Remembering to Give Thanks

This has been a tough year. Right out of the gate in February with the loss of my Dad and Grandmother, 2009 blasted me with cold winds which to date haven't let up much. The poor economy, some unexpected pitfalls and an unexpected rash of unhappy clientel piled on to the scene this year. A lousy economy will always bring out the worst in people so it was difficult for me to dig deep this year to see the good as I try to do each Thanksgiving as I give Thanks.

This year I give thanks to the legacy left by my Dad that lives in me. My Dad never intentionally hurt a living soul. Each day of my life I look to see if my actions can or do hurt another individual and if I feel they have or will I attempt to alter them. This by the way is not an easy feat for a trained advocate. However, an advocate does not need to be a bully. One of my Dad's many doctors made a statement to me when treating my Dad one day which has stayed with me. He said: "First do no harm." Of course he was referring to the Hypocratic Oath he took as a physician, but I see no reason why the rest of us cannot live by that credo in our daily lives.

If every one of us got up each day and said to ourselves, "Do no harm." the world would be a better place. Have I ever failed to adhere to this creed? I'm sure I have, but I can say in all honesty never did I do so with any intent. Besides the love of my friends and my family and the health of all those I hold dear, I am thankful for what my Dad has taught me. The legacy he started which I hope to continue in my daily life. "First, do no harm. Second try to do some good today."
I am thankful for the opportunity to try. Happy Thanksgiving!

Remembering to Give Thanks

This has been a tough year. Right out of the gate in February with the loss of my Dad and Grandmother, 2009 blasted me with cold winds which to date haven't let up much. The poor economy, some unexpected pitfalls and an unexpected rash of unhappy clientel piled on to the scene this year. A lousy economy will always bring out the worst in people so it was difficult for me to dig deep this year to see the good as I try to do each Thanksgiving as I give Thanks.

This year I give thanks to the legacy left by my Dad that lives in me. My Dad never intentionally hurt a living soul. Each day of my life I look to see if my actions can or do hurt another individual and if I feel they have or will I attempt to alter them. This by the way is not an easy feat for a trained advocate. However, an advocate does not need to be a bully. One of my Dad's many doctors made a statement to me when treating my Dad one day which has stayed with me. He said: "First do no harm." Of course he was referring to the Hypocratic Oath he took as a physician, but I see no reason why the rest of us cannot live by that credo in our daily lives.

If every one of us got up each day and said to ourselves, "Do no harm." the world would be a better place. Have I ever failed to adhere to this creed? I'm sure I have, but I can say in all honesty never did I do so with any intent. Besides the love of my friends and my family and the health of all those I hold dear, I am thankful for what my Dad has taught me. The legacy he started which I hope to continue in my daily life. "First, do no harm. Second try to do some good today."
I am thankful for the opportunity to try. Happy Thanksgiving!

Thanksgivng and Divorce

For many divorced parents, every other Thanksgiving leaves them feeling ungrateful. Most divorced families share their children on an every-other holiday basis. This translates to one year feeling elated and full of the holiday spirit, and the next, alone and empty feeling.Holidays are important times for families, but fear not, you can have a happy time. There is no law that says you have to

IN THEIR BEST INTERESTS

The newspapers were quick today to report two court decisions yesterday where the best interests of children formed the core of the judgments. Both served to demonstrate what a difficult quest it can be for a Judge in determining best interests when sometimes there can be a very fine line between the available options.

In the first case the Supreme Court acted to reverse earlier decisions made in the Court of Appeal and High Court thus enabling a 3 year old child to remain in the care of his grandmother who had looked after him very much since birth, rather than move to live with his natural father. In the second, the Court of Appeal has refused leave to appeal to a mother who has been ordered to hand over her 11 year old son to the care of his father against, it was argued, the child’s wishes. The boy is reported as being vehemently opposed to seeing his father, but his guardian for the purpose of the court proceedings and a child psychiatrist agree that he is suffering emotional harm by being estranged from his father as a result of his mother’s attitude.

One has to wonder, when you see criticism levelled at the courts about decisions of this kind, why they are always expected to get it right when parents, who are also entrusted with the best care of their children, don’t.

Health care Reform

The House of Representatives has passed the first version of health care reform this weekend. The fact that this bill made it through the house is quite a feat given the strong feelings on both sides of the issue. Most Americans are in agreement that health care reform is necessary. Anyone who has ever had any contact with health insurance carriers in recent times knows that it is a nightmare. While the foes of health care reform yell about governmental interference between a patient and his doctor, the interference from the insurance companies between the patient and their doctor is rarely mentioned. Those of us however, myself included who have been forced to fight with insurance companies over health services will tell you that the system NEEDS to change.

While I do not want the government involved in my medical decisions, neither do I want the conglomerate insurance companies deciding what treatment I need and when.

We need an overall to give autonomy back to the medical profession and to the patients where it belongs. If in fact that means some governmental regulations need to be put in place than so be it. The question always involves how much government and what role. We need to trust that the powers we elected will hit the right balance and return health care decision back to the people and the medical professionals where it belongs.

Most people want reform, and have been screaming about it for a long time. Finally it seems someone is listening.

Health care Reform

The House of Representatives has passed the first version of health care reform this weekend. The fact that this bill made it through the house is quite a feat given the strong feelings on both sides of the issue. Most Americans are in agreement that health care reform is necessary. Anyone who has ever had any contact with health insurance carriers in recent times knows that it is a nightmare. While the foes of health care reform yell about governmental interference between a patient and his doctor, the interference from the insurance companies between the patient and their doctor is rarely mentioned. Those of us however, myself included who have been forced to fight with insurance companies over health services will tell you that the system NEEDS to change.

While I do not want the government involved in my medical decisions, neither do I want the conglomerate insurance companies deciding what treatment I need and when.

We need an overall to give autonomy back to the medical profession and to the patients where it belongs. If in fact that means some governmental regulations need to be put in place than so be it. The question always involves how much government and what role. We need to trust that the powers we elected will hit the right balance and return health care decision back to the people and the medical professionals where it belongs.

Most people want reform, and have been screaming about it for a long time. Finally it seems someone is listening.

SOAP OPERAS

Reports today suggest that in India too the grounds for divorce are becoming easier. Under the Hindu Marriage Act a couple can be divorced if cruelty can be shown. What constitutes cruelty, however, seems to be becoming more of a subjective test possibly even in line with divorces on unreasonable behaviour in this country. I say that because, despite the husband’s protestations that his treatment of his wife was in line with the normal wear and tear of married life, the court held that preventing his wife watching soap operas on television was indeed cruel. Some of course might argue that if the programmes were anything like some of our daytime viewing, then he was doing her a favour.

DOUGHNUTS

I am what might be described as a regular contributor to local radio. Hence yesterday afternoon I was interviewed on BBC Tees’ Drive-time show. I understood that the presenter wanted to quiz me about my reaction to the survey referred to in my blog entry yesterday. Imagine my surprise therefore when in opening she referred to the results of a survey by the consumer watchdog Which? suggesting that a child’s lunchbox can contain as much sugar as 10 doughnuts. A wave of fear swept over me; was it a case of being in the wrong place at the wrong time or had I just totally misunderstood my brief? I felt my fists clench as I struggled to think how I could possibly comment on doughnuts, perhaps something along the lines of “I’m not a dietician but...” might do it.

Fortunately she moved on to Children in Need and then the survey on the effects of separation; phew, panic over!

STAGGERING

“Staggering,” is the best description I can give to the results of a survey published today by family lawyers at London law Firm, Mishcon de Reya. The study of over 4,000 parents was commissioned by the firm to mark the 20th anniversary of the Children Act, implemented in November 1989.

Whilst seventy per cent of parents quizzed by the law firm cited their child’s welfare as the main priority during separation, the results also showed that:
Children said they felt used (19 percent), isolated (38 percent) and alone (37 percent).
Many admitted they turned to drink and drugs, played truant from school or self harmed.

For 38 percent of children the separation meant they never saw their father again.
50 percent of parents admitted putting their children through an intrusive court process over access issues and living arrangements.
25 percent of parents surveyed believe that their child was so traumatised by their separation that they self harmed or contemplated suicide.
20 percent of separated parents admitted that they actively set out to make their partner's experience ‘as unpleasant as possible’ regardless of the effect this had on their children’s feelings.

Sandra Davis, head of family law at Mishcon de Reya , says that, “This research shows that despite their best intentions, parents are often using their children as emotional footballs. They don’t have the tools to co-parent effectively following separation and their only solution is to turn to the courts. Children – alongside the economy - are suffering because of this. The millions of pounds spent each year on Legal Aid, running the courts and CAFCASS could be better spent educating parents about their children’s needs and gaining an understanding of how to resolve and avoid long term disputes and reduce hostility.” In short there is a need to “protect children from the worst excesses of parental conflict. Therapeutic input, not litigation, is the answer and will reduce the emotional and financial cost of separation.”

Resolution has already started to try to tackle the problem with its Parents after Parting workshops and its dedicated webspace for parents. Government funding however is needed if family therapy centres are to be set up and counselling available for all who need it. As the survey shows, 64 percent of parents quizzed said that if counselling was available they would consider attending.

You Make Me A Better Man

As a certified life coach, one of my specialties is divorce coaching. Whenever I work with men I find that they have so many issues with their past relationships that they have lost touch with how best to communicate and resonate with a woman. The pain of the divorce affects their thoughts and perceptions about women in general and clouds their judgment. After working through their beliefs about

SON ET LUMIERE

Yesterday evening I visited Durham City where a festival of light is taking place. The Cathedral itself was the setting for a spectacular son et lumière. Images showing the history of Christianity in the North East and drawn from the Lindisfarne Gospels, as well as from inside the Cathedral, were projected onto the outside of what has to be one of England’s most beautiful Norman buildings, accompanied by a harmony of monastic chants.

Sometimes you can look at the exterior of something and see nothing of the inside. Faces are the same; they can show a multitude of emotions, but on occasions nothing. When you hurt inside your facial expressions and demeanour can betray you or you can hide them behind a façade of stone. Either way we know you are aching, we just don’t always see or acknowledge it.

DIVORCE SPIN

My eyes were drawn to a story in the Telegraph today about MPs committing to divorce if they change political party. Whatever will they come up with next I wondered and then realised that the MPs in question are in Malaysia where they are all members of the Pan-Malaysia Islamic Party. Apparently they’ve taken a verbal oath not to transfer political allegiance and if they do to pay the penalty by divorcing their wives. The oath has drawn criticism from various quarters who believe (understandably) that it is trivialising marriage and according to Malaysia Women’s Minister “degrading and mean.”

However, Teresa Kok a lawmaker with the Democratic Action Party is reported as hailing the pledge as meaning that “they will not leave their party or their wives.” Funny, I thought marriage itself included a promise not to leave your wife and yet look how many men do! Leaving a political party as well can’t make life that much difficult surely. Call me a cynic, but maybe Malaysian politics are a bit like the British version with plenty of spin, not much substance and pre-election promises broken all over the place.

GRUMPY AND IMPERFECT

Have you ever considered your divorce lawyer to be negative minded? Does he or she keep telling you that you can’t do that which you wanted? In fact are there times when they seem downright grumpy? If so, you could have found the perfect person to advise you!

In its current edition, Australasian Science Magazine publishes an interview with Professor Joe Forgas from the University of South Wales in which he refers to details of his recent research showing that grumpy people cope with more demanding situations than happy ones because of the way their brains process information. It seems that critical or negative thinking people can actually be better at problem solving and make fewer mistakes than their sunnier natured counterparts; presumably this explains the personality traits of various occupations including lawyers. Hooray, there is a valid reason for my imperfections!

ONE KINGDOM; TWO SYSTEMS

When you live and practise in the North East of England, you are inevitably aware that only a matter of miles away across the border in Bonnie Scotland the law is very different. So tonight, Alasdair Loudon of Edinburgh law firm Turcan Connell treated Resolution’s Tees Valley Regional Group to an illuminating talk on divorce, Scottish style. How on earth can it be that we have one kingdom with two such different systems? The English system is of course deemed to be one of the most generous in the world for wives when it comes to financial settlements and hearing Alasdair talk I wondered if the Scottish one is amongst the tightest, when maintenance for a spouse is restricted to 3 years and the scope for taking needs into account is severely limited!

Why is it that here in England we are struggling to persuade Parliament to allow no fault divorce before a two year separation, whilst further North you can terminate your marriage after you have lived apart for one year (if you both consent) or after two years if you do not?

I wonder what the potential is for marriages to break down over arguments as mundane as “do we live in Jedburgh or Berwick; Gretna Green or Carlisle?” Moreover the one, who wins the argument, presumably also wins the financial settlement!

When everyday life gets too much for us, banks go bust, politicians lie and the price of petrol increases again, Outdoor Man frequently expresses a desire that we should opt for a more simple life aboard his boat. I’d always thought this was nothing more than a pipe dream, but listening to Alasdair tonight I realised that there could be method in his madness after all; Outdoor Man keeps his boat on the West Coast of Scotland!

Separation vs. Divorce

To married people the terms separation and divorce are used interchangeably. It seems that the public at large is unfamiliar with the difference between the two. Frankly there is a rather big difference in that with a legal separation the parties remain legally married. In a divorce they do not. Additionally a separation agreement is only enforceable in the same way any other contract would be enforceable. One needs to sue the other party for a breach as opposed to having a judgement (of divorce) already in place. The burden is on the party bringing the action to show that in fact the contract was breached and then the party may proceed to the enforcement part of the matter. In a divorce there is no need to prove whether or not the breach was intentional or if it was an oversight. If you don't get want you are entitled to from what is listed in the judgement you can jump right to the enforcement part and garnish salaries or collect your money the way you would in any other civil matter where you already have a judgment against the other party.

Separation agreements also do not automatically turn into divorces. People can stay legally separated for ever if neither party files for divorce. Even after the filing, there is no guarantee the matter will not be contested by the other party. If the filing of the divorce is contested after a separation agreement is executed (which by the way it often is)this can lead to a very ugly litigated battle where the separation agreement will be put in jeopardy of being changed or altered in order to settle the matter amicably.

Separation agreements do not provide the closure the parties in all liklihood are seeking in disolving their marital ties. These agreements should be entered into with full knowledge as to each parties responsibilities and risks in the future.

Separation vs. Divorce

To married people the terms separation and divorce are used interchangeably. It seems that the public at large is unfamiliar with the difference between the two. Frankly there is a rather big difference in that with a legal separation the parties remain legally married. In a divorce they do not. Additionally a separation agreement is only enforceable in the same way any other contract would be enforceable. One needs to sue the other party for a breach as opposed to having a judgement (of divorce) already in place. The burden is on the party bringing the action to show that in fact the contract was breached and then the party may proceed to the enforcement part of the matter. In a divorce there is no need to prove whether or not the breach was intentional or if it was an oversight. If you don't get want you are entitled to from what is listed in the judgement you can jump right to the enforcement part and garnish salaries or collect your money the way you would in any other civil matter where you already have a judgment against the other party.

Separation agreements also do not automatically turn into divorces. People can stay legally separated for ever if neither party files for divorce. Even after the filing, there is no guarantee the matter will not be contested by the other party. If the filing of the divorce is contested after a separation agreement is executed (which by the way it often is)this can lead to a very ugly litigated battle where the separation agreement will be put in jeopardy of being changed or altered in order to settle the matter amicably.

Separation agreements do not provide the closure the parties in all liklihood are seeking in disolving their marital ties. These agreements should be entered into with full knowledge as to each parties responsibilities and risks in the future.

BUSMAN'S HOLIDAY

I was on vacation last week. The trouble is that as regular readers of this blog will know I keep coming across divorce everywhere I turn, not just in the office. So it was that whilst I was wandering across a beach in out of season Cornwall, a complete stranger, dressed in a wetsuit and holding a surf board, looked at me and said: “It’s not working. We can’t communicate about anything important; in fact we can’t communicate at all.”

Maybe I have a sympathetic looking face, but the term “busman’s holiday” springs to mind!