Blog

Posted on

The end of the blame game in divorce is one step closer

I noted a press release this afternoon, released by the Minister of Justice, that promised the “biggest shake-up of divorce laws in 50 years aimed at reducing conflict and supporting children and families.”

And I, for one, agree. The Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Bill will revolutionise the way in which divorcing couples will end their marriage.

No longer will they need to lay blame either through allegations of bad behaviour or adultery and instead this will be replaced with a simple statement of irretrievable breakdown.

The truly original feature is that couples may opt to make a joint statement of irretrievable breakdown if they choose. Reflecting the fact that when many marriages end, both parties have reached the same conclusion.

It will also take away the prospects of unsightly defended divorce cases where parties are subjected to airing the intimate aspects of their marriage in the Court.

It is to be hoped that starting the divorce process on a less contentious footing will help the parties to resolve other issues that may arise whether they relate to future arrangements for their children or sorting out financial settlements.

I think that the end of the blame game in divorce is definitely one step closer.

Julian Hawkhead, Senior Partner at Stowe Family Law

The post The end of the blame game in divorce is one step closer appeared first on Stowe Family Law.


Go to Source
Author: Julian Hawkhead

Posted on

Dating after divorce: 5 dating terms you need to know in 2019

Dating after divorce can be brutal, particularly if your marriage / long relationship lasted for a couple of decades. If this is the case, the last time you dated, back in 1999, there was no dating apps, no ghosting and certainly no bread crumbing.

Instead, it was a world of speed dating, matchmaking and a ‘little black book’. And, the most popular dating term was the straight forward “He’s Just Not That into You” popularised in an episode of ‘Sex in the City’ in the ‘00s.

So, if you find yourself “back out there again” (something that strikes fear in anyone at any age) after a relationship breakdown, we’ve rounded up some of the latest dating terms you need to know to survive.

First up, dating apps. According to Glamour Magazine, the best dating apps in 2019 are Tinder, Bumble, Hinge, Happn, Wingman, Pickable, Badoo and Coffee Meet Bagel. The article also declares “one app is SO 2018” so you can find out more and select your choices of digital dating here.

Next stop, dating terms. Well, there are plenty out there, here are our favourite (?) five.

Orbiting

Things have ended or, maybe they haven’t? It was not clear. Either way, they have continued to like all your social posts, spy on your Instagram stories etc to make sure you know that they are still there. Not quite in your life but not entirely removed.

Bread crumbing

Bread crumbing basically means stringing someone along. Think, suggesting a date but never with any actual plans or commenting on your latest Insta but screening your calls. To be blunt, they are not forgetful. This is tactical. They are not interested in you but having you around boosts their ego.

Zombieing

If your first experience of zombies was the film ‘24 days later’ with the now Thomas Shelby from Peaky Blinders in lead, zombies are not the first thing that pops to mind when dating. Today, however, it is a sort of non-committed ghosting. So just as you realise you may have ghosted, they return from the dead (like a zombie) and get back in touch.

Pocketing

You have dated for months and things seem to be going well but you realise that you have never been introduced to anyone: family, friends, colleagues. In fact, you only see each other when the ‘pocket-er’ wants to or has nothing else planned.  It’s like they have just stuffed you in their pocket to keep you hidden.

Benching

You are dating someone but get the feeling they are dating others.  They want to see you, but it is clear that you are their plan B or C whilst they keep looking for a better option. They do not want to burn the relationship bridge, just yet.

Dating after divorce 

Wow, welcome to the complicated and slightly terrifying modern world of dating. It certainly is a minefield and its digitalisation brings both benefits and challenges.

So, if you are getting ready to date again after divorce, take your time, go with your instinct and remember sometimes, they are just not that into you and that’s fine.

Good luck out there.

Disclaimer: I left ghosting out of the list as it has been around for a while, even I at 43 years old have heard of it before.

The post Dating after divorce: 5 dating terms you need to know in 2019 appeared first on Stowe Family Law.


Go to Source
Author: Stowe Family Law

Posted on

Return order after finding father violent towards children breached human rights

As I have explained here many times previously, the rationale behind the Hague Convention on Child Abduction is that the child should usually be returned to their ‘home’ country, where decisions as to their welfare should be made. The ‘defences’ to a Hague application open to the ‘abducting’ parent are therefore very limited. One of those defences is that there is a grave risk that the child’s return would expose them to physical or psychological harm, or otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation.

It is comparatively rare for such a defence to be successful. Sometimes, however, the court, perhaps in its ‘eagerness’ to follow the rationale and order a return, gets it wrong, by not accepting the defence when perhaps it really should. Such was the situation in the recent European Court of Human Rights (‘ECHR’) case OCI and others v Romania.

The facts in the case were that the mother was a Romanian national and the father was an Italian national. They had two children, who held joint nationality. The family resided in Italy.

In June 2015 the family went to Romania for the summer holidays. A few days later the father returned to Italy, expecting to go back to collect the mother and the children at the end of the summer. On the 25th of June 2015 the mother informed the father that she and the children would not be returning to Italy. The father made an application under the Hague Convention for the summary return of the children to Italy.

The mother opposed the application, raising the ‘grave harm’ defence. She alleged that the father had used serious violence towards the children, including beating them with hard objects, bruising their faces and giving them nose bleeds, calling them names and humiliating them. The Romanian court found that the evidence proved “without doubt that the father used physical force and a raised voice to discipline his children”, and the father confirmed this in his statement. Notwithstanding this finding, the court found that there was nothing to oppose the children’s return to Italy, and therefore made a return order. The mother appealed, but the appeal court upheld the return order. However, the order was never enforced, due to the children’s refusal to go back to Italy.

The mother, on her behalf and on behalf of the children, issued proceedings in the ECHR, alleging that the Romanian courts had breached their right to respect for their family life, protected by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, in so far as the courts had failed to take into account the grave risk that the children would be subject to physical or psychological harm at the hands of their father.

The ECHR found that there had been a violation of Article 8. The Romanian courts, while condemning in general terms abuse against children, were nevertheless satisfied that what the children had suffered at the hands of their father had only been occasional acts of violence and would not reoccur “often enough to pose a grave risk”. However, that assessment ran counter to the prohibition of abuse against children under domestic law, and cast doubt on the decision-making process. The ECHR said:

“Corporal punishment against children cannot be tolerated and States should strive to expressly and comprehensively prohibit it in law and practice … In this context, the risk of domestic violence against children cannot pass as a mere inconvenience necessarily linked to the experience of return, but concerns a situation which goes beyond what a child might reasonably bear.”

Furthermore, there was nothing in the Romanian courts’ decisions that led the ECHR to believe that they considered that the children were no longer at risk of being violently disciplined by their father if returned to his care.

The ECHR considered that the Romanian courts should have given more consideration to the potential risk of ill-treatment of the children if they were returned to Italy. They should have at least ensured that specific arrangements were made in order to safeguard the children. In short, the Romanian courts had failed to examine the allegations of “grave risk” in a manner consistent with the children’s best interests within the scope of the procedural framework of the Hague Convention, and there had accordingly been a violation of Article 8.

You can read the full report of the case here.

The post Return order after finding father violent towards children breached human rights appeared first on Stowe Family Law.


Go to Source
Author: John Bolch

Posted on

I Have Mental Illnesses And I’m Not Ashamed

I am mentally ill. In my local language, the term used unfortunately translates to “sickness of the soul.” I prefer the term “having mental illness” or rather, in my case, having mental illnesses, because I have more than one. 5 diagnosed ones, to be precise, not counting my diagnosis of ADHD which I personally consider more neurodivergence than mental illness.

You might ask why would I


Go to Source
Author: Penniless Parenting

Posted on

How Natural Gas Help You Save Money

We all want to lower our utilities bills, but how do we do it? A long time reader gives a good suggestion: switch to natural gas. Is it cheaper? This post explores how it is. Fascinating.

In the world of today, the cost of living is ever-rising, and one of the most annoying recurrent expenses happens to be electricity. Without proper caution, energy bills can turn out to be a pain in the back,


Go to Source
Author: Penniless Parenting

Posted on

Wife cannot make claim against property after previously failing to pursue claim

I have written here previously (for example here) that financial remedy orders are intended to be final, and that therefore a party is not usually entitled to have a ‘second bite of the cherry’. Once a claim against property has been determined, no further claim can be made against that property. In the recent case Chaudhri (Shafi) v Shafi & Another, however, the situation was slightly different: here, the wife had declined to take that first bite. She did not actually pursue a first claim against the property. However, as we shall see, the end result was still the same.

The case, heard by Mr Justice Mostyn in the High Court in April, concerned the wife’s application for a freezing injunction against a property in London (the injunction had been made earlier by Mr Justice Cobb, and Mr Justice Mostyn was reconsidering it). The injunction was sought in relation to the enforcement of a lump sum order requiring the husband to pay to the wife £686,000. The husband had failed to comply with the order, and the wife sought the freezing injunction to prevent the property being sold or mortgaged, thereby protecting the wife’s claim against the property, which she no doubt hoped would be sold, so that she could recover all or part of the lump sum.

The complication was that the property was held in the name of a third party. The wife claimed, however, that she and the husband had funded its purchase, and were the true (’beneficial’) owners. The wife had made a claim against the property within the financial remedy proceedings. However, she stated that she “did not pursue it due to stress and ill-health.”

Whilst it was true that the wife had suffered stress and ill-health around the time of the final financial remedies hearing, Mr Justice Mostyn found that she was not incapacitated, and was in a position to give instructions to her solicitor. A lawyer for the third party had written to her solicitor stating that her claim against the property had no substance, and asking whether the wife would oppose an application by the third party to have the claim struck out. The wife’s solicitor replied, confirming that she would not resist the strike-out application.

In addition to this, when the matter later went before the court the judge specifically recorded that the wife did not pursue a claim against the property.

Turning to the wife’s freezing injunction application, it was suggested by counsel for the third party that it would be an abuse for the wife now to be allowed to pursue a claim in relation to the property. Mr Justice Mostyn agreed, citing the following words of Lord Bingham in a 2002 House of Lords case:

“The underlying public interest is … that there should be finality in litigation and that a party should not be twice vexed in the same matter … The bringing of a claim or the raising of a defence in later proceedings may, without more, amount to abuse if the court is satisfied (the onus being on the party alleging abuse) that the claim or defence should have been raised in the earlier proceedings if it was to be raised at all.”

Mr Justice Mostyn said that not once, but twice, had the wife failed to pursue her claim in relation to the property. In his judgment, it would be a manifest abuse were a claim now to be allowed to be mounted and protected by a freezing injunction. Accordingly, the injunction was discharged.

(It should be noted that the wife also had the protection of an earlier worldwide freezing order, presumably freezing any property held by the husband, anywhere in the world. Sadly, it can be very difficult to enforce against assets held abroad, which was no doubt why the wife was eager to enforce against an asset in this country.)

You can read the full judgment here.

The post Wife cannot make claim against property after previously failing to pursue claim appeared first on Stowe Family Law.


Go to Source
Author: John Bolch

Posted on

My Jungle of a Garden

I started writing this post a while ago, while everything was lush and green. Now its the drier season and my garden is mostly brown and dead, but I still wanted to share this with you, so I hope you don’t mind that it is a bit out of season. Those who live in cooler climates or where it rains year round will probably find these things growing now, so it’s not so bad.

I grew up with a nice


Go to Source
Author: Penniless Parenting