Category: Family Law

Posted on

Stowe comment: Naming and shaming in custody battles

It was with interest that I noted a piece in The Times today about a High Court judge ordering that a wealthy mother is identified after she refused to return her daughters from the Ukraine to their home in London.

This latest High Court case is interesting as it evidences the court’s increasing frustration in cases where parties disobey court orders

There has been talk of the court now relaxing the strict rules on children cases preventing the publication of the names of the parties in cases where it is clear that a party in the proceedings has deliberately disobeyed or frustrated a court order.

The court does have powers to enforce an order where it is breached but these are limited to financial penalties, unpaid work in the community or in very serious cases the imposition of a prison sentence.

This latest decision clearly shows that the courts are prepared to flex their muscles more robustly in cases where orders are breached.

I am interested in how this one plays out.

Mark Christie
Senior Partner at the Stowe Family Law, Harrogate office.

The post Stowe comment: Naming and shaming in custody battles appeared first on Stowe Family Law.


Go to Source
Author: Mark Christie

Posted on

A week in family law: Divorce in Ireland, burn-out, video hearings and more

As I reported here, the new President of the Family Division Sir Andrew McFarlane has published his first ‘View from the President’s Chambers’. For those who don’t know, the ‘View’ was created by the previous President Sir James Munby, and is a regular update on the work of the President, and on news relating to the family justice system generally. In the View Sir Andrew said that his number one priority is the need to address the unprecedented and unsustainable volume of cases in the system caused by the high volume of new children cases over recent years. He said that this, along with a substantial rise in the proportion of litigants in person resulting from the legal aid cuts, has led to huge workload pressure, which is affecting the well‐being of social workers, lawyers, judges and court staff. As a result, he said, “some corners may have to be cut and some time‐limits exceeded”, as “to attempt to do otherwise in a situation where the pressure is sustained, remorseless and relentless, is to risk the burn‐out of key and valued individuals in a system which is already sparely manned in terms of lawyers, court staff and judges.” As I said in my post: “I find it quite remarkable that the man at the very top of the family justice system is advocating the cutting of corners. Surely, such a situation would have been unthinkable only a few short years ago?”

Moving on, as I also reported the Association of Lawyers for Children has published a report looking at the views and experiences of advocates on practices in 61 settlement conferences, which have been piloted by the Ministry of Justice since 2017. As I explained, settlement conferences are intended to help parties in children cases to resolve matters by agreement, with the assistance of the judge. However, the report’s findings do not support a roll out of the settlement conference procedure in its current form. The reasons for this included variations in approach by judges and courts, concerns as to whether the procedure was fair, pressure on lay parties to agree to a suggested order, and the power imbalance between lay parties and the judge, by virtue of the latter’s status and position. Further, many of the advocates felt that a similar result could have been obtained within the existing court procedures, if only more time was allowed.

Another post I wrote this week related to the recent Court IT meltdown. Hot on the heels of that, we received news that the Family Courts are to test video hearings. The news came as the judiciary published the outcomes of its Judicial Ways of Working consultation, which received responses from or on behalf of 10,000 judges, panel members and magistrates, setting out their views on proposals to modernise and reform the courts. The President of the Family Division summarised the position in relation to the Family Court, saying that whilst some judges expressed concerns about the appropriateness of fully video hearings (‘FVH’), some felt that they could be used for uncontested cases. Accordingly, he said, a test of FVH for first directions applications in financial remedy cases had been approved, “given that they are, in the main, principally dedicated to case management using pre-prepared documents”. Sir Andrew made clear, however, that currently there was no specific proposal to expand FVH in the family jurisdiction beyond this test, adding: “Specifically, and subject to the evaluation of the test, it is felt that FVH will not normally be appropriate for contested cases involving the giving of oral evidence, multi-party cases, cases concerning litigants in person, and/or cases concerning children.” Whilst that is reassuring, another piece of news that appeared after I wrote my post is not: internal documents have apparently revealed that the Ministry of Justice knew its computer systems were “obsolete” and “out of support” long before the network went into meltdown. The reason? Long-term underfunding, of course. The prospect of video hearings on obsolete equipment does not inspire confidence…

And finally, it seems that the idea of divorce reform is not limited to this country. On Tuesday the Irish Government approved the holding of a referendum in May to amend the Constitutional provisions there on divorce. At present, the Irish Constitution only permits divorce when spouses have lived apart for four of the previous five years. The referendum will ask the Irish people to approve an amendment to the Constitution to remove that minimum living apart period. If the referendum is passed, the Irish Government will bring forward a Bill to amend the law to reduce the minimum period to two years during the previous three years. Making the announcement Irish Minister for Justice Charles Flanagan said: “Ireland has one of the lowest divorce rates in Europe and that is to be welcomed.  Sadly, however, some marriages do break down irreconcilably, causing immense sadness and stress for all concerned. The Government wishes to ensure that the process for obtaining a divorce is fair, dignified and humane and allows both parties to move forward with their lives within a reasonable timeframe.” Sounds like a very sensible step in the right direction – let us hope the Irish people agree.

Have a good weekend.

The post A week in family law: Divorce in Ireland, burn-out, video hearings and more appeared first on Stowe Family Law.


Go to Source
Author: John Bolch

Posted on

Husband fails in appeal against costs order, despite winning case

The general rule as to costs in financial remedy proceedings is that the court will not make an order requiring one party to pay the costs of the other party. The court may, however, depart from this rule where it considers it appropriate to do so on the basis of one party’s conduct before or during the proceedings. Unlike in other types of civil proceedings, there is no rule that the unsuccessful party should pay the successful party’s costs, but one would still expect most costs orders to be made against the unsuccessful party.

That, however, was not the case in Lemmens v Barbara Brouwers, decided by the Court of Appeal last November. Lemmens concerned a husband’s application for the downward variation of a maintenance order. His application was successful (the amount of the maintenance order was reduced, because his financial circumstances had changed), but he was still ordered to pay £30,000 towards the wife’s costs. The husband appealed against this costs order, to the Court of Appeal.

So if the husband won his case, why was the costs order made? The answer is that the judge had found that, right up to the commencement of the hearing, the husband had failed to explain his financial situation to the wife or her advisers. His Form E financial statement was found to be “deliberately misleading”. As a result, the wife incurred significant additional costs, as she sought to understand how the husband justified continuing with his application, despite the fact that his income appeared not to have altered since before the original maintenance order had been made.

The husband advanced two grounds for his appeal. Firstly, that the process was unjust due to serious procedural irregularities, including that the wife filed her Form H costs estimate late, and that the court should not have summarily assessed the costs or his liability for costs, but should have provided for a detailed assessment. Secondly, that the judge’s determination was flawed – he had provided information regarding his finances in a timely fashion, and even if his disclosure was insufficient, the order made by the judge bore no relationship to the actual additional costs caused by this.

Giving the leading judgment of the Court of Appeal Lord Justice Moylan dealt first with the alleged procedural irregularities. He found, quite simply, that the husband had not been prejudiced by the late filing of the wife’s Form H, and that the judge was entitled to decide to assess the costs summarily.

As to the exercise by the judge of his discretion to make the costs order, Lord Justice Moylan found that the judge was clearly entitled to decide that the sum of £30,000 reflected the extent to which the husband’s conduct had increased the wife’s costs. The husband had referred to the effect of his Form E as ‘de minimis’, i.e. too trivial to be taken into account. Lord Justice Moylan disagreed. He said:

“I do not find it surprising that the judge attributed significant weight to the fact that the husband’s Form E was deliberately misleading. This cannot be lightly dismissed as de minimis. Even if, as the husband submits, the inaccuracy was corrected within a relatively short space of time, the failure to give full and frank disclosure at the outset of proceedings can have continuing consequences. The judge further identified that the husband had not provided the wife with a “fully intelligible explanation” until the final hearing. These are findings which the husband cannot sensibly dislodge.”

The judge, he said, had sufficiently explained his summary assessment of the costs. None of the husband’s arguments persuaded him that the judge’s decision had exceeded his discretion. Accordingly, the appeal should be dismissed.

Lord Justice David Richards gave a concurring judgment.

An interesting little case, and a warning to litigants (particularly those who, like the husband in this case, are not legally represented) of the need to provide the court and the other party with full, clear and honest information, in a timely fashion. Here, the husband’s failure to do so turned a ‘victory’ into something more akin to a ‘defeat’.

You can read the full judgment here.

The post Husband fails in appeal against costs order, despite winning case appeared first on Stowe Family Law.


Go to Source
Author: John Bolch

Posted on

Stowe guests: Armed forces pensions and divorce

In this instalment of Stowe guests, we are joined by Josh Richardson, a Chartered Financial Planner from Informed Financial Planning.

Informed Financial Planning is focused on helping their customers make the most of their money today, tomorrow and the future including pensions.

Today, Josh offers his expert advice on how divorce can potentially impact on armed forces pensions.

Public sector Defined Benefit (DB) schemes are complex and seemingly ever-changing beasts. These schemes form an essential, valuable asset for many individuals and they will provide an important element of income security for members in retirement. From the NHS Pension to the Local Government Pension Scheme rule changes have been common across the past four decades or more with each change being an elaborate cost reducing and financial stability providing exercise. As a direct result of this however, an entangled web of differing retirement ages, definitions of pensionable salary and accumulation rates has formed across schemes.

It is not surprising therefore, that members rarely comprehend how their pension schemes operate or how their benefits build up. More importantly, dissolution of a marriage or civil partnership often raises significant questions regarding how individuals’ pension benefits will be impacted. In this series of blog entries we aim to provide an overview of the main public sector DB schemes including the pension schemes for the Armed Forces, NHS and Teachers and the changes members may see if a divorce occurs.

These articles will provide a summary of the main rules applicable to the larger schemes but they will not necessarily cover individual circumstances. It is recommended that members speak to their respective scheme administrators, or an independent financial adviser, to identify which rules apply to their pension benefits.

The Armed Forces Pension Scheme

The Armed Forces Pension Scheme (AFPS) represents one of the more complex DB schemes in the public sector. It is made up of three separate rule books, with one or more of these being applied to members’ schemes depending on when they joined. In addition further benefits for members who leave after set periods of service and funds to help service members re-adjust into civilian life, are available and sit alongside individuals’ pensions.

Depending on the date on which an individual commenced their service, their benefits will be governed within one or more of the following sections of the AFPS:

  • Armed Forces Pension Scheme 1975;
  • Armed Forces Pension Scheme ’05; or
  • The Armed Forces Pension Scheme 2015.

Each of these follow different rules, which are summarised in the following sections. As written above, you should check with Veterans UK, who administer these schemes, to identify which rules apply to your membership.

Armed Forces Pension Scheme 1975 (AFPS 75)

Please note, only a minority of Armed Forces employees remain in this section. Most are members of AFPS ’05 or the AFPS 2015.

Full Career Maximum Pension

AFPS 75 provides members with a full career maximum pension, based on their final salary, at the age of 55 if members retire with:

  • 34 years of service from age 21 (for Officers); or
  • 37 years of service from age 18 (for other ranks)

The income received will increase each year in line with inflation. A tax free lump sum, of three times the member’s pension, will also be paid.

Immediate Pension

Members of the AFPS 75 are permitted to leave the Armed Forces before age 55. If chosen, an immediate pension will be paid based on their service plus a tax free lump sum. This is providing the member has completed at least:

  • 16 years of qualifying service from age 21 (Officers); or
  • 22 years of qualifying service from age 18 (other ranks)

The pension received will remain the same each year until the member gets to age 55 at which point they will receive the increases they have missed out on plus annual inflationary increases going forward. This is similar to the early departure payments discussed later.

Deferred Pension

If members do not qualify for an Immediate Pension, they may be entitled to a deferred pension. For pension benefits built up before 6th April 2006, members can receive their pension at age 60. Pension benefits built up after this date will be paid at age 65. This may lead to individuals receiving part of their income, which then increases after 5 years’ time. Members can request their benefits, which are payable at age 65, are paid early but an ‘early retirement’ reduction will apply.

Armed Forces Pension Scheme ’05 (AFPS 05)

You will be a member of the APFS 05 if you commenced employment with the Armed Forces between 6th April 2005 and 1st April 2015.

Normal Pension

Within this scheme you will be entitled to a guaranteed pension from age 65. The pension you receive is based on your ‘final salary’ and the years you have worked for the Armed Forces. For each year you work you will earn 1/70th of your final pensionable earnings. For example:

If your final salary is £30,000 after completing 25 years’ service your annual pension would be calculated as follows:

£30,000 x 25 x 1/70 = £10,714 per year of pension

In addition members will receive a tax free lump sum equivalent to three times their pension. In the above example this would equate to £32,142.

Members can request to take their pension early, before age 65, however there will be a reduction to the income they receive. This reduction reflects the fact that a member’s pension would be paid for longer than normally expected.

Early Departure Payments

To reflect the fact that members in the AFPS cannot receive pension benefits when they retire before 65, as they could in the AFPS 75, they are entitled to an Early Departure Payment (EDP).

To be entitled to this members must be aged between 40 and 55 and have served for a minimum of 18 years. A tax free lump sum equivalent to three times the member’s preserved pension and a taxable income worth not less than 50% of their annual preserved pension will be payable.

This pension will then increase to 75% of the preserved pension once the member reaches age 55 and will also be increased to take into account of inflationary rises from the date the EDP commenced.

Once the member reaches age 65, the EDP will cease and will be replaced by their full pension from the AFPS 05. This income will increase each year in line with inflation.

The Armed Forces Pension 2015 (AFPS 15)

For those in employment after 1st April 2015, members will hold benefits in AFPS 15. Whilst this remains a guaranteed Defined Benefit scheme, benefits are accrued under a different system, called Career Average Revalued Earnings (CARE).

Pension – Income

Each year the scheme adds an amount equal to 1/47th of your annual pensionable salary, to each member’s ‘pension pot’. This pot starts to accumulate from the member’s first day of paid service and is carried forward into each year where it grows slightly to ensure that it tracks inflation and maintains its value.

After two years’ service members will be entitled to a deferred pension. This pension will increase annually in line with the Consumer Price Index (CPI) and will be paid when the member reaches their State Pension age.

If however, the member works up until age 60 they will be able to claim their pension immediately.

Pension – Lump Sum

Under AFPS 15 members are not automatically entitled to a tax free lump sum.

In order to receive a lump sum members will need to create a lump sum by ‘surrendering’ part of their annual pension through a process called ‘commutation’. The commutation rate is fixed; for every £1 of pension income a member gives up, a lump sum of £12 will be provided.

Example

A member is entitled to a pension of £10,000 per annum. They have the option to surrender some of this income for a lump sum.

If the member wishes to receive a £10,000 lump sum, they would have to surrender £833.33 per annum. This would reduce their annual income payments to £9,166.67.

Early Departure Payments

AFPS 15 also provides for Early Departure Payments (EDP). Under AFPS 15 however, members must serve for a minimum of 20 years and be aged between 40 and 60. Under an EDP members will receive a lump sum of 2.25 times their deferred pension plus a monthly income of 34% of their annual deferred pension.

Once members reach age 55, their monthly payments will increase in line with CPI. The CPI increases will also be backdated to when the member left the Armed Forces. At State Pension age the member’s pension will increase to the full deferred pension they are entitled to.

Source: The Armed Forces Pension Scheme 2015, Your Pension Scheme Explained

Divorce Options

When it comes to your AFPS the courts have a number of options, including the following:

  • Making no order, deeming you and your spouse to be equal in your financial provision;
  • Allowing you to use offsetting, whereby you utilise other assets or property to ‘buy out’ your spouse from your AFPS benefits;
  • Granting an Attachment Order, whereby your spouse would receive payments from the AFPS, as a lump sum or income, when you receive your pension; or
  • Granting a Pension Sharing Order, whereby a share of your pension passes to your spouse and they become a member of the AFPS in their own right.

All of the above, except for an attachment order, would provide for a ‘clean break’ from your spouse, which is usually preferred.

Starting on Page 5 of the ‘AFP Guide on Divorce and Dissolution of Civil Partnerships’, frequently asked questions are answered regarding the benefits of each order.

One of the most important aspects to note on this guide is in relation to Early Departure Payments. These do not count as ‘pension income’ prior to members being entitled to their full pension. In light of this, these will not be included in any pension sharing or attachment orders. Please note, this is not the case for the Immediate Pension, which is payable under AFPS ’75.

Get in touch

To get in touch with Informed Financial planning, you can visit their website here

Note – Info gained from:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/armed-forces-and-reserve-forces-pension-schemes-guidance-booklets

The post Stowe guests: Armed forces pensions and divorce appeared first on Stowe Family Law.


Go to Source
Author: Stowe Family Law

Posted on

Report findings do not support roll out of Settlement Conferences in children cases

Back in July 2017 the Ministry of Justice (‘MoJ’) issued guidance in relation to the piloting of ‘settlement conferences’ in children cases. Settlement conferences are/were another idea to help resolve children disputes. As the guidance explained:

“In a settlement conference, a family judge adopts an inquisitorial approach in order to encourage cooperation between parties with a view to helping them identify solutions and reaching an agreement that is in their children’s best interests.”

It went on:

“Settlement conferences take place with the consent of all the parties. The judge hearing a settlement conference will be different to that of the judge that may hear the final hearing. They will be specially trained in facilitating settlement conferences.

“The judge will not impose any duress or pressure on any parties. Settlement implies that all parties will be in agreement to fully resolve some or all issues.”

A protocol in relation to the conferences explained that:

“The role of the Settlement Conference is to facilitate discussion of the issues, clarify information, analyse issues and promote understanding between the parties with a view to helping to identify solutions (including solutions which may be addressed by the consent of the parties and not necessarily within the Court process).

“It is the parties and not the Judge who determines whether there is agreement on any of the issues and whether an order will flow following such agreement.”

Settlement Conferences have been tried in both public law and private law disputes (as I understand it, far more in the former), but for the purpose of this post I will concentrate on the latter, i.e. child arrangements cases, as that is what most readers of this blog are likely to be interested in.

Before I go any further I should point out that the procedure for dealing with child arrangement cases already contains two steps that could be confused with settlement conferences. The first step is the First Hearing Dispute Resolution Appointment (‘FHDRA’), which “provides an opportunity for the parties to be helped to an understanding of the issues which divide them, and to reach agreement.” The second step is the Dispute Resolution Appointment (‘DRA’), which is essentially a last effort to see if the case can be resolved without the need for a final hearing. I will come back to these, or at least to the DRA, in a moment.

The Association of Lawyers for Children has just published a report looking at the views and experiences of advocates on practices in 61 settlement conferences in the initial five pilot areas identified by the MoJ. The report was by Dr Julia Brophy, an independent senior researcher in family justice issues. The report’s findings do not support a roll out of the settlement conference procedure in its current form. The reasons for this are complex, but included variations in approach by judges and courts, concerns as to whether the procedure was fair, pressure on lay parties to agree to a suggested order, and the power imbalance between lay parties and the judge, by virtue of the latter’s status and position.

Many of the advocates felt that a similar result could have been obtained by a properly conducted Issues Resolution Hearing (‘IRH’ – the public law equivalent of the DRA), but restrictions on the time allocated to the IRH mean it is now largely ‘administrative’ with little/no time for judicially led discussion, negotiation and party reflection. I suspect that something similar can be said for the DRA.

The report concludes by suggesting ways forward, for example to identify appropriate cases (e.g. private law disputes), and develop a procedure with safeguards suited to those cases. Another suggestion (if I read it correctly) is to enhance the IRH, to make it more like a settlement conference. Again, I suspect that the same idea could be applied to the DRA.

All in all, the report may not be a glowing endorsement for settlement conferences, but the pilot was clearly a useful exercise in the continuing search for new and better ways of resolving children disputes, and no doubt we will be seeing more of some of the ideas behind the conferences in the future.

You can read the full report here.

The post Report findings do not support roll out of Settlement Conferences in children cases appeared first on Stowe Family Law.


Go to Source
Author: John Bolch

Posted on

Stowe At The London Legal Walk Launch Reception

In 2018 13,000 people walked 10k and raised a record breaking £830,000 for supporting legal advice charities in London and the South East.

Last night, Stowe Family Law’s Graham Coy and Alice Wightman attended the formal launch reception for the London Legal Walk 2019 at the Royal Courts of Justice. Sue James of the Hammersmith & Fulham Law Centre and Pamela Fitzpatrick of Harrow Law Centre spoke of the crucial nature of these funds in maintaining the law centres and gave several inspiring case studies demonstrating the significant impact of pro bono legal advice for individuals who are unable to fund a route to access to justice. Finally, Lord Burnett of Maldon, Lord Chief Justice of England & Wales and President of the London Legal Support Trust gave an excellent speech reiterating the importance of fundraising events such as the London Legal Walk and expressed the Trust’s hope of raising £1,000,000 through 2019’s walk.

In 2013, Ministry of Justice statistics confirmed there were 870 not-for-profit legal aid providers. By 2014, this had fallen by 90% to just 95. The impact of local Government spending cuts together with legal aid cuts has resulted in there being little funding available for many issues significantly affecting people’s lives such as conditions at work, homelessness, immigration issues and employment disputes.

The funds raised by the walk support charities that provide or host free legal services to numerous charities. Legal advice services within the community are vital as they assist vulnerable individuals and families to be treated fairly since up to two-thirds of the population are uninformed as to where to seek legal services when in need. Receiving sound advice early on can save £10 for every £1 invested and ensure people remain in work, education and keep families together in their homes.

The walk will take place on Monday 17th June 2019. While Stowe Family Law is unable to offer Legal Aid, we will be gathering a team to walk one of the two routes (Parks or River) to support those in need of legal assistance. There is no entry fee but if every registered walker aims to raise £75, we could raise £1,000,000 to support access to justice in the community.

For anyone interested in supporting the event or if you would like to take part, visit the London Legal Support Trust website.

 

The post Stowe At The London Legal Walk Launch Reception appeared first on Stowe Family Law.


Go to Source
Author: Alice Wightman

Posted on

What to consider when moving forward with a gray divorce

There are many reasons why a Texas couple may choose to move forward with divorce. No matter how long you have been married, there are a number of factors that can cause problems and eventually lead to the decision to divorce. This is also true for couples over the age of 50.

When an older couple divorces, it can be especially complex and difficult to navigate the issue at hand. There are fewer opportunities to recoup financial losses, especially if you or your spouse retired. Additionally, there can be significant assets, some accumulated over decades together, that a couple will have to address and divide. This is not easy, no matter how amicable the two parties may be.

Your gray divorce and your future

When facing the prospect of a gray divorce, there are many factors to consider. One of the most important issues will be the full protection of your future financial interests. Older individuals have a lot at stake in a divorce, and it is in your interests to be thoughtful and careful about the choices you make and the decisions to which you agree. 

The number of gray divorces is at a higher rate than it has been at any other point in history. This could be for many reasons, including longer lifespans and changing cultural perspective on divorce. Regardless of the specific reason why you decided to move forward with this decision, there are important financial issues to consider, including: 

  • Alimony is not necessarily a guarantee, and if you are eligible, you may not get quite as much as you hope.
  • Divorce will impact your retirement savings, which may lead to a need to adjust your plans for the future.
  • You might not be able to stay in your family home. It is important to consider if you can afford to stay there on your post-divorce financial resources. 

These are just a few of the issues that could impact your retirement, lifestyle and plans for your golden years. It is in your interests to think about the long-term effect of each choice you make.

There is a lot on the line, but you do not have to face it alone. A complete evaluation of your case with an experienced family law attorney can help you understand how you can intentionally pursue a strong and stable post-divorce future. Gray divorce is complex, but you can seek an outcome that allows you to look to the future with confidence.


Go to Source
Author: On behalf of Katie L. Lewis of Katie L. Lewis, P.C. Family Law

Posted on

Should there be an age that children are told they are adopted by law?

I recently read an article in the Telegraph & Argus about a Bradford man who found out he was adopted at the age of 49.  He is now calling for a change in the law so that every adopted child is told the truth when they turn 18 years old.

Reading his experience made me consider my own situation. I always knew I was adopted however it would have been very difficult for my parents to hide that given they are Caucasian and I am Sri Lankan. I knew the truth from a very young age and I was always reassured that I could ask as many (or as few) questions as I wanted to. This meant I was able to digest information at a pace that was right for me rather than being overwhelmed.

Should there be an age that children are told that they are adopted, or should the decision be left to the adoptive parents?

Having thought about this for some time, I do not think there is a right or simple answer!

To go 18 years believing the people in your life are your biological family and then be told that everything you thought was true isn’t, is likely to have a very serious impact on someone’s mental health. Someone in that situation could experience trust issues in the future, feelings of loss and confusion. In family law it is recognised that children are different: one 8-year-old may be much more mature than a 13-year-old and the way to deliver news to people should be varied depending on their personality. Shouldn’t this common-sense approach be applied to telling someone they are adopted?

What should a child/adult be told?

Should an adopted person be told everything in one go or should they be told at a pace appropriate for them? This follows on from the above point that everyone processes information differently. As an adult, I prefer having all the information I possibly can as that helps me process things but as a child that would have been overwhelming.

What if the circumstances surrounding a child’s adoption are upsetting?

My story was straightforward: my biological mother wanted a better life for me. Not everyone can say that. I have family friends who adopted a child who was taken away from his birth mother because she abused drugs, another adopted because her biological mother was raped. In those circumstances, I am not so sure I would want to know my background.

Not all family relationships are straightforward

As a family solicitor, I understand relationships are complicated. As the saying goes you cannot choose your family. We regularly see clients who are estranged from members of their family for various reasons or parents that are no longer involved in the lives of their children because of separation. Practically speaking, how would that be dealt with if there was a set age that a person must be told they are adopted?

The practical side

I am well versed when it comes to explaining why I have no idea if there is a history of heart disease in my family. I was diagnosed with a genetic condition at the age of 19 yet this is something I probably would have been aware of sooner had I had knowledge of my family medical history. On the other hand, many people don’t necessarily want to know, if given the choice, what the future might hold for them, in this regard.

The chance to have a larger family

The article I read referred to the person who found out he was adopted, feeling as though he had lost out on having two families and sad for the time that he had missed with them. Having a law compelling parents to tell their child they are adopted would give people the opportunity to search for their biological family if they wished to and to find out the truth about where they came from.

Changing the law

When thinking about whether it would be appropriate to introduce a change in the law, it struck me how complicated it would be to do so. There are many charities out there who support families through the adoption journey because it is so complicated emotionally. Therefore, any change in the law would need to be considered with the implications and complexities in mind.

 

The post Should there be an age that children are told they are adopted by law? appeared first on Stowe Family Law.


Go to Source
Author: Shanika Varga-Haynes

Posted on

Court IT meltdown: a sign of things to come?

“A ‘major disruption’ that affected multiple Ministry of Justice IT systems last week continues to cause chaos.”

So began a story in The Law Society Gazette on the 22nd of January. The story went on to explain that the Gazette had been told by ‘lawyers on the front line’ that trials had been delayed, jurors had been unable to enrol, and practitioners had been prevented from confirming attendance at court that would enable them to get paid.

Despite not practising myself, I had already picked up on this story from irate lawyers on Twitter, bemoaning problems with court computers, phones (which of course are digital) and email systems. One well-known family lawyer tweeted:

“No diaries, no phones, no email, courts can’t receive documents or fix hearings…really causing problems for judges, court staff, lawyers – and of course litigants and witnesses.”

And another eminent (but anonymous) legal commentator tweeted:

“Imagine the headlines if it were the NHS.
“But it’s only justice, so no one cares.”

Certainly, I don’t recall these problems causing much of a splash in the national media.

And what did the Ministry of Justice, HM Courts and Tribunals Service (‘HMCTS’) et al have to say? Well, they at least were able to send out emails. I received a series of them, mainly apologising profusely to those who had been affected by what they called “major IT network issues”. “We know”, they said, “how deeply frustrating this has been for our staff and people who use and work across the justice system.” Hmm.

What they didn’t know was what caused the issues, but we were assured that they “were not the result of a cyber attack and there was no loss of data.” I’m not entirely sure that that is reassuring. It seems that their systems were quite capable of going into meltdown on their own, without any outside interference. At least if they had been hacked, that might have provided some excuse.

Whatever the cause, we were informed that:

“As of 25 January, all Ministry of Justice (MoJ) sites are operational with IT network connectivity restored. We are continuing to carefully monitor the situation and will work with individual users where any issues arise.”

Although there was one further word of warning:

“It will take time for all aspects of the service to fully return to normal, as there is a backlog of work created by the disruption.”

Hopefully, the cause of these issues will be found, and steps will be taken to ensure that the same problem will not occur again. It does not, however, inspire confidence. Many were suggesting that the system is not as robust as it should be, as it was acquired “on the cheap”. I don’t know the truth of that allegation, but we all know that government departments generally, and the MoJ and HMCTS in particular, have been subjected to tight budget constraints in recent years, so there may be some truth in it.

Whatever, in a time when much of the justice system is being put online (ostensibly to make it more convenient for users, but in reality primarily as a cost-cutting exercise), incidents such as this do appear to be a warning of things to come. These IT systems have the effect of putting all of the justice eggs in one basket. Whereas in the pre-digital age there was little that could adversely affect the entire justice system, now it seems that it only takes some small software glitch to bring the whole edifice to its knees.

And the victims will not just be lawyers. They will be those who use the system, including family litigants. And it will not just be some small inconvenience, like having to wait around a bit longer at court. It could mean justice seriously delayed, which could be the difference between a successful outcome to a case and an unsuccessful one.

Yes, it’s true that few people seem to care about IT issues in the justice system. But they certainly will care when it is their case that is affected: their divorce settlement that is delayed, or their children that they are unable to see.

The post Court IT meltdown: a sign of things to come? appeared first on Stowe Family Law.


Go to Source
Author: John Bolch

Posted on

Helping you protect your rights during a custody dispute

Getting a divorce can make anyone’s world spin. Whether it is a contested divorce or not, the process itself can cause many changes and concerns. And for Texas parents getting a divorce, this means determining a custody arrangement that benefits and child. It can be difficult to work through custody matters, often causing it to be a difficult and contentious divorce issue.

While some divorcing parents seek primary custody of their child, it is possible to seeking joint or shared custody. In the eyes of the law, Texas parents are viewed as having equal rights to their children, and at Katie L. Lewis, P.C. Family Law, we understand this and fight for this for our clients.

Whether you are a working parent or a stay-at-home parent, our law firm not only helps you navigate post-divorce life but also helps you develop a plan to help address any custody concerns. If you are asserting your right as a father, this may look like illustrating that you can provide adequate care and are capable of being involved in the child’s life. Our attorneys take the time to protect the rights of our clients while also ensuring that the best interests of the child are also met.

To learn more, check out our law firm’s fathers’ rights website. Whether you are considering divorce, are going through the process or are dealing with post-divorce issues, it is vital to explore your rights and options. This will also help ensure that the rights and best interests of the child are best served.


Go to Source
Author: On behalf of Katie L. Lewis of Katie L. Lewis, P.C. Family Law