Divorcees do not need to be able to afford the lifestyle they were accustomed to in marriage,
a Court of Appeal judge has suggested as he rejected an ex-wife’s bid to increase her settlement.
Katriona MacFarlane claimed that she had not been awarded enough to buy a home similar to the
£1million country cottage she shared with Dr James MacFarlane, 74.
The 58-year-old also claimed she was owed compensation for “abandoning” her teaching career to
be “looked after” by the millionaire.
The judge was correct when he said the previous standard of living is a guide, but not
completely determinative Mr Justice Moylan
But a Court of Appeal judge on Monday rejected her claims and said the previous living standards
of a couple were only a guide when it came to how much an ex-wife or husband deserves.
Mr Justice Moylan said he did not agree that “need should be met at a level similar or comparable
to the standard of living during the marriage”, as this standard was only one factor.
Referring to a previous hearing at a divorce court in Nottingham, where Judge Mark Rogers
similarly rejected Mrs MacFarlane’s claims, he added: “The judge was correct when he said the
previous standard of living is a guide, but not completely determinative. There is no prospect of the judge's assessment of housing need being shown to be wrong."
Click here for more information
Tuesday, 21 February 2017
Sunday, 29 January 2017
UK judges change court rules on child contact for violent fathers
The reforms are to be introduced in the family courts after campaigning by the charity Women’s
Aid, which identified that 19 children have been killed in the last 10 years by their violent
fathers after being given contact with them by judges.
The changes include a demand from one of the most senior family court judges for all the
judiciary to have further training on domestic violence and to act to ensure women and children
are protected.
Mr Justice Cobb announced the changes on Friday after talks with Women’s Aid, and following
concerns raised in a Guardian investigation.
Cobb said: “It is indeed most disturbing to note that for at least 12 children [in seven families]
of the 19 children killed … contact with the perpetrator [the father] was arranged through the
family courts.
“For six families, this contact was arranged in family court hearings [two of these were interim
orders], and for one family, contact was decided as part of the arrangements for a non-molestation
order and occupational order.”
Since its report on the child murders last year, Women’s Aid has identified another case in which
a child was murdered by a father after being given contact via the family court. The charity is
presenting their updated report to the prime minister in Downing Street on Monday.
Read More
Thursday, 15 December 2016
Three parent babies: IVF clinics told they can create children with two mothers
Sarah Knapton, science editor of The Telegraph writes today about three parent families.
The legal implications are, of course a minefield.
The fertility technique, which was developed by British scientists, allows doctors to replace an
egg’s defective mitochondrial DNA with healthy DNA from a female donor to prevent children
suffering debilitating conditions such as muscular dystrophy.
It is controversial because it would result in babies born with the DNA of three people -
and effectively, two mothers.
Yet despite concerns, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) today said the
procedure could go ahead when all other options, like screening, have proved futile.
IVF clinics can start applying for permission immediately and after gaining a licence, could
begin practising the new procedure early next year, with the first babies potentially being born
around Christmas 2017.
Newcastle University, which pioneered the technique said it would be submitting its application
for a licence within 24 hours. after lining up several women who already want the procedure. They
have also asked for healthy women under 35 years old to consider donating their eggs
for the treatment.
For the full article, click here
The legal implications are, of course a minefield.
The fertility technique, which was developed by British scientists, allows doctors to replace an
egg’s defective mitochondrial DNA with healthy DNA from a female donor to prevent children
suffering debilitating conditions such as muscular dystrophy.
It is controversial because it would result in babies born with the DNA of three people -
and effectively, two mothers.
Yet despite concerns, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) today said the
procedure could go ahead when all other options, like screening, have proved futile.
IVF clinics can start applying for permission immediately and after gaining a licence, could
begin practising the new procedure early next year, with the first babies potentially being born
around Christmas 2017.
Newcastle University, which pioneered the technique said it would be submitting its application
for a licence within 24 hours. after lining up several women who already want the procedure. They
have also asked for healthy women under 35 years old to consider donating their eggs
for the treatment.
For the full article, click here
Saturday, 5 November 2016
Public believe solicitors are still best option for wills
Solicitors have been backed as the best option to ensure that wishes written into wills are met, a recent article in the Law Society Gazette informs us.
In a survey by Will Aid, a partnership between the legal profession and top charities, 62% of respondents said they prefer to use a solicitor to manage their will.
Peter de Vena Franks, campaign director, said Will Aid was hoping to continue to work with solicitors to promote the profession ahead of a ‘do it yourself’ option.
‘Drawing up a will is a vital financial planning step but the lure of the cheaper alternatives to solicitors can mean the document is not properly written nor legally binding,’ he said.
Will Aid works with law firms across the country that pledge a portion of their time to write basic wills and waive their usual fees in exchange for a voluntary donation to charity. They suggest minimum donations are £95 for a single will and £150 for a pair of mirror wills.
The donations go to the nine charities involved.
Franks added: ‘While an off-the-shelf will might seem attractive to those who are watching the pennies, it could be money wasted rather than saved.’
According to Will Aid’s research, 62% of people who made a will last year used a solicitor and 12% a will-writer. A further 9% made a homemade will while others used DIY kits or banks or high street services.
The research also revealed that the public were generally unaware of the rules and regulations governing will-writers and that will-writers can practice without proper training, regulation or insurance.
For more information click here
In a survey by Will Aid, a partnership between the legal profession and top charities, 62% of respondents said they prefer to use a solicitor to manage their will.
Peter de Vena Franks, campaign director, said Will Aid was hoping to continue to work with solicitors to promote the profession ahead of a ‘do it yourself’ option.
‘Drawing up a will is a vital financial planning step but the lure of the cheaper alternatives to solicitors can mean the document is not properly written nor legally binding,’ he said.
Will Aid works with law firms across the country that pledge a portion of their time to write basic wills and waive their usual fees in exchange for a voluntary donation to charity. They suggest minimum donations are £95 for a single will and £150 for a pair of mirror wills.
The donations go to the nine charities involved.
Franks added: ‘While an off-the-shelf will might seem attractive to those who are watching the pennies, it could be money wasted rather than saved.’
According to Will Aid’s research, 62% of people who made a will last year used a solicitor and 12% a will-writer. A further 9% made a homemade will while others used DIY kits or banks or high street services.
The research also revealed that the public were generally unaware of the rules and regulations governing will-writers and that will-writers can practice without proper training, regulation or insurance.
For more information click here
Monday, 17 October 2016
Parenting after divorce: the art of not being ugly
Sadly we hear more and more about couples splitting up it's difficult to understand if you are
fortunate enough not to have expereinced divorce.
An article in The Guardian this weekend by Sasha Fere-Jones sugests that by building a new relationship with your ex can help maintain a healthy environment for your children.
Ten years ago, roughly nine months into our divorce, my ex and I started to build a relationship. The immediate aftermath of our split had been a sour blend of quiet and hurt. We tried to make politeness our default position, and it occasionally held. What kept us connected was our boys, then six and nine. They cut through whatever anger sat between us. We held to that one point of agreement: change the boys’ lives as little as possible. After children have seen their lives inverted, that all sounds a bit feeble, but it was a seed.
Their mother retained primary custody. The boys lived with her in the only house in New York they had known, a loft in lower Manhattan. Before moving back to my childhood neighborhood in Brooklyn, I spent two years in an apartment close to Ground Zero, then a generally inactive construction site. In 2006, it was just a way to live near the boys’ home and school. The ghosts were quiet and my kids liked the hotel restaurant next to my building.
'I was totally knocked sideways': readers share their stories of divorce
When a central home is maintained, and parents cycle through it while the kids stay put, it’s called “bird’s nest custody” or “nesting”. We were improvising, with the help of therapists, and didn’t know what nesting was, even if we mimicked it. We maintained two separate homes, so our arrangement didn’t qualify, though we kept the boys’ concerns central. Our interactions with each other in the first year were the least generous. But a second rule went into effect early: no badmouthing the other parent, whatever the topic. And we were lucky – we liked and respected each other, beneath the turbulence. That’s where we had started. So the irregular interactions led to a committed decision to not be ugly, even when that seemed impossible. There was enough doubt and hurt for all four of us – anything to clean the air helped. It was a way of being both selfish and considerate.
When living together, decisions can be made by default, without negotiation. Sight lines become assumed statements: “There she goes with the morning drop-off. I guess she’s OK with it.” But when you live in two places, and children aren’t old enough to travel alone, every movement has to be discussed. Who will take whom where and when? Can you take Friday night, because Thursday I need to do something for work? Generosity encouraged reciprocity. The marriage cynic would say: “Well, sure. You had to get along because you can’t engage in the silent warfare of marriages.” But of course you can fight, if one parent doesn’t care about seeing the kids. That wasn’t the case, and a cold war never came. We had no choice but to talk.
For more information click here
fortunate enough not to have expereinced divorce.
An article in The Guardian this weekend by Sasha Fere-Jones sugests that by building a new relationship with your ex can help maintain a healthy environment for your children.
Ten years ago, roughly nine months into our divorce, my ex and I started to build a relationship. The immediate aftermath of our split had been a sour blend of quiet and hurt. We tried to make politeness our default position, and it occasionally held. What kept us connected was our boys, then six and nine. They cut through whatever anger sat between us. We held to that one point of agreement: change the boys’ lives as little as possible. After children have seen their lives inverted, that all sounds a bit feeble, but it was a seed.
Their mother retained primary custody. The boys lived with her in the only house in New York they had known, a loft in lower Manhattan. Before moving back to my childhood neighborhood in Brooklyn, I spent two years in an apartment close to Ground Zero, then a generally inactive construction site. In 2006, it was just a way to live near the boys’ home and school. The ghosts were quiet and my kids liked the hotel restaurant next to my building.
'I was totally knocked sideways': readers share their stories of divorce
When a central home is maintained, and parents cycle through it while the kids stay put, it’s called “bird’s nest custody” or “nesting”. We were improvising, with the help of therapists, and didn’t know what nesting was, even if we mimicked it. We maintained two separate homes, so our arrangement didn’t qualify, though we kept the boys’ concerns central. Our interactions with each other in the first year were the least generous. But a second rule went into effect early: no badmouthing the other parent, whatever the topic. And we were lucky – we liked and respected each other, beneath the turbulence. That’s where we had started. So the irregular interactions led to a committed decision to not be ugly, even when that seemed impossible. There was enough doubt and hurt for all four of us – anything to clean the air helped. It was a way of being both selfish and considerate.
When living together, decisions can be made by default, without negotiation. Sight lines become assumed statements: “There she goes with the morning drop-off. I guess she’s OK with it.” But when you live in two places, and children aren’t old enough to travel alone, every movement has to be discussed. Who will take whom where and when? Can you take Friday night, because Thursday I need to do something for work? Generosity encouraged reciprocity. The marriage cynic would say: “Well, sure. You had to get along because you can’t engage in the silent warfare of marriages.” But of course you can fight, if one parent doesn’t care about seeing the kids. That wasn’t the case, and a cold war never came. We had no choice but to talk.
For more information click here
Tuesday, 20 September 2016
Child Maintenance Service 'puts domestic abuse survivors at risk'
Untrained staff and flawed systems failing parents, warn Gingerbread and Women’s Aid
Domestic abuse survivors are being put at risk by the Child Maintenance Service, finds new evidence from Gingerbread and Women's Aid.
The Child Maintenance Service (CMS) is replacing the Child Support Agency (CSA), requiring parents who were using the CSA, or new applicants, to apply to the CMS if they need help to sort out child maintenance.
Domestic abuse survivors are expected to make up 50% of parents applying to the CMS, but Gingerbread and Women's Aid have found that staff working there have no specialist training on how to work with survivors or how to recognise financial coercion.
The CMS insists that all parents initially pay child maintenance directly to each other, requiring the parent with care of the children to supply their bank details to the other parent. The CMS will only step in to collect maintenance if payments are consistently missed.
Gingerbread and Women's Aid are concerned that the lack of specialist training for staff, combined with the expectation that parents interact over payments is leaving survivors open to financial and emotional abuse. They warn that some parents are dropping out of the system entirely because they feel unprotected.
The charities have heard from parents who are too frightened to go ahead with direct payments in case their abuser gets hold of their personal details. While the CMS advises survivors to set up non-geographic bank accounts, there is little clarity over how this will work or help protect those at risk: one survivor told Gingerbread that this would still reveal her new name and another found that her bank couldn't set one up.
Gingerbread Chief Executive Fiona Weir said:
"Child maintenance matters. It helps single parents to provide the essentials for their children, yet less than half of single parent families get any child maintenance at all. This makes the role of the CMS crucial. But it's clear that for the many survivors of domestic abuse who will be turning for the service for help, the CMS is not fit for purpose.
"The service as a whole has to get a better understanding of the support that domestic abuse survivors need. As it stands, children aren't getting the financial support they should and survivors are being put in a vulnerable position."
Gingerbread and Women's Aid have also raised concerns over the impact of charges in the new system. The CMS charges a £20 application fee to open a case. While this is waived for domestic abuse survivors, they have to declare a history of abuse and are not directly asked. The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) itself has acknowledged that this will mean many survivors end up paying the fee.
If the CMS does step in to collect unpaid maintenance it imposes charges on both parents. Not only do single parents lose out financially, but some have told Gingerbread that they won't move into the collection system for fear of upsetting the other parent. This leaves some trapped in arrangements where the paying parent gets away with paying what they decide, when they decide.
Polly Neate, Chief Executive of Women's Aid, said:
"Women's Aid calls for the Government to ensure women and children have safe child maintenance arrangements in place by fast-tracking domestic violence survivors to the statutory 'Collect & Pay' system, dropping charges for survivors to use the system and ensuring all staff receive specialist training on domestic abuse. The current system is simply not safe for survivors – change is urgently needed."
Gingerbread and Women's Aid are calling for the DWP to:
Roll out specialist training and clear guidance for CMS staff on how to recognise and work with domestic abuse survivors
Offer survivors the option to fast-track to using the CMS collection service
Drop the 4% collection charges for single parents in cases of domestic abuse and review the 20% charge for the paying parent.
Gingerbread is campaigning for significant improvements to the Child Maintenance Service
For more information click here
Domestic abuse survivors are being put at risk by the Child Maintenance Service, finds new evidence from Gingerbread and Women's Aid.
The Child Maintenance Service (CMS) is replacing the Child Support Agency (CSA), requiring parents who were using the CSA, or new applicants, to apply to the CMS if they need help to sort out child maintenance.
Domestic abuse survivors are expected to make up 50% of parents applying to the CMS, but Gingerbread and Women's Aid have found that staff working there have no specialist training on how to work with survivors or how to recognise financial coercion.
The CMS insists that all parents initially pay child maintenance directly to each other, requiring the parent with care of the children to supply their bank details to the other parent. The CMS will only step in to collect maintenance if payments are consistently missed.
Gingerbread and Women's Aid are concerned that the lack of specialist training for staff, combined with the expectation that parents interact over payments is leaving survivors open to financial and emotional abuse. They warn that some parents are dropping out of the system entirely because they feel unprotected.
The charities have heard from parents who are too frightened to go ahead with direct payments in case their abuser gets hold of their personal details. While the CMS advises survivors to set up non-geographic bank accounts, there is little clarity over how this will work or help protect those at risk: one survivor told Gingerbread that this would still reveal her new name and another found that her bank couldn't set one up.
Gingerbread Chief Executive Fiona Weir said:
"Child maintenance matters. It helps single parents to provide the essentials for their children, yet less than half of single parent families get any child maintenance at all. This makes the role of the CMS crucial. But it's clear that for the many survivors of domestic abuse who will be turning for the service for help, the CMS is not fit for purpose.
"The service as a whole has to get a better understanding of the support that domestic abuse survivors need. As it stands, children aren't getting the financial support they should and survivors are being put in a vulnerable position."
Gingerbread and Women's Aid have also raised concerns over the impact of charges in the new system. The CMS charges a £20 application fee to open a case. While this is waived for domestic abuse survivors, they have to declare a history of abuse and are not directly asked. The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) itself has acknowledged that this will mean many survivors end up paying the fee.
If the CMS does step in to collect unpaid maintenance it imposes charges on both parents. Not only do single parents lose out financially, but some have told Gingerbread that they won't move into the collection system for fear of upsetting the other parent. This leaves some trapped in arrangements where the paying parent gets away with paying what they decide, when they decide.
Polly Neate, Chief Executive of Women's Aid, said:
"Women's Aid calls for the Government to ensure women and children have safe child maintenance arrangements in place by fast-tracking domestic violence survivors to the statutory 'Collect & Pay' system, dropping charges for survivors to use the system and ensuring all staff receive specialist training on domestic abuse. The current system is simply not safe for survivors – change is urgently needed."
Gingerbread and Women's Aid are calling for the DWP to:
Roll out specialist training and clear guidance for CMS staff on how to recognise and work with domestic abuse survivors
Offer survivors the option to fast-track to using the CMS collection service
Drop the 4% collection charges for single parents in cases of domestic abuse and review the 20% charge for the paying parent.
Gingerbread is campaigning for significant improvements to the Child Maintenance Service
For more information click here
Wednesday, 14 September 2016
Wraparound childcare policy 'failing due to lack of funding'
A report in The Guardian this morning informs us extended school services are failing to meet
after-school and holiday childcare needs.
Government ambitions for schools to provide wraparound childcare before and after lessons,
as well as after-school clubs and holiday activities, are falling short due to inadequate
funding, according to new research seen exclusively by the Guardian.
A report by the Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) and the Family and Childcare Trust says
extended school services are popular with schools and families and can improve children’s
outcomes, but current provision is failing to meet parents’ demands for after-school and holiday
childcare.
Almost two fifths (39%) of schools surveyed for the report said parents wanted holiday provision,
but only 29% of schools were able to offer it. For after-school childcare, provided by just over
half of schools, the shortfall was 11 percentage points and was particularly acute in primary
schools.
The report, published on Wednesday, calls on the government to provide a clear vision to
encourage schools to extend their services and provide dedicated funding to pay for it. “Without
this, existing services risk withering on the vine, becoming increasingly reliant on parental
contributions and therefore inaccessible to the most deprived children,” it warns.
Do we need more childcare in schools
The term extended schools refers to services offered through a school to pupils and the wider
community, including sports, arts and homework clubs, as well as wraparound and holiday childcare.
The aim is to enable children – particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds – to broaden
their interests through extra-curricular activities and simultaneously free up their parents to
work, reducing the risk of child poverty.
The research found that children from deprived families use the out-of-school services as much
as their better off peers in the vast majority of schools, but in a small but significant minority
, poorer families use them less – possibly because they cannot afford the parental contributions
most schools require.
Of those surveyed, 84% of head teachers said their extended services were used by a mix of more
and less advantaged families, but 10% said their services were used disproportionately by
better-off families even though the services are usually part-funded by the pupil premium, which
is additional money for schools to raise attainment among disadvantaged pupils.
Three quarters of schools that took part in the survey said they would like to expand the numbers
using their extended services and the range of services offered and a third wanted to expand
their hours.
Two thirds of schools, however, said they could not expand because of a lack of funding,
47% were constrained by limited space and 54% had problems with staffing.
For more information click here
after-school and holiday childcare needs.
Government ambitions for schools to provide wraparound childcare before and after lessons,
as well as after-school clubs and holiday activities, are falling short due to inadequate
funding, according to new research seen exclusively by the Guardian.
A report by the Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) and the Family and Childcare Trust says
extended school services are popular with schools and families and can improve children’s
outcomes, but current provision is failing to meet parents’ demands for after-school and holiday
childcare.
Almost two fifths (39%) of schools surveyed for the report said parents wanted holiday provision,
but only 29% of schools were able to offer it. For after-school childcare, provided by just over
half of schools, the shortfall was 11 percentage points and was particularly acute in primary
schools.
The report, published on Wednesday, calls on the government to provide a clear vision to
encourage schools to extend their services and provide dedicated funding to pay for it. “Without
this, existing services risk withering on the vine, becoming increasingly reliant on parental
contributions and therefore inaccessible to the most deprived children,” it warns.
Do we need more childcare in schools
The term extended schools refers to services offered through a school to pupils and the wider
community, including sports, arts and homework clubs, as well as wraparound and holiday childcare.
The aim is to enable children – particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds – to broaden
their interests through extra-curricular activities and simultaneously free up their parents to
work, reducing the risk of child poverty.
The research found that children from deprived families use the out-of-school services as much
as their better off peers in the vast majority of schools, but in a small but significant minority
, poorer families use them less – possibly because they cannot afford the parental contributions
most schools require.
Of those surveyed, 84% of head teachers said their extended services were used by a mix of more
and less advantaged families, but 10% said their services were used disproportionately by
better-off families even though the services are usually part-funded by the pupil premium, which
is additional money for schools to raise attainment among disadvantaged pupils.
Three quarters of schools that took part in the survey said they would like to expand the numbers
using their extended services and the range of services offered and a third wanted to expand
their hours.
Two thirds of schools, however, said they could not expand because of a lack of funding,
47% were constrained by limited space and 54% had problems with staffing.
For more information click here
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)