A case involving a civil partnership has gone to the Court of Appeal with Peter Lawrence appealing against the financial remedy award made to his former partner Donald Gallagher.

The original court hearing heard that there were a total of £4m worth of assets and Mr Gallagher received an award which amounted to £1.7m. The court had taken into account a cottage valued at £900,000 and a London flat, purchased by Mr Lawrence which, the court estimated, had risen in value during the time of their relationship, from the purchase price of £650,000 to about £2.4m today.

A barrister representing Mr Lawrence said that the original award was flawed because the pair had dual careers and, though civil partnerships have the same principles as heterosexual marriage, the truth is that the couple will not have children and so each continue to pursue their careers throughout the partnership. Therefore, a more realistic figure for Mr Gallagher should be £620,000 on the basis that the flat was a pre-acquired asset.

Mr Gallagher meanwhile, argued that since he did not work full-time, he assumed the “home making role” in their relationship and said that the properties were regarded by the couple as their pension.

It may be controversial but surely civil partnerships are the same as marriage irrespective of the fact that the couple can’t have children. In any case, though they can’t give birth to a child as a couple they can still adopt, so is Mr Lawrence’s case disingenuous? It will be interesting to see what the Court of Appeal decides.

Here’s a link

It is often seen as a feature of so-called problem families within the UK, namely that the children within that home lack a strong parental influence, well official research points in this direction too with 72,000 dysfunctional families identified of which 60% had no father present in the household.

The government launched the review into the factors behind last summer’s riots and, when released, it is expected to say that many of those who took part came from families where there was a noticeable lack of a father figure. The Communities and Local Government Secretary Eric Pickles also said that even in those families where the father was present, in many cases he may have been unemployed and have drink and drug addictions.

Late last year the government attempted to tackle the growing problem by launching a squad of “troubleshooters” to help 120,000 families identified as being in need of help with targets such as getting them back to work, stopping them taking drink and drugs and clamping down on anti-social behaviour.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2113026/Its-official-majority-Britains-dysfunctional-families-dad-home.html

Sir Nicholas Wall, president of the High Court’s family division and therefore the leading family law judge in England and Wales, believes that we should have “no fault” divorces as an alternative to the current system where one party is deemed to be responsible for a marriage’s breakdown. Do you agree with him?

He was speaking at the annual conference of Resolution, which represents family lawyers, and says that the days of the adversarial court system and allocating blame for a marriage’s collapse have now gone. He says that partly this is due to society itself changing. Divorce is not shameful as it was in the past and, while some marriages may break down solely due to the actions of one of the parties, often there is no one to blame, just a sad parting of the ways.

Is he right in this and do we have an outdated system where the options, apart from separation for two and five years, are adultery, unreasonable behaviour and desertion. Where these don’t apply should we have an option, apart from separation, whereby the parties can be released from the marriage and when no blame is levelled at either of the parties? Let me know what you think of Sir Nicholas’s comments.

Here’s a link
New York’s No-Fault Divorce and You

The widow of a successful racehorse trainer is taking court action against her step-son for a greater portion of her late husband s fortune. If nothing else the case demonstrates how important it is to ensure that the will you make is valid and is in accordance with your exact wishes.

Annemarie Allport was married to David for 13 and a half years before he killed himself by falling under a train in Buckinghamshire in 2006. He left behind his wife and his son from a previous marriage and, though he had written a will which stated that all of his assets apart from 25,000 were to be given to his wife, the will was found to be invalid because it had not been witnessed properly. Therefore an earlier will became valid which his widow claims did not make reasonable financial provision for her.

She was awarded 1.2m and a home worth 2.5m at the High Court but has challenged the decision, arguing that the judge had not taken into account her standard of living before her husband s death and also that he had made an inaccurate valuation of one of his companies.

The appeal judges rejected part of Mrs Allport s grounds for appeal but did not rule on whether the original judge had undervalued the company. No further date has been set for this matter to return to court.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2109086/I-live-3-7m-Why-widow-successful-racehorse-trainer-fighting-stepson-bigger-slice-husbands-multi-million-fortune.html

The American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers says that there are an increasing number of custody battles in the US which are over a couples pets. I can well believe it!

Though most states include them as property, most of us with a dog or cat would realise they are members of the family and there is an emotional bond between man and beast . An article quotes David Pisarra, an attorney from Santa Monica, who has witnessed a 15% rise in custody cases involving pets and who is living proof of the trend as he shares custody of his eight-year-old dachshund with his wife.

I suspect this growing trend is apparent on this side of the Atlantic too as pets are, often as irreplaceable as children in a partner s affections. Should the law be changed to actually reflect the place that pets often have in a separating couples lives? It s something to consider, it may well take place in some form or other in the US, so may well find its way over here.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2107872/Fighting-tooth-claw-Divorce-lawyers-increase-couples-battling-custody-pets.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

New figures from the Office for National Statistics show a rise in the number of marriages. Do the figures suggest a move away from the long-term decline of the institution?

The figures are for 2010 and show that marriages were up 3.7% on the year before, but it should be borne in mind that 2009 did see the lowest number of marriages since 1895, so while relevant, the figures for the next couple of years will determine whether they are just a flash in the pan, or part of a wider trend.

The ONS also believes that the rise can, at least partly be justified, by the fact that fewer people are deciding to marry abroad; the figures for this show a decline, from 80,200 in the year to mid-2009 to 74,000 in mid-2010. So perhaps roughly the same number are getting married but more are prompting to save money and have a ceremony here rather than on a beach in Barbados. The number of civil partnerships also saw a slight rise, up 2% between 2009 and 2010.

So, it will be interesting this time next year to see whether the rise in the number of marriages has continued or whether they will fall back as has been the case in recent years. We ll wait and see.

http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed96124

The process of arbitration, which is already widely used in commercial disputes, will from now on be used in divorce cases and to deal with disputes in financial provision relating to children and property and inheritance matters between the separating couple.

Former judges and family lawyers are to undertake training to adjudicate in such cases and the first 35 have already qualified. It won t take place unless both sides agree, so it can t be imposed on them, but in those cases where the parties do agree to arbitration they will be paying up to 5,000 a day to choose their own judge or arbitrator who will provide a legally-binding decision.

The Institute of Family Law Arbitrators (IFLA) is in charge of the scheme which, they hope will reduce the number of separating couples coming before the formal court process. Is it an idea that will take hold or will couples usually want their day in court even if it is more formal and certainly more expensive? It is part of a trend that also includes mediation and divorce is surely a fertile area for such measures as, in the main, the couple would naturally prefer to avoid the formality, the expense and the possible anguish of having their dirty laundry washed in public. Do you agree or will couples still prefer going to court? Let me know what you think.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/relationships/divorce/9100469/Private-divorce-courts-on-the-way.html

The Law Society has said that it welcomes the government’s proposals to speed up care and supervision proceedings.

However, the society, through its chief executive Desmond Hudson, has said that, while it supports measures to significantly cut down on delays – there will be a statutory six-month time limit – it is concerned as to how this will be achieved at a time when some court facilities are being closed down and impending cuts in legal aid may mean a reduction in the number of solicitors available to help families.

The Law Society says that a six-month time limit would only become a realistic goal is other initiatives were introduced, such as more specialist family judges, more efficient use of experts and more time for guardians to spend ascertaining and then representing the child’s views.

Legislation on the six-month limit may be introduced next year to come into force in 2014 and will be aimed at ridding the system of delays which affect more than 20,000 children. The Children Act 1989 was expected to bring cases to court within 12 weeks but this has risen to the current average of 56 weeks.

Is the six-month limit a realistic one in the current economic climate? Or do you, while supporting the initiative, believe it is achievable but only with additional measures in place? Tell us your views.