I recently posted on the dire situation facing the judiciary, noting the comments made by District Judge Nicholas Crichton about our courts being stacked out with Litigants in Person (LiP), and the detrimental effect it is having on the entire family justice system. I hadn’t understood quite how alarming the situation is until I appeared on This Morning last week
Tomorrow I will be appearing on the This Morning alongside Gloria Hunniford and another guest to discuss the difficult subject of access to grandchildren following the split of their parents. I was the legal contributor to Gloria’s book Glorious Grandparenting and I have posted on this subject on numerous occasions. In the book I do advocate the benefits of mediation in these circumstances. Unfortunately, and very sadly, not every sparring grandparent or ex grandparent-in-law can agree to settle their differences out of court, and so these disputes can sometimes involve litigation. The court has to decide only one point: what is best for the grandchild?
On Wednesday 8th February I will be answering readers’ questions in real-time from 2pm to 4pm in our forums. If you have a general question concerning the financial implications of divorce that you would like answering, then please post it over the coming week, or during Wednesday afternoon.
I was recently invited to contribute to HuffPost Divorce, where you can now find a slideshow featuring my Top 10 Stereotypical Marriage Wreckers. Some appear to have struck a nerve with readers.
Andrew Williams, the Chief Executive of Stowe Family Law is a proud Yorkshireman and Englishman. Blunt, straightforward and to the point, he has been a prime force in the development of the firm since he joined in 2004. A politician to boot, he was the youngest ever mayor of the City of Ripon. During his year as Mayor there was a service at Ripon Cathedral to honour the return of troops from Afghanistan to their barracks near the city, and I stood in for the day as the Lady Mayoress. It was a day I won’t forget.
Many would see it as a natural business instinct to welcome the decline or demise of a competitor. For me, there is little sadder news than hearing about a firm closing, downsizing or being forced to merge.
I read with great interest a post by my colleague, John Bolch of Family Lore, and its reference to the phrase “blood on the court carpet”. It was drawn from a comment originally made by District Judge Nicholas Crichton, who sits in Inner London
Occasionally I am pleased to publish a guest post from contributors other than myself and my colleagues at Stowe Family Law, if I think it will be of real interest to readers generally. Given the concerns of many in relation to Child Support I am delighted to publish a guest post by Anna Pietrowski of Gingerbread, a long-established charity that supports single parent families. They are campaigning against the Government’s proposed introduction of charges to use the Child Support Agency (CSA).
Just before I went on air at This Morning last week, Holly Willoughby – a new mum herself and one of the presenters of the programme – turned to me and said “just what rights do parents have to their children?” It seems like an easy question. But in fact it is far from it, and happens to be one that is leading debate-upon-debate in political, social and legal circles in this country and around the world.
The case of Vicky Haigh has made lurid headlines today. She is the woman publicly named and shamed by Lord Justice Wall, the President of the Family Division, after making “entirely false” and “scandalous” allegations about her former partner.
My recent post about external relocation sparked an interesting debate, and it became clear that there are many readers who have personal experience of this subject – and strong feelings about it.
This question is asked in the latest study published by the Department of Social Policy and Intervention at the University of Oxford. Its authors focus upon research in Australia, where changes to encourage shared care parenting were made in 2006.
As I mentioned in my post about habitual residence, this blog receives a number of enquiries from people living outside England, enquiring whether it is possible to divorce in England. In that post, I explained that in order to do so, an applicant needs to establish jurisdiction. One way to establish jurisdiction is via a form of residence in this country, but a major problem is the time frame involved.
This blog receives enquiries from people overseas who wish to know if they are able to present a divorce petition in England. The answer rests on whether or not there is jurisdiction to do so. In other words: can you demonstrate a sufficiently strong connection to this country? It isn't always easy and the answer isn't always obvious. Sometimes there is no connection to England at all. Sometimes there are connections to other countries, which appear to be as strong or stronger. But there is still the potential to establish jurisdiction. Because we belong to the European Union, jurisdictional grounds are governed by European law. Part 3 of the new petition form for divorce or dissolution of a civil partnership is named Jurisdiction.
Malta is the only EU country not to allow divorce – but for how much longer? Malta recently made the headlines after its citizens voted in a referendum to introduce divorce to the staunchly Catholic island.
Browse expat forums, and you will discover that there are many “stuck parents”. It is sad to read that so many people now feel that they are “trapped” in a country where they do not wish to live.
Covent Garden is terrible for traffic jams and my taxi was stuck outside the Garrick Club earlier this week. Although the establishment is notorious for not admitting women, it is also famous for its associations with the great and the good of the arts world. Charles Dickens was a member and kept his offices nearby. Looking around, I noticed an Ebenezer Scrooge quotation in a shop window: “I will honour Christmas in my heart, and try to keep it all the year”.
Readers of this blog will know that in any financial divorce settlement, the court must ensure that so far as possible, within the context of their finances, both parties’ “reasonable needs” must be met. Basic reasonable needs include provision for housing, furniture, a car and a budget for income requirements. It follows that the greater the parties’ wealth, the greater their needs will be. In meeting the needs of each party, the court will apply the various relevant factors of section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973.
Spousal maintenance is the most contentious area in family finance. Ex-husbands bitterly resent paying it and ex-wives fight tooth and nail to keep it. It is a tax-free income that some see as a continuing windfall and others a hard-earned necessity.
When a spouse’s wealth has been inherited rather than earned, it cannot be regarded in any sense as truly “matrimonial”. So if the couple divorces, to what extent should one party share in the assets of the other?
What would you like to know about divorce? Many first-time visitors to this blog arrive after searching for answers about divorce and family law on the internet. Others submit enquiries directly to the comments section on this blog, or contact me directly. Tomorrow (Tuesday 10 January) I will be appearing on the sofa alongside Phillip Schofield and Holly Willoughby on This Morning, which begins at 10:30 am, to offer advice to viewers. Tune in for some practical advice about divorce. If we don’t cover your question, please feel free to add it to the comments at the bottom of this post.
Working in London is very different from our other two offices. Travelling to Harrogate I'm used to a leisurely short drive through gorgeous Yorkshire scenery, parking easily and then enjoying a comparatively relaxed pace of life I had never before fully appreciated...until now. It's the same in Cheshire. Even on the long drive over the Pennines, I go at my own pace, in my own time and after a morning at work can literally pop over the road to the Greenhouse, a fantastic and friendly veggie restaurant.
Mr Justice Mostyn is not only a very good judge, but also a brilliant academic. Some of his written work is so complex that, years later, I’m not embarrassed to say I didn’t understand a word of what he had to say about the long-gone CSA maintenance formula.
Another week, another football stadium! This time, it's not Wembley but the Reebok Stadium: the home of Bolton Wanderers football team. It is also the venue for the Bolton Law Society Family Law Conference, which I chaired yesterday.
A new report points to confusion about what happens to the estate of a person who dies intestate, married or unmarried. I know about the injustices that can occur all too well. A few years ago I acted for a very pleasant man in his divorce. He bought a property with his new partner. This is her story.
Earlier today I appeared on BBC Breakfast, to discuss the Supreme Court’s ruling in Kernott v Jones. Accompanying me on the sofa was Patricia Jones, whose appeal against the decision to award her former partner half the value of their jointly-owned property was upheld by the five Supreme Court justices who heard the case. Of course, I am not the only lawyer to have blogged about Kernott v Jones this week.
I wrote about the possible outcome of the Kernott v Jones case yesterday after reading the Court of Appeal judgment in the case, and noting Lord Justice Jacob’s dissenting judgment. I couldn’t see any reason to fault his argument, which made a lot of sense.
The long-awaited judgment in the case of Kernott v Jones is to be handed down by the Supreme Court tomorrow. In the case itself, not a lot of money was ever involved. However the legal principles have taxed some of the most brilliant legal brains in the country.
On February 10th 2011 debates concerning the future of marriage took place in the House of Lords, and in the great debating chambers of both Oxford and Cambridge universities. Across the board marriage unhesitatingly received the thumbs up, but for varied reasons.
Direct access is pitting solicitors and barristers against each other when instead we should be working together, says Marilyn Stowe. When I decided to become a solicitor and not a barrister, my decision was based on a number of reasons – but not least that I wanted contact with real clients on a daily basis. Also, as a student I worked for both solicitors and barristers and I didn’t like the more theatrical antics of the Bar.
Lord Wilson delivered a frank, easy to understand speech last night in London. It was noteworthy because he is the first senior figure in family law to publicly announce the imminent arrival of a new form of financial dispute resolution in family law.
Ours certainly isn’t the biggest law firm out there but even so, I’m incredibly proud – not to mention a little incredulous – whenever I consider how far we have come from inauspicious beginnings. Next year marks the opening of our third office, in Central London, and also our 30th anniversary.
This is a post I've written following a meeting with a new client this week. It is a personal story that, on the face of it, has little to do with family law and family life. However my client asked me if I would post it on my blog, because she thinks what I told her may also help people who are frightened of facing the future and giving up the way of life to which they have become accustomed, even though they have no choice.
Moving on after divorce is more easily said than done, and as a family lawyer I see many clients at different stages of this process. Getting divorced is a traumatic and stressful period for both parties, no matter who is at fault or why the marriage broke down. However, there is nothing more satisfying (other than getting a good deal!) than seeing a client move on from thinking their world is at an end, to a point where they can at least see light at the end of the tunnel. So I have enjoyed reading a post by an American blogger who is marking one year since her own divorce was finalised.
Sue Jenkinson is the Head of Law at Staffordshire University. She is also a divorcee, a successful businesswoman and a mother of three. After meeting Dr Jenkinson and hearing her inspiring story, I asked if she would contribute.
Sometimes, clients who come to see me are in a state of shock. Not everyone appreciates how serious this can be. Psychological shock is a traumatic reaction following a dramatic, unexpected incident such as a family crisis.
I have previously written about my reservations regarding prenuptial agreements. When they are signed, couples are supposed to be committing to a lifetime together, through thick and thin, come what may. But there are so many unknowns in life. Can a prenup affect a marriage’s survival prospects, if one spouse has signed it with one hand tied behind his or her (and usually it is her) back, not knowing what may happen in the future?
Come Friday, I’ll be watching the royal wedding on television along with everybody else. Being a family lawyer, I have found that when the Big Day comes up in conversation, people ask me about another “royal wedding secret” – one that is rather less romantic than gowns or tiaras. They want to know if I think Kate has signed a prenuptial agreement. There has been a lot of speculation about this, particularly on the other side of the Atlantic where prenups are more common and royal wedding fever is running high. Personally I dislike prenups. Marriage is an equal partnership and I believe that it should begin as one.
Last week a commenter called Sara left a lengthy response on a post about prenuptial agreements, for which I was very grateful. I read it through several times and instead of replying to her in the comments, I decided to write a post about the points she raised.
Lord Justice Munby, the chairman of the Law Commission, who also sits as a judge in the Court Of Appeal (and was one of the judges in Imerman), made a very wise observation last week.
I’ve started to watch The Café, a gentle new comedy set in Weston-Super-Mare. It's written and produced by Ralf Little and Craig Cash, both of Royle Family fame, and it's a pleasure to watch. They understand elderly people, who are treated with love and respect by the youngsters around them. The theme music, ‘Beyond the Sea’, is sung beautifully too. My parents, who are getting on a bit now, like going to cafes.
On Friday night we went for dinner at my sister’s house. Her daughter Abby recently became engaged to Jonny and she had arranged a dinner to welcome his parents, the future in-laws, who were staying in Harrogate. “Aunty Doo Doo”, as my sister is known to the family, does nothing by halves. Her dinner, which was served for 16 people, was beautiful in every way, down to the handwritten place cards. Our parents have been staying at her home, following my mum’s recent stay in hospital. The lovely Ruby, who is my mum's devoted carer, is also staying there. So on Friday night the roll call was extensive: Aunty Doo Doo, her husband, their daughter and fiancé; his parents; our parents and Ruby; my brother and his family, us and their two dogs.
Apparently there are millions of fathers around the world who are, unwittingly, raising other men’s children as their own. Worse still, if it can be worse, they have all been duped at the hands of wicked mothers, who care not for a partner’s “right” to know the truth.
Yesterday, in the changing room at my local gym, I met a young man aged three and his mum. They had been swimming and were going home to watch the rugby. He had red, chubby cheeks and fair hair cut into a pudding basin.
I don’t often cover child support on this blog and I know it is a subject that arouses strong emotions. In the cases I do come across the outcomes are far from what a well-grounded family lawyer would regard as realistic or certain. But there are some cases that it would be simply wrong to ignore and which provide examples of how a determined father can string out a case for years, while the hapless mother is unable to apply to court and circumvent a circus of litigation that takes place at the public expense.
In recent weeks one case has set a marker that could prove significant for those struggling to receive a fair level of child maintenance from an absent parent. In the recent High Court case of FG v MBW ([2011] EWHC 1729 (Fam) child maintenance payments were ordered to be made out of a non-resident father’s capital. So does this then set a precedent for similar orders where an absent parent fails to pay a fair level of child maintenance from his or her income?
This week the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission (CMEC) published its annual report and accounts for 2010/11. Earlier this month the Work and Pensions Select Committee published its proposed child maintenance reforms.
All parents have a right to apply to the Child Support Agency for the assessment of child maintenance, but our clients often ask us about the interplay between the jurisdiction of the court and that of the CSA.
The Family Procedure Rules 2010, Practice Directions and Forms wend their way through a host of other areas. Today, before drawing this series to a close, I would like to briefly point out that those who practice in transnational cases are used to considering exactly how clients come within the jurisdiction of the English court, in terms of residence or domicile.
This post is part of a series about the Family Procedure Rules 2010. Today we are going to look at Part 9 of the Family Procedure Rules 2010: Applications for a Financial Remedy. Earlier in this series I mentioned that the new Rules feature new terminology. It is time to say goodbye to the archaic term ancillary relief, and hello to the financial order. (For non-lawyers: a financial order, which used to be called ancillary relief, is what you apply for during divorce, civil partnership or judicial separation proceedings.) The financial order also forms part of the new, generic term financial remedy, which encompasses all forms of financial relief. It includes applications for financial provision for the children of unmarried parents, applications for financial provision after an overseas divorce and applications to the magistrates’ courts for which the procedure differs.
All this week I am examining the Family Procedure Rules 2010. Today I’m looking at case management, in particular the way in which the rules provide a fascinating insight into how the court ticks, and the vast range of orders it can make in a family law case.
This week I am examining the Family Procedure Rules 2010. Today I would like to begin by looking at the Rules’ Overriding Objective (page 24). This is the new statement with which the Family Procedure Rules begin.
View More Articles in the Family Procedure Rules 2010 Category
On Sunday I watched a Channel 4 documentary called Revelations: Divorce - Jewish Style. It focused upon the get: this is a divorce document, presented by a husband to a wife who accepts it. They are then divorced in Jewish law. In a previous post I described the Jewish get in detail, emphasising how important it is for a divorce lawyer to ensure that any religious divorce takes place before the Degree Absolute is obtained.
On Saturday night, millions of Jewish people around the world will sit down to a festive dinner called the "Seder", to celebrate the beginning of the eight days of Passover.
Perhaps I have been fortunate; in my experience, arguments over religious divorce between parties are swiftly resolved. The row over the Archbishop of Canterbury and his comments about the "unavoidable" introduction of parts of Sharia law has gone global.
Over the festive period I gave you a fictional scenario to think over. I described a family struggling to deal with divorce, and asked what advice you would give them to secure the best outcome for their children. Could the family share a happy Christmas together? How should Ed and Jane help their sons Charlie and Sam come to terms with their separation and be happy again? We had a number of fantastic entries and I’d like to thank you all for taking the time to submit your thoughts.
This summer I ran a competition focused on a fictional scenario about a family falling apart at the seams, and asked what advice you would give them. Could the marriage be saved? What would a good financial settlement be? How could the couple best prepare their children? Given the overwhelming quality and number of the entries, I have decided to run another! This is a Christmas Competition, which will close on 3rd January 2012 at 9am. Once again, I am asking you to give your opinion of the outcome.
It has been a busy year for family law and, as it draws to a close, I note that the number of visitors to this blog in 2011 is into six figures. It’s a record number and once again I would like to thank all those readers, new and old, who have contributed their time, interest and comments.
I am very grateful to you all for following my blog, and I would like to wish you all a very happy and peaceful Christmas. In the words of Jose Feliciano, “I want to wish you a Merry Christmas from the bottom of my heart”. I have always loved his song ‘Feliz Navidad’.
Back to basics: how I think we can help our stretched courts
Why I think grandparents’ legal rights are fit for purpose by guest blogger David Milburn
Q&A on finances and divorce with Marilyn Stowe – Wednesday February 8th
HuffPost Divorce: The Top 10 Stereotypical Marriage Wreckers
Holocaust Memorial Day: why we must all protect our culture of tolerance
Marilyn Stowe is the Senior Partner at Stowe Family Law LLP. Stowe Family Law LLP is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. SRA ref 469401. Stowe Family Law LLP is registered with Companies House, ref. 331570, and registered for VAT, number 918 5722 04. A list of members is available for inspection at our Harrogate office.
Comments