A TIME FOR REFLECTION

It was with a sense of déjà vu that I read reports about the Conservative party’s new think tank proposals calling for a compulsory three month period for reflection before a separating couple can begin divorce proceedings. Moreover, before and during marriage a couple, whilst not being compelled, would instead be strongly encouraged to attend some kind of relationship classes.

Somewhere along the way there must be statistics on what percentage of separated couples commences divorce proceedings within 3 months. In my experience, it is only after much soul searching and often counselling that people proceed. The only immediate grounds for divorce in this country remain adultery or unreasonable behaviour and any person who commences proceedings quickly invariably does so in circumstances that they feel to be fully justified. Moreover, the first three months are generally spent exploring arrangements arising from the separation, including financially and in relation to the children.

Divorce is a piece of paper that allows someone to remarry and for most separating couples is therefore of little consequence to begin with. Instead it is used to confirm financial settlements or allow the courts to help broker deals or determine arrangements where agreement has proved impossible. What difference will a three month prohibition make?

The Conservative paper however seems to suggest that expectations of marriage are now too high and relationships will be saved if couples can somehow learn to modify their aspirations. I am a supporter of any steps that can help save marriages and prevent or reduce the trauma for the whole family that inevitably accompanies a split. For relationship counselling to do this, however, it must be widely available and totally voluntary. To suggest however that couples should learn to compromise in order to save their marriage sounds to me both patronising and insulting. We are talking about adults, many of whom can be bitterly hurt emotionally or physically by their partner; surely they have the right to decide their future for themselves? What kind of political party seeks to legislate to try to curtail lawful, personal aspirations?

Divorce is not easy but it is now an accepted phenomenon. I suggest that it is the level of acceptance that has increased the number of divorces and not a shift in a willingness to compromise. There have always been dreadfully unhappy marriages. The difference is that three generations ago, people remained trapped in them.

Off To The Market

My team and I will have a booth at the Wednesday night market in front of the courthouse. Come and meet me and the gang: Rhonda, Diane and "Supa J" Justin. Our first CD is available for $10.00

GOOD NEWS, BAD NEWS

Last week there was both good news and bad news for divorcees. The Telegraph in its inimitable style published both on the same page in Friday’s newspaper. Headlined “Landmark victory for heiress in pre-nup case” it reported that “pre-nuptial agreements were recognised in English law for the first time” when the Court of Appeal held that family courts should give due weight to pre-nuptial contracts entered into. That of course is excellent, as so many divorced clients when intending re-marriage, have returned to me at Latimer Hinks in order to make a pre-nuptial agreement, unsure as to whether or not it will have any legal standing or not if the relationship goes awry.

However, and just underneath, the bad news for divorcees was headlined “Living alone can increase the risk of Alzheimer’s.” Apparently, living alone in middle-age doubles the chances of developing the disease according to a study published by the British Medical Journal. If it’s any consolation, I don’t live alone (far from it) but already my memory is far from what it used to be. Now where did I put Little Girl’s PE kit in readiness for school tomorrow and what have I done with the computer mouse; I could swear I used it only two minutes ago?

The Case for Judges with Practical Legal Experience

If I've said it once, I've said it a million times, with few exceptions,Judges who have never practiced law are nightmares on the bench.
It makes perfect sense that if you have never practiced law you can't possibly understand what the attorneys advocating before you are dealing with legally or realistically with regard to their clients. It is not enough that the judge knows or even learns the law. He or she must be aware of the practicality involved in representing clients and the difficulty in dealing with a client and an adversary. Judges who have never practiced do not understand that a lawyer is really not earning a living while they cool their heels in a court room waiting for a judge to take the bench. Lawyers who are successful are usually busy at their office meeting with clients and a judge who earns a paycheck by merely showing up can not always appreciate the time constraints on a practitioner.

More importantly a judge who has never sat in a room with an adversary and his client in an attempt to negotiate a settlement is in no position to pass judgement on those who toil away in an attempt to avoid a trial. Once again I have been witness to a judge becoming very angry and agitated over the fact that the parties were attempting to negotiate a settlement instead of trying a case. The judge instead of being thrilled that the parties were attempting to settle the matter without judicial input became quite abusive and insistent that the matter conclude immediately. This of course leads to hasty decision making, sloppy paperwork and clients with lots of regrets.

The better approach of course would be to assist the attorneys by giving them some insight with regard to how the rulings would go if put to the bench and give them the time and leeway they need to facilitate a through settlement agreement that all parties sign on to with confidence. It isn't necessary that the parties be completely happy, no one ever is in these cases, but at least the agreement should be solid and enforceable.

A judge who has been in the trenches can appreciate the value of two attorneys working to settle a case. It doesn't take a master litigator to try a basic matrimonial case, but it does take a knowledgeable attorney to settle a matter without the need for theatrics and costly litigation.

The Case for Judges with Practical Legal Experience

If I've said it once, I've said it a million times, with few exceptions,Judges who have never practiced law are nightmares on the bench.
It makes perfect sense that if you have never practiced law you can't possibly understand what the attorneys advocating before you are dealing with legally or realistically with regard to their clients. It is not enough that the judge knows or even learns the law. He or she must be aware of the practicality involved in representing clients and the difficulty in dealing with a client and an adversary. Judges who have never practiced do not understand that a lawyer is really not earning a living while they cool their heels in a court room waiting for a judge to take the bench. Lawyers who are successful are usually busy at their office meeting with clients and a judge who earns a paycheck by merely showing up can not always appreciate the time constraints on a practitioner.

More importantly a judge who has never sat in a room with an adversary and his client in an attempt to negotiate a settlement is in no position to pass judgement on those who toil away in an attempt to avoid a trial. Once again I have been witness to a judge becoming very angry and agitated over the fact that the parties were attempting to negotiate a settlement instead of trying a case. The judge instead of being thrilled that the parties were attempting to settle the matter without judicial input became quite abusive and insistent that the matter conclude immediately. This of course leads to hasty decision making, sloppy paperwork and clients with lots of regrets.

The better approach of course would be to assist the attorneys by giving them some insight with regard to how the rulings would go if put to the bench and give them the time and leeway they need to facilitate a through settlement agreement that all parties sign on to with confidence. It isn't necessary that the parties be completely happy, no one ever is in these cases, but at least the agreement should be solid and enforceable.

A judge who has been in the trenches can appreciate the value of two attorneys working to settle a case. It doesn't take a master litigator to try a basic matrimonial case, but it does take a knowledgeable attorney to settle a matter without the need for theatrics and costly litigation.

LIVING APART TOGETHER

Despite talk of an economic recovery, the recession is still making life hard for couples wanting to move on after divorce. Resolution, says that continuing problems in the housing market are preventing divorcing couples from moving to separate accommodation after their divorce. Selling the family home is often an important step for couples and their families making the transition from one home to two after divorce, but with limited mortgage deals, the increase in unemployment, and one in ten homeowners now in negative equity, selling up or moving on is easier said than done for many couples.

To help people in this situation, Resolution is today launching a series of online hints and tips for couples “living apart together” ahead of a national conference on the credit crunch and family law in London.

Having made the difficult decision to split, it can be incredibly stressful for couples to then have to live together – and to not know when this property limbo will end. That’s why we have launched these useful tips, which are available online, outline some simple practical steps to dealing with debt, property issues and how to cope generally with living with your ex.

Here are some of the tips for couples “living apart together”. For more tips, including those on dealing with debt and property, log onto
http://www.resolution.org.uk/advice_centre/

1. Try to agree some ‘ground rules’ – especially around subjects that are likely to prompt argument. If you can’t do this together – think about using a professional – such as a mediator – to help you to discuss and agree things calmly

2. Get short breaks from one another – a week-end with a friend, a day out or even a short holiday will help you to see things from a fresh perspective.

3. If you can, try to stay cost efficient whilst you are still under the same roof Continuing to share costs in regard to food, housekeeping items etc. will be better than doubling costs unnecessarily.

4. Play fair in regard to new partners or relationships – and don’t expect to use your home as a base for entertaining! – this is particularly important if you are a parent.

5. Don’t lose heart – no recession lasts forever – keep thinking creatively, get specialist advice in regard to finances, property and the lettings market.

MICHAEL JACKSON RIP

The recent death of Michael Jackson coupled with the reports that his mother has applied for guardianship of his children inevitably prompts queries from worried clients as to the position should they too die prematurely leaving dependent children. Is it automatic that their divorced spouse will have the children live with them or need they do something to ensure or, in some cases, prevent this? Has the fact that they have made a will appointing someone as guardian sufficient?

In English law, generally only the parents will have parental responsibility for their children and this cannot be usurped by a guardian appointed by will unless both parents have died. However, the fact that a surviving parent has parental responsibility does not mean that the children will automatically live with that person. As with all cases involving children, their best interests are paramount. So and to this end a court has power to make a residence order in favour of another person if that is the outcome which better serves the needs of the children. As a result I have been involved in cases where orders have been made in favour of grandparents or other relatives or friends, remembering always that a child’s wishes and feelings are also taken into account.

Further and importantly even where, as is invariably the case, there is no dispute between surviving relatives as to where the children should live, it is important not to overlook the need to apply for parental responsibility. If you do not have this, you may encounter difficulties consenting to medical treatment for a child or applying for a passport to take them on holiday.

Also and ridiculous as it may sound, even if you are named on the birth certificate of a child as the father, you do not automatically have parental responsibility unless your child was born in or after December 2003. In those circumstances a child may have lived with you throughout their lives but legally you still need powers conferring on you by a court to act on behalf of your child!