Latest Blog posts from Family-Lawfirm.co.uk

Celebrity children come last in divorce

ddd, dd MMM yyyy HH:mm:ss GMT

I’ve done my best to keep my own counsel about celebrity divorce recently. It has been a struggle. As regular readers of this blog will know, in the past, I have had a bit to say about the cult of celebrity, the column inches dedicated to it and the myths perpetuated in newspapers about so called “quickie” divorces which appear to be the preserve of celebrities and are, in actual fact, nonsense.

As I said, I have done my best to turn over a new leaf and live and let live.

Katie Price and Peter Andre make it difficult though.

It should be no surprise that their break-up has been played out in the pages of the Daily Star and programmes of ITV2. After all, they fell in love on TV while in a jungle (you couldn’t make it up), had TV cameras follow them through their courtship and “fairytale” wedding, and then the crews have been there picking over every bit of the relationship’s demise, tit-for-tat newspaper revelations and Jordan’s new marriage to the new love of her life.

Most recently, it has been revelations about Peter and the suggestion that his cupboard is not so free from skeletons.

Whatever my thoughts are about the relative news value of these events, what makes me angry is the complete lack of concern shown by these shameless self-publicists for what their high profile lifestyle has done to their children.

We all know divorce is a traumatic time for all concerned but none more so than the children involved. Most couples do what they can to shelter their children and compensate for the complete upheaval in their life. Warring couples have been seen to show a united front for the sake of the children, regardless of what is going on behind the scenes. Even celebrities have managed it.

I can’t help think that seeing their parents splashed across the tabloids hurling mud at each other is going to have a lasting negative impression on children.

There are so many issues to consider when children are involved, like access and financial support, having to see mummy or daddy in a clinch with another partner should not be something they need worry about.

For those more sensible couples out there looking for some guidance on the issues surrounding children and divorce, one of the new videos Woolley & Co has created sees experienced family lawyer Kate Butler picking out the main points to be aware of and how best to approach them.

Perhaps Jordan and Peter could learn a few things by having a look.

Andrew Woolley
Divorce and family law specialist

Is there an election coming up or something?

ddd, dd MMM yyyy HH:mm:ss GMT

Another week, another politician talking about marriage. This week it was David Cameron again, restating the Tory intention to give tax breaks for married couples.

The idea has been met with enthusiasm by the Roman Catholic Church, apparently, which has suggested this is a big vote winner among congregations up and down the country. Whether those congregations now have significant numbers to affect the course of a general election or not remains to be seen.

The Red side of the House has suggested it will look at giving greater rights to unmarried couples – effectively bestowing many of the legal rights that are as much a part of a wedding as rings and cake, onto those deciding not to walk up the aisle but committing to one another in less formal ways.

What this goes to show is that issues affecting marriage are seen by those of all political persuasions as a way of wooing voters, something I do not remember happening in previous campaigns to any great extent.

It also means that the lines between being married and living together are more blurred than ever before, along with the rights and responsibilities they bring, and there are an increasing number of issues the average person in the street needs to be up on if they want to get into – or out of – a relationship. This is how many people end up losing out financially, as well as emotionally, as the result of a break-up.

Trying to chart the waters alone is fraught with danger so what family lawyers need to be doing is offering free initial consultations, not on the specifics of an individual case, but of the options available to them. Perhaps if the politicians started talking about this as a policy, it would make up the minds of a few more voters looking for what tangible benefits they will get from an election that threatens to fatigue the nation before May 6th has been unveiled as polling day.

Andrew Woolley
Family law specialist

Who is manipulating the divorce rate

ddd, dd MMM yyyy HH:mm:ss GMT

The rate of divorce has gone down and is presently at its lowest for many years. That is well known and well publicised. But, we have been busier than ever and have recruited 5 specialist divocre lawyers in the last 10 months. How can this be?

Well, anecdotal evidence from an increasing number of our lawyers finds that Courts have suddenly started to reject divorce requests (under the procdure known as the "Special Procedure") when for many years they would have passed those same requests with the same wording. This doesn't actually stop the divorce but it certainly delays it and thus, depending upon the date of calculating the rate, reduces the rate of divorce.

It seems to me that either it is a political issue or perhaps a senior Judge has told the Courts to apply the law more stringently. Certainly we were close to being able to get a divorce on, say, the grounds of unreasonable behaviour even if someone sneezed loudly!

Given that the public seems in favour of no fault divorce and quickie divorce, this does seem another out of step approach.

Andrew Woolley
Divorce Solicitor

I’m a You Tube “star”

ddd, dd MMM yyyy HH:mm:ss GMT

Now I have never had any aspirations of being a star of the screen – small, large, silver, or otherwise. So when it was suggested that a nice, efficient and modern way (as befits a forward thinking firm) of communicating money-saving tips to clients and potential clients was via videos on our website, I was not too keen.

However, I have come to realise that this is an effective way to get across a clear, concise message in today’s fast times. Have a look and let me know if you think I’m wrong.

I would suspect a few eyebrows will be raised at the idea of a divorce solicitor giving advice on how to save money in a divorce. Perhaps some will assume it is just an attempt to get more people to use the services of Woolley & Co over rival firms, undercutting others to get more business. This would be a blunt marketing tool and is not the case.

Other might think I was being glib, appearing to be helpful but in actual fact suggesting a course that could ultimately lead to additional charges. I don’t believe that backdoor charges are the way forward.

What I do believe is that being transparent, open and practical about a divorce is the most honest and efficient way to run a business and to help clients. Giving some simple advice on the pitfalls to avoid will hopefully help people shelling out when they don’t need to. And the upside for us is that people still need legal services when going through a divorce so will choose a firm that’s forthright and helpful. That’s us – hopefully.

Whether or not my “talking head” can do a Paul McKenna and hypnotise people into taking advice or whether it is a folly I will be reminded of in years to come remains to be seen!

Andrew Woolley
Divorce solicitor and video star!

In the west, adultery isn't punished by stoning. Instead, the press will kick you until....

ddd, dd MMM yyyy HH:mm:ss GMT

"In the west, adultery isn't punished by stoning. Instead, the press will kick you until you beg for forgiveness."

The Guardian report makes an interesting point, with the above headline.

Our media appears to be nothing short of delighted when a "celebrity" transgresses what the media decides is the law of morality that should apply. Take the examples of:

John Terry: it appears there was a clear apology
Tiger Woods: a public (why public?) apology
Vernon Kay (who is he, by the way?): he apologised for sending a flirty text message to a Page 3 girl.

Adultery can cause some very unpleasant side effects:

1. A divorce on the grounds of adultery, the divorce settlement and the legal costs that come with it

2. If you are Vernon Kay, a possible divorce on the grounds of unreasonable behaiour

3. The West's version of a public stoning; a public humiliation. In that respect I will leave the final wording to the Guardian:

Terry paid the price for that daft super-injunction: he was publicly tarred and feathered. As was Woods. As was Kay. In the west, adultery isn't punishable by stoning. Instead, if you're famous (and even if you've only committed virtual adultery by text) it's punishable by kicking. Step out of line and the press will encircle and kick you. And kick you and kick you and kick you until you beg for forgiveness. At which point, if you're lucky, they'll chortle and sneer and move on. They must be frightfully proud.
(Charlie Brooker, The Guardian 22/2/10)

Can those involved please resolve these issues without the rest of us having to be told the details when we've just had our breakfast?!

Andrew Woolley
Divorce Solicitor

When is a couple not a married couple?

ddd, dd MMM yyyy HH:mm:ss GMT

We’ve already covered the falling divorce rates so I won’t plough over old ground completely but I was interested to read Resolution’s response to the news that marriage rates are at their lowest since records began in 1862.

The provisional marriage rate for men in 2008 was 21.8 men marrying per 1,000 unmarried men aged 16 and over, compared with 22.4 in 2007 and 31.1 in 1998, according to the Office of National Statistics. The provisional marriage rate for women in 2008 was 19.6 women marrying per 1,000 unmarried women aged 16 and over, compared with 20.2 in 2007 and 26.6 in 1998.

So, in this day and age when couples choose to live together quite happily without feeling the push down the aisle, Resolution has renewed a call for unmarried couples to be granted legal rights, giving them the same legal foothold that married couples have. That way, both individuals would be treated fairly if they split up, “without equating living together to marriage or civil partnership”.

On the face of it, this may seem like a sensible idea. Greater protection would give some safeguards for a couple who never formalised their union if they subsequently broke up. But would it also not just be making work for lawyers left with a little bit more free time because divorces are falling?! If a couple choose to have their lifestyle ratified by the law of the land, they can get a living together agreement to protect their assets, or a civil partnership if they are a same-sex couple.

Or – and this is radical, I know – they could just get married. For better or worse.

The institution of marriage appears to be subject to constant erosion. Pretty soon the only thing you will gain from getting married is a huge overdraft.

The point is that some couples may choose not to get married simply because they do not want the legal ramifications that come from a short walk up the aisle. They should be free to do so. Whichever way round people choose to do things is up to them. There is a legal agreement there for them now. Yet another law is something we don’t need.

Divorce your spouse or your internet connection?

ddd, dd MMM yyyy HH:mm:ss GMT

A recent study has shown that, apparently, 41% of people would prefer to be without their spouse for a week than be without their internet connection for a week. Blimey!

1 in 5 said they'd be more upset if they lost their laptop than if they lost their partner! It seems that of the above 41%, 57% would find it very hard to be without Facebook and Twitter. (I declare an interest here as Woolley & Co have our own quite significant sections on Facebook and Twitter!)

Personally, I would think divorce on the grounds of unreasonable behaviour much more likely if I increased my use of the internet at all. But it remains to be seen if someone starts a divorce on the basis that their spouse "hid their laptop" or "cut off their internet connection" so as to ensure more direct one to one time. We've had many more unusual divorce grounds than that, I can tell you!

Andrew Woolley
Divorce solicitor and occasional --but always reasonable--Twitter user.

The end of marriage is nigh

ddd, dd MMM yyyy HH:mm:ss GMT

In a previous Blog I have suggested that the government might just as well do away with marriage and have done with it! This was based on the gradual removal of the benefits of marriage as they used to be such as tax incentives and the indications that people living together would be given the same legal rights.

But maybe politicians won't have to do anything at all? It seems that we are just less and less likely to marry anyway. Indeed recent reports show that we are less likely now to marry than at any time in history since records began. Maybe that is one reason why the divorce rate is lower than for many years!

It worries me, though, that many people live together (or cohabit as Judges seem to call it) partly due to the mistaken belief that there are no legal implicaitons of doing so. Certainly there are various myths about living together; have a look at this link for a couple.

But a living together agreement is essential and can certainly save significant legal costs in later argument.

So, just maybe the politicians are doing nothing as they realise marriage is dying all by itself.

Andrew Woolley
Divorce Solicitor

Recession, sexism and flexitime

ddd, dd MMM yyyy HH:mm:ss GMT

The Times reports that some very large law firms are considering introducing more flexible working. Blimey--progress!

All our (specialist divorce lawyers) people have worked flexibly and at home since 1996 when this firm was started. It works.

It has no connection with part time working, I assure you! Indeed it allows the 2+ hours often wasted on the commute to be useful--that may be usefully working or usefully resting or usefully in relationships.

Good lawyers (good professionals) do not need to be told when they need to work. They know.

Andrew Woolley
Divorce Lawyer

Video wills – helping families see life after death

ddd, dd MMM yyyy HH:mm:ss GMT

Sixty-three per cent of people are in favour of making video wills, according to research from a group of charities which wants to encourage more open discussion about what happens to a person’s assets after they have passed away.

Wills are still a hush-hush subject. Many people still don’t put pen to paper and it causes endless problems, sometimes even causing family break-ups, so anything which can encourage people to sort out their legacy is something I would welcome. We encourage all people going through a divorce or even separation to see a specialist wills lawyer and make a new Will, or maybe even their first!

Certainly nobody living together (but not married) should ever do so without a Will--who is their next of kin? Hard to say here but it won't be their cohabitee for sure.

Of course, it’s not a legally binding “document”. For that, the will needs to be in writing, witnessed and countersigned etc, in the same way that it was 200 years ago (who says the legal sector is behind the times?!). But it is a way of communicating what you want to happen and getting people to talk about an estate. In effect, it brings a will to life.

Often, when we advise on a divorce, one of the things we mention that comes as a surprise to many people is to review/rewrite – or for many write for the first time – a will which explains how they want their estate divided. It is something easily forgotten among the melee of a divorce but can lead to all sorts of problems down the line.

It is perhaps even more important for couples who separate but don’t get divorced, as under current law next of kin would be the spouse.

So opening a debate on the subject, on camera or otherwise, is a good way of helping more people head off family feuding in the future.

Andrew Woolley
Family lawyer