When you are in shock, what can you do?

February 25th, 2010, by marilynstowe No Comments »

divorce-shockSometimes, clients who come to see me are in a state of shock. Not everyone appreciates how serious this condition can be. There are different medical types of shock, but psychological shock is a traumatic reaction following a dramatic, unexpected incident such as a family crisis. In my field it can often occur when the client unexpectedly learns of an affair and/or the other spouse’s decision to end the marriage.

It is important never to underestimate the impact of shock on a client. Shock affects a client’s state of mind and can take weeks, months or even longer to overcome. Some of those who find it difficult to return to normal can even develop the more serious (but treatable) condition known as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

When I see clients who appear to be suffering from shock, I politely and gently suggest that they return to see me when they are able to give me the information that I need to advise them appropriately – and also when they are able to make an informed decision about their future. It is clear even to me, a lay person, when a client is in deep shock and unable to take in a single word that I am saying. If a client persists, then of course I will give my advice – and I will follow it up in writing, as I do with all clients. At least the client will have something to read when they feel better able to take it in.

How does psychological shock manifest itself?

The symptoms vary but at first there may be numbness, a feeling of being dazed and an inability to absorb the information which has led to the shock. The mind will keep replaying the information, totally denying it, refusing to believe it can be true. Nothing else that is happening will matter: the surrounding circumstances, the people, what is playing on the radio… They will all blur into the background.

I had never experienced “shock” at first-hand until very recently. Put simply, it was awful. Continue reading »

Family comes first – and we often learn it the hard way

December 15th, 2009, by marilynstowe No Comments »

family-firstHow many of us take our loved ones for granted? It is easy to forget that in a split second, lives can be transformed forever.

Last week I had finished writing my post about John Ruskin, had exercised flat out on my Wattbike and was looking forward to a calorie-filled Sunday lunch with my sister Suzy and our husbands. We were going to try out a restaurant in Harrogate and then do some Xmas shopping.

Then the telephone rang – and everything changed.

My sister was crying on the phone. Our mum had fallen and was in hospital. Dad had called Suzy in a dreadful state and asked her for help. My parents rely very much on her because she is a wonderful nurse with them.

The accident had happened in Netanya, Israel, where my parents spend part of the year. Mum had been admitted to hospital and my sister needed to travel out as quickly as possible. We were told that it wasn’t serious: my mum was in shock, but ok.

Unlike Suzy, I know I’m not a good nurse – but I do have my uses. Within 20 minutes I had my sister and her London-based daughter, Abby, booked on the next flight out from Heathrow and a car had arrived to take Suzy straight to London’s Heathrow Airport. With Suzy on her way, I spent most of the day on the phone to my dad, trying to keep him calm. He sounded increasingly desperate as he described my mum’s condition. Very worried about them both, I telephoned some of their friends and asked them to see if they could help until my sister arrived. When the friends called back, they made some comments about my mum’s condition that worried me more. My sister arrived, phoned from the hospital and said that although my mum was suffering from superficial head injuries, her condition was stable and there was no need for my brother or me to travel out.

The next day the world changed again. Suzy asked me to get there as fast as I could. Continue reading »

Tepid welcome for Law Commission’s review of intestacy laws for cohabitants

November 4th, 2009, by marilynstowe 1 Comment »
Tepid welcome for Law Commission’s review of intestacy laws for cohabitants

logo

3 November 2009
Cohabitants who have lived together for more than five years could be given the same rights on death as married couples under plans unveiled by the Law Commission.
The proposals, out for consultation until 28 February 2010, suggest that if a cohabitant dies without a will and the couple do not have children, the survivor would have the same rights over the estate of the deceased partner as a surviving spouse in a marriage.
One option put forward by the commission would see the whole of the estate go to the surviving spouse or partner, a move that one lawyer described as “potential dynamite for probate solicitors”.
If there are children, the minimum qualifying period in cohabitation cases would drop to two years, but ordinary rules would apply by default if fewer than two years had elapsed.
But family lawyers have only given a tepid welcome to the consultation.
For Tina Dunn, a partner in the family team at Mace and Jones, the review is appropriate but she is disappointed at the piecemeal approach.
“There have been talks about giving cohabitants certain rights for some time, not just intestacy,” she says. “So this is a step in the right direction but it fails to tackle separation.”
Nicola Plant, head of private client at Thomas Eggar, agreed the proposals only address a comparatively minor issue without looking at the whole cohabitation picture.
“There is a lot of talk about intestacy rights but there is no mention of responsibilities,” she said. “Would it be right for you to have a right to claim on my estate but no responsibility to me during my lifetime? The proposals only look at what happens on death, but you can’t look at this without addressing the whole issue of cohabitation and how you define it.”
Marilyn Stowe, senior partner at Stowe Family Law, goes further. “Separation of cohabitants as a result of death is rare but when it happens it can be a nightmare,” she comments. “What is needed is complete harmonisation of cohabitation with marriage.”
Stowe says there are far more issues with assets and property on separation as a result of breakdown, and that intestacy disputes are a much rarer occurrence compared with cohabitation disputes between live partners.
She said the ‘economic loss’ approach in a previous Law Commission paper on cohabitation provided a suitable model. “It didn’t equate cohabitation with marriage and offered less of a remedy than in marriage breakdowns, but it offered a remedy nonetheless,” she says.
But it is the lack of political commitment which Stowe said could endanger any move towards greater rights for cohabitants, with the current government waiting to see the result of changes to the law in Scotland, and the Conservatives having spoken against specific legislation.
Tom Farley-Hills, a solicitor in the private client team at Speechly Bircham, is equally doubtful that without such support this latest proposal will herald more fundamental, much-needed change.
“The recommendations might indicate that momentum for reform of cohabitation law is building. I am just not sure whether there is any political will currently to make these recommendations law.”
Dependency claims: costly and tricky
-
Claims under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 can be expensive and evidence of dependency difficult to collate.
Some firms have nonetheless reported a rise in claims, and Tom Farley-Hills said the proposals could help reverse this trend.
Costs are a significant factor, making many individuals who could potentially qualify as applicants under the Inheritance Act not pursue a claim. They are also the main reason why the estate will not contest such claims.
Marilyn Stowe says the majority of the disputes she handles under the Act settled for these reasons.
“Most Inheritance Act claims are successful and the person executing the will is understanding. There will usually be some skirmishes but disputes usually settle rather than go to court, mainly because of the costs risk,” she says.
The other main difficulty is the ability to provide evidence of dependency, according to Tina Dunn.
“Claimants would initially approach the executor, who acts in the interest of the beneficiaries,” Dunn says.
“Dependency is not a matter of equality and there will be competing interests over the estate. The executor or the judge will have to rely on what was said when the deceased was alive. Letters or the fact that partners shared bank accounts will help establish dependency, but it will often be somebody’s word against somebody else’s.”
From the comment pages of the Yorkshire Post, 23/10/2009.

From the Solicitors Journal, 03/11/2009.

Tepid welcome for Law Commission’s review of intestacy laws for cohabitants

Cohabitants who have lived together for more than five years could be given the same rights on death as married couples under plans unveiled by the Law Commission.

The proposals, out for consultation until 28 February 2010, suggest that if a cohabitant dies without a will and the couple do not have children, the survivor would have the same rights over the estate of the deceased partner as a surviving spouse in a marriage.marilyn-blog-about

One option put forward by the commission would see the whole of the estate go to the surviving spouse or partner, a move that one lawyer described as “potential dynamite for probate solicitors”.

If there are children, the minimum qualifying period in cohabitation cases would drop to two years, but ordinary rules would apply by default if fewer than two years had elapsed.

But family lawyers have only given a tepid welcome to the consultation.

Continue reading >

Prenuptial Agreements: A Family Affair?

August 12th, 2008, by marilynstowe 2 Comments »

Parents of prospective brides and grooms are coming to see me in increasing numbers, to ask about prenups.

My opinions on prenuptial agreements are well known. I don’t like them, do not believe that they are “socially necessary” and do not believe that they should be automatically legally binding. I would not have signed one myself – nor married anyone who asked me to as a precondition of marriage.

However, parents of prospective brides and grooms are coming to see me in increasing numbers, to ask about prenups. Many of these parents are wealthy, some are super-wealthy and others are not wealthy at all. What they share are concerns about what will happen if their children’s marriages break down. They don’t want any of their hard-earned cash to pass to the divorcing spouses, and they are determined to protect their money.

It’s understandable. But is it reasonable – or advisable – to expect a future son or daughter-in-law to enter into a prenuptial agreement? I’m not so sure. What is often overlooked is the effect of a prenuptial agreement on the marriage itself.  Continue reading »

Faith, family and divorce

April 17th, 2008, by marilynstowe 4 Comments »

Faith can be of real help to those inclined to call upon it.

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.

It is an opportunity for the whole family to gather round the dinner table and retell the biblical story of how Moses led the Children of Israel out of Egypt, crossing the Red Sea and wandering in the wilderness for 40 years, before arriving in Israel, the Promised Land. They escaped slavery and avoided the 10 plagues, which “passed over” their homes.

It is a time for the children to take part by asking four questions of the family. Traditionally, these are sung in Hebrew by the youngest child present, who starts off by asking, “Why is this night different from all other nights?” Those gathered round give answers, enjoy their dinner and give thanks for their survival. It is a festival which passes on the story of Jewish survival against all the odds. Moreover – and importantly – it is a time for celebration of the family and family life.

It is the issue of faith, no matter how that faith is defined, that repeatedly comes back to me in my everyday work. This, despite the fact that faith is often viewed as being “off the wall”, “irrelevant” or the provenance of extremists.

In a world that seems to worship the “have it all” mentality, no matter what the cost, so many of us seem to have forgotten that faith can be a force for good. Faith can give us a set of moral standards against which we can judge ourselves and make decisions. According to a recent study, we are all much wealthier than we were 20 years ago; but how many of us stop to give thanks for what we have? What we have is precious, but is easily lost – and all too easily thrown away. Continue reading »

Hell hath no fury…

November 14th, 2007, by marilynstowe No Comments »

[youtube]http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=xakxVk5_lsk[/youtube]

When Heather Mills made a spectacle out of herself on worldwide television recently, I found it difficult to sympathise with her. Quite simply, she was out of control: “on a frolic of her own”, as lawyers are wont to say. She has become mired in a mixture of self-pity, anger, self-righteousness and the injustice of an imagined nightmare endured in front of the world. Aligning herself with the McCann family and the late Princess of Wales, she seemed to be saying to us: “You have pity on them – have pity on me”.

 Ms Mills is playing out her role as abandoned wife for all she is worth. She has her side of the story to tell, and I have no doubt at all that she believes every word she says. She has been lambasted in the media, but her efforts are producing results: the image of Sir Paul, a national treasure, has now been tarnished.

I think she intends to continue – and make a fortune into the bargain. From a legal perspective, however, Heather Mills is pushing her luck to the limit. She is not supposed to discuss her marriage until the case is over. In all probability, speaking out has already cost her a small fortune in her settlement.

Last year, in an article written for The Times, I suggested that Sir Paul should pay up generously and fast, to gag his errant wife for his own sake and for that of his family. Sadly, this never happened; the damage has been done and is likely to worsen. Will Sir Paul be able to stop her- permanently – in the court battle to come? Last year I might have said no, but her uncontrolled display has led me to reconsider this prospect.

Undoubtedly, Ms Mills has the right to freedom of expression. However, under Article 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950, Sir Paul and his family from his first marriage have a right to a private life too. Under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, they also have the right to protection from harassment. Therefore they can ask the court to make a permanent injunction, to stop Ms Mills washing the family’s dirty laundry in public.

Continue reading »

Pandora’s Box

November 6th, 2007, by marilynstowe 1 Comment »

“If you had the opportunity, would you?”

A smart, attractive lady in her mid 40s came to see me recently. She is a lawyer by profession. Our meeting began very calmly and her problem soon became clear.

She is married to a chartered accountant. He is a partner in a multinational firm. They have three children, aged between eight and 14. They enjoy an affluent lifestyle. They have no particular worries and life proceeds smoothly.  On the surface, all is well and they are the perfect family.

She certainly hadn’t been looking for romance outside her marriage. Unfortunately, it arrived in the guise of an old university friend.

He is the MD of a successful family business. They hadn’t met for 20 years, but bumped into one another on opposite sides of a commercial transaction. He has a family, but has long since divorced his own wife. They “clicked” and have now embarked on a passionate affair.

Her husband has noticed she has become withdrawn and is worried about her. However, he suspects nothing. Listening to her, I was reminded of the film Unfaithful, which starred Richard Gere and Diane Lane as a “perfect” couple torn apart by the wife’s affair.

This lady wanted advice on the likely outcome of a divorce. When I asked how she thought divorce would impact upon her family, she burst into tears and her control slipped. All her guilt came tumbling out, and she said it was a relief to cry. She used up a lot of the tissues I keep in my desk. She said quite simply that it would devastate them all.

Continue reading »