How many parents really understand what their children want and what they need?

Perhaps it was my reaction to the McCartney divorce that prompted me to take some time out for a week’s vacation with my son. At the request of a journalist, I had been considering what Beatrice McCartney’s feelings may be if, when she reaches an age to understand, a kind “friend” shows her a copy of Mr. Justice Bennett’s gruesome judgment of her mother. At the very least, it could cause her a lot of pain. And how will her psychological development be affected by such turbulence within her family?

People talk a lot about the impact of divorce on children. Even so, when I listen to some of them, I have the feeling it is only lip service. How many parents really listen to their children, to try and understand what they want and what they need?

 I am not divorced myself, but I do have a child. On an impulse, I decided to whisk my son away to the heat of the desert in Eilat, Israel for a week. I hoped to find out how he was faring in his student world. He has certainly been working very hard. As it turned out, he wasn’t the only one with plenty on his mind. Continue reading »

Could she have had a second bite of the cherry?

Clearly, Heather Mills was distraught when she stood on the steps of the Royal Courts of Justice and ranted about her award, the judgment and her treatment at the hands of the English court.

There are those in her camp who argue that the judgment was an extraordinarily cruel dissection of her crude attempts to present her case as a litigant in person, against the man who is arguably the best matrimonial finance barrister in the country. Quite why Heather Mills chose such a course of action is a mystery. But choose it she did, notwithstanding the fact that at present, a major criticism of English law in this area is that no-one can say with absolute certainty what the parameters are for settlements in short marriage, “big money” cases. There are so many possibilities. And so I wondered if, despite all the vitriol aimed at Heather, she has actually been an innocent victim of very unclear law?

When I read the judgment and noticed that the parties owned homes abroad, I wondered hypothetically what her position might have been if the facts had changed a little. What if Sir Paul McCartney, instead of being a homegrown superstar, had been a superstar in a foreign country?

If he had divorced her in that country in order to protect his financial position, knowing that the law of that country was much more favourable to him than elsewhere, and she had received only the tiniest fraction of his wealth, could she have come back to England and tried again? Could the courts - the same courts that made this week’s judgment - allowed her a second bite of the cherry and awarded her more?

Continue reading »

  From the Guardian’s commentisfree… blog, 18/03/2008.

Heather Mills may have done well out of her marriage to Paul McCartney. But to get there the couple waged a vicious and unnecessary war

By Marilyn Stowe

Millions of spectators round the world have been following the divorce battle between the McCartneys. It has grabbed media attention like no other case since the divorce of the Prince and Princess of Wales.

It was vicious. It was played out for all it was worth. On the one side: the abhorred but greatly distressed wife, who acts and speaks before she thinks. On the other: a tight-lipped phalanx of the most expensive black-suited lawyers in the country, out for a big win.

And now that it is over, it seems clear to me that there are no winners. Instead, everyone has come away humiliated.

McCartney publicly dumped Heather Mills. He issued proceedings against her based on her “unreasonable behaviour“. Knowing her as well as he did, what did he expect her reaction would be? Deeply wounded, she emerged to fight back in every way she could - and the parties went to war.

If ever there was a way not to conduct a divorce it was this.

Continue reading »

Will there be blood on the courtroom carpet this week?

As Sir Paul McCartney and Heather Mills face one another other in court this week, Sir Paul will be flanked by some of the country’s toughest lawyers. Ms. Mills, meanwhile, has elected to represent herself. To my way of thinking, having represented a client in a similar scenario only last week in London’s High Court, to go into court unrepresented is as foolhardy as anyone could ever imagine.

For those unfamiliar with the facilities at the Royal Courts of Justice, let me describe the atmosphere in the sombre courtroom. . Until a final deal is signed and approved by the Court, a fully fought contest could yet take place. Even an agreement reached “in principle” does not guarantee a done deal - and could still break down. Continue reading »

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 »