Blog

Posted on

Our Fun and Frugal Family Trip Today

Pic heavy post ahead!

In my country, today was a national holiday, which meant that everyone was off of school and I was off of work. To make it even better, the government decided that inter city public transportation would all be free. Originally I planned on just taking it easy, maybe doing a bit of housework today, but in the end, decided to take the kids on a trip to a beautiful


Go to Source
Author: Penniless Parenting

Posted on

Father succeeds in appeal against findings after social worker found to be biased

As I have explained here recently, often in private law family proceedings relating to children the court is required to make findings regarding allegations that one parent makes against the other, and those findings can have a crucial bearing upon the outcome of the case. Obviously, therefore, a parent aggrieved at the court’s findings may wish to appeal against them. However, it can be very difficult for that parent to prove that the judge’s findings were wrong.

That, however, is what happened in the Court of Appeal case P-G (Children), and for rather worrying reasons. The case was heard in 2015, but the judgment has only recently been published on the Bailii website. The case also has something important to say about the usefulness of fact-finding hearings in these cases generally.

The case concerned cross-applications by both parents for orders that their two daughters, then aged 7 and 5, reside with them. The mother made various allegations against the father, which included sexually inappropriate conduct towards the mother; controlling behaviour such that the mother lost contact with her family and friends and which was also hostile and intimidating; verbal abuse; shouting and swearing at the mother, sometimes in front of children; throwing a “lump of cheese” at the mother, which hit a wall; swearing at and kicking the family dog; and swearing and shouting at the older child. The father did not deny all of the allegations, but argued that where incidents had taken place the mother was exaggerating, elaborating or taking the incident out of context.

A fact-finding hearing took place to determine the truth of the allegations. The judge found in favour of the mother. In doing so he took into account the contents of two reports from a social worker, which supported the mother’s allegations.

The father complained to the local authority that the social worker had been biased. The local authority upheld the complaint, finding that an injustice had been caused to the father for which financial compensation should be considered. The social worker had believed the mother, without checking or analysing the source material, or setting out the father’s contrary case or explanation.

The father appealed against the findings of fact, to the Court of Appeal. Giving the leading judgment Lord Justice Ryder found that the social worker’s reports were tainted evidence, which the judge had relied on when making his findings. There was a strong perception of unfairness, which meant that the findings had to be set aside. Accordingly, the father’s appeal was allowed.

However, Lord Justice Ryder had another observation to make. He said:

“It is not the case that all factual disputes between parents need to be resolved as a precondition to the issue of contact being determined by the Family Court. That simplistic formulation leads to unnecessary hearings and interminable delay for the children concerned. An acute scrutiny is necessary during case management of the disputes that the parties want to resolve. There may be an imperative of protection that needs to be considered or provided for a victim or a child, and Practice Directions 12B and 12J of the Family Procedure Rules 2010 are written with that imperative in mind. Nothing I say is intended to suggest otherwise. That said, there are many private law children cases where protection is not the critical issue. The findings of fact proposed will add little or nothing to the value judgment that the court has to undertake but will cause the child to lose the quality of a relationship with one of her parents that should exist.”

He went on:

“This is arguably one such case. The nature and extent of the findings of fact, even if made, would not, in my judgment, prevent direct contact between the children and their father”

Lord Justice McCombe agreed, saying:

“I have been concerned as to the likelihood of the fact-finding exercise conducted in this case providing any sensible information as to the desirability of contact between father and his children and/or the nature of that contact.”

And Lord Justice Elias also agreed:

“I too have found it difficult to understand why this expensive and time-consuming fact-finding exercise, raking over particular incidents in an acrimonious relationship between the parents, has any real bearing on the question of contact between the father and his children.”

Obviously, in any acrimonious parental separation allegations are likely to be made by one or both parties against the other. However, in many (most?) cases the allegations, even if true, are not of a nature that they should affect the outcome of the case. In other words, in such cases the court should ignore the animosity, and concentrate on the main issue: what is best for the welfare of the children.

You can find the full judgment here.

The post Father succeeds in appeal against findings after social worker found to be biased appeared first on Stowe Family Law.


Go to Source
Author: John Bolch

Posted on

Further detail on the divorce reform released

The government has now provided more details about its proposed reforms to the current divorce law in England and Wales.

At the moment, the only way to obtain a divorce is to prove that the marriage has broken down irretrievably and to do so by relying upon one or more reasons, or “facts.” These include the other person’s adultery or “unreasonable behaviour.” 60% of divorce petitions rely on one of these and blame the other party.

The three remaining reasons are two years separation and the other person’s consent or five year’s separation without consent and the barely used desertion.

Announcing the introduction of “no-fault” divorce, the government proposes to abolish all those reasons and replace them with just one ground, namely a statement from one, or both parties, that their marriage has broken down irretrievably.

It will be impossible to defend or resist a divorce in future.

There has been a considerable amount of research which suggests only too clearly the enormous damage which the current system of “blame” inflicts on families, the couple themselves as well as their children.

There has also been an enormous amount of pressure on successive governments to reform the divorce law in this country which has been in place for 50 years since the last time parliament was involved in 1969.

The proposals announced today represent radical social change, bring the law up-to-date and deserve widespread support both inside and outside the Houses of Parliament.

Similar reforms will be made in relation to the dissolution of civil partnerships.

There will still be a two-stage process which will have a minimum timeframe of six months. At the end of that period, the applicant for the divorce will need to affirm their decision to seek a divorce. The government explains that this will “provide a meaningful period of reflection and the opportunity to turn back.”

What is not known yet is, if and how that period might be extended. For example, will the divorce only be finalised once arrangements for any children have been made and financial matters resolved?

Our own internal research revealed last year that there was enormous support from practising family lawyers for reforms such as those announced today.

No timescale for legislation has been announced.

The hope must be that even in the present turbulent political climate that parliament will make sure it finds time to make sure that these proposals become law very soon.

GRAHAM COY
Tuesday, 9 April 2019

The post Further detail on the divorce reform released appeared first on Stowe Family Law.


Go to Source
Author: Graham Coy

Posted on

Husband not bound by terms of pre-nuptial agreement

In 2010 the Supreme Court held that, whilst pre-nuptial agreements are not binding in this country, the court should usually give effect to them, unless their terms are unfair. The effect of that ruling has been that many pre-nuptial agreements have since been upheld by our courts, and this has been reflected in the reported cases. However, the recent case Ipekçi v McConnell was an example of the court giving no weight to an agreement.

A look at this case must begin with the background of the parties.

The wife is the great-granddaughter of the founder of the Avon Products business empire. As Mr Justice Mostyn, who heard the case, explained, the vast amount of money generated by the business for the family means that, along with other relatives, the wife is the beneficiary of trusts in the USA with an overall value of at least $65 million. Now, as one might imagine, the trusts, and therefore the wife’s finances, were rather complicated. For the purpose of this post I will not go into those complications. Suffice to say that the wife is, by most measurements, comfortably well off.

The husband, in contrast, is the head concierge of the London Hilton Metropole hotel, earning about £35,000 gross. He has no net capital.

The parties met in New York in 2003, at which time the husband had no money beyond his earnings. The wife lived in London. They began cohabitation in January 2005. They agreed to marry, and a pre-nuptial agreement was suggested, and drafted by the wife’s lawyer. A lawyer was found to give the husband independent legal advice. Rather worryingly, this lawyer happened to be the solicitor who acted for the wife in her divorce from her first husband. The husband met the lawyer for the first time on the 3rd of November 2005, just three weeks before the marriage, which had been fixed to take place on the 26th of November.

The terms of the agreement were also slightly complicated. Again, I will not go into the details, but the effect of the agreement was that the husband would, in the circumstances that subsequently arose, not receive anything on divorce. Needless to say, the husband was advised that the agreement was slanted heavily in favour of the wife. Despite this, he signed it on the 11th of November.

The marriage eventually broke down, and the parties separated in November 2016. Divorce proceedings ensued, and the husband issued a financial remedies application. The application was heard by Mr Justice Mostyn in the High Court.

Mr Justice Mostyn had to decide, as a preliminary issue, what weight, if any, should be given to the pre-nuptial agreement. He had “no hesitation” in deciding that it would be wholly unfair to hold the husband to the agreement. His reasons for this included the following:

  1. The agreement specifically stated that it would be governed by New York law. However, there was a defect with the agreement under New York law, which meant that would carry little or no weight there.
  2. The husband could not be said to have had a full appreciation of the implications of the agreement, having had no legal advice at all about the impact of New York law. Further, Mr Justice Mostyn was unsurprisingly not satisfied that the solicitor who gave the advice was not compromised, by virtue of having acted previously for the wife in her first divorce. It was, he said, a clear situation of apparent bias.
  3. The agreement did not meet any needs of the husband.

Mr Justice Mostyn then went on to decide what the husband was entitled to. He awarded him a lump sum of £1,333,500, of which £375,000 was subject to a charge-back to the wife (or her estate), on the death of the husband.

The case is a reminder of just what the Supreme Court said in 2010: that the courts in this country are not bound by pre-nuptial agreements, and that if it is to be upheld any agreement must be freely entered into by each party, with a full appreciation of its implications, and be fair. And one of the elements of that fairness is that is that the agreement must address the needs of the parties.

You can read the full judgment here.

The post Husband not bound by terms of pre-nuptial agreement appeared first on Stowe Family Law.


Go to Source
Author: John Bolch

Posted on

Major divorce reform to be announced

As reported early this morning, Justice Secretary David Gauke has confirmed new legislation will be introduced which will scrap the ability of a partner to contest divorce and allow divorcing spouses to state that the marriage has broken down irretrievably without allocating blame.

Graham Coy, Partner at the Stowe Family Law London Chancery Lane office joins us to share his initial thoughts on this announcement this morning.

“50 years after the law was last changed, the Government is announcing today radical changes to the way in which couples can bring to an end their marriage.

Hopefully, this will also apply to civil partnerships.

The need to “blame” the other husband or wife will be abolished. 60% of all divorces are based upon blame at the moment.

Instead, one or both parties will be able to give one another and the court that their marriage has broken down irretrievably.

It will be impossible to resist or defend the divorce process.

The divorce will be finalised no earlier than 6 months later.

The details of the reform are not known as yet but this is a major step forward in making what is a very difficult period in the life of so many families  far less stressful.

The children involved will also benefit as a result of the decrease in anger, tension and acrimony between their parents.

A major and welcome social reform.”

The post Major divorce reform to be announced appeared first on Stowe Family Law.


Go to Source
Author: Graham Coy

Posted on

The Egely Wheel

The Egely Wheel

Vital energy measurement for the masses

In Chinese, it’s called ch’i (or qi). In Japanese, it’s ki. Variously translated using terms like “vital force” and “internal energy,” it is the name for a type of invisible power that purportedly circulates through the human body. It can be stimulated through acupuncture or ch’i kung (qigong) exercises, blocked by bad posture, enhanced with a proper diet, and depleted by stress, illness, and negative emotions. You can’t see it, nor is it visible indirectly to the tools of modern medical science, but many people consider it every bit as real as air or blood.

I’ve been aware of this concept for many years, and it’s mentioned at least a few times in every t’ai chi class I take. Although my teacher may talk about ch’i as though it’s tangible, I’ve long thought of it as a metaphorical way of discussing a bundle of abstract concepts—a useful fiction, in other words, just like “spirit” or “love” or “peace.” No one claims to be able to locate someone’s spirit physically within the body, but it’s nevertheless a handy word for talking about certain notions that are not quite covered by more mundane terms such as “brain” or even “mind.”

The Ch’i Tricorder

Imagine my surprise and bewilderment, then, when at a t’ai chi retreat some years ago, the instructor pulled out a small, strange-looking plastic box with blinking LEDs and told us, matter-of-factly, that it was a device that measures ch’i. On the top of the box was a gearlike wheel, giving the device the overall look of a miniature, high-tech phonograph. Supposedly, when you bring your hand near the device, this wheel spins faster or slower depending on the amount of ch’i you have. It’s called an Egely Wheel, and for a mere US$189, you too can have your very own.

During a break, I tried the machine out myself. I tried holding each of my hands in turn near the device, but the wheel did not spin. I tried concentrating, mentally directing energy at the device…still nothing. Then I tried relaxing and casually intending the wheel to move. Again, nothing. Various other people tried it too—sometimes the wheel moved, sometimes it didn’t, even for the same person. But no one appeared to be able to spin the wheel very fast, regardless of their apparent proficiency in t’ai chi. One explanation, of course, is that our ch’i wasn’t very strong. The more tempting explanation is that the device doesn’t actually measure anything.

The Spin Doctor

The Egely wheel is the brainchild of Hungarian scientist Dr. George Egely. According to Egely, he discovered that small objects (such as a small strip of foil) floating in a bowl of water rotated when someone’s hand was held nearby. He initially attributed this effect to heat radiated from the bodies or small air currents generated by breathing, but found that even when shielded from heat or wind, the floating strip exhibited the same effect. His conclusion was that some other, previously unmeasurable energy was causing the motion—namely, ch’i. Egely realized that because the effect was so subtle, it could only be shown by something with extremely low friction, so he developed what he calls a Vitality Meter based on a very lightweight wheel with a specially designed low-friction pivot. As for the electronics, those are used to provide a visual and/or audio indication of the wheel’s speed; if you actually look inside the case you’ll see that there’s no motor—in fact nothing connecting physically to the wheel at all. (Indeed, there’s a non-electronic version of the same device with just the wheel, called a Vitality Indicator, for a mere $49.)

Now, supposing for the moment that this principle really does represent a display of ch’i, it’s not at all apparent to me how a $189 (or $49) gadget is better than a strip of foil floating in a bowl of water. Money aside, though, I can’t say I’m convinced that such motion—to the extent that it does occur with subjects who are obviously more talented than I am—isn’t caused by something quite simple. If not heat or air currents, my guess is that the wheel is responding to vibration. Because it has such low friction, even a tiny amount of vibration (from someone walking nearby, say), could conceivably cause it to move. Any number of devices, from self-winding watches to perpetual-motion machine wannabes, are simply clever machines that convert lateral or vertical vibration into rotation. Quite plausibly, even a vibration too weak to be felt by a person could produce motion in a wheel; nothing mysterious there.

When you get right down to it, I can no more prove that ch’i isn’t moving the wheel than that there’s no such thing as a unicorn. But I really don’t buy it. (And I’m not the only one to regard this claim with some suspicion.) Even if ch’i truly does exist in a non-metaphorical form, I have no particular reason to expect it would cause an object nearby to rotate. On the other hand, if I needed some way of assessing my mental or physical health other than introspection, there are any number of gadgets I could buy for that same $189 that would tell me things I find genuinely useful, such as my body temperature, blood pressure, skin resistance, or brainwave activity. And saving money definitely enhances my ch’i.

Note: This is an updated version of an article that originally appeared on Interesting Thing of the Day on October 8, 2004.

Image credit: Photo courtesy of Aimslab LTD. Used by permission.


Go to Source
Author: Joe Kissell

Posted on

Post Divorce Therapy For The Sake Of The Kids

When people hear about couples’ counseling, they usually think about couples that are trying to make their relationship work but are struggling, and that the goal of such counseling is to save the marriage or relationship and that if one decides to get divorced it is a failure. In recent posts I already knocked that notion, that divorcing isn’t a failure and counseling doesn’t fail if divorce


Go to Source
Author: Penniless Parenting

Posted on

How to Live Frugally with a Chronic Illness

Being ill can get expensive, and when your illness is a chronic one, this is an expense that won’t ever go away. I have some dear friends with chronic illnesses, and therefore I really appreciate these tips sent from a reader as to how to live frugally with a chronic illness.

As if both your physical and emotional stress wasn’t enough, when you go through life with a chronic illness, you


Go to Source
Author: Penniless Parenting

Posted on

President updates on family justice changes

Last Friday the President of the Family Division Sir Andrew McFarlane gave the ‘keynote address’ at the 2019 conference of Resolution, the association of family lawyers. (I tire of having to give that explanation of who Resolution are, particularly as they used to be more helpfully called the ‘Solicitors Family Law Association’, but the word ‘Resolution’ does not of course explain to the uninitiated who the organisation are. ‘Resolution’ was chosen as their name as it denotes that its members are devoted to trying to resolve family disputes amicably, although it could just as easily be taken in the entirely opposite sense of ‘resolute’, i.e. obstinately refusing to move from one’s negotiating position. Such are the hazards of nomenclature.)

Anyway, on to the speech.

The theme of the speech was the change presently occurring on all fronts in the family justice system. Changes referred to by the President included those caused by Brexit, changes in response to the increasing caseload in the family courts, changes consequent upon the court reform programme such as regional divorce centres and online divorce, and the introduction of specialist financial remedies courts. I see no point in repeating all that the President said here, and in any event much of what he said is not of course new, so I will mention just a couple of things that caught my eye.

The first thing was something quite small: the use of telephone hearings for (usually urgent) matters, where the other party is not notified. As the President pointed out, other courts have been doing this for some while, and he considered it sensible for them to become the norm in the family courts. This seems like an excellent idea.

The next thing relates to the establishment of a ‘database’ of financial remedy outcomes, which could provide practitioners (and presumably litigants in person) with guidance as to the ‘going rate’ in ‘ordinary’ (i.e. not big money) financial remedy cases, thus making it easier to advise on what the outcome of a case is likely to be The database would be created by a computerised process, whereby at the end of every single case, it will be provided with basic information as to the key financial components and facts, together with the outcome of the proceedings. Researchers could then “produce schedules or tables identifying the preponderant outcome in typical cases across a range of set variables.” Sounds like an interesting idea, although whether it would actually produce anything useful in practice, we will have to see.

The last thing I want to mention comes from what the President said about private law children cases (i.e. children cases not involving a local authority). He began by doubting the often-quoted figure (including by myself) that only one in ten couples have to apply to the court to sort out arrangements for their children, rather than sorting out those arrangements themselves. He believes that the figure is more like 40%. That seems rather high to me, based upon my experience practising as a family lawyer for about a quarter of a century – my memory was that most parents sorted things out themselves without needing a lawyer (remember this was back in the days before legal aid was abolished, and therefore lawyers were available to all), and most of the cases where lawyers were involved were sorted out without court proceedings.

Anyway, the argument of the President was that a large proportion of those cases that now go to court should not have to.

He said:

“…using the Family Court to resolve straightforward, non-abusive, relationship difficulties between parents who separate is unlikely to be an effective course to follow, costs a great deal of money and is not seen, by many of its users, to be working effectively.”

There has to be a better way, he said. This includes improving co-parenting between separated parents, although that is not a matter for the courts. What the courts can do, however, is to have “a much keener focus on a ‘solutions-based process’ engaging a ‘dispute resolution alliance’ of local services with court reserved only for those cases which absolutely have a justiciable problem.” It all sounds very good, but as all family lawyers will have witnessed, keeping parents who are determined to have their ‘day in court’ away from the court building can be easier said than done.

In his conclusion the President speaks of this cycle of change settling down “in a year or so”, after which “we will live with the resulting processes for some time to come thereafter.” I am not so sure. As I said here just recently, we have had virtually continual change in the family justice system for some years. Change these days is seemingly constant. In fact, it is a feature of the modern world that those in positions of power see it as their main function to institute change to resolve the problems around them. The thinking seems to be that change must always be a good thing. Of course that is not so: sometimes change can make no significant difference, sometimes it can make things worse, and sometimes it can introduce entirely new problems. There can actually be merit in leaving things the same, so that people are familiar with how they work. Whatever, I do not see things “settling down” any time soon, and possibly not any time at all. Change is with us, get used to it.

You can read the full speech here.

The post President updates on family justice changes appeared first on Stowe Family Law.


Go to Source
Author: John Bolch