For example, in the past few days a reader called Lily has left the following request in the comments section of a post about my appearance on GMTV in early 2010.

“Hi! I need some information about financial settlement for divorce. I was married for 5 years and I left the marital home rented a new flat and took my 5 year old daughter with me. He was controlling and used to threaten me. It has been 1 year and a half that we are separated. The divorce is going through. I’m the petitioner and the judge agreed to unreasonable behaviour. Decree nisi will be granted tomorrow. The child contact it was agreed by the court through a contact order so he sees her every other weekend and half of school holidays. My question is he is saying he will not sign any clean break or any settlements. As I left home he says I’m not entitled to anything. But by law I know I am. The house is in his sole name. He used to pay the mortgage but I used to pay all the utility bills. When I left my solicitor put a charge on the house but I can’t afford solicitor no more, I don’t know what to do now. Do I have to apply to court to decide the financial bits? To be honest I’m not that interested in house but I’m worried that there was some debts in both names that not been paid. Thanks for your time.”

Sometimes I don’t have enough information to answer detailed questions from readers, but this one caught my eye and I can answer it on a general basis because what Lily wants is some general advice about what she can claim financially upon divorce. I’m happy to give her a reply and I intend to do so in a novel way for this blog.

On Wednesday 8^th February I will be answering similar 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 won’t give you detailed advice as to what you should specifically settle for, or how to resolve your dispute with the CSA, because only a lawyer retained by you can provide such a level of professional support. But my advice is given entirely free of charge and without liability.

So I am happy to guide you and the rest of my readers along the journey and if you would like to write to me on that basis then I’m happy to provide an opinion.

Your questions could concern:

·        Financing divorce proceedings and costs

.        The process

.        The Law

·        Financial disclosure – pitfalls

·        Maintenance arrangements, interim, term or lifetime

.        The impact of cohabitation on maintenance

.        Bankruptcy

.        Pensions

.        The division of Matrimonial and Non-matrimonial Assets such as inherited, and pre-acquired assets

.       Trusts

.       Children

It is a huge subject and understandably readers have their concerns. I look forward to your questions and will endeavour to answer all of them. Please pose all questions on the forum, as you are unable to comment on this post.

The subject matter came to mind a week ago when I was doing a spinning class in the local gym -I couldn’t help noticing that there are a lot of ‘glammed up’ men and women who never end the class looking as bad as me! It set my imagination going, and gave me something to concentrate on through a long spinning session and this post is the result. So far over 700 US readers have left comments on HuffPost Divorce and it is now tagged as one of its Most Popular posts. It has also been reprinted in various languages across the world. I’m really thrilled that my thoughts have transferred with such overwhelming approval to an American and worldwide audience.I hope you enjoy it too. I do like being called “Attorney Stowe”!

HuffPost Divorce was inspired by HuffPost’s thrice-married editor-at-large Nora Ephron, best known as the screenwriter of romantic comedies including When Harry Met Sally… and Sleepless in Seattle.  It was Nora who came up with the section’s tagline: “Marriage comes and goes but divorce is forever…” Since its launch, HuffPost Divorce has gained a community of loyal readers and, if you are currently going through separation or divorce, I recommend that you take a look.

To read the Top 10 Stereotypical Marriage Wreckers, click the image below.

But London is different. There is no such thing as leisurely or friendly, or so it seems to me. The pace is fast, people race along the pavements, no one smiles and everyone looks positively grumpy.

It was raining yesterday when I set off for the first full day at our new office, so I hailed a cab. Coming up Chancery Lane we drove past a fellow family lawyer who had his head down and was striding towards his office. Dressed all in grey and looking thoroughly miserable, his mood seemed to match the day perfectly.

“What have I let myself in for?” I asked myself as we swept past.

I don’t think people are fully back at work yet. High Holborn wasn’t as jam packed as usual and arrived in good time and felt relieved to see a set of friendly faces. Partner Gavin Scott who has come down from Hale and Paul Read, my trusted lieutenant from Harrogate. They both inspire confidence and I’ve no doubt they will inspire others too. Then in breezed Andrew Williams, our firm’s chief executive, who was fresh off the train with one of our senior secretaries to induct the new admin staff. All their firm, confident voices were very reassuring and I started to relax, despite all the teething troubles everyone who has ever set up a new office knows only too well!

On my walk home yesterday evening I was struck by just how dark the London streets were; the outlines of those same fast moving commuters only illuminated by the yellow light of passing cars, shops and street lights. When I reached home I found my flat was also uninvitingly cold, dark and empty.

I love being in London, but always know that my real home lies waiting in Yorkshire – and that I can head home whenever I want. This is something that those in broken relationships can’t do: go home. They are often trapped with feelings of loneliness, isolation and anxiety and my heart goes out to them at one of the toughest times of the year.

People don’t like living empty, grey and lonely lives. They like to be happy, which generally means living as one half of a couple. They like the companionship and all that brings: conversation, colour, arguments and ups and downs. Even if another party is involved, a marriage break down can still be achingly, unbearably painful and lonely. And divorce doesn’t give anyone immunity from pain.

So why does Sir Paul Coleridge, who has spoken on the same theme for some time now, think it’s possible to set-up a brand new foundation to save broken marriages? Why does he keep saying it’s as straightforward as his catchy slogan: “mend it – don’t end it”? How can he really think his foundation will work when a couple may have decided it can’t, and that their lives have changed for ever?

Had Sir Paul not been a hugely successful QC at the family bar before going up to the bench, and had he not personally known all his clients inside out, I could have better understood the formation of his Marriage Foundation. He must have heard first-hand from his clients during conference, when they were talking to him and pouring out their heart’s emotions, feelings and pain, that it is not as easy as to simply say “mend it” rather than “end it”.

A broken relationship is not always even the result of a mutual decision. A relationship usually starts to break down years or months before it finally does. The couple starts to “uncouple” and if they don’t realise what’s happening to them, by the time they do it will be years too late. I’ve heard of countless couples who realise there is nothing left when their children leave home. One or both of them choose to end the marriage and move on to start a fresh chapter while it’s still possible.

Divorce lawyers know by the time they meet their client any chance of a successful reconciliation is almost impossible. It can happen, but in my experience it doesn’t often – and that is nothing to do with me! I don’t make those decisions and know that the loneliness of a broken relationship can never be underestimated.

I have also never yet met a divorcing parent who doesn’t agonise over their children, who doesn’t consider the pain being inflicted on the family, but who also believes that overall the decision is best for all of them. These decisions are never easily made, they are made because those involved genuinely believe, or have come to accept, that the relationship that once existed is now dead. Criticise them or not, understand them or not, these couples have a right to end a marriage in the same way they have a right to enter into it.

So if any good needs to be done for society then by all mean let’s encourage couples into marriage, something which Sir Paul says is the gold standard for a family. There I completely agree, but the number of couples marrying is substantially dropping, so there is obvious work to be done by his foundation and others.

But again I recognise that not everyone does want to marry.  I happen to agree there is more chance of a successful family if the parents are married, but to try and force couples to get married or force them to stay married is, to my mind, plainly wrong. To impose a different standard on them, to require them to ‘mend it-not end it’ is wrong.

I also wonder whether the Marriage Foundation will campaign for divorce reform, and if so, should a judge be involved? And while I respect Sir Paul’s decision to speak out and campaign, isn’t a “guilty” party going to feel concerned if he or she comes before him in court, knowing of his views?

Some of the year’s most popular posts are listed below, and I was also interested to note how different the list is to this time last year. Some of the older posts continue to draw lots of readers, but in the current climate perhaps it isn’t surprising that maintenance payments and property-related issues are hot topics. There are, however, several new entrants. The new Family Procedure Rules, which came into force in April, are a must-read for clients as well as lawyers. The case of Kernott v Jones, a cohabitees’ property dispute heard in the Supreme Court earlier this year, seems to have made a lot of people sit up straight. In fact, almost half the posts below concern cohabitation: to me, this serves to show how the calls to reform cohabiting couples’ rights (or lack of rights) have continued to gather volume over the past 12 months.

Finally, I am pleased to see that three guest bloggers from Stowe Family Law’s talented team have made the cut this year! Rachel Baul specialises in all areas of family law and wins rave reviews from the firm’s clients. Paul Read is a solicitor and former barrister, who will be transferring to our London office in the New Year. Laura Guillon is a trainee solicitor whose detailed and informative posts about parents, children and moving away were, I think, brought to life by her personal experiences.

Maintenance payments and a new partner: bad news for cohabitees? (Part 2)

“The Court of Appeal has issued a judgment that should help to resolve this grey area, even though it will mean wives who choose to cohabit could stand to lose their maintenance. Put starkly, in line with changing social attitudes the pendulum has swung away from dependent wives. They may now be faced with very tough choices post-divorce: do they live with someone, or keep their maintenance?”

Mesher Orders and Martin Orders: What You Need To Know

“A Mesher order is one that I would advise a client to avoid if possible. Such a proposal is commonly made during negotiations by the spouse who continues to pay maintenance. If the other spouse has hopes for an amicable settlement and wishes to remain in the marital home, a Mesher order can appear to be an attractive option. Unfortunately, it can result in far more long-term problems than it solves in the short-term.”

Delaying the Decree Absolute: another look at Miller Smith v Miller Smith

“If one party wants the divorce to be finalised but the other does not, and the parties’ finances have not been resolved, may the decree absolute be delayed?”

Kernott v Jones: a case of square pegs and round holes

“The appeal in Kernott v Jones was heard today by the Supreme Court. It was heard by five heavyweight judges including Baroness Hale and Sir Nicholas Wilson, in his first case as a new appointee to the Court.

“The question at hand is this: to what extent (if at all) will the Supreme Court push the boundaries of joint property law ownership, where one party has contributed far more than the other?”

Maintenance payments and a new partner – what happens next? (Part 1)

“Your ex-wife has moved on and is now happily living with a new partner. They are in a stable, supportive relationship and he doesn’t seem short of cash. So why are you still paying her regular maintenance?”

The CSA: Rachel Baul Answers More of Your Questions

“Question: I have been charged arrears and the CSA cannot provide a breakdown of these arrears. What can I do? I’m still having to pay, although I know for a fact I do not owe them. This is on top of what I already pay – in total, £320 out of £1000 a month”

Family Procedure Rules 2010: Financial Orders

This post is part of a series about the Family Procedure Rules 2010, which focuses upon some of the most important changes for practitioners and clients. Today we are going to look at Part 9 of the Family Procedure Rules 2010: Applications for a Financial Remedy. It is time to say goodbye to the archaic term ancillary relief, and hello to the financial order.

Family Procedure Rules 2010: A Guide

The Family Procedure Rules 2010, which are effective from 6 April 2011, are an essential read for solicitors and clients throughout England and Wales because they herald major changes in family law’s procedures and practice. When they come into force there will be just one code, which is intended to modernise and standardise family court practice across the High Court, County Court and Magistrates’ Court.

The law on cohabitation and property: who owns the house? By guest blogger Paul Read.

“In short, the law for cohabiting couples in dispute over property is something of a mess and in urgent need of clarification. But as it stands, and to gain a full picture of the situation, there are several issues that need to be explored.”

External relocation: when a parent wishes to move overseas with a child, what rules apply? By guest blogger Laura Guillon.

“If a relationship breaks down and there are children involved, what rules are applied to cases when one parent wishes to move with the children to another country? In this post, we will be looking at the rules – and how they could change in the future.”

My Christmas present from Stowe Family Law’s PR agency, Tinderbox Media, made me laugh at the end of a hectic week and I wanted to share it with you. Karyn Fleeting who heads the agency is about to give birth within a few days but stays at work as if nothing is happening – although I think her Christmas is going to be very busy indeed! She walked over to my office in Harrogate to deliver this incredibly thoughtful gift. It is a Tom Knight illustration inspired by a tongue-in-cheek comment I made on this blog back in September, in response to a reader who thanked me for some advice.

Our new London office on Fulwood Place is in the background – and even my Birkin bag has been faithfully reproduced!

With 2012 shaping up to be a busy year, I could probably do with some wheels…

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. So, while it wasn’t for me, many of my friends did go on to become barristers and now play an active role in the spectacle of court hearings.

Three decades on I value the opinions of some as it is good to get a different perspective and discuss difficult points. It’s also good to hand over a case to an advocate whose job it is to represent my client in court. I have no problem sharing the risk and instructing counsel to do the job they are trained to do, while other solicitors prefer to keep the advocacy for themselves.

Recently the Bar Standards Board announced it is considering making it easier for members of the public to instruct barristers directly. The move follows the BSB’s decision earlier this year to remove the prohibition on barristers conducting litigation work, and will inevitably bring them into closer competition with solicitors.

It doesn’t make much sense to me. Solicitors have clear skills that barristers lack, and vice versa. Limited experience of dealing with clients directly, on a day-to-day basis, puts barristers at an immediate disadvantage in an increasingly specialised industry that is focused on client care and delivering consistent, cost effective results.

Increased specialisation has meant law firms can only compete by investing in their teams. Solicitors, trainees and assistants are now joined by admin and human resources teams, client care executives, researchers, IT specialists and marketers. In contrast, the Bar, with its one-man barrister brand with no ability to delegate and every case a nightly challenge, faces an uphill struggle to compete on the same terms. Barristers simply aren’t equipped in their Dickensian set up to deal with the needs of clients in the 21st century – day in, day out.

Room for everyone

So what would my solution be? To me it’s blindingly obvious. Increasingly, we have a New York-style operation in my firm, with a barrister and a German Rechtsanwalt who are both qualified solicitors. And we have another barrister who has recently joined as a trainee solicitor. We have a team of forensic accountants who were initially an ‘experiment’ but now fit perfectly into our structure. We all work together, complementing one another on a daily basis. In due course we will also set up a dedicated advocacy unit comprising more barristers all working under the same umbrella. It’s an exciting concept and one that I am confident clients will appreciate.

We each bring specialist knowledge and experience to the firm. It provides barristers with a wider context in which to practise and allows clients to benefit through increased choice and a greater pool of expertise at the earliest stages of their case – two of the BSB’s stated aims in relaxing the rules. In an amalgamated law firm, there is room for everyone.

I believe it would make more sense, for the consumer and us all, if we fused our profession under one name and worked together, rather than competed to do jobs that neither profession is fully equipped or trained to complete.

The great divide

There is no doubt that inequalities still persist in the legal profession because of the distinction between solicitors and barristers: one recent report highlighted the sad truth that, in the past ten years, not one solicitor has been appointed to the High Court.

This is clearly a fact that should lead to some soul searching within the highest echelons of the legal community, and I believe that increasing competition between the Bar and solicitors does nothing to resolve the fundamental inequalities faced within the profession. Indeed, to my mind it is these inequalities that prevent the justice system from being fairer and more representative – two aims that should surely be at the forefront of our minds as we wait to see what 2012 holds in store.

Despite these weighty issues, I do hope you all enjoy a relaxing and happy Christmas – and offer my best wishes for a prosperous and healthy New Year!

Beachy Head and the hills of the South Downs, near Eastbourne in East Sussex, were close to where we were staying at the weekend.  It is possible to walk (or run or cycle) for mile after undisturbed mile, and there is a welcoming pub on the journey. We passed lone walkers, small groups and families with young children, all out walking the chalk hills.

Other groups of volunteer walkers tread the same pathways, but for different reasons. They are watching for people who contemplate suicide. Beachy Head may be beautiful, but it also has a reputation as one of the saddest places on Earth, a place where people go to jump and end it all.

Suicidal thoughts are not the same as suicidal acts. In my work, I often encounter people who tell me that a partner has threatened to commit suicide. In life, I have found that the people who do commit suicide are – thankfully – rare. In my experience these cases have often been unexpected, and have been people who were never judged to be at risk.  I have wanted to understand why but the answers, when there are answers, are often wanting in themselves.

By a horrible coincidence, news broke the next day about the tragic death of the Wales football manager Gary Speed, aged just 42. Why he chose to do what he did is currently unknown, but the reasons will come out in due course. In the meantime the news has been met with shock and sympathy from sport fans and non-sport fans alike, and tributes have been pouring in.

I walked to Beachy Head twice at the weekend. Both times it was interesting to note how the light was different, depending on the direction in which you were facing. Heading east, towards Beachy Head, the light faded. Both times, when I turned on my heel to head back towards Eastbourne, I noticed how much lighter and sunnier it was heading west. I took two photos:

Heading east: Beachy Head.

Heading west again, 15 minutes later.

Local people in Eastbourne have told me that Beachy Head’s reputation has “cast a shadow” over their seaside town. I think they are right – perhaps in more ways than one.

Up on that cliff path, with the sea swirling below, I certainly had an impression of great sadness. However it wasn’t a bleak place to be. If anything it felt very peaceful up there.  But I didn’t find an answer to the question of why Beachy Head draws the desperate and the defeated to its edge. To me it was a very beautiful and exhilarating walk, albeit one with a sad and unpleasant history. Perhaps that very same beauty is where the answer lies.

Back in Eastbourne, we walked along the promenade and finally headed back to our hotel. It was the same hotel where, more than 100 years ago, Debussy completed his great work La Mer. Musicians have described it as a “miracle of natural reproduction” and “the most beautiful [recording] in the whole history of the gramophone”. Debussy’s view from his suite, of the very same sea that swirls below Beachy Head, inspired him to create great music rather than to dark thoughts of hopelessness and death.

When there are no clear answers, it is difficult to help. But to my mind, this also means that we cannot and should not judge. You turn one way or another, towards the dark or towards the light – and that also goes for those who are left behind. Let us hope that those driven to take their lives, wherever and however they have chosen to do so, find rest; and that those who are left behind find peace.

If you need to speak to someone:

Samaritans provides confidential emotional support 24/7 to those experiencing despair, distress or suicidal feelings.

The wonderful charity MIND also provides a confidential advice and support service.

From a converted cobbler’s shop in Leeds to opening a third office in central London, Marilyn Stowe’s practice has come a long way in 30 years – but it hasn’t always been an easy ride, she explains as she celebrates her firm’s anniversary

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 30^th anniversary.

As so many founders of law firms have discovered before me, there is a world of difference between being a good lawyer and running a successful practice. Although the past 30 years haven’t always been a smooth ride, I wouldn’t swap them and I’d like to share some of what I have learned along the way.

The first office opened in 1982, in a converted cobbler’s shop in a modest suburb of Leeds. My husband, also a solicitor, had the idea for me to “branch out”. The area he chose had the city’s densest conurbation of both private and council housing, and a good mix of conveyancing and legal aid work was expected. With a secretary for company, I opened for business.

In reality, of course, it wasn’t as simple as that. The first piece of advice that I would give to any solicitor hoping to set up his or her own practice is this: even if you are bursting with entrepreneurial vision, don’t expect any “easy wins”.  My first office was funded by a bank loan of £28,000 – quite a sum to borrow in those days – and I felt the pressure keenly.

I set myself a target of one new case per day. A will, a house purchase, a debt, a divorce… anything! It was soon clear that when it came to building a good reputation locally, there were no shortcuts. It didn’t help that the regulations of the time prohibited solicitors from advertising their services. Instead, I made regular rounds of all the local building societies, estate agents, hairdressers and shops, introducing myself and trying to charm people into sending work my way. It was a slow, time-consuming process, and it certainly wasn’t what I had envisaged doing when I decided to become a lawyer, but eventually it paid off. People in the area got to know me and I used to chat with new acquaintances who, in turn, referred their friends and family.

These days firms are able to promote themselves in a variety of ways, from billboards to Twitter, but I believe that for any new firm, the same principle still applies. Reputations are formed over time and with great care, piece by piece, referral by referral.

There was also a good deal of opposition and cynicism to overcome, even from suppliers. In 1982, female company directors were a novelty in Yorkshire. My bank manager of the time made weekly “inspection visits”. The majority of competitors and suppliers were men, many of whom clearly regarded female business owners as doomed curiosities. Others were rude to my face. Times have changed and anybody opening a practice in 2012 is unlikely to face what I did 30 years ago, but one challenging business environment has been replaced with another. For a solicitor today it may be “Tesco Law” and current economic conditions. My advice: don’t underestimate your challenges, but never underestimate how far determination and tenacity can take you.

In the early years I frequently felt completely alone, but managed somehow. Eventually I was able to take on additional staff and the office began to grow.

What might I have done differently? Well, you have more time to devote to business if you have someone at home caring for the children. My husband is a legal aid lawyer who works every hour he can, so I never had that luxury. It has to be said that unless you can leave your baby for more than half a day at a time, which I never could, family life can clip your wings. During the 1990s and beyond, I turned down a number of opportunities to grow the firm in a different direction and at a faster rate. I don’t regret this though. My family came first and always will.

The biggest sacrifice was the decision to stop doing legal aid work, which I loved. Childcare commitments, along with reduced working hours, meant that I had to maximise profits in order to sustain the firm. Financially it made sense; in other ways it was a difficult break to make.

However when I stand outside our newest office, watching the four-storey building take shape, I can’t help but smile when I think back to those modest rooms in the cobbler’s shop. Thirty years later, those feelings of excitement, trepidation and gratitude are exactly the same. Strike out on your own and you are in for quite some ride – but if your experience is anything like mine, you won’t look back.

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. What the future in- laws thought of us, in the midst of complete chaos, where we all had to pitch in I can’t begin to imagine.

“Did you ever see the movie Meet The Fockers?” I asked them at one point, thinking of the film in which Ben Stiller’s in-laws meet his wacky family. Although they had not, and this was their first visit to meet us, they took the madness in good part – even when my sister’s two little dogs burst through the French doors into the dining room and ran under the table to play with the guests’ legs. As we were leaving, my husband’s big feet sent the dogs’ water bowl in the hall flying and soaked the carpet. Abby and Jonny, madly in love, sailed through it all, oblivious. Jonny has turned out to be a perfect fit for the family. He’s seen us au naturel for some time now and never flinched. Long may he stay that way!

As for me, I was tired out. Last week was as hectic a week as I can remember. Our firm’s PR company, Tinderbox Media, leapt into action when the Kernott v Jones judgment was handed down on Wednesday. I was despatched to London and I appeared on BBC Breakfast the next morning, and also wrote a half-page editorial with advice for cohabiting couples, which appeared in The Daily Telegraph on Saturday.

There was no time for praise, or discussion at dinner. There was too much going on.  Mum fights a daily battle to keep going. She amazes me with her resilience and bravery: how does she manage to keep her spirits up? She and my dad sat and smiled through the chaotic dinner. They were clearly delighted to be surrounded by the family and the future in laws. Dad is nearly 80, but copes wonderfully and always has a brave face despite his fears and concerns.

He has himself become something of a “mini celebrity” recently. The photograph of him running with Sir Jimmy Savile (below) has appeared in a number of local newspapers, submitted by others who were also in the picture. He smiled when everyone teased him at dinner about being famous. I told the future in-laws about his brilliant marathon running career (Dad has run more than 50 marathons in his time) and they were clearly impressed.

The conversation turned to my hobby of going to spinning classes at the local gym. I told them my favourite lesson of the week was coming up on Sunday morning, with an instructor who is also trained in Thai boxing and gets the class cycling faster, harder and reaching higher levels than the rest. He is fantastic.

It’s funny how coincidences happen. As I was leaving the spinning class on Sunday, I thanked the instructor. Out of the blue he asked me how my father was. I have no idea how he knew the connection, perhaps he saw him in the Jimmy Savile photos in the press. Anyhow it turns out that 20 years ago, when a youngster he used to wash dad’s car. He lived with his mum behind the local pizza restaurant, and he recalled dad being “a real gentleman”. He said some great things about Dad and asked me to pass on his best wishes, although he thought that Dad would probably have forgotten him.

Forgotten him? Dad remembered him in a flash. “Nice lad”, he said. “They had it tough. He lost his father quite young. Very nice lad.” He said nothing more and didn’t need to. My dad is a very decent man.

So Jonny, what kind of family are you marrying into? Do you need to panic? I don’t think so.  Consider this from me, (one of its more mature members) to you. This weekend my dear father had, unspoken, taught me another important lesson in life about values that really count.

It’s very exciting to appear on TV, to appear in national newspapers and to receive positive comments afterwards, all in one week. But none of that can ever compare to acts of decency and kindness that survive in the hearts and memories of others for twenty years.

Thanks Dad.

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.

My previous posts about Kernott v Jones:

What the Kernott v Jones judgment means for cohabiting couples – a look at the implications of the Supreme Court’s decision for everyday families, along with the Supreme Court’s press summary.

Kernott v Jones in the Supreme Court: what you need to know – I wrote this post the day before the Supreme Court handed down the ruling, predicting the case’s outcome (correctly, as it turned out). This post is lengthy, but aims to provide a breakdown of the legal arguments for lawyers and non-lawyers alike.

Kernott v Jones: a case of square pegs and round holes – when the case was heard by the Supreme Court, back in May 2011, I argued that rigid and outdated property law was ill-equipped to regulate the end of a cohabitating relationship that had been every bit as financially complex as a marriage.

Of course, I am not the only lawyer to have blogged about Kernott v Jones this week. For those with an interest in the case, here are some different perspectives, including two from property lawyers:

Nearly Legal | Jones v Kernott: Ending the big debate? – “My hope is that this line of cases will somehow re-connect the law with everyday life to the extent that is possible.  It will undoubtedly lead to more litigation.”

Family Law | Hayley Trim’s Analysis – “I wonder how many judgments we will now see saying ‘I infer from the parties’ conduct that they intended that they would share the property in these shares. And in the alternative, even if it is not possible to infer such an intention, it is fair having regard to the whole course of dealing in relation to the property to impute such an intention to them.’ Probably quite a few.”

Law and Lawyers | Cohabitation: what about the house? Part 2 – “It is to be hoped that Jones v Kernott will have added some clarity to the law but statutory reform is urgently needed.”

Rowena Meager’s Property Law Blog | Jones v Kernott (Round 4) - “I read the Supreme Court’s judgment with a sense of disappointment.”