Get a week’s worth of simple, science-based steps you can take to help foster a deeper connection between you and your partner. Learn a bit more about each other and discover new ways to strengthen your bond.
Go to Source
Author:
Parenthood Is Still Uneven, but an Hour a Day Could Help
Men need to spend at least 50 more minutes a day on domestic duties — and women, 50 minutes less — a new report finds.
Go to Source
Author:
A week in family law: Another difficult decision, surrogacy reform, and the demise of a Bill
It has been another relatively quiet news week in the world of family law. Here are my picks for the top three news stories that I came across:
I will begin with another reminder of the sad and extremely difficult decisions that regularly face the judges of the Court of Protection. As he said in the opening paragraph of his judgment in the case A Clinical Commissioning Group v P, Mr Justice MacDonald was “concerned with a decision of the utmost gravity”, namely whether the court should consent to the withdrawal of medical treatment for a patient, that would result in her death. The patient, who is in her late 40s, suffered severe brain damage after taking a heroin overdose five years ago, and medical experts diagnosed her as being in either a vegetative or a minimally conscious state. She was being provided with clinically assisted nutrition and hydration. The NHS Clinical Commissioning Group applied to the court for its consent to the withdrawal of the treatment, a course to which the patient’s family agreed. After hearing the evidence, Mr Justice MacDonald was satisfied that it was in the patient’s best interests to consent on her behalf to the withdrawal of the treatment, a step that he acknowledged would result in her death, and that this accorded with her clearly expressed views before she took the overdose. He concluded: “In all the circumstances, I am satisfied that the sanctity of [the patient’s] life should now give way to what I am satisfied was her settled view on the decision before the court prior to the fateful day of her overdose in April 2014.” You can read the full report of the judgment here.
Perhaps the biggest news story of the week was the publication yesterday of the Law Commission’s consultation paper on the reform of surrogacy laws. “The laws around surrogacy are outdated and should be improved to better support the child, surrogates and intended parents” say the Commission, which is proposing to allow intended parents to become legal parents when the child is born, subject to the surrogate retaining a right to object for a short period after the birth. This would replace the current system where the intended parents must make an application to the court after the child has been born, and do not become legal parents until the court grants them a parental order. Sir Nicholas Green, Chair of the Law Commission said: “More and more people are turning to surrogacy to have a child and start their family. We therefore need to make sure that the process is meeting the needs of all those involved. However, the laws around surrogacy are outdated and no longer fit for purpose. We think our proposals will create a system that works for the surrogates, the parents and, most importantly, the child.” For more information, see this post here yesterday by Bethan Carr, an expert surrogacy lawyer at Stowe Family Law.
And finally, not really news, and certainly not unexpected, but I have just learnt that Baroness Deech’s Divorce (Financial Provision) Bill has apparently stopped its progress through Parliament. The Bill essentially contained three provisions: that pre- or post-nuptial written agreements between the spouses should be treated by the courts as binding, that ‘matrimonial property’ (essentially, all property acquired after the parties were married, save for gifts and inheritances) should be divided equally, and that the duration of spousal maintenance orders should usually be limited to five years. The Bill is/was due to have its second reading in the House of Commons, but no date has been announced for that. Of course, being a Private Members’ Bill, it was always unlikely to be passed, especially as the Government expressed reservations about it at its second reading in the House of Lords in May last year. If the Bill has indeed been ‘scuppered’, at least until the next time that the Baroness seeks to revive it (she has been pressing for it since at least 2014), then there will be many who will not lament its passing. I wrote here last November about the major concerns that eminent family lawyers have expressed about the provisions of the Bill.
Have a good weekend.
The post A week in family law: Another difficult decision, surrogacy reform, and the demise of a Bill appeared first on Stowe Family Law.
Go to Source
Author: John Bolch
Stowe guests: How play therapy can help children and teenagers of divorce and separation
For children and teenagers going through a divorce or separation, expressing their emotions can be difficult. To start, they do not communicate as well as adults by talking and do not understand how to verbalise the emotions that come from a family breakdown.
Instead, they often use play to express themselves. This is a non-threatening approach where they are not asked to talk but instead just play. However, through play, a lot of what they are feeling, and thinking is projected.
So, for this instalment of Stowe guests, we asked Penn Wall from Penn Wall Play Therapy to join us on the blog to explain how Play Therapy can help children and teenagers going through a divorce or separation.
“Play is an essential part of every child’s development emotionally, socially and spiritually; it helps to develop the child’s personality and character. It is necessary for children to reach their full potential and can result in long-term positive health effect both physically and mentally.
What is play therapy?
Play therapy empowers children and teenagers to cope with problems in their lives and to increase their self-esteem and confidence. It improves their emotional wellbeing and may be used to help and support a mild to a moderate, emotional or psychological problem that is preventing them from functioning normally. Play therapy is called special time for the younger children and chill out time for teenagers.
What will my child do in play therapy?
There are many activities for children and teenagers to do in play therapy. Sand tray, art, clay and role play are generally the most popular. There are musical instruments, art & crafts, dolls, puppets, dressing up clothes and props, as well as a selection of objects that they use in the sand tray. The child/teenager chooses what they want to do and at their own pace.
I am getting a divorce and worried about my children, how can play therapy help?
If your children are showing signs of anger, frustration, sadness or depression, it might be that they are struggling to deal with the enormity of the situation that they find themselves in and over which they have no control.
Children and teenagers often feel that a situation is their fault, or their mother’s or their father’s fault. Their upset and frustration can result in emotional outbursts, becoming withdrawn, being physically/verbally aggressive and acting in a way that parents may not have seen before.
This behaviour is completely normal, but it naturally causes great concern. This is where play therapy can help.
By creating a safe permissive space, children and teenagers can process things that are going on in their lives through play. Play therapy is about reflecting feelings back to the child/teenager in such a manner that they gain insight into their behaviour. It is about acknowledging that you are listening and have heard what they are expressing. This does not necessarily need to be verbal.
It is giving the child the empowerment to make choices and institute change. During symbolic play and through using metaphors the child/teenager is able to express their emotions. This enables them to release their emotions in a way that they discover their inner self and strength. This is a pathway to believe in themselves.
What are the benefits of play therapy?
Play therapy really works as a way to handle a divorce or separation, by enabling children and teenagers to express, process and deal with their emotions.
I recently worked with a young boy who was struggling to deal with the changes brought about by divorce and this was impacting on his school, home life and relationships.
We worked together in weekly sessions and as his Mum noted, “He changed into a confident and happier little boy. For me, the biggest impact was he was able to communicate how he was feeling, something that he found really frustrating before.”
To find out more.
To find out more about how play therapy can help children and teenagers going through a divorce or separation you can visit my website: Penn Wall Play Therapy or email: penn@pennwallplaytherapy.co.uk
The post Stowe guests: How play therapy can help children and teenagers of divorce and separation appeared first on Stowe Family Law.
Go to Source
Author: Stowe Family Law
Father’s application for return of child to Germany dismissed
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 decided. It is therefore comparatively rare that a return is not ordered. Accordingly, ‘non-return’ cases are more likely to be noteworthy.
The latest such case that I have come across is CA v KA, a decision of Mr Justice Mostyn in the High Court. The case turned on the issue of acquiescence, i.e. whether the ‘non-abducting’ parent had consented to, or acquiesced in, the retention of the child in the ‘foreign’ country.
The relevant facts of the case were that the parents were married and lived in Germany, along with their daughter, who was born on the 5th of July 2016. On the 3rd of August 2018 the mother brought the child to this country, for the purposes of a holiday. They were booked to return to Germany on the 30th of August 2018, but they did not return. The father then made an application under the Convention for the summary return of the child to Germany.
The crucial moment in the case came on the 22nd of October, when the parents spoke for about two and a half hours on the telephone. During the course of that conversation, Mr Justice Mostyn found, they reached a substantive agreement, which provided that the child would remain in the primary care of her mother and would have frequent contact with her father.
On the following day the father wrote an email to the German authorities requesting the withdrawal of his Hague Convention application, and stating that “my wife and I were able to find a very good and mutually agreed solution which is in our daughter’s best interests and which we will regularise.”
On the next day the mother sent a draft parenting agreement to the father, which was prepared by her and which stated that the matters were agreed on the 22nd of October, including that the child would reside in the United Kingdom with her mother.
Notwithstanding all of the above, the father proceeded with his Hague application (presumably, he withdrew his request to withdraw the application, the judgment of Mr Justice Mostyn does not explain). However, Mr Justice Mostyn found that the email and draft agreement clearly showed that the father had consented to, or acquiesced in, the retention of the child in this country by the mother.
As he went on to explain, proof of acquiescence does not establish an absolute defence to the application. However, it opens the door to the court exercising its discretion to refuse to order the return of the child. Here, whilst Mr Justice Mostyn was quite clear that it should be the German courts that make decisions regarding the child’s welfare, he did not believe that it would be in her interests for her to be uprooted and to be exposed to the risk of ‘ping pong’, returning her to Germany now, in circumstances where the mother must have a strongly arguable case in the German court to be granted permission to relocate with her to this country.
Accordingly, he declined to exercise his discretion to order a return of the child to Germany, and the father’s application was dismissed.
An interesting case, although I have to say rather an odd one, in that the father decided to proceed with his application after clearly indicating his wish for it to be withdrawn. Once his email to the German authorities came to light (and he produced it himself on the morning of the hearing), then his application was surely doomed.
You can read the full judgment here. (Mr Justice Mostyn also has some important things to say about the limited nature of Hague applications, and the need for the parents to pursue substantive relief (as to what is ultimately in the child’s best interests in terms of residence and contact with the non-residential parent) in the courts of the ‘home’ country – see paragraphs 5 to 9 of the judgment.)
The post Father’s application for return of child to Germany dismissed appeared first on Stowe Family Law.
Go to Source
Author: John Bolch
Preparing My Family for Life Without Me
After eight heart attacks, a young wife and mother with an uncommon condition curates her legacy while decorating a new home.
Go to Source
Author:
Another step forward in surrogacy reform
This morning, Thursday 6 June, the Law Commission released their consultation paper on surrogacy reform, and their thoughts, proposals and recommendations make up a 498 page report
At the time of writing, I haven’t read the report cover to cover yet despite getting a sneak preview a couple of days ago, however, by way of a summary the Law Commission has covered every aspect of this complex area in law, and I have broadly summarised their proposals as follows:
A new pathway to legal parenthood
This is designed to create the possibility of the intended parents being recognised as the legal parents of a child born through surrogacy from the time of birth. It focuses on the intentions of those involved and won’t require the intended parents to make an application to the Court. There will be safeguards in place, for example, if the surrogate objects to the agreement following the birth but it is designed to ensure there is more legal certainty for all those entering into surrogacy arrangements in the UK.
A continuation of the existing parental order process
The parental order route will remain in circumstances where the new pathway doesn’t apply, and this will largely cover international arrangements. This will remain similar to current Court process, but the Law Commission is proposing some changes to the existing criteria and processes to achieve further clarity for intended parents and to make the process easier overall.
Greater regulation is proposed for surrogacy arrangements
This suggests that surrogacy organisations could be regulated and could then oversee the arrangements which fall inside the new pathway.
A national surrogacy register
A national surrogacy register is suggested which will record the details of the surrogate, the intended parents and any egg/sperm donor involved in the arrangement. This will be accessible to surrogate children, with non-identifying information being available at the age of 16 and identifying information at the age of 18.
Payments
The report identifies the difficulties and contrasting views of those already consulted in relation to surrogacy payment. As a result, they have not yet been able to make any provisional proposals on this. However, they have commented on the different categories of payments which they propose that a surrogate may be able to receive and seek views on whether these payments should be allowed.
These categories of payments are:
- Compensation for pain, inconvenience, medical complications or death of the surrogate
- Loss of earnings from being a surrogate
- Essential costs of a pregnancy
- Additional costs of a pregnancy
- Costs associated with a surrogate pregnancy
- Gifts
- Compensation for loss of welfare entitlement
Nationality/passports
It proposes streamlining and shortening the process to obtain a passport/a visa in international surrogacy cases.
Next steps
Within the report, 118 questions are asked of the public in respect of their proposals, and a formal consultation period will now begin. This culminates on 27 September 2019 and so if you would like your view, now is the time to act.
Here at Stowe Family Law, the surrogacy team will certainly be putting forward their views and comments, and if you have any questions about the report or any of the wider legal issues please do not hesitate to get in touch with me at bethan.carr@stowefamilylaw.co.uk
The post Another step forward in surrogacy reform appeared first on Stowe Family Law.
Go to Source
Author: Bethan Carr
What a ‘Living Wage’ Actually Means
If you ask a dozen lawmakers what constitutes a “living wage,” you’ll get a dozen answers. Where does the term come from? And is it even accurate?
Go to Source
Author:
Addressing specific property division questions
When’s the last time you had an accurate and up-to-date accounting of all your financial accounts? This could include a 401(k), savings account or other financial assets. It could also mean the status of your liabilities, like credit card accounts or auto loans. If you aren’t able to answer these questions off the top of your head – you’re not alone.
When you’re going through a divorce, it’s important to get a full understanding of these questions or more. In order to fully understand your property division issues in your case, it is important to know the status of all marital property assets and liabilities to understand what a fair and equitable asset division would look like. Even missing or undervaluing one account could shift the entire perception of the process.
At our law firm, we work with our clients to attempt to ensure that there is a full accounting of all financial accounts that are between spouses. Sometimes, a hidden account makes itself known. Maybe you have a specific goal that you want to accomplish with the property division process? It is important to approach that particular initiative and understand what a realistic approach might be to achieve it.
A divorce case can be complicated. The dissolution of a marriage is exactly what it sounds like – the dissolution of what was built between a couple. Whether you’ve been married two years or 20, there can be many questions associated with the divorce and, specifically, with property division. Ensure that you are achieving everything you want with a tailored approach to your divorce and property division.
Go to Source
Author: On behalf of Katie L. Lewis of Katie L. Lewis, P.C. Family Law
Father required to pay more child support after breakdown of contact
If a non-resident parent (‘NRP’) enjoys shared care of a child (i.e. an average of at least one overnight stay a week) then the amount of child support maintenance that they are required to pay will be reduced, with the amount of the reduction depending upon the number of nights per year that the child spends with the NRP. Accordingly, for example, if the child stays with the NRP for between 52 and 103 nights per year then the maintenance is reduced by one-seventh, if the child stays with the NRP for between 104 and 155 nights per year then the maintenance is reduced by two-sevenths, and so on.
But what if a court has ordered that the child should spend a sufficient number of nights with the NRP to warrant a reduction in the child maintenance, but the order is not being complied with – what is the effect of this upon the amount of child maintenance that the NRP is required to pay? This was the question facing the Upper Tribunal in the recent case EA v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and SA.
The relevant facts of the case may be stated quite simply (in fact, I am going to simplify them even further, for the sake of clarity). The mother and the NRP (I shall call him that, rather than ‘the father’, for the sake of consistency) had two children, one of whom is grown up, and the younger of whom is now aged 13. The parents divorced in 2013, and on the 31st of May 2013 the court made an order providing for the father to have overnight contact with the younger child, including alternate weekends from Thursday to Mondays, and additional holiday dates. However, by at least October 2015 the contact arrangements had broken down, as a result of which the NRP was not enjoying the overnight contact set out in the order. This was against the NRP’s wishes, the mother claiming that contact stopped because the child didn’t want it, and had run away one weekend to avoid contact.
Meanwhile, in August 2016 the Child Maintenance Service (‘CMS’) made a decision about the level of child support maintenance that the NRP was liable to pay with effect from the 24th of July 2016. The amount included a reduction for shared care, based upon the terms of the contact order. The mother requested that the decision be reconsidered, and as a result the decision was revised on the 1st of November 2017. The effect of the revision was to increase the payments by the NRP, because the deduction for shared care was removed, in the light of the fact that the overnight contact was not actually taking place.
The NRP appealed. The First-tier Tribunal rejected the appeal, and the NRP appealed again, to the Upper Tribunal.
The Upper Tribunal also refused the appeal. Whilst the regulations state that, when considering the issue of shared care, the CMS must consider the terms of any court order providing for contact between the NRP and the child, there is no obligation to determine shared care solely on the basis of the provisions in that court order. The weight to be attached to the court order is for the CMS to decide. They are also entitled to take into account evidence that the provisions of the order do not accurately reflect the number of nights for which the NRP is expected to have overnight care of the child during the relevant 12 month period. It is not the intention of the child support legislation that the contact arrangements set out in the court order must take precedence over the actual overnight contact, no matter how old the court order was or how long it had been ineffective. The deduction for shared care is to reflect the respective costs of caring for the qualifying child borne by the parent with care and the NRP, and to do otherwise would not be in the interests of the child, or in accordance with the policy intention of the deduction for shared care.
Here, the First-tier Tribunal had concluded that “there was likely to be no or limited overnight care in the 12 months from the effective date”, and that determined the matter. The Upper Tribunal judge concluded with the following:
“I can understand [the NRP’s] frustration. He wishes to see his son, and would like [the mother] to facilitate that. He considers it is in the best interests of his son to have contact with him, and feels it is unfair that he pays additional child maintenance, having lost credit for shared care because contact ordered by a court is not happening. However, if [the NRP] is not content with the present level of contact, he has avenues of recourse in the courts available to him.”
You can read the full report of the case here.
The post Father required to pay more child support after breakdown of contact appeared first on Stowe Family Law.
Go to Source
Author: John Bolch