Comments on: Why I am horrified by the Centre for Social Justice’s proposals

By: The Marriage Foundation: dodgy statistics and Victorian-era morality « FeministActionCambridge

Wed, 11 Apr 2012 12:57:18 +0000

[...] Family lawyer and blogger Marilyn Stowe wrote about the hypocrisy of the ‘Every Family Matters’ report, which purports to be about caring for children but in fact advocates discriminating against children whose parents are not married: This report highlights the plight of children born to single women out of wedlock. It describes how they are more likely to take drugs, commit crimes and live in poverty, if not in care of their local authorities. [...]

By: Lukey

Lukey — Mon, 09 May 2011 17:41:41 +0000

This is a straight quote from the Report – you may horrified by it Marilyn but I think it is very encouraging to see that this report takes into account ALL parties and seeks to avoid patronising the general public:-

==============================================================
People who don’t get married have reasons for doing so.
To extend the law to cohabitants would be a bonanza for
lawyers…We should respect the expectations of
cohabiting couples…Imposing marriage laws on non
married couples is to deny people’s human rights.

We do not believe that reforms of the law should simply ‘chase the practice’.
Given the steep rise in cohabitation, an approach which is supportive of
marriage arguably precludes legal protection for cohabitants (or at the very
least, any extension of rights to equivalence with marriage and thereby
confusion with marriage).

Breakthrough Britain expressed grave concern over the negative implications of imposing rights and responsibilities on cohabiting couples. Notwithstanding individual cases of apparent injustice, many cohabitees have voluntarily chosen to reject
marriage with the protection it provides. The liberal argument that people
should not be penalised for this choice is flawed. Attaching legal provision
would be illiberal (because it imposes a contractual obligation not freely
entered into) and intrusive and would encourage inherently more
unstable relationships.
=============================================================

By: New legal rights for grandparents? | Marilyn Stowe Family Law and Divorce Blog

Tue, 27 Oct 2009 12:54:40 +0000

[...] week it is my turn not to criticise, but to praise the Conservative Party. Newspapers have reported that the Conservatives, if they win [...]

By: Prenuptial agreements and the High Holy Days: food for thought | Marilyn Stowe Family Law and Divorce Blog

Wed, 30 Sep 2009 11:21:50 +0000

[...] Nick Gulliford, who blogs at School and Family Learning, about prenuptial agreements and the recent Every Family Matters report from the Centre for Social Justice. The subject also prompted a blog post from His Grace, [...]

By: Lenny

Lenny — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 22:57:01 +0000

Whilst I respect your opinion, I have a number of clients who tell me that their decision to divorce was based upon their experiences as deeply unhappy children living within a deeply unhappy marriage. Their own ability to form relationships has been badly affected by their experiences of their parents who chose not to divorce but which in the eyes of their children would by far have been preferable. Thus affected by their parents relationship, unable to maintain a relationship of their own, they have elected to leave it because they believe it is to benefit their children.

Sound like examples of how a pattern reverberates down the generations.

Obviously, if a marriage is in a poor state of health, then simply staying together without making any effort to understand the underlying problems could be just as potentially negative for the children as splitting up. It never ceases to amaze me how adults can behave so inconsistently and immaturely in the face of marital problems, whilst simultaneously expecting their children to display understanding and maturity. The choice isn’t simply between splitting up or putting up, it’s between wallowing in ignorance or becoming more informed.

Overall isnt it the case that primary responsibility lies with parents who having made their decision, should try their best to make sure their children come through, to the very best of their ability?

Of course; but do you think that the parent’s decision should be informed and objective.? If so, how would you achieve that.?

By: Marilyn Stowe

Marilyn Stowe — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 16:50:56 +0000

Thank you for your comments.
I agree with you that children are the first priority of family breakdown. But I dont limit those children purely to those born of married couples, which was the main thrust of my comments. I believe cohabitants too should have their families fully considered by the courts within the context of the broken cohabitation, and not the ad hoc arrangements that exist at the moment. What you say seems to bear this out.
I separate management of children from the right of couples to divorce. If you have a look at some of my posts, you will see that care of children in divorce is very much to the forefront of my mind. In this country I dont believe we have the proper facilities. The resources required to do this would be phenomenal and that is why I am sceptical of these “relationship hubs.”
If you read some other of my posts, it is also clear that divorce is the last resort and not the first. That is how I manage my practise and advise my clients.
But …….if a client has determined upon a divorce, then it should be dignified and sensible……. and fair. Whilst I respect your opinion, I have a number of clients who tell me that their decision to divorce was based upon their experiences as deeply unhappy children living within a deeply unhappy marriage. Their own ability to form relationships has been badly affected by their experiences of their parents who chose not to divorce but which in the eyes of their children would by far have been preferable. Thus affected by their parents relationship, unable to maintain a relationship of their own, they have elected to leave it because they believe it is to benefit their children.
Overall isnt it the case that primary responsibility lies with parents who having made their decision, should try their best to make sure their children come through, to the very best of their ability?

By: N Brown

N Brown — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 16:25:41 +0000

To add, what your profession fears most is huge losses of revenues resulting from people amicably sorting out their differences (if the relationship is salvageable), and staying together. You see the Conservatives proposal as meddling in your business in order to assist those ‘clients’ in two minds over their divorce before you get to them and make their mind up for them.

By: N Brown

N Brown — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 12:30:19 +0000

It is mentioned in the above post that a ‘relationship hub’ would seek to clarify the best way forward for the family if indeed that unit were to breakdown. As a product of a broken marriage myself I would suggest that whoever takes a lead role in developing this system, should the authorities deem it applicable, use individuals of similar background within their research strategy.

The life of a child can be irrevocably changed, for better or worse (ironically), in the event of divorce and although the law favours maternal guardianship, particular emphasis should also be placed upon correct parent-child placement, regardless of gender. Given the downsides of divorce and subsequent mental health issues that can arise from marital breakdown I would strongly suggest periods of assessment during the following 3-5 years of parents lawfully handed guardianship of the children.

This would obviously neccessitate huge resource and skillful handling to ensure minimum disruption to the current family unit even if it is on the brink of collapse.

Unless you ask those who have experienced a childhood blighted by divorce you will never truly understand the ramifications that the actions of adults can have, whether emotional or physical.

If a scheme such as the ‘family relationship hub’ had been in place when my parents suffered a divorce I believe strongly that my world would have become a far less miserable place.

To conclude, I disagree with your comments and suggest that if you believe that the presence of a ‘hub’ would be to the detriment of the child then your are sadly mistaken. A return to Victorian values… no, just common sense built up from countless ruined young lives and a system that supports no-one in the way they actually need it.

By: Marilyn Stowe

Marilyn Stowe — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 14:45:31 +0000

Thank you very much for all your comments.
Reform of divorce law is long overdue. I believe it is up to the couple themselves to decide if they wish to divorce (in the same way as they make the decision to marry) and therefore it is not the function of the law to interfere in their decision making process. I think such a couple should in the same way they agree to marry, agree to divorce without being put through artificial hoops or attributing blame which will oblige them to look back, not forwards to the future.
But as you know, some people think that is too liberal a view, and fault should still be attributed to one party and/or that the couple should be forced to wait a long time, “just to make sure”. To my mind that imposes a form of ‘punishment’ and stigma which I do not believe fits within the ethos of modern family law.
There is a problem where only one party wants to get divorced and the other may be unaware of the position. This person needs time to come to terms with the breakdown and thus the interests of both have to be fairly balanced in the divorce process. How? Other jurisdictions deal with the divorce process in different ways but acceptance of and recovery from marital breakdown, seems to occur when the divorce is over and not before. Prolonging the procedure where only one party wants a divorce, objectively may not be in either spouse’s best interests.

By: Cohabitation: know your rights and the law | Marilyn Stowe Family Law and Divorce Blog

Wed, 22 Jul 2009 16:58:36 +0000

[...] me Why I am horrified by the Centre for Social Justice’s proposals Jul [...]