Decline of nuclear family may have benefits

The decline of the traditional nuclear family "may not be a bad thing”, a leading judge has argued, because a wider family made up of step-parents and half-siblings may provide a healthier environment for children.

Lord Wilson of Culworth, a justice in the Supreme Court since 2011, also gave his backing to gay marriage because it would strengthen, rather than weaken, the institution of marriage.

 “Death has always enabled the surviving spouse to remarry but the availability of divorce precipitates many more remarriages and in their wake come many more step-families and relationships of the half-blood,” Lord Wilson, 68, said.

“So the blended family now often replaces the nuclear family.  I am not convinced that it is a bad thing: might it not be healthier for children to learn at a very early age to cope with relationships in a mixed and wider family group?”

Lord Wilson pointed out that same sex marriage was “not a novel concept” and had been allowed in ancient Egypt and Republican Rome.

“Far from destroying marriage, I think that to allow same sex couples into it strengthens it; but in my view the most important benefit of same sex marriage is the symbol that it holds to the heterosexual community ... that each of the two types of intimate adult love is as valid as the other.

Lord Wilson argued that marriage was an “elastic” concept. For example, although polygamy was frowned upon in Western culture it was a “deeply rooted facet of marriage in other respected cultures”.

Marriage between first cousins is illegal in parts of the world but it is “inconceivable” that it should be banned in Britain because it is “deeply rooted in the culture of our Pakistani and Bangladeshi communities” despite the increased risk of genetic abnormalities in their offspring, he added.

Lord Wilson also pointed out that Australia allows a woman to wed her uncle, and France permits about 20 posthumous marriages to take place a year, if the surviving member of the couple can prove they were genuinely engaged.

He added: “It seems bizarre but, if it really helps the broken-hearted, we have at least to ask: why not?”

To read a full copy of this article, which first appeared in The Telegraph, please click here

Pre-nup deals could be given legal status

• Package is likely to recommend a shake-up of the divorce laws
• Proposals also likely to include rules to combat 'gold-diggers'

A'pre-nup' law that allows a couple to set the terms of a divorce even before they get married is to go before ministers later this month.

The 'Matrimonial Property Needs and Agreements' proposals, drawn up by the Law Commission after more than four years of wrangling, will outline a new law 'to consider the treatment of pre-nuptial, post-nuptial and separation agreements'.  It will suggest new rules on how one marriage partner should meet the genuine financial needs of the other after divorce.

The package is also likely to include rules to combat 'gold-diggers', meaning that a bride or groom who brought their own assets into a marriage - such as a family-owned company or an inherited fortune - would not lose them in the event of divorce.

However, there is little likelihood of any change in the law before next year's general election.

Courts in England and Wales have traditionally ignored pre-nup agreements, with judges instead trying to divide a couple's assets on the merits of each case.

But the longstanding practice was undermined by the Radmacher ruling in the Supreme Court in 2010, when judges ruled that German heiress Katrin Radmacher should keep her £100million fortune after her divorce in accordance with the terms of her pre-nup.

Here at Hopkins Law we have helped many couples draw up pre-nup agreements - if you're lucky enough to have assets before you get married, give us a ring and have a chat!

More about this story can be found at the Mail Online website.

Divorce statistics revealed for England and Wales

Divorces are down over the last decade, but up in the last year

The Office for National Statistics has released figures for divorces in England and Wales in 2012. The number of divorces was up 0.5% since 2011. The number of civil partnership dissolutions also increased. However, this is part of an upward trend which is partly explained by the fact that since civil partnerships are relatively new, the number of registered partnerships is increasing.



• In 2012, 10.8 people divorced per thousand married population, a decrease of 19% compared with 13.3 in 2002.


• The number of divorces in 2012 was highest among men and women aged 40 to 44.


• For those married in 1972, 22% of marriages had ended in divorce by their 15th wedding anniversary whereas for those married in 1997, almost a third of marriages had ended by this time.
• Almost half of all divorces in 2012 occurred in the first ten years of marriage and divorce was most likely to occur between the fourth and eighth wedding anniversary.


• 48% of couples divorcing had at least one child aged under 16 living with the family. 

In the light of the increase in divorces, Family Justice Minister Simon Hughes has called on more parents and couples to use mediation rather than face the stressful experience of going to court. He said:

"Mediation works. We are committed to making sure that more people make use of it rather than go through the confrontational and stressful experience of going to court. 

"These figures show thousands of people are sadly still divorcing each year. We want them to do it in the least damaging way for everyone involved, especially children. That is why we want them to use the excellent mediation services available to agree a way forward, rather than have one forced upon them."

Liz Edwards, Chair of Resolution, said:

"It's disappointing to see the divorce rates rising, and we suspect there are a range of reasons why this has happened.

"What's interesting is looking beyond the headline figures, the vast majority of divorce petitions still involve one party assigning blame to the other – either in the form of adultery or unreasonable behaviour. 



"Resolution members see people day in, day out, who have mutually agreed to separate, but because of the divorce laws we currently have, are forced to apportion blame in the divorce petition. This is unhelpful, and often makes conflict and confrontation part and parcel of the divorce process.



"Our members believe separation and divorce should be as non-confrontational as possible, and where marriage has failed, couples should be able to bring it to an end with the minimum distress and conflict. Where there are children, their welfare should be the top priority.



"Resolution wants to see the law change to remove the need to assign blame if a marriage breaks down. This would not make divorce easier, but would recognise the fact that divorce is a sad fact of life for some people – to the tune of nearly a quarter of a million in 2012. They - and crucially, any children they may have - should be able to move forwards with their lives with as little distress as possible."