a legal obligation to provide information following a request by the CMS. The consultation period ends on the 11th of February. I haven’t really given these changes much thought, but in general anything that makes it more likely that children will benefit from child maintenance must surely be a good thing.

The tide really does seem to have turned at last when it comes to the number of care order applications being made. The latest figures for care applications and private law demand, for December 2018, have been published by Cafcass. In that month the service received a total of 975 new care applications, the first time the number has dipped below the 1000 mark in more than three years. The figure is 4.6% (47 applications) lower than December 2017. As to private law demand, the picture is not so good: Cafcass received a total of 3,105 new cases during December 2018. This is 13.1% (360 cases) higher than December 2017, and the second highest December figure on record.

And finally, The Guardian has reported that a mother involved in long-running care proceedings concerning her teenaged son has been spared jail for accepting an invitation to attend a parents’ evening at his school. I’ve not seen a report of this judgment (you can find one of Mr Justice Hayden’s previous judgments in relation to the case here), but apparently the court’s order that the mother should not contact the boy included an exemption to the effect that she could “attend parents’ evening at the request of the school”, and the mother claimed that this included the “generic invite” that she had received. The local authority applied to have her committed to prison for breaching the order, but Mr Justice Hayden declined to make a committal order, saying that the invite had been sent in error. He did, however, order that the clause that allowed the mother to accept invitations from the school be removed.

Have a good weekend.

The post A week in family law: Child maintenance changes, Cafcass figures, and more appeared first on Stowe Family Law.

It’s easy to be cynical. I often am myself. It’s particularly easy to believe in stereotypes, especially if they are likely to attract popular support.

One such stereotype is that all lawyers are self-serving, interested only in their fees, rather than their clients, or the common good. It is often suggested, for example, that all lawyers run cases with the aim of maximising their fees, rather than benefitting their clients.

Well, I’m sure that the legal profession contains some people who have such an attitude. But then, so does every walk of life. You will find examples even the medical profession, which is generally held in the highest public esteem. However, to tar all lawyers with this brush is to fall into the trap of going along with the popular view, without critical thought or research.

What got me thinking about this ‘lawyers only care about their wallets’ cliché? Well, it was a conversation I witnessed on Twitter (which, despite all its faults, can be a useful vehicle for serious discourse) between Baroness Deech and various family lawyers regarding the Baroness’s Divorce (Financial Provision) Bill 2017-19 which, as that title suggests, aims to reform the law regarding financial remedies on divorce.

The Bill has been strongly criticised by many very eminent family lawyers (and also some rather less eminent such as myself), as I explained when I wrote here about it last November.

But it wasn’t the merits or otherwise of the Bill that got me thinking, it was the Baroness’s response to criticism on Twitter. She tweeted:

“The aim [of the Bill] is to have less of the couple’s assets go on lawyers’ costs. So of course it is unpopular in some quarters!”

As one lawyer responded, this was a “cheap shot” at family lawyers, suggesting that they are only opposed to the provisions of the Bill because they believe that they would get less work if it was enacted. It is particularly sad, but perhaps not entirely surprising, that someone in the position of the Baroness should stoop to using the stereotype in this way to gain popular support.

But I have some news for those who think in this way, and it may come as a shock: not all lawyers are self-serving.

Sticking with the example of reform of family law, lawyers have long advocated reforms that were likely to reduce the amount of work that they do, and therefore the amount of fees that they receive. Without much thought I can give two shining examples of this.

Firstly, the introduction of a system of no-fault divorce. This has almost universal support amongst family lawyers. But think about it: contested divorce brings in work for family lawyers, and the animosity stirred up by having to attribute blame for the breakdown of the marriage makes it more likely that the parties will contest finances or arrangements for children, thereby giving more work to lawyers.

Which brings me to the other example. Contrary to popular belief, many family lawyers have long been supporters of ‘alternative dispute resolution’, i.e. resolving family disputes by other methods than going to court, such as mediation (it became compulsory a few years back for anyone issuing a family application to attend a meeting to assess whether the case was suitable for mediation). Obviously, contested court proceedings will be far more lucrative for lawyers than having the disputes resolved in mediation, but that does not stop many family lawyers advocating mediation, and suggesting it to their clients, as I used to do when I was practising.

So when lawyers give their views on law reform they are not necessarily thinking only of protecting their fee income.

And of course lawyers are likely to have something to say about reform of the law, simply because they are (obviously) experts in the field. Family lawyers see the effects of the law on their clients every day, and understand better than most how any proposed reform is likely to play out. Their view is worth listening to, rather than being cheaply dismissed by reference to some popular stereotype.

There are, of course, other ways in which lawyers are anything but self-serving (I hope I do not need to explain that most advice given by lawyers to their clients is for the benefit of the client, not the lawyer’s bank balance). I think, for example, of the enormous amount of pro-bono (free) work that they do, something that very few other professions do. And lawyers also raise huge amounts for charity.

So next time you see a lawyer make a contribution to a debate on law reform, give them a serious listen, rather than dismissing them as being purely self-serving. They may just have something important to say.

The post Not all lawyers are self-serving shock horror! appeared first on Stowe Family Law.

The government has reported that 455 people made an online divorce application in the period between Christmas Eve and New Year’s Day, with 13 applying on Christmas Day itself. The figures were picked up by the national media as part of its ‘Divorce Day’ narrative, suggesting that more people issue divorce proceedings at this time of year than at any other time. However, the government’s agenda was actually to sing the praises of its online divorce service, which it says has attracted more than 23,000 applications since it was launched last April. I agree that figure suggests the service has been a success, but the figure for the Christmas week was nothing special, and does not indicate that we are presently witnessing an epidemic of people seeking a divorce, as some sections of the media would have you believe.

Justin Tomlinson, the Minister for Family Support, Housing and Child Maintenance, has announced a £2.7 million fund to increase support for disadvantaged families at risk of parental conflict. As a press release from the Department for Work and Pensions and Mr Tomlinson said: “Parental conflict can range from a lack of warmth and emotional distance, right through to verbal abuse. If children are exposed to this sort of distress over longer periods of time, their emotional and social development can be significantly affected. It may stop children from doing as well at school or even impact their career chances in later life. Children most at risk are those with parents who are out of work, on low incomes, or struggling with physical and mental health conditions.” The fund will be made up of 2 separate strands: £1.1 million will be for projects to support families at a greater risk of parental conflict, and £1.6 million for digital support to help parents find help online. Mr Tomlinson said: “Conflict between parents can have a devastating and long-lasting impact on children, and it’s often caused by external stresses. We want families experiencing problems to have easier access to help. This innovative fund will develop solutions for parents to repair their relationships, resolve any conflict and provide a safer environment for their children to grow up.” Let us hope it is successful.

It has been reported that the rise in the number of children taken into care has pushed 88% of councils over budget in the last financial year. Analysis by the Guardian newspaper and the Local Government Association (‘LGA’) found that 133 out of 152 councils responsible for children’s services overspent in 2017-18. Local authorities went over budget on children’s social care by an estimated £807 million, by far the highest area of overspending in council budgets. As the Guardian explained:

“The number of children being taken into care stands at a 10-year high. Government data published in November found that there were 75,420 looked-after children in England at the end of March, up 4% on the previous year. The number has increased every year since 2008, when the total was about 60,000.”

So the overspend is hardly surprising. There has apparently been a rise in funding for children’s services over the last ten years, but obviously it has not been enough. Councillor Anntoinette Bramble, chair of the LGA’s Children and Young People Board, is quoted as saying that the figures should act as a wake-up call to “the country-wide crisis we are facing in funding services to protect vulnerable children and young people”, and that: “The fact that the overwhelming majority of councils are now being forced to spend more than they had planned to on children’s social care highlights the urgent need for the government to provide new and long-term significant funding for children’s services.” Indeed.

And finally, in a piece of news that has got the media in a frenzy, and has no doubt attracted the attention of divorce lawyers around the world, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, reportedly the world’s richest person, has announced that he and his wife, MacKenzie, are set to divorce, after a 25-year marriage. Last year Mr Bezos came top of the annual list of the world’s billionaires compiled and by the American business magazine Forbes. He also became the first ‘centibillionaire’ (i.e. having a net worth in excess of $100 billion) included in the list. Of course, as Phoebe Turner, Managing Partner at Stowe’s London Victoria office suggested, his net worth may be somewhat lower after the divorce…

Have a good weekend.

The post A week in family law: Online divorces, support for families, and more appeared first on Stowe Family Law.