Shared Parental Leave

Introduced in April 2015, the new system allows working couples to share a year off work after
the birth of their child. Aside from the initial two weeks – which the mother must take in order
to recover – they can divide the rest between them.

But while it was hailed as a breakthrough for equality - giving both parents chance to bond with
their babies, and keep their careers on track - why has there been such a dismal take-up by dads?

For many couples contemplating SPL, it seems a simple question of cost: in two-parent families
in which both partners work, men are still the main breadwinners in four in five (78 per cent)
cases, meaning families will lose out financially by the father staying at home.

Whichever parent is on leave receives 90 per cent of their normal salary for the first
six weeks after the birth, which then drops to a statutory £140 a week for the next 33 weeks, and the last three months of a year are left unpaid. Even if couples earn similar amounts, many women receive maternity packages well above and beyond the statutory rate - meaning sharing paternal leave amounts to a financial penalty.
FAQ's
Shared Parental Leave
What is it?
Under laws which came into full effect from April 2015, couples living in mainland Britain are able to divide almost all the traditional maternity leave entitlement between them. It's also available to couples adopting.
How much time can parents take off?
Almost a year. Aside from the compulsory fortnight recovery period new mothers must take after childbirth, the remaining 50 weeks is available to divvy up between parents in any combination.
Does one person always need to be at work?
No, they can take time off together or separately. It's flexible, too, meaning parents could intersperse periods of work and leave, allowing them to return to work for up to 30 days to cover short stints or important projects, then take more time off.
How much does it pay?
Similar to statutory maternity pay: £139.58 a week, or 90% of an employee's average weekly earnings, whichever is lower. Though it is up to an employer if they want to offer more, of course. This is paid for 37 weeks. The other 13, if taken, goes without payment.
What if my boss says no?
If you're eligible, they can't. Unlike other flexible work arrangements, shared parental leave is an employee's right in the same way as maternity leave.
How can I claim it?
First you can check whether you're eligible on the government's website, then give notice to your
employer so that they aren't caught by surprise. It's then simply a case of downloading the
appropriate form to declare your intentions (which can be changed), and booking your blocks of
leave.

For more information click here

Arbitration scheme extends to parental responsibility disputes

Disputes about where children of separated parents should live or how much time they spend with
each parent could be resolved away from the daunting surroundings of a courtroom.

The Family Law Arbitration Scheme, which began in 2012 to deal with financial matters,
is to be extended to disputes concerning parental responsibility, as reported in the Law society
Gazette yesterday.
The scheme was set up by the Institute of Family Law Arbitrators (IFLA), a not-for-profit organisation created by the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, Family Law Bar Association and family lawyers’ group Resolution, in association with the Center for Child and Family Law Reform.

IFLA chair Lord Falconer of Thoroton, former shadow justice secretary, said the scheme would
enable couples to resolve disputes ‘more quickly, cheaply and in a more flexible, less formal
setting than a courtroom’.

The scheme will also guarantee confidentiality. ‘These are all important ingredients to
minimising conflict and supporting the best interests of children,’ Falconer said.

Family court judges have the power to adjourn court proceedings for the parties to resolve a
dispute through arbitration. With the court’s approval, the arbitration award can then be made
into an order in those proceedings.

At a time when the courts are under significant pressures, Falconer said the availability of
arbitration for children matters ‘builds on the long and proud tradition arbitration has in
other areas, and gives parents and practitioners another tool with which to resolve family
disputes’.
For more information click here

Unregulated online divorce providers service 10-13% of the market

New research suggests that unregulated online divorce providers service 10-13% of the market

Legal Services Board research reveals extent of unregulated providers' market shares

The Legal Services Board (LSB) has published the findings of its unregulated providers research
project which, it says, significantly advances understanding of unregulated provision of
legal services.

The LSB's 2016 individual legal needs survey indicated that the size of the unregulated sector is
 smaller than originally thought. This new research suggests consumers are using unregulated
providers for a number of reasons, including:

lower prices compared to regulated provider
higher levels of transparency in pricing and
higher levels of innovation and service differentiation.
The main risks for consumers were said to be:

not making informed choices
misleading advertising claims.
According to the research, consumer satisfaction with customer service is broadly comparable
across regulated and unregulated providers: 84% versus 81%.

The research examined, amongst other areas, divorce services. It found that 10-13% of market
share was serviced by unregulated providers, essentially online divorce providers and
fee-charging McKenzie Friends.

In that sector it the researchers identified five active unregulated providers operating 11
websites, serving 23-30,000 clients annually. The service was delivered online and was reliant
on search engine optimisation and adwords. Services range from DIY packages (average price of £36)
 to managed services (average price of £173).

Commenting the research, Law Society chief executive Catherine Dixon said:

"Many legal services can be provided by regulated and unregulated providers. If legal services
are purchased from a solicitor, buyers can rest assured that the service is fully regulated, that
 insurance is in place, and that in the event that something goes wrong they have the right to
redress.

"Unfortunately, however, it is not always clear to consumers whether they are buying from a
regulated provider. As the LSB research shows, there are a number of unregulated providers
supplying the same legal services as solicitors and many buyers simply will not know that they
won't get the same level of protection from an unregulated provider if something goes wrong.

"This can be exacerbated if the unregulated provider calls themselves a lawyer, which is not a
protected title. We think that you should only be able to call yourself a lawyer if you are a
qualified legal practitioner. We are concerned that many consumers may not know the difference,
which can leave them exposed.

"If it is the case that consumers need regulatory protection, such protection should be
consistent across the market. If not, this can lead to unfair competition and a lack of
regulatory protection for some buyers who genuinely believe they will have rights of redress and
are insured in case something goes wrong.

"The expertise of solicitors comes from rigorous training. They work to professional standards,
are regulated, have insurance, and their clients have access to redress if services do not meet
the required high standard.

'There are obvious benefits in improved, consistent price and service transparency in advertising
 across all suppliers of legal services, whether regulated or unregulated. Solicitors are also
bound by a code of conduct which ensures they are transparent about pricing with a client before
beginning work.

"Sometimes, fixed pricing for less complex issues may be the best pricing solution. For many of
the more complex services that solicitors provide, such as family services, clients have more
complex needs and so the price of the service they receive will be determined by their individual
 circumstances and the type of advice they require.

"The profession has a great track record of innovation and creativity in a changing market.
Solicitors embrace new technology to meet the needs of clients, reduce costs and maintain their
competitive edge. This ability to adapt ensures the vibrancy and long term success of the legal
sector in the UK."
Read more here

​The young mothers trapped in a cycle of having babies removed

The number of newborns taken away by family courts has increased 2.5 times in five years. 

Often cases involve the same vulnerable women, yet they get little help to break the pattern of 

repeated proceedings.

“August 2010. June 2011. June 2012. April 2014.” Chloe reels off the birthdays of her sons. All four babies were removed from her care by children’s services at birth or soon after.

Aged just 16 when she had her first child, Chloe*, now 22, had been in local authority care since she was 11. She cannot count how many times she was moved in foster placements. Her sons were all fathered by the same violent man; he tried to kill her on one occasion, and controlled her so effectively she found it impossible to envisage a life on her own. Distraught after her first child was removed at a few months old, Chloe went back to her boyfriend. 

The abuse restarted and she was trapped.

It’s a pattern repeated frequently. But the state is failing to acknowledge or help the vulnerable women who are repeatedly traumatised by the loss of a child, often at a very young age, says Prof Karen Broadhurst, of Lancaster University. Broadhurst has recently released the latest set of findings from her population profiling study, funded by the Nuffield Foundation, that reveals the scale of women’s repeat involvement in public law care proceedings in England.

Analysis of cases involving 43,541 birth mothers and 85,452 children revealed that in five years the number of newborns removed increased two and a half times, from 802 babies in 2008 to 2,018 in 2013. And, in new information released to the Guardian, it showed that only one in 10 of those babies ever returned to its birth mother. This compares with all children in care proceedings, where about four in 10 end up in the care of the state.

So if a woman loses her baby at birth, the odds of being reunited are slim. 

If a mother is aged between 16 and 19 when she is first involved in care proceedings, 

she has a one in three chance of the state applying to remove a subsequent baby if she comes

 before the family court again

for more information click here 

Government announces £80m plan to tackle domestic abuse and violence

It has recently been announced that the Government has set aside £80m over the next four years to tackle domestic violence including frontline work including refuges and rape crisis centres.

As reported in the Children & Young People Now publication - that "close to 200,000 initial child protection assessments during 2014/15 involved domestic violence as an identifiable factor…In total 1.35 million women experienced domestic abuse in 2014/15."

The plan will be designed to encourage new approaches to tackle domestic violence, support victims and prevent perpetrators from reoffending.

The Home Secretary Theresa May has said that "As the true scale of these crimes is revealed we need to strengthen our work to change attitudes, improve prevention and where possible rehabilitate offenders to stop reoffending….And to ensure all victims get the right support at the right time, we will drive a real transformation of service provision, providing support to local commissioners so that all areas rise to the level of the best."

To read the full article please click here.

One to one help sessions for violent domestic abusers

In a bid to alter their behaviours, men who pose a high risk of domestic violence are to be given one-to-one support to promote change.

Known as ‘Drive’ the new programme will be piloted in Essex, Sussex and South Wales.

Ms Williams - a previous victim of such crimes - supports the initiative saying - “We’ve got to try and change the mindset of the perpetrator and hold them accountable for their actions.”

Although another woman who experienced a “hellish five-year marriage to an abusive man” argues that the Drive scheme would not work and that the money would be better spent on support for the victims, saying “ The majority - although not all - of serial perpetrators of domestic violence do it out of choice, not because they have a drug, alcohol, social or financial problems”.

The chief executive of Refuge - Sandra Horley seemed to agree and commented that there was “no evidence - here or abroad - that therapy programmes for violent partners work….on the face of it, it seems like a worthy thing to do.  In an ideal world we would approach it from both sides.  But we don’t live in an ideal world.”

The Drive programme will give individuals bespoke one-to-one sessions and it is expected that 900 offenders will be asked to take part in the scheme over the next three years.

To read the full article on this story covered by BBC News please click here.

Legal challenge lost for heterosexual couple who wanted a civil partnership rather than marriage

On the 29th January 2016, the BBC reported that Rebecca Steinfeld and Charles Keidan have had their claim dismissed by Justice Andrews.

Amongst other arguments against their claim, the government fought the point that now that gay couples are able to marry, civil partnerships might well be abolished or phased out in the future. I would however note at this point that it was said at an earlier heading, that the future of civil partnerships had not been decided - with the government waiting to see ‘how extending marriage to same -sex couples impacts upon civil partnerships before reaching a decision on the future of civil partnerships’.

Justice Andrews also concluded in her ruling that: ”opposite-sex couples are not disadvantaged by the hiatus, because they can achieve exactly the same recognition of their relationship and the same rights, benefits and protections by getting married, as they always could,"

After the ruling, Ms Steinfeld said the government was "barring us, and many thousands of opposite-sex couples like us, from the choice of forming a civil partnership".  Mr Keidan said "the fight goes on" and there was still a chance "for this wrong to be righted in time".