A 2 FOR 1 INSTALMENT

Last week two stories captured my attention:

The first was the saga of France banning the mention of Facebook and Twitter on television. There has, of course, been a growth in divorces involving the use of social media networks. Indeed I have known clients complain about the amount of time their spouse spends on such sites; I have also been involved in cases where through such sites one half of a married couple has re-kindled a relationship with someone from their past or where, in a blatant and yet cowardly announcement, one spouse has made clear in their status or tweet that they are not where or even with whom they told their spouse they would be! The French authorities, however, seemingly have little interest in the double lives of their citizens and are instead looking to ban covert advertising whereby presenters send viewers to a specific social media networking page. Nonetheless could such a step help to reverse increasing divorce statistics? I don’t think so. Unless they suffer from amnesia and need reminding about the existence of these sites by the large screen in the corner of their living room every so often, worried wives or suspicious husbands are clearly going to continue the task of internet stalking.

The second story concerned a British couple who are planning to take two years out of their ordinary lives to marry in thirty different countries around the world before returning to the UK to go through an official ceremony. Now it is often said that marriage is quick and easy in this country and divorce too long and difficult. I wonder what would happen if it became a uniform requirement that all couples take two years to marry and traipse around the globe whilst doing so? Certainly divorce would begin to look quick and easy in comparison!

MOBILE HANG UP

The “nanny state” has become a euphemism for the way our lives are controlled, reputedly in our best interests. Our current Government also claims to have placed the family high on its agenda.

An example of merging the two has just been reported from the Punjab. Its State Commission for Women has asked newly married wives to reduce the number of calls they are making on their telephones. Apparently statistics there suggest that 40% of women contemplating divorce do so because their husbands suspect them of having an affair because of all the telephone calls they are making.

Of course, there could be other reasons for those calls, not least the garrulous nature of the fairer sex and perhaps, as is traditional in India, the bride has moved to live with her husband’s family but still enjoys chatting with her own.

Still I suppose it’s an idea our current Government in its quest to preserve good old fashioned family values as well as marriages might want to explore. On second thoughts sandwiched between a Government body telling women not to use their phones and a husband accusing them of adultery, divorce might just seem an attractive alternative.

STARTED EARLY TOOK MY DOG

“Started Early, Took My Dog,” is the name of a book by Kate Atkinson. Little Girl gave me a copy for my birthday. It’s currently in the bestsellers’ list but I wasn’t sure what to expect.

Innumerable times during my practising life, I have been told that “the lesser half took the dog out for a morning walk and did not return.” I have known clients report the dog missing but rarely their absent spouse. The alleged dog thief usually resurfaces quickly anyway claiming ownership of the animal, if on no other basis than “possession is nine tenths of the law.”

They are never easy cases to resolve. Both parties declare affection for the pet that is way above anything they claim to have felt for the other. The courts don’t want to know and neither wishes to mediate, let alone consider buying a puppy substitute. Sadly such disputes can go unresolved and rarely to the satisfaction of both of the dog-lovers. Unfortunately, and many canine aficionados find it hard to comprehend, but our laws on contact, residence and parental responsibility do relate solely to children.

As for the book itself, it’s actually a well-written detective story set in modern day Leeds with flashbacks to the 1970’s (ah yes an era I recall well). It had little to do with divorce, of course, except for the title!

HEALTH WARNING

Whilst away last week I was waiting in a ski rental shop for Little Girl to be fitted out with skis and boots, when my attention was drawn to a skiing video displayed on a large screen. It began in traditional fashion with expert skiers making their way down through fields of deep powder. It quickly moved onto show more extreme skiers jumping over ever steeper cliffs and overhangs; all young, happy people out to enjoy themselves and with a clear passion for their sport.

Not every would-be ski-jumper made it safely down though; somersaults and back-flips with skis on aren’t exactly designed for secure landings.

Suddenly the camera moved in on one poor participant who had landed on his back. Instead of moving on to show more excessive moves, the film stayed with the victim, as the mountain rescue helicopter landed adjacent to him and then a paramedic administered fluid by drips, before the young man was stretchered off the mountain and flown to a nearby hospital.

It didn’t end there. Instead we were taken inside the operating theatre as a team of surgeons battled to save the skier’s life and finally there was an interview with the lead consultant, holding a section of vertebrae from a human skeleton.

It set me thinking. Health warnings may have started on cigarette packets but where will they stop? If this is what we can now expect in ski-rental shops, how long before we see something similar in bridal wear boutiques or suit hire shops? Films that take you from the magical wedding and honeymoon to domestic banality, followed by arguments and ultimately even divorce itself with a few stern words from a judge.

A PYRRHIC VICTORY

So the Law Society’s victory in the courts against the Legal Services Commission a few weeks ago was a Pyrrhic victory. The LSC as you will recall had sought to cut dramatically the number of solicitors’ firms offering a family law legal aid service. Its action was rendered unlawful and in the interests of access to justice was reversed. However, today proposals announced by the Lord Chancellor Ken Clarke once again put thousands of vulnerable people at risk and deny justice to countless families, as Resolution has warned.

The proposals mean that the only private law family cases that will still get legal aid for court are domestic violence or forced marriage proceedings. The only option available to separating couples going through divorce or separation will be to attend mediation, which does not work for every family, or to represent themselves.

David Allison, Resolution chair said: “Families need legal aid for a whole range of reasons. Suggesting, as these proposals do, that couples in dispute about contact arrangements for children or financial issues are simply wasting taxpayers’ money by unnecessary squabbling ignores the reality that 90% of couples already reach agreement outside of court. Those that do need legal aid usually do so for good reason – intimidation by one partner over another, or an imbalance of financial power in the relationship. Resolving a financial dispute through legal aid can prevent a vulnerable spouse from becoming dependent on the state.”

David Allison continued: “We are deeply worried that mediation is being seen as a universal panacea. Whilst mediation has a real and useful role to play there are real dangers in this approach, which ignores the range of non-court options. Family disputes are complex. There cannot and must not be a one size fits all approach.”

SO MUM THINKS SHE KNOWS BEST

I hear that a survey published today purportedly suggests that some 63% of mothers wish their children had married someone else. Now not only could that provide a statistical basis for all those old mother-in-law jokes but also a reason why so many marriages crumble under the weight of relentless family pressure and asides. There comes a time, especially once married, when we have to learn to stand on our own two feet, make our own decisions and live with them, not with our mothers.

EVICTION

Last month an eviction took place in the village where I live in the full glare of TV cameras. A man who had been living in a caravan and various ramshackle buildings he had erected in a field was forced to move on when, after 7 years of legal battles, representatives from the planning department accompanied by police moved in to demolish what had become a shanty town for one. Losing one’s home is inevitably an emotional experience and it is something that regularly happens in divorce proceedings when short of splitting a home in two, one or both must leave. The Courts however cry shy of pre-judging who should be able to retain the home, leaving that issue for a final hearing unless and in the meantime it is necessary to intervene for the sake of protecting one of the couple from violence by the other.

How often do divorce solicitors have to warn clients to stay calm in the face of what appear to be overt attempts to cause an inflammatory scene, involve the police and have the unsuspecting other half caught like Professor Plum in the library with the lead pipe in one hand? In the present recession when houses are failing to sell and couples want to separate but can’t, more and more couples find themselves continuing to live together in the same home. If only for the sake of their children, I urge them to remain on civil terms.

A FROG CHORUS

Whilst out walking in Arkengarthdale yesterday, we came across frogs canoodling in a rather deep puddle on a bridleway. Surrounded by their spawn, they appeared to be delighting in each other’s company. As we approached, a vociferous male who definitely wasn’t saying “reddit,” made it clear that our presence was unwelcome. It was a sharp reminder, in case we needed one, not to intervene in the marital relations of others.

A MAN'S BEST FRIEND IS HIS DOG

A man’s best friend is his dog and his wife’s too, or so it seems in some divorce cases.

Once upon a time I was acting for a very intelligent lady: from memory I recall that she was a chartered accountant who continued in occupation of the marital home, a large house in the country. Her husband, whom I assume to have been equally talented, had left and was occupying a flat in the city. During their 10 year marriage they had acquired a somewhat lively golden labrador by the name of Bonzo. In the absence of any children, Bonzo had been clearly treated as a child substitute. He had a special place in both of their hearts, to the extent that upon separation they agreed to share his care. The correspondence in which I became involved went along the lines of:

In future could you please ensure that Bonzo is returned with the same collar and lead as he had when he went to your client?

It is becoming apparent from the state of his fur that, whilst in your client’s care, Bonzo is not being fed the premium dog food to which he is accustomed and it is understood that he may even have been given titbits from the table

Bonzo is a highly strung animal and does not take lightly to strangers, please therefore ensure that he is not introduced and on no account left alone with your client’s new partner.

During contact with your client it is evident that Bonzo is being over stimulated to the extent that when he returns to our client’s home he does not settle down in his basket in the kitchen but insists on sleeping on our client’s bed suggesting that your client may have erred in sticking to the strict rules agreed for his upbringing.

Last week your client failed to advise our client of her intention to take Bonzo to Scotland. It is important that our client is aware of Bonzo’s whereabouts at all times.

If your client insists on walking Bonzo close to traffic, then he must be vigilant in watching him and ensure that he keeps a tight hold of his lead. Reports that he was seen playing chicken with motor vehicles on the nearby dual carriageway on Sunday are most distressing.

Our client has invested in an insurance policy for Bonzo protecting against vet’s fees. Please ensure that your client pays half.

So it went on..

I like to believe that Bonzo matured into a gentle animal with a special spot before two fireplaces, but I’m not too sure.

ENDURING LOVE

“Enduring Love” is the title of a book by Ian McEwan who is one of my best loved authors. I find the contents of his books so very different and yet in their individual ways they are all compelling. “Atonement” (just released on film) has to be his most beautiful; “Saturday” is my personal favourite; “Amsterdam” inspires debate; the list goes on. “Enduring Love,” however, is the story of a man favoured by the attentions of a stranger which move from being co-incidence to stalking and harassment.

Frequently, when relationships breakdown, one party behaves in a manner that’s uncontrolled and unacceptable. Enduring love becomes endurance. It is not uncommon for me to have clients who are at the receiving end of repeated incidents of: nuisance telephone calls; offensive items being posted through letterboxes; threatening or abusive text messages; attempts to sabotage their working arrangements; the searching of their refuse bins; perpetual stalking.

A few years ago and by virtue of the Protection from Harassment Act the police were given clearer powers to deal with such matters and harassment became a criminal offence. When the intensity of emotion overheats, harassment can occur but at least, if it does, there is now a mechanism for easy intervention should the onslaught become enduring.

“Easy” and “enduring” are two adjectives my colleagues in our Private Law Department have been grappling with lately as the countdown to the new law on Lasting Powers of Attorney comes into force at the end of the month. The existing law is less bureaucratic and their message, which I’ll repeat here, is to activate an Enduring Power of Attorney now to avoid regulatory requirements later.

WHEN OTHERS INTERFERE

When I left work today my way was barred. Darlington Town Centre seemed to have been taken over by the emergency services and my route along the high street to my car, calling at a particular shop en route, was blocked. I tried another way but again there was a police cordon. Craftily I slipped down a back alley hoping to re-emerge on the main street further up, but this time six burly policemen and a strip of red tape prevented me. Ultimately I gave up and taking a large detour made my way to my parking spot by a different route.

My intentions had been honest but others had intervened to prevent me pursuing what I considered to be my own business. Forcing my way through was not an option and I had no choice but to admit defeat and retreat. I felt frustrated and even angry that my routine and freedom to walk and visit where I might choose should be impeded in this way.

Later I discovered that there had been an underground fire in the pump room linked to the Town’s new water feature and for safety reasons the High Street had been evacuated.

Emotionally though I felt that I had been challenged and deprived of an opportunity to engage in a way I had wanted. The police and fire brigade clearly acted to prevent me and others being inadvertently harmed but from the point of view of my personal life and agenda it felt like a gross interference that I could only properly appreciate later.