Family Law News 11th – 25th January 2011

Parliamentary News

24.01.2011: The All-Party Parliamentary Group on Family Law and the Court of Protection will be meeting on Tuesday, 15th February 2011 to discuss shared parenting. It will take place in the Grand Committee Room in the Palace of Westminster. The panel is made up of the following members: Dr Samantha Callan, Chairman-In-Residence and David Hodson, Chairman of the Family Law Review Group for the Centre for Social Justice; John Baker, Policy Officer for The Association of Shared Parenting and Dr Craig Pickering, CEO of Families Need Fathers. Source: http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed78878

Child Maintenance

16.01.2011: Proposals detailed in a Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) consultation document reveal plans to introduce charges for the use of child maintenance services, in order to encourage agreements between couples outside of the statutory service. The Government believes that this would help to reduce costs within the service (currently £460 million a year), whilst also reducing family conflict and producing better outcomes for parents and children alike. Under the proposed system, free initial advice would be available to parents detailing their options. Application charges are expected to cost around £100 (£50 for parents on benefits, including £20 as an upfront charge and the remainder to be paid in instalments). Source: http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed78557

Financial Advice

17.01.2011: Resolution has established a new public search facility to enable those undergoing separation or divorce to find an independent financial advisor (IFA). It can be found at www.resolution.org.uk/find_a_specialist, alongside new pages providing information on financial and domestic matters. Source: http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed78579A

Legal Aid

16.01.2011: Rights of Women (RoW) will be campaigning against proposed changes in legal aid, particularly regarding their proposed effects upon women suffering domestic abuse. RoW are developing a template consultation response, and are collecting evidence through three online surveys of individual women, front-line professionals and the legal sector respectively. Source: http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed78556

24.01.2011: The Law Society has warned that plans announced in the Ministry of Justice’s recent Green Paper on legal aid which would exclude all private law children and family cases where domestic violence is not an issue may result in a dramatic increase in litigants in person in the family justice system. Government estimates have indicated that the number of family cases funded by legal aid would decrease by 53,000 a year, with mediations increasing by 3,000. Source: http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed78879

Child Protection

18.01.2011: The Royal College for Pediatrics and Child Health (RCPCH) have published ten standards which call for social workers, police and health departments to have immediate access to pediatricians trained in child protection when they have concerns regarding the wellbeing of under 18s in their care. The document calls for an initial strategy assessment within the first 2 hours, followed by an assessment and judgment of the case within 12 hours where there are signs of recent injury. Source: http://www.familylaw.co.uk/articles/RCPCH18012011-653

Pre-nuptial Agreements

12.01.2011: The newly published Law Commission consultation on the future of pre-nuptial agreements provisionally proposes that:
• Agreements should be in writing;
• Both parties be required to take legal advice;
• The party seeking to enforce the agreement has fully disclosed their financial situation;
• Agreements should not be enforcable if they do not provide for children in the family, or leave one party reliant on state benefits.
Source: http://www.familylaw.co.uk/articles/LawCommission12012011-456

Court Cases of Interest

• 12.01.2011: Case: Abduction: RE G (Abduction: Children’s Objections) [2010] EWCA CIV 1232: Mother removed children from recently established home in Canada and returned them to the former home in England. The father’s originating summons was not made until 6 months after the removal. Both children (aged 13 and 9) opposed returning. Appeal judges met the 13 year old, and in light of the child’s strong objections, the return order was set aside. Source: http://www.familylaw.co.uk/articles/2010EWCA1232

• 13.01.2011: Case: Abduction: WF V RJ, BF AND RF [2010] EWHC 2909 (FAM) : Following divorce from the German father, the British mother remarried and some years later wrongfully removed the children from Germany. The father sought summary return, which the mother objected to on the basis that she had fled domestic abuse by the second husband. The girl strongly objected to returning, and though the boy was more ambivalent, had also expressed opposition to returning. Cafcass concluded that the opinions of both should be taken into account in its advice. In the context of Art 13 of the Hague Convention, discretion relating to sibling groups should be exercised holistically, accounting for the feelings of each sibling and the harm separating them would cause the children. The application for summary return was refused. Source: http://www.familylaw.co.uk/articles/WFvRj130810

• 14.01.2011: Case: Parental Responsibility: T V T [2010] EWCA CIV 1366. A lesbian couple was in a civil partnership. The father of their two children (aged 10 and 7), in a long-term relationship, had parental responsibility. A shared residence order was made in favour of the biological mother and father. This was substituted to include the mother’s partner, with the father’s consent over concerns as to what would happen were the mother to die over the period of the residency order. The father was awarded 152 days contact time a year (110 overnight). Source: http://www.familylaw.co.uk/articles/2010EWCA1366

• 14.01.2011: Case: Appeals: Contact: RE K (Appeal: Contact) [2010] EWCA CIV 1365: District Judge had previously dismissed father’s application for contact with children and imposed an s 91(14) order for 1 year, finding the father guilty of serious litigation conduct in withdrawing a previous contact application to avoid a fact finding hearing. The father’s appeal was allowed, the decision being found to deny the children the opportunity to know their father without oral evidence and breaching the father’s Art 6 rights. As the application is based on the paramount wwelfare of the children, the father’s litigation conduct did not rule out the prospect of a successful application. Source: http://www.familylaw.co.uk/articles/2010EWCA1365