Category: Family Law

It sounds strange, but as a divorce lawyer you never know what your clients will throw at you.

The other dreaded D word- DIVORCE.

This normally means fundamental changes, upheaval and pretty much the only guarantee is certain uncertainty  for the very immediate future.

Everyone knows someone who “got taken to the cleaners- by their better half or in some cases their lawyers”. It can make  sane people reach for the prozac, a bottle or sometimes both. The truth is it is never an easy step to take. I would compare it to the analogy of having to visit your dentist to have some root canal work carried out. It is painful. Emotionally and financially. However once the pain wears off you can be glad its over and that you took the initial step to do it.

I have never had a client who regretted getting a divorce. The only regret is that they wished they did it earlier and didn’t spend hours talking to “friends, colleagues, people down the pub” giving them their stories that have nothing to do with your individual circumstances. It’s a FACT that each case is different so you cannot generalise.  By the very nature of what you are doing it is not going to be a wonderful experience but it is a FACT that most families move forward and have no regrets. This includes children, who wish their parents had divorced a long time ago.

Studies from adults with parents whom had “unhappy marriages” and ‘put off’ divorcing to keep the family together, wish that their parents had divorced sooner.

Children are more perceptive than we give them credit for. They can see unhappy parents, and sometimes as adults feel guilty that their parents may have sacrificed their happiness to keep the family together.

A good lawyer will empathise with you and not force you to take any rash decisions. This is why  ASTON BOND offer consultations for you to “test the water“ and get  sound advice. For example most people think they have to go to court to get a divorce. It’s a FACT that most divorces are paper exercises and not contested.

Sometimes a little knowledge is a dangerous tool  so always go to a qualified lawyer when it comes to obtaining a full understanding of what’s involved and of course as Malcolm Ford said in preschool (son of Harrison Ford);

“ My daddy is a movie actor and sometimes he plays the good guy, and sometimes he plays the lawyer!“.

Well that’s Hollywood fiction for you… but  it’s the lawyer that can help you get what you want.

 

Monisha Ferguson, Senior Family Solicitor

Culture Secretary Sajid Javid has confirmed that from December 2014 couples will be able to convert their civil partnerships into marriages.

Same sex couples first received the right to marry in March 2014 under the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013, prior to which they were only permitted to enter into civil partnerships as per the Civil Partnership Act 2004. Now those who have already entered into a civil partnership can have their civil partnership turned into a legal marriage.

The process for conversion is fairly simple. Both parties of the civil partnership will need to sign a declaration in the presence of each other and in front of the superintendent registrar in order to become legally married.  The fee for such a conversion is £45.00 and the parties will be issued with a marriage certificate once the process is complete.

Critics question why, when civil partnerships exist, same sex couples need to get married. After all, civil partnerships are legal relationships and enable parties to have the same rights as a spouse in terms of inheritance, immigration, pension provisions and child maintenance. However civil partnerships are only civil procedures and are not the same as religious weddings or civil marriages. In addition, many believe that by creating a different form of partnership for same sex couples compared to different sex couples, a message is being sent to society: homosexual relationships are not as valid as heterosexual ones.

It is clear, however, that the introduction of same sex marriage is seminal for equality campaigners and takes a further step to remove legal differences between heterosexual and homosexual relationships.

Amarjit Atwal, Paralegal

Following the landmark ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Radmacher v Granatino [2010] UKSC 42; the law regarding the validity of pre-nuptial agreements has changed.

Previously, it was believed that pre-nuptial agreements were bad for ‘public policy’. They were therefore only given limited scope as to the intention of the parties when deciding upon what was or were not ‘marital assets’.

Subsequent to this ruling, pre-nuptial agreements are now fully enforceable in English law providing that the criterion is met. This, for ease of reference, is:

The agreement has been freely entered into and both parties understand the consequences of signing the agreement (referred to in the judgment as being ‘freely entered into by each party with a full appreciation of its implications’);

Whether, in entering into the agreement, one party has been misinformed or deceived by the other. There must, therefore, be full information provided that is material to the substance of the financial assets;

If there are any pressures applied to the other person entering into the agreement then the agreement will be unenforceable in law; and

A general overview as to the circumstances of the parties, taken into account any children, the manner in which their financial dealings appear, and whether in enforcing the agreement, one party will be left in financial ‘need’.

The basic premise of a pre-nuptial agreement would appear to fall squarely in the present regime of Family Justice. It caters for the Children of the Family, as-well-as placing restrictions upon one spouse unreasonable benefiting at the expense of the other.

However, it is clearly worth noting at this stage that a marriage is ‘the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others (per Lord Penzance in the case of Hyde v Hyde). What therefore comes of this old legal notion?

Having recently attended the Principal Registry of the Family Division (PRFD) for a first appointment of a child contact matter, it was interesting to note that the Court insisted upon the attendance of children over the age of 10. Ordinarily District Judges’ are of the opinion that a Court is not the place for children.

It was interesting to see the benefits of having children in attendance, namely that officers of the Children and Family Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS) could discuss the substantive matter with a child as to whether they would want to have contact with the ‘absent parent’. This would appear to be a far better use of Court time rather than making parents wait the obligatory 14 weeks for a CAFCASS appointment. However, what of the risk to the child?

It is somewhat of an overwhelming experience attending Court, particularly if you’re not used to the formal settings. What, therefore, would a child of 10 make of it?

It poses the emotive question as to whether Court time should be saved (particularly in the current economic climate) against the overall question of whether a child’s welfare should still be regarded as the paramount consideration?

01753 486 777