Author: Marilyn Bell

The short answer to this question is no.

Grandparents can find it very difficult when their son or daughter separates from their spouse or partner and in some cases this can lead to a significant loss of contact with their grandchildren.

It is possible for grandparents to apply the Court for a Contact Order. However, there is an additional requirements, over and above the requirements for a parent. Grandparents have to obtain permission from the Court first to make the application. The thinking behind this is for the Court to rule out applications that have little chance of success.

However, grandparents should not be discouraged by this. The Norgrove report has found there is no indication from Court outcomes that it is particularly difficult for grandparents to obtain the Court’s permission to proceed.

Click here to read the full article

Author: Marilyn Bell

The Supreme Court will be ruling  on a case where the Court of Appeal gave an ex partner an equal share in a property they both owned although they had been separated for 13 years and he had not paid toward the mortgage since they separated.
This case identifies the difficulties facing unmarried couples who jointly own property.  It is probably the biggest area of law for confusion and misunderstanding. The partner who remains in the home often thinks that their ex’s share will be limited to the value of the property at the time they split up;  or even that he/she won’t have any rights to it as they chose to move out and have not been paying toward it. This is not the case and it highlights the importance of seeking legal advice at the time of the split and basing future decisions on that advice.
It can be heartbreaking for the remaining partner to have spent years paying for a property and taking good care of it, with repairs, maintenance and improvements only to find their ex successfully claiming half.

To read more about the impact of Cohabitation Rights, click here.

© SA LAW 2011
Every care is taken in the preparation of our articles. However, no responsibility can be accepted to any person who acts on the basis of information contained in them. You are recommended to obtain specific advice in respect of individual cases.

Author: Marilyn Bell

The BBC reported that ‘A woman who claimed she was disabled has been stripped of her divorce settlement after her ex-husband spotted online pictures of her belly dancing.’

This may sound far fetched but it is possible for the Court to set aside an Order settling finances on divorce,  if it turns out later that one person misled the other.  The misrepresentation has got to be significant,   and the Court have to be satisfied that if the ‘new’ information was known at the time of the financial settlement there would have been a different outcome.

© SA LAW 2011
Every care is taken in the preparation of our articles. However, no responsibility can be accepted to any person who acts on the basis of information contained in them. You are recommended to obtain specific advice in respect of individual cases.

Author: Marilyn Bell

Many of you would answer “no” to this question.  However, the answer can be “yes”. If a Husband and Wife divorce financial settlement can include an Order for the Husband to pay maintenance for the Wife for the rest of her life.

It is then possible for the Wife to apply to the Court for this maintenance sum to be increased to cover nursing home fees.  Even though capital is divided at the time of the financial settlement, it is also possible for the Court to capitalise the maintenance figure and, instead of maintenance, Order the ex- Husband to pay a lump sum to his ex-Wife in lieu of any future maintenance.

If it is possible to achieve a clean break at the time of divorce this kind of risk can be avoided.

Cases in the news involving ‘Clean-break’ clauses

• A case was recently reported in Ireland; a couple divorced twenty years ago but the husband was forced to sell property in order to fund his ex-Wife’s nursing home fees. Read more here.

• A similar case involves the £56million divorced lottery winner whose ex-Wife of ten years successfully sued for a share of his winnings due to not signing a ‘clean-break’ clause. Read more here.

Contact us

For further information about our family services or to discuss a particular matter or situation in more detail, contact our lawyers Marilyn Bell or Keith Docking at our St Albans office by email at marilyn.bell@salaw.com or keith.docking@salaw.com or on 01727 798066.

© SA LAW 2011
Every care is taken in the preparation of our articles. However, no responsibility can be accepted to any person who acts on the basis of information contained in them. You are recommended to obtain specific advice in respect of individual cases.

Author: Marilyn Bell

Earlier today BBC online posted a story on The Public Account Committee report which stated CAFCASS had failed to challenge “fundamental weakness in its culture, management and performance.” The committee went on to say that CAFCASS is “not fit for purpose.”

As a family solicitor, I endorse the need for change at the service provision level to shorten the time for allocation to a CAFCASS officer and the time needed to prepare a report. We do however, need to keep in mind the very valuable work that CAFCASS do. In private law cases where Mother and Father are locked in combat on the future arrangements for their children, it is often only the input from committed and dedicated CAFCASS officers that enable such a situation to progress with children being able to have the benefit of contact with both their parents.

Author: Marilyn Bell

It’s good to see that our new coalitition government have expressed support for better access to children for grandparents when parents separate.

It’s a double blow for many grandparents that not only has their child’s marriage or partnership broken up,  but that they are not able to see their grandchildren. For the children they have not only lost their daily contact with one of their parents,  but the love and support from one set of grandparents has also disappeared. Grandparents will welcome government support that recognises their importance in their grandchildren’s lives.

Related Article: Has the Law Changed for Grandparents?

Author: Marilyn Bell

On 27 April this year the family court doors were opened. Some would say this was just by a crack because of the reporting restrictions.

The Justice Secretary Jack Straw is now proposing to improve the transparency of the family court  by relaxing the reporting restrictions.   

So far so good but where will this take us. Cases involving children are some of the most sensitive. 

There are two main kinds of proceedings involving children: 

Private law proceedings involve disputes, usually between the parents, as to where the children shall live and how much contact they shall have with the non resident parent. Understandably pressure has come from Fathers who feel they have been denied contact with their children and opening up the family court is welcomed as long as the anonymity of the children can be assured.

Public law proceedings usually involve children being removed from their parents and taken into the care of the local authority. Ultimately the children may return to their parents, or be fostered, or adopted. The media can now attend Court and hear the evidence. However, they are already realising that the main body of the evidence is contained in the detailed documentation usually running to many lever arch folders. How is this to be approached in the light of greater transparency? Reporters are already suggesting they should be able to read the experts reports, but the experts reports refer to the documents the experts has relied on. Should all these documents therefore be available? Parents may disagree with the experts, if so, should the media therefore have the parents statements as well?        

These are just some of the questions that will have to be taken into consideration.

Author: Keith Docking & Marilyn Bell

In this article Marilyn Bell and Keith Docking look at the recent high profile of Sir Paul McCartney and Heather Mills divorce and ask what lessons can be learnt from this case.

One of the major issues of contention in the Mills/McCartney divorce was Paul McCartney’s wealth. As has been well documented. Heather Mills claimed he was worth £800 million and the Judge found he was worth “only” £400 million. The Judge was invited to look at Heather’s claim purely in terms of needs generously applied.

This concept of need in cases involving the super rich does cause some consternation to the average person in the street. For example, Heather sought £499,000 per annum for holidays, but was “only” allowed £150,000 by the Judge. These matters were of course all relative when Paul’s expenditure set out before the court exceeded £4 million a year. The Judge, therefore, when coming to his figure of £16.5 million plus various properties which gave a total of £24.3 million, had assessed what lump sum Heather required to meet her financial needs in the future.

The other main headline maker in relation to this case was Heather’s decision to dispense with her legal team and represent herself.

(more…)