International Women’s Day

Certainly, the stress and pressure of juggling work and family can exact a toll. My attitude, when my son Ben was growing up, was that here was a battle to be fought and won. I was also acutely aware that I was exceptionally fortunate; not just because of the support I received from my husband and others, but also because of my stable home life. There are other women who do not enjoy such privileges. Perhaps their families were unplanned; perhaps they go out to work but still find it difficult to make ends meet. And what about the woman who, instead of receiving support from her partner, must endure continued violence?

When this family law firm was first founded, more than 25 years ago in a converted cobblers’ shop in Leeds, I took on legal aid clients and worked with many such women. Back then, divorce favoured men and the female clients who came to me were in truly desperate situations. It’s a reason why I built my firm: a woman representing women. My female clients were often mothers of several children, victims of domestic abuse, or had been deserted by their husbands. And yet I found that the abused women would frequently return to their husbands, because they and their children had nowhere else to go and there was insufficient provision and protection for them by the law.

It was a long time ago now and the provision for abuse victims has since improved. However I was reminded of those old clients when I read a letter from Judith Timms in The Times this week:

Her letter highlights the shameful events that are taking place in our country right now. Is our Government becoming defined by its rank hypocrisy? Legal aid ensures that the most vulnerable and needy in society are given access to justice, and regular readers know my thoughts about the proposed cuts to legal aid provision.

On International Women’s Day, leaked documents showed that Britain is trying to “water down” an international agreement to protect women against domestic and sexual violence. Our Government is arguing that violence against women should not be regarded as a violation of human rights, and that the draft agreement should apply only in “peacetime”.

Has Britain, once a champion of women’s rights, substantially diluted its support?

In her letter to The Times, Judith Timms also focuses upon the proposed redefinition of domestic violence:

“The definition of domestic violence is to be so tightly drawn that it will include only cases where there have been criminal orders of non-molestation or occupation, and these are a very small number of the total applications.”

The narrowed definition of domestic violence will, effectively, save the Government money by locking vulnerable women and their children out of the legal aid system.

Could this be the reason that the Government is unable to sign up to the original deal negotiated at the Council of Europe? Are desperate women are to be placed at risk as a cost-cutting measure? If so, isn’t it shocking?

Access to the courts and the help of skilled lawyers has, over the years, helped protect and keep safe thousands of the most vulnerable members of our society. Judith Timms concludes that if the Government proceeds with its plans, decisions may be made that do not reflect the risks faced by victims of domestic violence. In my opinion, that is an understatement.

I have blogged countless times about my fear that family law is set to return to the Victorian era. Now it is Dickens’ horrible tale of Bill Sikes and Nancy that comes to mind.

Image credit: Bill Sikes by Fred Barnard.

The original Sirens were three creatures of Greek mythology. They were alluring seductresses, each one half bird and half woman, and their irresistible voices and music lured sailors to shipwreck and death. Whoever first imagined the Sirens, all those thousands of years ago, had a great understanding of human nature.

I can assure you that thousands of years later, Sirens are alive and well – and still active. They may not be living on the rocks of a craggy coastline any longer, but they make their occasional appearances in divorces around the world. They can be men but in my experience, they are far more likely to be women.

Today’s Sirens

As a family lawyer, I have on occasion encountered Sirens. They are women who, when a marriage has broken down, have the most to gain. A Siren deliberately heaps tragedy on a family, because when she has set her sights on a man who is already married – and also, in most cases, a father – she gets him. Greek mythology had Orpheus, who could play louder than the Sirens could sing and allowed the men on the Argo to escape their otherwise inevitable fate. Sadly, there are few men like Orpheus around today!

In my experience, the Siren will involve herself as closely as she can with the unavailable man. She sees him as an unobtainable challenge, and doesn’t care that he is married. She will embark upon a passionate affair with him, seduce him, fill his head until he can think of nothing but being with her and rejects everything he has for her. Meanwhile there she sits, playing her music and singing her song.

A Siren is so fresh, so new, so compliant and so understanding. Perhaps she works alongside the unsuspecting husband, who admires her diligence and her skills. She certainly has more time and money to lavish upon herself and upon entertaining the husband. The man’s tired wife may be worn out with work and childcare, shopping and domesticity. She cannot hold a candle to the intoxicating Siren, who replaces her in the increasingly blinded husband’s affections.

The Siren’s Trap

As realisation dawns upon the tired wife, she falls into the Siren’s trap. The wife will become upset, angry and unpleasant. The Siren will drift, smiling, in her sea of calm. She will serve to highlight all the husband’s complaints about his wife, knowing that he is setting course for the rocks. The husband, puffed up with pride about his conquest, pays scant regard to the perilous sea in which he is sailing.

The Siren beckons the besotted husband onwards, feigning innocence and keeping her own wants carefully disguised. She is rewarded with the husband’s love and sympathy. She allies herself with his needs, his cares and his distress. His wife becomes his enemy.  The Siren takes pains to conceal her power over the husband, while encouraging him to leave his “unsupportive” wife and children. The Siren’s special trick is to let him believe that she is blameless, and that he is the only one at fault.

She keeps on singing her Siren call.

The Siren knows that as long as the husband believes in her, he will protect her. He will bear all the strain, the guilt, the treachery and deceit, and he will fully absolve her of any wrongdoing. How can he do otherwise? How can he admit that his new love is as deceitful and treacherous, perhaps more so, than he is? How can he admit that she has seduced him – not the other way round? He dances to her tune. Her singing and music continues softly, heard only by him. His hearing becomes increasingly sensitive because he is now almost blind and powerless to prevent tragedy. What the Siren has persuaded him to believe, he now believes himself. His self-worth, his integrity, his honesty – all are lost in the swirling waters beneath him, as he sails towards the rocks.

The Siren’s Plan

Underneath her silken skin, the Siren desperately wants what belongs to the wife. The Siren wants the wife’s social status, her home and her financial security. The Siren cares nothing for the tragedy she inflicts upon the husband’s family. As the boat crashes onto the rocks, she continues to protest her innocence, persuading the husband to assume sole responsibility for the tragedy that engulfs and overwhelms the family.

As he sees his wife and children thrashing helplessly in the sea, the husband’s guilt deepens. He knows he has passed the point of no return. He leaves them to their fate and surrenders himself to his new life with the Siren, and the aftermath unfolds on dry land. Some Sirens disappear, disenchanted with the husband’s feet of clay, and move on. But most, having fought their battle, will stay with the husband. He can still prove useful to them.

Years later, the Siren is now the husband’s wife. She has her own home, her own children and her own nest to protect. She forgets that she was once a Siren, and how vulnerable her husband was to the Siren’s call. When a Siren becomes a wife, she becomes as vulnerable as her predecessor.

I believe that in such cases, the husband’s blindness does eventually lift. He comes to his senses. He realises, bitterly, what he has cast into the sea. He grieves for what he has done to his loved ones and above all, to his integrity and sense of self. And at some point in time, it will become too much for him. His Siren, who knows it all, will go the same way as his first wife. And this time, he has no regrets.

It is frequently the case that the tearful woman who comes to see me for her first appointment has lost her strength and self-confidence. As her case progresses, however, the client undergoes a transformation. She begins to reassert herself and resumes control of her future.

Years later, I can bump into the same client and barely recognise the energetic, self-assured woman who stands before me. We women are far stronger than we know. Some of us only realise this strength after years of conditioning and low self-esteem. Others are strong inside and out – and they have always known it.

I was musing upon this recently, after I ended up sitting next to two fashionably dressed men at the recent Selfridges sale in London. (Sat next to? During a sale? Yes. The only way to shop the Selfridges sale is to fight your way through the massive front doors, check out the crowds, immediately admit defeat, head straight for the champagne bar, order a glass of pink champagne and unwind while watching the throng do battle. I also recommend finding some stylish company with whom to share the moment!)

All three of us watched, open-mouthed in admiration, as the woman on the television screen above our heads made her recorded appearance at Selfridges. The singer Grace Jones emerged from a Range Rover, dressed in gold, and stood on the bonnet of the car waving to the crowds. She looked amazing.

Known for her striking appearance, strong voice, extraordinary hairstyle, modelling, film appearances and larger than life temperament, Grace Jones has dared to appear on stage with live lions and tigers. She currently appears in concert wearing only a series of fantastic jackets, hats and a thong. Once, during a well reported altercation – and there have been many – she is alleged to have described herself as “Queen Bitch Jungle Mother of New York”. She certainly makes life interesting for us!

I am in awe of these strong women who choose to live life their own way. They may begin with very little, but they seize upon all that they have been blessed with. They do it themselves. They don’t need or depend upon men or other women. Versatile and determined, they make the most of their own abilities and talents. Their inner tigers have been unleashed.

Strong women are not clingy and do not prolong doomed relationships simply to feel secure. Neither do they seek out relationships because they feel lonely, nor endeavour to always have a relationship on the go.  They respect themselves and have confidence in themselves and their own lives, without the need for a prop.

Strong women do not wallow in self-pity - or if they do, they never let the public see them cry.  Publicly, they aren’t afraid to make mistakes. They expect to trip up. Whenever they fall off the merry-go-round called Life – as, inevitably, all of us do – they pick themselves up and step back on it again. They don’t worry about what others think of them. They aren’t perfect – but so what? They don’t care.

Have you heard Grace Jones sing La Vie en Rose? If you haven’t, I’ve attached a clip (above) for you to enjoy. If you have, I’m sure you will want to listen to it again.

Edith Piaf, who wrote the words to this famous love song, had a tragic, passionate and complicated life. She was named La Mome (“Little Sparrow”) because of her waif-like looks. In her version of La Vie en Rose she is clearly affected by her own experiences. She sings of her love for a man by whom she is overwhelmed, life becoming suddenly “in the pink”. Her rendition, because of the way she lived her life and accompanied as the song is by the unspoken thought that it is doomed, is accepted as the most romantic. At the same time it is, for me, the most tragic way of delivering this beautiful love song.

Grace Jones has a very different style, and her version has become an upbeat sophisticated, iconic cult song for fashionistas worldwide. Last year a specially produced version played at several top fashion shows, as models sashayed down the catwalk to her extraordinary voice.

In her version of La Vie en Rose, Grace Jones celebrates love her way. She is a woman who is enjoying being in love. She is not dependent on her lover, she is not needy of him and there is no unspoken fear that he will leave her. She shares with us only her passion, her feelings and sensations of being in love. She celebrates that love unequivocally  and – most importantly, from my point of view – without asking anything of her lover in return.

Strong women are their own women. They live life and they enjoy love – but they enjoy it their way.

By the way, if you still don’t believe me about the benefits of a lifetime of workouts, check out some of the more recent pictures of the Coolest Woman on the Planet still looking fabulously toned, lithe and strong. She will be 62 this year.

“My client intends to ignore Christmas this year. He is convinced that if men had their way, it wouldn’t exist at all. He asks, “Why do we have Father Christmas? It should be Mother Christmas”.

“Is he right? Is Christmas “a woman thing” and if so, why haven’t all we clever women spotted that we are being “had” before now?”

Here is my answer: we know full well that we are being “had”!

Yes, Christmas is very hard work – and tensions within a relationship can be exacerbated by the pressures of Christmas. At the same time, however, we love spending time with our children, friends and families, giving and receiving all those beautifully wrapped presents. Perhaps we just adore the excitement of buying (and eating) fabulous food and drinking glorious wine. For example: how many different boxes of chocolates have you spotted in store right now? And bought?! Not to mention those luxury puddings and cakes and mince pies!

Perhaps we just love all those special Christmas treats, and above all – whatever our personal circumstances, even if just for a while – we women make the most of Christmas. Not for us visions of clearing frozen paths and roads. Instead we go gaga over the pretty sight of snowflakes and snowmen!

My male lawyer client is absolutely right. Despite all the stresses and strains, for the short time it is with us, Christmas is the ultimate treat for women. All over the country, fairy lights twinkle in the dark and we watch Love, Actually and its ilk over and over again on DVD, and only we women have the faintest notion why we do it. Why? Because at this time of year we have the opportunity to indulge, luxuriate and to let go of normality for just a little while. Happy Christmas!

Image credit: sidewalk flying.

“Better do all my jobs today if the weather is going to get even worse”, my husband sighed. And I started to laugh.

My husband wasn’t thinking about Winter Wonderland. He was thinking about practical matters, like how to get to the supermarket on icy roads, so that we don’t starve watching TV this weekend.

And he’s definitely not alone.

One of my clients, a well known company lawyer, has his own theory about Christmas. He believes it is two unnecessary weeks off work, spent living “out of synch” with normality. He believes that Christmas is a “woman thing”

Last year I wrote at length about how the tensions created at Christmas can lead to divorce, after our family law firm experienced a surge in enquiries from overworked women in the weeks leading up to the festivities:

“They described the tidying that had to be fitted around entertaining, the exhaustion and the never-ending rounds of relations and friends for at least a week afterwards. More than one said that she had do all this work herself – and dreaded it. None of them would put themselves through it at all if their children were older.

“Listening to these tales of drudgery I wonder, have women really attained equality?  I doubt it. It seems to me that for women, Christmas continues to be an exhausting, miserable slog for women who take on the chores year in, year out because they feel that they must. It appears to be a matter of tradition, rather than choice.

“I can’t help concluding that it isn’t Christmas that causes a divorce. It’s the thought of it.”  (Christmas and Divorce: What Women Want)

However my male client has a different take on this situation. He argues that if there is pressure placed on a marriage as a result of Christmas, he says, it is because women do it to themselves!

He thinks that women drive themselves and others – particularly men – bonkers with the festive preparations. Like my female clients last year, he points to the shopping, the presents, the cooking, the festive days themselves, the families, the children and all the clearing up afterwards. He also points out that all the advertising, marketing and tugging upon heart strings is aimed squarely at women. He sees men as reluctant and resigned, taking the easy way out. Yes, they do their bit, but usually at the last minute and because they have to.

My client intends to ignore Christmas this year. He is convinced that if men had their way, it wouldn’t exist at all. He asks, “Why do we have Father Christmas? It should be Mother Christmas”.

Is he right? Is Christmas “a woman thing” and if so, why haven’t all we clever women spotted that we are being “had” before now? I have my own thoughts about this, but would be interested to know what you think…

Image credit: Lin Pernille Photography.

“Our society in England and Wales now urgently demands a second attempt by Parliament, better than in the ill-fated Part II of the Act of 1996, to reform the five ancient bases of divorce; meanwhile, in default, the courts have set the unreasonableness of the behaviour required to secure the success of a petition on the second basis, namely pursuant to s.1(2)(b) of the Act of 1973, even when defended, at an increasingly low level.

Stowe Family Law represented the successful husband in this case. The judgment of the Court of Appeal, heard before the President and given by Lord Justice Wilson, was handed down today. I will not of course discuss the specific facts of the case and nothing that follows does so. But, on a general note, Miller Smith is a useful example of alternative options available to deal with the financial problems caused by a defended divorce.

In such cases, finances cannot be dealt with in the usual manner, as the brakes are firmly applied until the divorce is out of the way, which could take a very long time. What is one party to do, who wishes to move on with his or her life and finds themselves apparently stymied?

Defended divorces are rare, and a practitioner will thus only occasionally come across the problem. But there is an alternative route in appropriate cases – the use of other law, such as section 14 of the Trust of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 (TOLATA) and section 17 of the Married Womens Property Act 1882, to obtain an order for sale of jointly owned property, and section 33 of the Family Law Act 1996, to secure an occupation order of property.

The exercise of those options by the court is discretionary, however, and whilst the Court of Appeal in today’s judgment, emphasises that adopting the “holistic” approach within divorce proceedings is preferable, it also gives useful guidance on the threshold that has to be crossed for it to make these alternative orders.

What sprang off the page for me, though, is the quote above from the Court of Appeal relating to what seems to me a strongly perceived need for family law reform. The Court  has drawn attention to a dichotomy- a practice which has grown up over several years, where parties going through divorce are expected to try and resolve matters as sensibly and amicably as possible, yet obliged to throw mud for the process to conclude swiftly.

Current law in England Wales requires a marriage to have irretrievably broken down, if a divorce is to be obtained, and for this to be proved by one of five facts. Those (briefly) are:-

1. Adultery and the Petitioner finds it intolerable to continue to live with the Respondent.

2. The Respondent’s behaviour is so unreasonable that the Petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the Respondent.

3. The parties have been separated for two years and both consent to a divorce.

4. The Petitioner has been deserted for two years by the Respondent

5. The parties have been separated for five years.

The only way of obtaining a divorce, therefore, without a wait of at least two years, is by alleging misconduct, whether by way of adultery or unreasonable behaviour. In the absence of proof of the former, the latter is almost always the chosen method of initiating a divorce, as statistics demonstrate.

But allegations of unreasonable behaviour in a divorce petition, starkly set out and frequently viewed as exaggerated or invented by a Respondent to a petition, are very unhelpful in setting the tone for negotiation of the issues that follow: namely children and finances. The Respondent will be inflamed, and may give instructions to fire off a cross petition, to put another side to a story, that no-one – least of all the courts – particularly wishes to know about and would prefer to be kept private.

So, in recent years, to avoid this and heightening the temperature of cases, the tendency has been to keep allegations of misconduct as minimal or anodyne as possible. It is considered good practice (The Law Society’s Family Law Protocol) where possible for practitioners to try and agree the proposed “unreasonable behaviour” with the other lawyers, and once this has happened a suitably sanitised petition is presented to the court.

Similarly, the Courts have adopted the practice of allowing, through such a petition, a much lower standard of “unreasonable behaviour” than some years ago, precisely to achieve the sensible aim of conciliation and swift resolution of the entire process.

But it does make a mockery of the current law, doesn’t it? Worse still, the present law doesn’t reflect what all but the tiniest fraction of divorcing couples,  practitioners and Courts are trying to achieve – a straightforward, low key, cost effective and amicable  settling of all the issues thrown up by a case.

And here I return to the principle of swift, “no fault” divorce, of which I am strongly in favour. I have a simple viewpoint. If parties can make up their respective minds to marry, then they may do so without ‘hoo hah’. Similarly, if they decide to divorce, they should be able to do so equally swiftly – with dignity and less cost and without mud slinging…and without expensive nannying either.

A problem arises where only one party to the marriage wishes to divorce and steadfastedly refuses to consent to it. It seems to me there should be a (rare) option, with costs risks – a fall back position that “in extremis” a court may make a decision based on fault. There could also be provision for financial relief, irrespective of a defended divorce. How that is to be achieved, however, is something for brilliant brains, specifically tasked with the job, and definitely not one for a day dreamer such as me!

I have spent the last week or so championing the cause of women who choose not to work. In the course of so doing I have had to think quite a lot about what they do, and do so well, and I have realised that compared to them, in so many ways, I am truly deficient.

Is it stressful giving a dinner party? That’s the question in today’s Daily Telegraph.

In my opinion, it is extremely stressful and bravo if you can do it! I know for sure that I certainly can’t cook for a dinner party.

My ‘piece de resistance’, now honed to a fine art, is the well known “Tuna Splosh”. This is a dish of incomparable finesse involving a can of tuna and a can of chopped tomatoes thrown together in a pan, heated and mixed with some pasta (any pasta that comes to hand). My husband, son and ultimately, our dogs, love it. I can serve it lukewarm, boiling hot or even – if I’m demonstrating major culinary skill – hot outside and cold in the middle.

Would I serve it at a dinner party? Perhaps not! But then the last dinner party I ever gave was in 1983 when I courageously prepared Beef Wellington and used the wrong joint of meat. With my guests and husband chewing, and chewing, and chewing, (and chewing) mortified I resorted to a quick joke and removed everybody’s plates. The dessert unfortunately didn’t even make it to the table. It was a kind of rich chocolate cake, but unfortunately it fell on the floor and cracked a tile in the kitchen. The only cake I have made since then was a carrot cake for my son Ben, which I accidentally dropped into the sink because it was hot coming out of the oven. We both scraped it out of the sink and, as usual, it fed the dogs.

My sister was a stay-at-home mum by choice. She chose not to work. She argued fiercely that her children needed her and she needed them. Unarguably she’s done a great job with them. But she has other skills too. She can throw together a fabulous dinner party at the drop of a hat. She can cater for 20 people without blinking – in fact she frequently does. Her Friday night dinners are legendary, especially her chicken soup! Phone her at any time, day or night and she will be round with a hot cooked meal. When I was in hospital, I swear it was her calorie light but nourishing soup that got me better. Phoning her for help when Ben was young, and despite her own little brood, she’d come and scoop him up and look after him any time, no matter how many other children were also round at her home. Even now, at the age of 21, when Ben needs something, he will frequently phone my sister and I don’t mind at all. I know he is in the safest and most loving of hands.

I remember one time when Ben was little and I had my first ever substantial round table meeting at a well known firm of solicitors. I had nowhere to leave Ben because the nanny phoned in sick. It was a Monday morning after all. I phoned my sister panicking. Of course she agreed to look after him. No problem. I drove him over to her house then drove furiously to the meeting all geared up for a scrap. On arrival I apologised for being late. “You’re not late Mrs. Stowe” said the supercilious lawyer. “You’re early. Very early. Our meeting is tomorrow.”

So I can’t help but get a little annoyed when career women round on those who stay at home and in some way devalue their efforts. My own view is, as women, no matter our choice – career or stay at home – what we all do is invaluable. We run our homes and our families as we wish. We can’t all be high flying professionals, we can’t all be gourmet cooks. Whatever we do, we do our best. We do a great job and good for us.

What liberation of women has given us all, in fact, is not forcing us down a particular road. Instead, it has given us a choice. We have a choice to have our families and run them as we want. We may marry, we may not. We may have children, we may not. We may work, we may not. But never, ever should what we do be devalued and denigrated in the eyes of others – especially by other women. We are a powerful, purposeful sisterhood, and – differences or not – long may we all remember it.

Image credit: kevindooley

From the comment pages of the Yorkshire Post, 23/10/2009.

Divorced from reality in the 21st century

By Marilyn Stowe

WE should all be raising glasses this week to celebrate the 40th anniversary of the Divorce Reform Act 1969 gaining royal assent.

The landmark statute made divorce easier, introducing what became known as “quickie divorces”. It eliminated the previous extensive, fault-based procedure, was a milestone for women’s rights, and its momentous implications are still being felt today.

On the statute’s birthday, however, I am horrified to note that the divorce wind now appears to be blowing in the opposite direction, with prominent commentators suggesting divorce should be made harder and settlements less favourable to ordinary women.    Continue reading >

Leafing through the magazines I came across pictures of 46-year-old Whitney Houston, who is staging a comeback and has a new album out. She looks fabulous. She looks stunning – not a line to be seen!

In O Magazine, Oprah Winfrey tells her readers how to value themselves and become “empowered”. Oprah is my age – so why, on her publication’s front cover, is she pictured in close-up without a single wrinkle or crease? I looked very closely indeed couldn’t find a single one!

What does “empowerment” really mean? I am wondering, because it seems that youth and facial beauty are requisites for today’s women.

Here is an example: it is an advertisement that played on television while I was in Chicago. The advertiser is a (male) divorce lawyer. The opening scene: a man in bed with a woman. She is snoring. She is supposed to be ugly, too; we know this because we watch him pulling away, getting out of bed and creeping down the stairs, filled with disgust. Then comes the voiceover. It goes something like this:

“If you have a one-night stand, you can make your getaway. But if you are married, it’s not that easy! You need [redacted], divorce attorney.”

So a picture imperfect wife is for divorcing? Really? Does “ugliness” equate to rejection?

Every day women are encouraged to buy into a brainwashed dream of ageless beauty. There are lucrative rewards for those who claim to hold back time.

Sadly it appears that such a view is promoted by women as well as men. We are led on by those who say they are “empowered”, and a match for any man. Oprah and our own Anne Robinson are brilliant clever women who have no need to be frightened by the ageing process. But I think they are: their endorsements of the desire for lineless beauty make a mockery of their strong, “empowered” images.

Then my mind wandered to a brilliant scientist of my acquaintance, who lives Israel. She toils on a kibbutz, growing tropical fruits in the desert north of Eilat. Her work is labour intensive under a relentless sun. The fruits that she grows are used to make drugs at the Haifa Technion, to treat childrens leukaemia.

Her skin? Leather. Her hands? Don’t ask. Her age? Same as mine. She is a truly powerful woman and I am in awe of her. What need has she for botox?

If I had my way, the divorce attorney who authorised the advertisement described above should be sanctioned for professional misconduct. But in a society where even the strongest of women are victims of the beauty myth, he can run it with impunity.

As for me: I left the magazines on the ‘plane. I may have wrinkles – but I also have the guts to keep them right where they are.

Image credit: luisvilla.

Every Family Matters

The report recommends a compulsory, three-month “cooling off” period for couples who were set upon divorce. It proposes the founding of “family relationship hubs”: a nationwide network of counselling centres at which families would receive advice before and after marriage. It also recommends that couples who are living together should not be afforded the same legal rights as those who are married, arguing that “healthy marriages build healthy families”.

I read this report from cover to cover – and its conclusions horrified me. I note that my sentiment is shared by others.

Ironically, these proposals are throwbacks to Victorian times – at a time when the Conservative Party is at pains to present itself as modern and progressive!

Women

I have seen the “Victorian Woman” described thus: She was a perfect lady, who did not work, (except for charities); she did not earn (except perhaps for literary and artistic work); she ran her household efficiently, and she found fulfillment bringing up her husband and children. She could have some education, but not much, and avoided involvement in politics or argument with her husband.

“Be faithful unto death”, intoned one Victorian sampler that I saw in a museum. Those words seem to be applicable here. The old mindset is applied to divorcing couples, ostensibly for the benefit of their children. The hapless children apparently deserve to have their parents living together in the same house, regardless of the misery, the arguments, the infidelity or the trauma.

The introduction of a three-month “cooling off” period would make divorce more difficult. The aim: to encourage couples to stay together. This begs the question: does the fact of marriage hold couples together? I don’t think it does. Moreover, I am unconvinced that Australian-style “family relationship hubs” would have the desired effect. The husbands and wives who come to see me and instruct me to proceed do not do so at the drop of a hat. They have already spent plenty of time “thinking”.

However, the authors of this report would force you to do some more “thinking” – even if you have endured a lengthy period of soul-searching and  every day is a misery. Even if, during this “thinking” period, you go home to your lover every night. Even if you loathe your spouse, or if both of you know that there is simply nothing left.

Who, in this profession of mine, seriously thinks that attendance at a “family relationship hub” will prevent a couple’s marital breakdown? Once the love has gone, it has gone. Nothing can restore a relationship when there is little left to work with. These plans are expensive, outdated, wishful nonsense.

Property

The report proposes a more rigid matrimonial property regime, with a “more narrow definition” of what constitutes a party’s “reasonable needs”.

This would mean that the fairness and discretion with which a judge currently allots assets to cover genuine need – although in truth, 99 out of 100 cases barely stretch even that far – is likely to follow the European models, whereby property is strictly divided. Yet these models are inferior to our own, because of their known unfairness to the weaker parties.

So why the recommendation? The authors are clearly familiar with a small number of high profile and largely irrelevant cases in central London. However, they are not so obviously familiar with what is happening in the rest of the country, where it is rare to encounter “assets surplus to need”. I would add that it is rarer still for judicial discretion to be applied to achieve anything other than fairness, when it is known that divorce can often leave women at a disadvantage. On the strength of these proposals, they would fare worse still. 

Initially, the new regime would be implemented away from the courts. There would be ‘catch all budgets’ to complete. Forms to fill in. Rules to follow. Perhaps tribunals would be set up to make strict decisions based on strict rules.

It reminds me of the fiasco of the CSA. The Conservatives got it disastrously wrong then. Their Family Law Act 1996, which was a public relations disaster because much of it was confused, unworkable and never brought into force, is expressly lauded in this report.

Children and unmarried parents

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.

However, the authors argue that unmarried couples – and by extension, their children – do not deserve the legal remedies afforded to those families that have embraced the “utopia” of marriage.

In other words, if you are a product of an unmarried relationship, the authors are sweeping you under the carpet. If a couple divorces, their children must be brought to the court’s attention. The children’s rights and welfare are prioritised; indeed, there may not be a divorce until the court is satisfied that suitable arrangements for the children have been made.

However if a couple’s relationship breaks down and they are not married, that couple’s children do not have to be brought to the court’s attention at all. They are all but invisible. They deserve better – and the authors of this report should know better.

The termination of a marriage is regulated by law. When there is no marriage, there is no regulation. Can that be right morally, socially or legally? It cannot.

21^st century families

Some of today’s families are headed by same sex parents, with or without children, who may or may not be biologically related to their sons and daughters. In these families and others, children may be adopted nationally or internationally and have a different ethnic or cultural background.  Families may include step-parents and step-siblings. There may be step-grandparents and step-cousins. Parents and guardians may be openly gay, heterosexual or bisexual. We have the most complex families ever known, because our society has changed beyond recognition. There is no longer any social stigma in cohabitation. Women are no longer obliged to depend upon husbands for the procreation of children or for an income, as in Victorian times.  

Today, most couples live together before marriage and both work. They have children when it suits them, often before marriage. Some never trouble to marry, for varied and often complex reasons. Some see no need to disturb a relationship that works well. Others see it as their right not to marry. Some are legally prevented from marrying. Others are unmarried because their partner refuses to; it is too trite to say “walk away”, because we are human beings with feelings and emotions. For such partners, additional factors may also come into play: if there are children, for example, or if the weaker party has no income, capital or pension of their own.

Right now, millions of couples are cohabiting. The law in Scotland provides for cohabiting couples; in the rest of the United Kingdom, however, unmarried couples who separate fall below the court radar. At present, despite the recommendations of the Law Commission, despite various, failed private members’ bills in Parliament and despite the proliferation of cohabiting couples and children, there is no law to regulate the end of such relationship and to attend to these couples’ children.

I am married and I advocate marriage for those who wish to commit in that way. But I am also prepared to recognise that everyone has the right not to do so. I believe that the law should be available to all families, not just the select few – and certainly not the innocents who currently “make do” with the odd CSA cheque and a hotch-potch of inadequate legislation.

Regular readers of this blog will be aware of my belief that family law should strive to achieve social justice for all. My fear is that if the Conservative Party wins power and adheres to the Centre for Social Justice’s report, the Victorian era will return to British politics. Everything that can be done must be done, to prevent this from becoming Conservative Party policy and ultimately the law.

A final note: if you click the link at the top of this post to read the think tank’s proposals in full, you will observe that the Every Family Matters report is “Supported by the Doha International Institute of Family Studies and Development”. Doha, of course, is the capital of Qatar: a country in which women continue to “face discrimination in law and in practice”, according to Amnesty International. Perhaps this choice of supporter is a coincidence.

Image credit: smoorenberg.