Stowe guests: Should you stay together for the children by Anna Sinski

In this instalment of Stowe guests, we are joined by Anna Sinski, a BACP-accredited integrative psychotherapist and counsellor working with clients in central London and online.

Anna helps individuals going through difficult life changes, including divorce and she joins us today to discuss how a divorce may actually benefit your children.

Chances are, you’ve heard loads of people say, “We should stay together for the kids.” Maybe you’ve even said it yourself. But despite the media and society demonizing the impact of divorce on kids, staying together often has far worse outcomes. In fact, separating may benefit your children. It all comes down to how you deal with it during and after the actual divorce.

Relationship models

First of all, I think it’s useful to explore the fact that we are (whether we realise it or not) role models for our children. They learn to imitate our behaviour and language from the youngest years and it doesn’t stop there. We are essentially their first relationship models too. It is from their parents that kids learn what relationships look like and what they should expect from their future partners. This is where they learn how relationships work, the female and male role, as well as acceptable boundaries and behaviours of both sides.

That being said, you might imagine that divorce depicts a relationship model of bitterness or a broken family. However, the truth is that it really depends on how you handle it in front of your children. Essentially, divorce highlights a relationship model where you have the option to leave if you’re unhappy. A relationship model where you deserve to be fulfilled and search for happiness, as well as one where you are allowed to change your mind.

Now imagine a reality where the child watches the parents argue and live bitter, unhappy lives for years. The relationship model they will get from that can be one where the child comes to believe that no matter what happens and no matter the unhappiness, they must endure any relationship. While in some cultures this form of sacrifice might be desirable, is that really the key to a fulfilled life?

You also have no way of knowing how years of an unhappy marriage will make you appear as a parent overall. To a large extent, the quality of our relationships defines the quality of our lives. The less happy we are in our relationships, the more likely it is that our overall happiness in other areas of life will go down. When you suffer, your child might suffer that emotional burden as well, especially because children are excellent at picking up on any tension in the air. All in all, this can be more stressful for the child in the long term. It is usually better for the child to have two happy homes than a single miserable one.

Conflict resolution

There is also a lot that kids can learn from divorce in terms of conflict resolution. Seeing two parents work through their differences while maintaining appropriate boundaries and remaining respectful is a great lesson. Using the “conflict” between you as parents as a model can teach your children how to deal with many potential disputes and difficulties throughout their lives. Moreover, it shows the kids that conflict in itself is not the end of the world and that it can be resolved peacefully.

More focused time

After the divorce (or during separation) your childcare arrangements are likely to become more structured. For one, this means that your child gets to know you more as an individual. But more importantly, this usually means they actually get more quality time with you. We’re all busy with various responsibilities, but the reality is that shared child care forces you to plan the time you are going to spend with your son or daughter. This, in turn, makes it much easier to set this time aside fully for their benefit and plan your other responsibilities for some other time or day. Thanks to this necessary planning, your children are more likely to get your undivided attention, which will make them feel more “seen”.

They learn to be more empathetic

Many marriages end in divorce and your child most likely has (or will have) some friends going through this experience. Having gone through it themselves, they will be more empathetic towards other children. This kind of experience can generally positively influence a child’s empathy towards others going through all sorts of life situations. Similarly, sharing an experience such as a divorce of the parents can make siblings more empathetic towards one another.

The impact that your divorce will have on your kids is ultimately up to you – the parents. It doesn’t have to be a traumatizing event in any way and it might not leave any negative consequences on your children. By making sure your kids are not forced to “choose” or stand in the middle of your fights, you can both end up being positive role models for them in many different ways.

Get in touch

If you would like to book a session with Anna, please call or text to 07376 041102 or send an e-mail to: anna.m.sinski@gmail.com

The post Stowe guests: Should you stay together for the children by Anna Sinski appeared first on Stowe Family Law.


Go to Source
Author: Stowe Family Law

Mother ordered to return child to different country from where he was removed

Well this is an unusual one. I don’t recall ever previously hearing of a Hague Convention child abduction case in which the court ordered the return of the child to a different country to the one from where they were removed. But that is exactly what happened in the recent High Court case S v D (Hague Convention: Domestic Abuse: Undertakings: Return to Third State).

The facts of the case were that the parents were both Hungarian nationals. They were married, and had one child, a boy aged 4 years 3 months. In early 2017 the family moved from Hungary to Germany. Thereafter, the marriage broke down and the parents separated in March 2018, when they travelled from Germany to Hungary for a short holiday, and after a few days the father returned to Germany. Shortly thereafter the mother and the child travelled to England. The mother did not return the child, and the father made an application under the Hague Convention for him to be summarily returned to Hungary.

The mother opposed the application, on the grounds that there was a grave risk that the return of the child would expose him to physical or psychological harm.

The application went before Mr Justice Cobb.

He was satisfied that the removal of the child from Germany in March 2018 was wrongful and in breach of the father’s rights of custody (this was not in issue). He said that the evidence was inconsistent with the mother’s case that the father knew that she was intending to travel to England, certainly on a permanent basis, but even if he was wrong about wrongful removal, he was absolutely satisfied that the retention was wrongful – there was no evidence that the father agreed to a permanent relocation, and it was not said that he acquiesced in the same.

Turning to the mother’s ‘harm’ defence, Mr Justice Cobb was satisfied that the father had displayed violence to her, both historically and recently. However, he was also satisfied by the various undertakings offered by the father, including to pay for the mother to return to Hungary with the child, not to assault, harass, threaten, or molest the mother or the child, not to remove the child from the care and control of the mother save for the purposes of any agreed contact, and to provide as soon as possible for the mother a two-bedroomed apartment in the city in Hungary where the father lives. These undertakings were sufficient to protect the mother and child from harm.

Accordingly, Mr Justice Cobb was prepared to order the return of the child, and he did so, after receiving the undertakings in written form, signed by the father.

As to the ‘different country’ point, he said:

“…this case has been … rendered the more unusual by the fact that the applicant seeks the return of [the child] to a ‘third state’. I dispose of this aspect now. [Counsel for the mother] submits that it would be “exceptional” for a court to order a ‘return’ to a third state. I am loath to use the word ‘exceptional’ because to do so would be to overstate the position; further, ‘exceptional’ is one of those words which once used tends to acquire quasi-statutory authority in a wholly unintended way. For my part, I would be prepared to accept that it will be an unusual case where the court will order a return to a third state, but it is in principle unobjectionable, and each case will be fact-sensitive. As it is, the mother would, it seems to me be more greatly disadvantaged in the return order being made to Germany – a country where, she says, she never wanted to live. At least in Hungary she has family and some support.”

All of which seems to me to be eminently sensible. Apart from any disadvantage to the mother in being made to return to Germany, it seems quite clear on the facts of the case that Hungary is the child’s true ‘home’ country, and that it is the courts of that country that should make any necessary decisions as to his long-term future.

You can read the full judgment here.

The post Mother ordered to return child to different country from where he was removed appeared first on Stowe Family Law.


Go to Source
Author: John Bolch

Family Mediation Week: Finding a new resolution to family break up

Family mediation offers clients a smarter and more dignified way to resolve family disputes as opposed to the traditional solicitor led and court route approach.

It is an opportunity for parties to meet with an impartial third-party: the mediator who will give pragmatic guidance and legal information to help them reach their own resolutions. This is known as ‘assisted negotiation’.

When separating couples are at a point of crisis the first point of call will be to seek legal advice from a family solicitor and in many cases, the issues can only be resolved via legal intervention. This however, is not the only option available, mediation can be a better alternative when it is assessed as a suitable forum by the mediator.

Benefits of family mediation

By choosing mediation the parties can:

  • Explore all issues arising out of their relationship break up in complete confidence
  • Be impartially informed about and evaluate possible choices
  • Find common ground
  • Work at a pace agreed and controlled by them
  • Work at their own negotiated agenda
  • Find compromise solutions
  • Agree to disagree but reach partial understandings
  • Look forward without judgements about the past
  • Gain understanding, trust and work on better communication
  • Model a co-operative future relationship and not further conflict
  • Think together about their children’s needs and future well-being
  • Work to find comprehensive solutions to all issues including finance, property and children’s arrangements

In addition, mediation reduces financial costs and limits the stress and anxiety that the parties will experience during the relationship break up.

Research studies have shown that family disputes resolved via mediation are less acrimonious than those that are settled through the court system. Furthermore, decisions made by the parties in mediation are more likely to be kept as opposed to court-imposed orders.

Mediation works best when supported by expert family solicitors who should ideally, be instructed from the outset of the mediation process to advise and assist the parties throughout.

When agreements are reached in mediation, if considered necessary these can be converted into legal binding orders by consent with the help of the parties’ solicitors.

Meet the mediators

I strongly support the use of mediation when managing a relationship breakdown, and I am an Accredited Family Mediator.  My contact details are below along with the other mediators in our team:

 

The post Family Mediation Week: Finding a new resolution to family break up appeared first on Stowe Family Law.


Go to Source
Author: Sushma Kotecha

Leap Seconds

Plot showing the difference UT1−UTC in seconds. Vertical segments correspond to leap seconds. Red part of graph was prediction (future values) at the time the file was made.

Time keeps on slippin’

There’s no easy way to say this, so I’m just going to put it out there: the Earth rotates at the wrong speed. Or, rather, it usually does. You may think it takes 24 hours to go around once, but sometimes it takes about 2 milliseconds more. To be fair, the planet’s speed has been reasonably consistent for most of the past 20 years, but for many years prior to that, it was consistently behind. Scientists believe that in the future, it will revert to its old ways, and probably even get worse. Although 2 milliseconds a day doesn’t sound like much, it adds up to about a second every year and a half. Which means that, eventually, the world’s most accurate clocks get noticeably out of sync with the observed rotation of the planet. The solution, for several decades, has been to add “leap seconds” as necessary to our official time standards so that they match what the planet is doing—although this procedure has some problems of its own.

In a way, this is all a question of how you define words like “second” and “wrong.” When it comes to timekeeping, things are seldom as they appear.

Just a Second…

For starters, how long is a second? Obviously, it’s 1/60 of a minute, which is 1/60 of an hour, which is in turn 1/24 of a day—in other words, a second is 1/86,400 of a day. Or is it? Well, it used to be. One can determine when exactly one day has elapsed by looking at the sky, but this means that all the smaller time segments could be known only after some division; they didn’t have any real meaning on their own. And the precise astronomical observations needed to determine just when a day has elapsed were rather inconvenient for most scientists, let alone the rest of us. More importantly, astronomers have known since the late 18th century that the speed of the Earth’s rotation is not constant—so calculating seconds, minutes, and hours strictly as fractions of a day means that each of those units could have a slightly different value every day.

However, the development of atomic clocks in the 1940s and 1950s changed all that. Atomic clocks work by counting the vibrations of certain atoms, which are invariant, theoretically, forever. So in 1967, the International System of Units (SI) defined the second as 9,192,631,770 vibrations of the Cesium-133 atom. Interestingly, they did not arrive at that figure by counting the number of vibrations in 1/86,400 of a day. Instead, they based it on something called ephemeris time, in which hours, minutes, and seconds are derived not from the rotation of the Earth, but from its revolution around the sun. That speed, too, varies; scientists chose the length of the ephemeris second in 1900 as their arbitrary standard. As later research revealed, the last time a day (by ordinary, solar reckoning) was exactly 86,400 SI seconds long was in 1820. So the length of a second, as measured by the Earth’s rotation, suddenly became “wrong” according to the new definition of second.

No Time Like the Present

We did, however, finally have a nice, consistent standard that was readily measurable on its own terms without astronomical observations. But the Earth apparently didn’t get the message that it was supposed to conform to this new standard, and its rotation kept slowing, ever so slightly, with each passing year. In 1972, Coordinated Universal Time (which, for complicated reasons, goes by the initials UTC rather than CUT) was adopted as the new international standard, based on measurements from atomic clocks. (An aside: even atomic clocks don’t always agree with each other; the official universal standard is based on the average times from about 250 atomic clocks.) But astronomers still needed a timekeeping system that matched what they observed—irregularities and all.

To deal with the mismatch between UTC and astronomical time, the scientists charged with maintaining UTC decided that whenever that difference approached ±0.9 seconds, a “leap second” would be added to or subtracted from UTC as a correction—in other words, an occasional 61- or 59-second minute. Between 1972 and 1998, 22 such seconds were added. But then, for reasons that are not entirely clear, the planet decided to stick to an 86,400-second-a-day rotation for a while, and no leap seconds were needed from 1999 through 2004. From 2005 through 2018, only five leap seconds have been added—so, about one every three years on average. But historical data shows that the Earth has a habit of changing its rotational speed quite frequently, and the trend over many centuries has clearly been a gradual slowing. So most experts believe that the need for leap seconds will never entirely disappear.

Take a Leap

On the other hand, quite a few people are fed up with the whole notion of leap seconds for reasons both philosophical and practical. For one thing, a lot of the world’s clocks and computer systems were not designed to handle leap seconds elegantly. This is not usually a big deal, but sometimes, the difference of a second means everything—in financial transactions, for example, where the prices of stock, currency, or whatnot can change instantly. More importantly, if the planet’s rotation continues to slow at its historical rate, leap seconds will eventually be needed more and more often. In as little as a few years, the increased disparity between UTC and other timekeeping standards could cause serious problems, including potential failure of the GPS system and other navigational tools. And on a much longer time scale—say, 50,000 years—the Earth’s rotation could take 86,401 SI seconds each day, meaning we’d need to add a leap second every single day, or else redefine “second” to support the facts.

So one proposal currently being considered by the world’s standards committees is simply to stick with UTC but abandon the use of leap seconds altogether. That sounds easy enough, but there are some drawbacks. Doing so would make astronomers’ work harder and require that they invest a lot of money in upgrading their equipment. As for the rest of us, we’d simply live with the small difference between astronomical time and atomic time until it accumulated to 60 minutes—at which point we would simply add a “leap hour,” just as most of us do once a year at the end of Daylight Saving Time. The first such hour wouldn’t happen for more than four centuries, at which point it would be someone else’s problem to worry about.

Until the world’s timekeeping experts get this all sorted out—which may be never—the International Earth Rotation and Reference Systems Service carefully measures the speed of the Earth’s rotation, issuing periodic bulletins as to whether we need to add another leap second at the end of the following June or December. If and when the next leap second occurs, you probably won’t notice. But many millennia in the future, your descendants may finally get 25-hour days.

Note: This is an updated version of an article that originally appeared on Interesting Thing of the Day on April 29, 2005.

Image credit: Tomia/Gordon P. Hemsley/RP88 [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons


Go to Source
Author: Joe Kissell

National Peanut Butter Day

Peanut butter in a jar

Although people have been roasting and grinding up peanuts for millennia, it wasn’t until the late 19th century that Marcus Gilmore Edson invented a way to make a paste by milling roasted peanuts. Various other inventors made substantial contributions to the development of peanut butter over the following few decades. In 1922, one Joseph Rosefield figured out how to homogenize peanut butter so that the oil didn’t separate, and his process led to the commercial success of such brands as Peter Pan (my personal favorite to this day) and Skippy. Jif didn’t come along until 1958, and don’t even get me started on GIF. I understand that peanut butter fans can be quite particular about their preferred formulation (homogenized or not, sweetened or not, smooth or chunky, etc.). Today, enjoy peanut butter in whatever form makes you happiest!

Image credit: PiccoloNamek at English Wikipedia [CC BY-SA 3.0]


Go to Source
Author: Joe Kissell

Our Trip to the ER

Today I had planned on writing about and sharing about our family’s 3 day trip, after we got home late last night.

But the universe had other plans.

My sons were fighting, and in the process a heavy metal door slammed open, crushing my 9 year old son, Ike’s, finger between the door and a cement wall. It was bleeding and looked so horrible and I knew it needed immediate medical attention.


Go to Source
Author: Penniless Parenting

How to Look More Fabulous Even On A Tight Budget

If looking fabulous and stylish is important to you, here’s some suggestions from a reader how to do that without breaking the budget.

The year started on a high note. The only downside is the financial crisis that has hit everyone’s pockets. Living on a budget is not easy, but you don’t have to look poor while at it. You can wear cheap clothes, shoes and accessories, but still look fabulous.


Go to Source
Author: Penniless Parenting

Family Mediation Week Day 3: Useful reading material

Day three of Family Mediation Week focuses on the children and child-inclusive mediation, which has already been mentioned by us earlier this week and allows the children to have a voice in the mediation process, and also explains how mediation can help deal with the financial issues.

There is a lot of very useful material available at the website. 

This includes an article by Bill Hewlett “so why should children be included in mediation”, explaining why giving children a voice in the mediation process can be so important, especially for them.

Also featured is an article by the Chair of the Family Mediators Association, Philippa Johnson, emphasising the importance of prioritising the children and communication.

Marcia Mediation explains what mediation is about and how it can be paid for, not just in relation to children but also in relation to the finances as well.

Resolving the financial issues following separation or divorce in mediation is no different from resolving the financial issues through court proceedings.

It is a two-stage process:

Finding out exactly what there is in the way of assets, property, liabilities, pensions and income.
Dividing those fairly, taking into account all the relevant circumstances of each and every case; no circumstances are ever the same.

As we have explained before during the course of Family Mediation Week, mediation can be far quicker, far cheaper and gives those involved in the mediation process an opportunity to be at the forefront of framing an agreement, rather than a judge dictating what the solution is going to be.

Finally, there is a useful article warning of the pitfalls which can undermine resolving matters easily and quickly.

The post Family Mediation Week Day 3: Useful reading material appeared first on Stowe Family Law.


Go to Source
Author: Graham Coy

Tales and myths of a common law marriage

Nearly half of people in England and Wales believe that unmarried couples living together have the same rights and obligations as couples who are legally married or who have entered into a civil partnership.

This could not be further from the truth. In fact, common law marriage is a complete myth.

Research just undertaken by the University of Exeter and the National Centre for Social Research, shows that 46% of those asked, believe that unmarried couples living together (cohabiting couples) were part of a common law marriage and, as a result, had equal protection to married couples in the event of their relationship breaking down.

Cohabitation does not provide any legal status to a couple living together.

At the same time, cohabiting couples now account for the fastest growing household in England and Wales.  The number of opposite sex cohabiting couple families with dependent children has almost doubled in the last decade and nearly 50% of children are born to parents who are not married.

The difference between cohabiting couples and couples who are married or in a civil partnership could not be more significant.

In the event of a couple living together but not married or in a civil partnership, separating, the result is often, according to the University of Exeter, severe financial hardship for the more vulnerable financially weaker party.

For example, there is no right to claim maintenance, there is no ability to share pensions and there is no ability to share property unless that property is jointly owned.

The University of Exeter concludes by saying “it is absolutely critical that we raise awareness of the difference between cohabitation, civil partnership and marriage and any differences and rights that come with each.”

This is not a new issue.

Previous governments have been advised by the Law Commission, an independent body which advises governments on the need for law reform, that they needed to act.  The Law Commission even drafted a Bill to go before parliament.  Some limited protection was put in place in Scotland but not in England and Wales.

The need for reform and change could not be more urgent.

In the meantime, we can offer some practical advice.

If you are thinking of living with someone and not getting married, or if you already are living with someone, consider entering into a “living together agreement” and also consider whether any documents should be drawn up in relation to any property which you may own, for example setting out your rights in relation to that property, when it could be sold and what happens on sale.

If, on the other hand, you are thinking of separating from your partner, or already have, don’t give up.  If you have children, there are certainly ways of obtaining financial support for them, including the provision of a home, and it may be that even if the property is in the name of your partner, you may still have certain rights in relation to it.

At Stowe we have a number of solicitors, including myself, who specialise in cohabitation, please do contact us at the details below.

The post Tales and myths of a common law marriage appeared first on Stowe Family Law.


Go to Source
Author: Graham Coy

Do I need to make a will?

I am often asked “do I need to make a will” and of course the answer I give varies depending on who is asking the question.

As a solicitor specialising in wills and probate, I am sure that I should answer the question with an emphatic “of course you should”, but everyone’s circumstances and wishes will differ and there are those rare cases when a will may not be required.

I think what people should ask themselves is “what would happen if I died without making a will?”

I have detailed below some key points to consider:

Registering the death and arranging the funeral

Believe it or not, this is where an estimated 18% of family feuds following the death of a loved one occur.  There can be initial uncertainty as to whether you wanted to be buried or cremated, and this can be distressing to family members with whom you may not have had this conversation during your lifetime.

If there are arguments, it can delay the funeral as funeral directors are increasingly afraid to release the body until an agreement has been reached.

Who is the rightful “next of kin” and how do you prove it in the first few days after death?

It is much simpler to state in a will who you would want to appoint as an Executor to deal with the administration of your estate and what your funeral wishes are rather than try to provide documentation to prove you are the next of kin.

Dealing with financial Institutions and insurance companies

We all know that with data protection legislation in place it can be quite difficult to contact companies to speak about your own affairs, without having to answer multiple questions and passwords to confirm your identity.

Imagine what that may be like trying to speak about your loved one’s affairs with the institutions refusing to deal with you unless you can prove why you have the authority to deal with the estate.

An Executor under a will has the authority to act from the date of death and can prove this by providing the death certificate and will.  If there is no will, the person who wishes to deal with the administration of the Estate must make an application to the Court/Probate Registry to be appointed.

This can take many weeks, even months, and again may lead to disputes, especially if more than one family member has an equal right to apply.  Surely it is easier to appoint an Executor in a will?

Without a will, who would inherit my estate?

If you don’t have a will, the distribution of your Estate is governed by a set of rules referred to as the Intestacy Rules.  Under these rules, only your spouse or civil partner and other close family members may inherit your Estate depending upon its value.  The list is a hierarchy with preference given to family members who are more closely related.  It does not matter whether you are separated or getting divorced from your spouse or civil partner, they are still entitled to a share of your Estate.

Not all parents wish to make an equal provision for their children on death.  You may already have made lifetime gifts to one child and wish to equalise matters between your children on death.  One child may have additional needs, or your children may be under the age of 18 years old.  Who would look after them and be appointed as guardian?  Do you want them to inherit at 18? What if you do not see your children and do not wish to leave them anything?

The Intestacy Rules should not be a substitute for putting careful thought into making a will that is right for your unique circumstances. We are lucky in England to have testamentary freedom, which is not available in many European countries.  Testamentary freedom being the ability to leave our assets to whomever we like.

So, the question I ask you now is, do you want peace of mind that you have set out your wishes following your death?  Do you need to make a will?

If you need to make a will please contact me, Wendy Scarr at the contact details below.

The post Do I need to make a will? appeared first on Stowe Family Law.


Go to Source
Author: Wendy Scarr