Definition of 'domestic violence' to be extended to include mind games

A new law on domestic violence, making it illegal for someone to exercise ‘coercive control’ over their partner, will be unveiled by the Government this week.

Home Secretary Theresa May is expected to announce new powers allowing the police to prosecute those who are guilty of psychological and emotional abuse.

It means for the first time men who control their partners through threats or by restricting their personal or financial freedom, could face prison in the same way as those who are violent towards them.

Campaigners have long called for a change in the law to put psychological exploitation on a par with physical violence, in the hope it will encourage more victims to come forward and report abuse in the home.

While the government’s definition of domestic violence recognises the impact of coercive control and threatening behaviour, this has not previously been reflected in law.

Police investigating reports of domestic abuse are often left frustrated as abusers are not prosecuted due to a lack of clear evidence or gaps in the legislation.

In cases where perpetrators are brought before the courts, they are often only charged with isolated crimes, with years of psychological and emotional abuse not taken into account.

The new law will be introduced as a series of amendments to the Serious Crime Bill, currently going through the House of Lords, and is expected to be on the statute books in the New Year.

Under the terms of the Bill a person convicted of coercive control could face up to 14-years in prison and there will be no statutory time limit for the offences, meaning abuse dating back years can be taken into account.

When similar laws were introduced in the United States it led to a 50 per cent rise in the number of women coming forward to report domestic abuse.

To read the whole of this article, which first appeared in The Telegraph, please click here

If you, or someone you know, has been the subject of coercive control, come and speak to us.  Sally Fitzherbert has experience with Womens Aid and domestic violence.

First man jailed for 'revenge porn' post

Last month the Government announced that the posting of 'revenge porn' on social media would become a criminal offence under the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill, currently going through Parliament.

On Friday it emerged that 21 year old Liam King has been jailed for 12 weeks after posting intimate pictures, sent to him by his ex-girlfriend during their 3 year relationship, on social media sites.  He had also added offensive comments.

The pictures were originally taken by the woman, who sent them to King 'for his eyes only' when the relationship was going well.  Once the relationship broke down, the woman told police what she thought he might do but he ignored two police warnings not to share the X-rated images.

District Judge Andrew Davison said the King's actions were 'pernicious' and designed to cause 'maximum humiliation'.

Justice Secretary Chris Grayling has previously been quoted as saying 'We want those who fall victim to this type of disgusting behaviour to know that we are on their side and will do everything we can to bring offenders to justice.'

The charge faced by King was one of harassment.  If you believe you may be in a similar situation then do talk to us - the law is here to protect you.  The woman in this case has had her identity protected by the Court.

Interestingly, while we tend think of Twitter and Facebook as the usual social media sites, it was on WhatsApp that this offence took place - it seems we need to broaden our horizons when thinking of 'social media'.

Mother given permission to change twin sons' surname

A woman has been given permission to change the surname of her three-year-old twin sons after telling a family court judge that they needed protecting from their father's internet blogging ''activities''.

Judge Ross Duggan gave his approval after raising concerns about the man's ''bizarre conduct''.

The judge said man had not seen the children for a year after separating from his wife and becoming embroiled in litigation about what contact he should have with them.
He said the man had a ''perception of martyrdom'' and had created a ''protest blog'' which he updated ''virtually daily''.

Judge Duggan said the man had ''taken to referring'' to his estranged wife as ''a drug-addicted alcoholic ... who suffered from sexually transmitted diseases'', had posted a medical report relating to one of his children, had posted ''extensive details'' of litigation issues and had posted his sons' names.

The judge said the man had ''let himself down'' - and said his ''activity'' had been ''severely damaging'' to the welfare of the children and concluded that allowing the woman to change the children's names was ''necessary and proportionate''.

New law on 'parental involvement' comes into force despite anxiety from legal advisers

A new legal provision, contained within the Children and Families Act 2014, will impact on all separating couples with children.

Clause 11 of the Act, which came into force recently, requires courts making child arrangement orders to presume, unless otherwise shown, that the involvement of both separating parents in the life of a child will further its welfare.

However, legal advisers have campaigned to ensure this clause did not undermine section 1 of the Children Act 1989, which requires the child's welfare to be the court's paramount consideration when reaching decisions on their upbringing.

The campaign was successful and an amendment was inserted to make clear that 'parental involvement' does not mean 'shared parenting', and there is no presumption parents will 'share' their children on a 50/50 basis.

The amendment makes clear that 'parental involvement' is defined as 'involvement of some kind, either direct or indirect, but not any particular division of a child's time'.

Coram Children’s Legal Centre's director of international programmes and research, Professor Carolyn Hamilton, commented: "It is essential that the best interests of the child remain paramount in all decisions affecting children. Decisions about where a child should live and how much the child should see each parent should be made in accordance with the child's best interests and not on the basis of parental rights."

Professor Hamilton continued: "We campaigned hard for a definition of 'parental involvement' to be included in the Act so that it was clear to separating parents that neither mothers nor fathers are entitled to a legally binding presumption of shared parenting. Ninety per cent of cases relating to contact are settled out of court, so this amendment is crucial. It will make it clear on the face of the Act that the welfare of children remains paramount."

Landmark ruling for cohabiting couples

Whilst judges are still calling for new legal rights for cohabitees, a woman who wasn’t married to a man she lived with has won £28,500 from him because he ‘promised her a home for life’.

The woman, Catherine Blackburn, moved in with David Southwell, a businessman, after they got together and started a relationship. She had two daughters by a previous relationship, and they moved into the shared house too.  Mr Southwell put £140,000 of his own money into buying the house and the couple took out a £100,000 mortgage, which Mr Southwell paid.  He claims to have also paid most of the household bills, bought her a new car and funded her way through university while she studied to become a speech and language therapist.

Now, in a landmark ruling, Ms Blackburn has been awarded £28,500 after the couple split and Mr Southwell changed the locks on the house, leaving her and her two daughters homeless.

The ruling could well open the floodgates for other similar claims.

Ironically, Mr Southwell didn’t commit to marrying Ms Blackburn because he feared the payout involved if they did marry and then split.

What to do about Litigants in Person?

The Legal Aid and Advice Act 1949 established a scheme of legal aid intended to provide practical equality before the law 'for those of moderate means'.  At its height it cost around £2bn annually and was therefore incredibly expensive.  In 2012 the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 took away legal aid for parties in most family proceedings.  Since then, Judges have had to contend with Litigants in Person (LiPs) turning up with a bin liner full of papers and not really knowing what to do.  There has been a growing sense of 'something should be done'...

Recently, Sir James Munby, president of the Family Division looked at three cases.  In one case, about contact of a child, the father spoke no English, couldn't afford a translator and was therefore unable to cross-examine the social workers involved.  In both the other cases the mother accused the father of rape - in these cases, without legal representation, the fathers needed to challenge the accusations against them, and the mothers faced being cross-examined by their alleged assailants.

Legal Aid is still available in some cases where a party has suffered (or is at risk of suffering) domestic abuse and so in these three cases the mothers (and only the mothers) obtained representation.  This clearly brought about an inequality in the parties in court which goes directly against the Family Procedure Rules 2010 which requires the court to ensure 'in so far as practicable' that parties are 'on an equal footing'.

Sir James Munby came up with an unexpected solution - 'If there is no other properly available public purse, the cost will have to be born by HM Courts & Tribunals Service'.

At this stage this is simply a recommendation - no Judge has made such an order, and there is as yet no precedent.  It seems we continue as we are for the time being, LiPs will continue to struggle and the court system may clog up with unrepresented parties and their bin bags.

If you or someone you know finds yourself needing to be in court and without representation, do remember that we are happy to work on a 'pay as you go' basis for LiPs.  Have a look at our website or contact us for more information - we'd like to think we can help you.

Couples converting from civil partnerships will get backdated marriage certificates

The government has confirmed that backdated marriage certificates will be issued to couples converting their civil partnerships to marriages.

After criticism earlier in the year about how conversions were to be carried out, the Government Equalities Office has this week confirmed that a full, backdated marriage certificate will be issued to couples – and not a ‘certificate of conversion’ as previously speculated.

The new marriage certificate has been developed in discussion with the LGBT Consortium and Stonewall and it will be almost identical to a marriage certificate issued without a conversion, but there will be a few necessary differences.

To ensure that there is no doubt that the marriage is to be treated as having subsisted since the date the original civil partnership was formed, as required by the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013, the marriage certificate will show the ‘when married’ date as the date the original civil partnership was formed.  The certificate will also show the date the conversion took place.

This will ensure that there is no confusion over why the ‘when married’ date could be earlier than the first date it became legal for same sex couples to marry in England and Wales.

Couples in England and Wales will be able to convert their civil partnerships to marriages at registry offices from December 10.

To see the full article which appeared in the Pink News, click here