Divorce Manual

Multiple Cybernality Disorder

2010-05-28T03:28:00.000-07:00

It sounds silly, but give it time. People like me may not be well – we collect stuff on the web; from dating sites, to forums, social media groups, entire libraries of reading material for every occasion and finally, personal blogs. I started out with one; now I have three. In a bid to try and curb my appetite for all things more-ish, Researching Reform has been a work in progress for many months but it has now become home to Divorce Manual, which started out life on Blogger.

As of today, Researching Reform will be the parent site for the collection/ obsession that is family law in cyberspace and whilst Blogger will always hold sentimental value for introducing me to the world wide web (as well as holding the countless posts I just don’t have the heart to delete), Researching Reform is officially taking over.

Thank you so much for taking the time to read the thoughts on these blogs and I hope very much that you will follow Researching Reform right up until the time when its author gets arrested (which is bound to happen, considering that this site does tend to go contra flow to what’s already been established in the field of family law).

Over and out to lunch.

LoreCast

2010-05-21T13:03:00.000-07:00

LoreCast for the week ending Friday 21st May.

LoreCast

LoreCasts at Family Lore

Relationships Scotland

2010-05-12T07:15:00.000-07:00

Relationships Scotland is an organisation offering support to families through mediums such as mediation and counselling and their aim is to reach out to families who are looking for help.

They are also in the running to win a website makeover which would allow them the opportunity to work on their online presence. If you would like to vote for them, please click here.

Relationships Scotland would also appreciate any further mention of their endeavour, so please feel free to pass the link on, should you feel inclined.

Lance Goddard interviews Divorce Manual

2010-05-06T10:28:00.000-07:00

On Wednesday 5th May, Lance Godard, also known as 22Twts on Twitter, interviewed Divorce Manual and got a little more mischief than he bargained for....

You can read the interview, here:

22 Tweets Interview

LoreCast

2010-04-29T09:17:00.001-07:00

In this edition of LoreCast, John and I discuss the ongoing case of Sharon Shoesmith and her High Court battle, The Youngs and the suspected £400 million fortune that is being fought over and why your Valentine's card may not be from who you think it is....!

LoreCast for the week ending Friday 30th April

LoreCast at Family Lore

Child Snatching By the State

2010-04-27T06:40:00.000-07:00

Jane, a Family Rights activist talks with me about the problems surrounding forced adoption and why financial incentivisation creates dangerous conflicts of interest in a system that still does not, for the time being, focus on family.

Child Snatching by the State

Judge of the Week: Mrs Justice Black

2010-04-23T06:07:00.000-07:00

Mrs Justice Black made legal history in March this year when she allowed the wishes and feelings of two siblings to be given tangible weight in a case relating to relocation and contact, the youngest of which was a five year old girl.

Sir Mark Potter has himself hinted at allowing evidence of this nature to be seminal in deciding such issues and even considered the age of seven to be appropriate in relation to children attending court to give their evidence, with conventional thinking in progressive circles citing the age of nine as the starting point for court attendance.

Although there is no indication that the five year old girl gave her evidence in court (the suggestion is that it was presented via social workers who held interviews with the sibling), the weight given to this evidence is a first in English Family Law on matters of welfare and as it is a fairly controversial approach, the Court of Appeal led by Lord Justices Wilson and Sedley, who later heard an appeal on the matter, will give reasons for their decision backing Mrs Justice Black's Order.

It may or may not be significant that the cutting edge decision to allow such weight to be attached to this evidence was authorised by a woman yet the messages which are beginning to flow from our family justice system highlight the evolution of the legal process's understanding of the importance of looking at all the evidence available and not underestimating as a first port of call, the evidence of young children, whether verbal or otherwise.

For acknowledging the significance of such evidence and for giving children a voice, my family law judge of the week is Mrs Justice Black.

Keeping Mum: Fact versus Friction

2010-04-23T04:34:00.000-07:00

What are the odds that The Lord himself would be a victim of the busy volcano in Iceland this week? Probably quite high, but this fact detracts a little from the pathos of the story, so we will move on and assume there is a deeply moving irony to this, the most unfortunate of a series of unfortunate events. (I will hand out tissues at the end).

This tale of tragedy and trains unfolded just so: The Lord and son had enjoyed a holiday together the week before and as luck would have it, they returned safely to London just before the Volcano decided to wreak havoc with the planes in Europe. The Lord then went on to Greece, where he remained until he was due to return and have son for a few more days before the Easter Holidays drew to a close. As it happened, The Lord’s timely return to London was not to be and I received word from Lord Central that he was currently in Athens on business and was now stuck, unable to get back to London and to son.

One of the drawbacks to our divorce is that it seems to have left little room for humour, which is a shame because I always enjoyed making fun of the Lord, as he did making fun of my ability to eat an entire bird in one sitting and various other foodstuffs in a manner most unbecoming of any would-be lady. On this occasion, I would have liked to have had a little joke with The Lord about his alleged business trip to Athens (anyone who has young children will know that often you need a holiday from the holiday) but I erred on the side of caution and stuck to the facts.

This rather unfortunate series of events (twice mentioned now, for added effect) created a potentially explosive state of affairs in relation to contact. The Lord had effectively lost out on three days with son. What to do? All sorts of legal arguments then began to run through my mind, as they do. It occurred to me that the volcanic eruption could be classed as an Act of God and so contact could be forfeited; this would apply to me also, had I had the misfortune of being stuck on an island with sandy beaches and all the Moussaka I could eat. It then occurred to me that no provision for such unforeseen events was made in our contact order and so in actual fact there was no obligation to deal with the issue at all. Finally, I then briefly considered the merits of cancelling out the missed few days on the basis that I had given The Lord extra contact for various reasons over the years and that this would amply cover the lost time. With such brilliant and creative legal arguments, there was no need to have to face the mental gymnastics massaging contact would cause and possible disruption of son’s routine, right? Wrong.

Once families come out of the highly artificial world of the family courts, the law begins to fade not unlike the distant memory of a chastising parent might. At that point, for families who have changed shape and resurface to find their place in the world, they are for the most part on their own, with nothing but their conscience to guide them. And without wishing to give conscience a bad name, it could be viewed as the driving force behind communication.

Whilst I am clearly being less than serious about the legal arguments (they did not really run through my mind at all, but in an attempt to keep the story dramatic I felt it necessary to add them not least of all because any story with an erupting volcano and mountains of ash deserves to be steeped in excitement and intrigue), I did consider the ethics of making up the lost contact. It did not take me long to realise that there was no harm in doing just that and that if the contact was made up sensibly, to suit son and The Lord, it could be a truly well executed exercise.

If the tables had been turned and I myself was stranded and losing valuable time to be with son, I would hope that The Lord would view the situation in much the same way as I do and where tensions remain beneath the surface, there is always a constant caution before proposing anything in relation to contact. Negotiating contact in this way can sometimes feel as if you are working with a dormant volcano, carefully trying to observe its behaviour with a view to preventing any eruptions that may end up burning the entire family. And as time moves on, communication becomes easier. This is in part due to trial and error, which teaches you how to communicate with one another as well as old feelings being put to one side and although I know that The Lord will continue to seek more contact, not just for time lost but for grievances forgotten, the peace that understanding brings, the realisation that such tensions are to be expected, make living in fact more alluring than living in fear.

For in affairs of the heart, the highest stake is often our conscience. It may seem like an irrelevant by-product of our evolutionary history as human beings, but conscience is always ticking away in the back of the brain, waiting for well timed epiphanies and life lessons to echo sentiments like “I told you so” and “There’s a point here somewhere”, within the ventricles of our mind.

And those echoes are foot prints of the path we take on the journey of our family; they become a part of who we are and they affect the way we view the world and the way we behave. Conscience is not just a mythical creature designed to torture us into submission. It is the key to our survival. And with that, I await The Lord’s proposal for the lost contact and I secretly hope that he too believes in executions of fact and not the frailties of fiction.

Family LoreCast

2010-04-22T11:59:00.001-07:00

This week, John and I discuss the ground breaking case which involved a five year old girl's evidence being admitted for consideration in a contact dispute, why new research by the Nuffield Foundation could put a spanner in the works for the Conservatives and what happens to pets when people get divorced.

LoreCast for the week ending Friday 23rd April

LoreCast at Family Lore

Divorce Manual's Judge of the Week: Lord Justice Wall

2010-04-15T08:02:00.000-07:00

Our new President of the Family Division, Lord Justice Wall, has started his term chivalrously and with an honesty and directness that could be viewed as the first move towards making the system fair, functional and most importantly, family orientated.

In two recent cases, he has spoken out about the conflicts of interest present in our family sector's culture and at the same time sent a message to the public and family law professionals alike: unnecessary separation of families will not be tolerated.

Whilst Lord Justice Wall remains balanced in his view and continues to support the work of the professionals in the system, his determination to turn the system's culture around and to renew the public's faith in it is a wonderful step forward.

For this courageous stance and unabashed honesty, Lord Justice Nicholas Wall, is my family law judge of the week.

Action for Children: Highlighting Neglect

2010-04-15T04:07:00.001-07:00

Action for Children is dedicated towards helping the most vulnerable children in society and their latest campaign which focuses on child neglect sees this organisation forging ahead with a project that focuses on research and trying to find ways to spot and stop this kind of abuse.

Did you know that certain studies suggest that 10% of children may be experiencing neglect? That amounts to 1.5 million children. Action for Children's campaign aims to raise awareness of this problem and help to highlight the warning signs so that we can spot abuse early before it is too late.

Please click on the links above to get further information on this worthwhile campaign.

Support for All: Green Shoot or Parting Shot?

2010-04-02T13:25:00.000-07:00

Article

Family LoreCast

2010-03-25T12:00:00.001-07:00

This week, John and I discuss pre-nups in light of the new case resting at the Supreme Court, the case of the naughty husband in Hewett v First Plus and why proposing under water may be the plaice to do it......

LoreCast for the week ending Friday, 26th March, 2010.

LoreCast on Family Lore

Family LoreCast

2010-03-19T06:24:00.001-07:00

Family LoreCast for the week ending Friday 19th March, 2010. This week John and I talk about the latest developments on the case relating to Child C, who was ordered to live with his father; why Lady Deech continues to mystify the legal world with her views on Family Policy; MPs who are out of touch with 21st Century Family and why Human Rights compliment Family Law in England. And of course, John and I misbehave at the end :)

LoreCast

From Secret Court to Star Chamber?

2010-03-18T02:25:00.000-07:00

This article compares and contrasts the adversarial process with its sister system, the inquisitorial process and highlights the possibility of a power struggle between the judiciary, the legislative and the executive on matters of family law.

From Secret Court to Star Chamber?

Family LoreCast

2010-03-11T09:13:00.001-08:00

This week, John Bolch and I discuss the brave decision by the Supreme Court in Agbaje v Akinnoye-Agbaje; we look at Lord Laming's proposals and the possible implications after Baby Peter and why Sir Nicholas Wall may have fallen out favour with the current President of the Family Division, Sir Mark Potter.

And John gets his own back on me for making him read last week's love story :)

Family LoreCast for the week ending 12th March, 2010

Downloadable Version

Family LoreCast

2010-03-04T08:57:00.001-08:00

Family Law News roundup for the week ending Friday 5th March, 2010. John and I talk about groundbreaking changes to Family Law and the adversarial process. We also take a look at the Conservative Party's Green Paper on the Family and why Ed Balls' political profiteering has gone a step too far. The usual quirky surprises can be found at the end of the podcast...

LoreCast

LoreCast (Downloadable Version)

Podcast: John Hemming MP & Dadshouse

2010-03-02T13:32:00.000-08:00

John Hemming, Dadshouse and Researching Reform talk about Labour's Green Paper, 'Support for All' and highlight the real issues that are affecting the family justice system.

Podcast

Podcast: Define Bullying

2010-03-01T02:57:00.000-08:00

Julian Whiting talks about the ground-breaking event "Define Bullying" which he organised. Julian tells me why bullying in the workplace is varied and often implicit and highlights this growing concern.

Podcast

Family LoreCast

2010-02-26T00:49:00.000-08:00

Family News Roundup for the week ending Friday 26th February, 2010

LoreCast

Downloadable version

Family Futures Conference 2010

2010-02-25T16:04:00.000-08:00

Family Futures Conference 2010

On Wednesday, I had the pleasure of going to The Guardian’s Family Futures Conference, which the newspaper organised with a view to putting family at the top of the political agenda in the run up to the General Election. The Guardian is my favourite home-grown political poison of choice, so it was a treat to be invited to go along to this seminar by William McGranaghan, the founder of Dadshouse. With the dashing Billy at my side, we walked and talked our way to the central London venue to listen to what the politicians and panel members had to say.

The conference was partnered by the CWDC (Children’s Workforce Development Council), the SCIE (Social Care Institute for Excellence) and Action for Children and the speakers ranged from politicians to sector representatives and beyond. The audience members were also eclectic and included journalists, social workers, therapists and yet more political bodies.

Family policy, a vast field in its own right, was covered in a differing number of ways in part through individual speeches about the need for change (and all the usual political mantras that get trotted out by shadow ministers just before we’re all asked to bite on the balloting bullet), debating panels and streamed sessions, which later forced Billy and I, reluctantly, to choose a venue ‘side’.

The chair for the day’s events was Esther Rantzen, who was great after her initial first ten minutes on stage, where she proceeded to give the camera man extensive directions on what parts of her anatomy he could and could not photograph, with particular emphasis on her teeth, which she claimed were to be avoided at all costs as the camera lens made her teeth look unnaturally large. The tooth, forgive me, the truth, was evident without the lens but the extreme fuss Ms Rantzen made did sit rather uncomfortably with the ethos of the conference, leaving both myself and Billy a little baffled as to whether Ms Rantzen was focused more on family or fashion.

Despite temporary teething problems, Ms Rantzen threw herself into the debate as did Billy and I, taking the opportunity to ask the panel questions about single fathers and services for them as well as the latest Green Paper’s proposals.

The first session centred on what needed to be done to deliver effective services for families but the Rt Hon Dawn Primarolo, who was scheduled to give the Keynote address, did not attend. Excuses were given, an ailment, the details of which were left vague, had prevented Ms Primarolo from delivering her speech and so Shirley Trundle did the honours instead.

As is customary at such events, some of the speeches were a little bland but of the speeches and sentiments I was fortunate enough to hear, there were perhaps a few that stood out among the political spin and the departmental in-fighting for funds.
John Goldup, the representative for Ofsted, expressed a considered outlook and felt that safeguarding measures and preventative policies needed to be integrated to make family services more effective whilst Deborah Absalom (Director, Children and Young People) felt that government needed to think carefully about everyone’s contribution to the family, from children to parents to grandparents.

The second session then went on to tackle the need for more integrated services for families and Emma Dodd, the youth engagement manager for Merseyside Fire and Rescue gave a wonderful speech which explained very clearly why Fire and Rescue, not an immediate service that comes to mind when thinking about family policy, can act as a way forward to shaping a more holistic family policy landscape.

Another speaker at this session also made a thought provoking speech: Jim Wilson, a consultant family therapist and co-director of Partners for Collaborative Solutions had developed a working practice based on the most fundamental but for the most part ignored observation in family services to date: the need to engage with families in real, tangible ways. His take on therapy and the importance of creating a human connection in services relating to family support was refreshing and his view that a humane approach to such support was essential, served as a warning that should be heeded by governments both past and present.

Much to my dismay, I had to leave the conference in the early afternoon but those quiet voices, of the speakers who touched on balance and caution, who expressed a sincere passion for family and who stressed, gently and without force, the need for more humane family services will be the voices that stay with me. These are the voices that ultimately, I hope will not be drowned out by the siren song of sound bites and spin; voices that have a place in politics and that should be the conscience and the heartbeat of every government.

Family LoreCast

2010-02-18T05:56:00.000-08:00

Family Law News roundup for the week ending Friday 19th February, 2010.

LoreCast

Family LoreCast

2010-02-12T07:15:00.001-08:00

Edition 2 of our weekly Family News Roundup

Podcast: A Family's Heartbreak

2010-02-09T04:08:00.000-08:00

Mike Jeffries, co-author of a Family's Heartbreak, tells me why the Family Justice System in America is flawed and speaks openly about his personal experience with Parental Alienation Syndrome. I also ask Mike some cheeky questions about relationships and we do the tango online (that last part is not true).

Podcast

Family LoreCast

2010-02-05T03:47:00.000-08:00

Welcome to our weekly Family Law News roundup service. We hope you find the pocasts interesting.

Edition 1

Keeping Mum

2010-01-23T05:49:00.000-08:00

The Mystery of the vigilant E mail

It’s the start of a new year and in what would appear to be a cliché, The Lord and I seem to be reaching some level of agreement, beyond the usual superficial nods to the therapist, which seem to be setting up 2010 beautifully for a year of genuine communication between The Lord and myself.

It’s true; I would rather err on the side of optimism, as I have done in the past because it is better for the heart and because it leaves room for change. Without it, the potential to improve a situation or even one’s soul is stifled.

Our last session at the therapist’s was a good one. The usual aches and pains were aired but at the end, there was, I felt, a renewed desire, in some part to trust. The Lord appears to have come to the conclusion that this most feared of options, is one that must be explored. This realisation is not my doing; our therapist made this change of heart possible, coupled with The Lord’s good nature, which exists still, despite and in spite of his personal ghosts.

Whilst my private life is made public in the consultation room, my public blog is made private, internalised by the mystery of the vigilant e mail. In recent weeks, I have received a spate of what could only be described as strange correspondence, from people who I do not know, who claim to have read my blog. It must be explained that my blog is small, not known to many and attracts the regular attention of but a few souls, some sympathetic, others less so, but the vigilant e mail is a constant source of confusion.

These e mails often seek to have me change my mind about certain things or refrain from doing others and this afternoon, I received such an e mail. It was above all, a kind e mail (I have received much worse) but it claimed to know things about The Lord and I that only someone involved in our lives could know. The writer expressed the view that *she* hoped that I would stop posting about my ex husband’s behaviour now that we seem to have reached a certain level of peace. This baffled me. Our new found efforts to make things work with the use of the T word happened only this week and I had not yet had a chance to write about the good news on my blog. It gave me the impression that the sender knew The Lord and so I began to wonder.

Was it The Lord? Was he angry that I had written about his anger, made him feel exposed, perhaps? I explained to the sender that my reasons for writing the posts were foremost about reassuring others in post-separation conflict, that these things were normal and above all, that anger is a very personal matter: personal only, to the person who expresses it.

Was the e mailer someone else entirely? A friend of The Lord’s, or other, implicitly asking me to stop such posts because they felt or knew they were aggravating the situation between The Lord and I? I went on to explain that I wrote these blogs with compassion, with a view to trying to understand what makes a human being resort to aggression, in its various forms and that I have often blogged about The Lord’s kindness, not just his cruelty. I then sent another response shortly after my initial reply, just to explain that if our situation improves, the blog would be true to the spirit of that improvement as it has been in the past.

Ultimately, my hope is that this journey will have a happy ending. I look forward to the day when I can say we have found peace between us and despite our differences, we feel no animosity towards one other. If we do reach that level of Zen, we will have in large part our therapist to thank; for without his patience and his knowledge and even just his presence, this burgeoning Zen would probably have never manifested itself or at least, if it did, it would have come too late.

Art Exhibition at The Law Society

2009-12-14T13:09:00.000-08:00

A friend of mine who is a talented artist and who also works at the Law Society is exhibiting her art at this show. Members of the public are welcome.

Westminster Debate for KIDS in Technicolour

2009-12-14T08:32:00.001-08:00

The Westminster Debate for KIDS took place on Monday 9th November 2009, with the main focus being on making divorce and the legal, emotional and financial processes related to it, more comfortable for children and most importantly to ensure they have a voice throughout those processes.

Below are some pictures from the debate.

Lord Justice Wall, Sandra Davis, Tim Loughton MP, Lord Justice Munby, Bob Reitemeier.

Sandra Davis, Natasha Phillips, Tim Loughton MP, Lord Justice Munby

Audience members

Lord Listowel, Sandra Davis, Natasha Phillips, Tim Loughton MP

Natasha Phillips, Tim Loughton MP

Keeping Mum

2009-12-07T12:52:00.000-08:00

The Lord and I go to see a therapist

The Lord and I go to see a therapist. I agreed to do this because if I didn’t, there was a tangible chance that I might lose custody of son. The premise for these sessions was initially to show the therapist that I was certifiably insane and to do away with my services as a mother completely.

Fortunately for me, the therapist has not yet taken the view that I am crazy, but I believe the Lord feels this is only a matter of time and as The Lord has chosen one of the most distinguished therapists in Europe (The Lord wants only the best for me, naturally) I feel we are in safe hands. That’s not the crazy, schizophrenic ‘we’ I am using by the way, nor the Royal ‘We’, it is the ‘we’ as in our family. However, if I do start to talk to my furniture, I will most certainly confess on the blog. It’s only right that I should manifest my insanity publicly, as I manifest my humour and my heart ache.

Things are not going so well with The Lord. Son seems to be rebelling against something and contact is fraught with arguments between them. My time in the family courts is such that having experienced the less enlightened social workers and court officials, I am always reticent to tell the therapist what I know about son’s time with The Lord. The trouble with having two parents who do not genuinely communicate is that conflicting parenting styles can become an issue and despite efforts to work with The Lord, the devil is always in the detail.

Men and women are different. I may be building a case for insanity here or just displaying very bimbo-esque tendencies, but these differences sometimes manifest in the emotional as well as the physical. The Lord finds detail of a parental nature awkward; he forgets about e mails I send him which the school sends about special days and sometimes The Lord is not so keen on polishing school shoes when he has son for the weekend or making sure son does his homework. Despite all of that, he is a great father and loves son very much and I know that son knows this but The Lord is terribly hurt by son’s antipathy towards him although I believe this is more to do with The Lord’s handling of contact than anything else.

The main difficulty we seem to have is laying old ghosts to rest. The Lord is convinced that my parents and I are evil, dastardly people, spending every waking moment rubbing our hands with glee as we find new and unusual ways of torturing his tormented soul. The reality is so horribly different that I almost feel like an imposter in the therapist’s lounge. Who would believe that despite everything, my family and I do not bare The Lord any ill will? That’s not to say I don’t occasionally want to bungee jump him off Tower Bridge from time to time, but essentially he is not a bad person. Just a very pissed off one.

Our last session was a bit like a car crash. I had decided to muster up the courage to recount an unpleasant incident, The Lord, as is his style, spent most of the time saying unpleasant things and then I did the honours and burst into tears for the grand finale. Anyone who has been through the system will know the significance of that act. As a woman, we are often treated as vixens, harlots of deception, using our feminine guile to attract sympathy (therapist is a man). The Lord was not impressed “Oh, yeah, that’s right, turn on the waterworks”. I then did the decent British thing and apologised terribly to The Lord for crying and explained that I was a little upset. I also then remembered how in a previous session with yet another therapist The Lord had tried to convince that particular professional not to believe a word I said as I had done several drama courses at secondary school and been in plays and was therefore a consummate actress.

At the time, I remember trying to explain that the art of acting is not the same as the questionable art of mendacity and that like all things, honesty rests in the hands of one’s conscience or lack thereof. I also remember wanting to take his analogy and use it to illustrate his point in what would have been an absurdly funny example. The Lord is a genius mathematician; the temptation to argue therefore that he was exceptionally calculating was more than I could stand and although I bit my tongue that day, the irony of that thought has never left me. Of course, I do not think The Lord is exceptionally calculating; I think The Lord is exceptionally hurt and therein lies the distinction which may be a subtle one but one worth making all the same. It also happens to be the only thing which stops me from hitting The Lord over the head with the therapist’s cardboard tissue box during our sessions.

One such moment came during our last session, where The Lord had again decided that I was an unfit mother on the grounds that son is, according to his thorough investigation, underweight and malnourished (he has neither weighed son nor taken him for a blood test of any kind). We have been through this before. I have been accused of this in the past and we have taken son to a very respected paediatrician who told us that son was exceptionally healthy and doing very well and was a very alert, cognitive little person. There was even some congratulating that day on account of son’s radiant glow and good bones. Radiation of a different sort was emanating from The Lord after that particular visit, but no matter, my bid to remain son’s mother was for the time being safe. Until now. Again.

The Lord has been asked to buy scales and to measure son regularly. I am of course looking forward with great rapture to the time when son drops a pound (as is normal for children, as their weight fluctuates from time to time). I can see The Lord now “By George, I have it! A pound! What did I tell you! The woman is a menace to children-kind all over! Remover her ovaries at once!” Oh. The joy.

To be fair to The Lord, son’s weight does fluctuate; he has a fast metabolism and runs around like a maniac (which unfortunately he gets from me, although on the up side he has The Lord’s great maths skills, which I do not possess, so I am hoping that at some point he will be able to calculate with hideous accuracy which family force feeds him the most – The Lord’s Bengali clan or my Persian posse). However, son recently saw the same paediatrician as last time only a few weeks ago who once again reiterated that son was in fine form.

I can’t say I wasn’t tempted to take son to a fast food place and feed him chicken McNuggets and hamburgers; the pressure is tremendous and my own fear of losing son means that occasionally I allow myself to think these mad thoughts, to almost believe they are necessary acts to prevent the unthinkable but then my common sense kicks in. I have not done anything wrong; son is well fed and looked after. And so I resist, passively, once more, the urge to succumb to the elephants in the room.

I find myself fairly dumbstruck at these sessions with the therapist; I often forget to mention things that might help but equally I sit with a view to just bearing the brunt of the frustration and looking forward to being able to carry on with my life once the ordeal is over. In life, we never truly escape the ghosts that haunt us and now more than ever I understand that making peace with the process, in light of the knowledge that I may never be able to give The Lord peace of mind is just a question of passive resistance. And maybe a cardboard tissue box, when The Lord is not looking.

Oh, Christmas Tree, Oh, Christmas Tree.....

2009-12-07T06:30:00.000-08:00

Christmas Day is fast approaching and for family and friends who like real Christmas trees to decorate and enjoy, a very good friend of mine is offering lovely trees, which he has tucked away in his very own Norwegian Forest, hidden in a (not so) secret location in London ;) Please see below for more information. Merry Christmas!

David Green is opening up his Christmas Tree Yard aptly named “GREEN’S TREES”

So why don’t you head down to his Norwegian forest in Wandsworth – just over the bridge by the high street and pick your tree. If you live in Fulham or Clapham or Putney its about 6 or 7 mins away and if you live anywhere else in London and you can’t get there call up David and he’ll pick one for you that looks great and then deliver it your sitting room, hassle free, you can also get Mistletoe to hang in your hallway to guarantee the love this Christmas.

Now these trees are genuinely the dogs! Don’t get a fake one as they are environmentally unfriendly given the amount of “Global Warming” gasses they produce when made, these are non drop and we all have to make sure we’re doing our bit for the environment…..so go Green at GREEN’S TREES.

Have a great Christmas people and go get yourself a Christmas Tree.

THE TREE YARD IS NOW OPEN 3pm – 8pm Monday – Friday

10am – Late Saturday & Sunday - ORDERS ARE BEING TAKEN NOW.

Greens Trees

Map

Petition, Petition, Petition

2009-12-01T12:57:00.000-08:00

The two petitions that Divorce Manual created in November have kindly been published by Wikivorce at their Wikizine with an accompanying article which explains the reasoning behind them.

If you would like to discuss the petitions with others, there is the opportunity to do this on the Wikivorce Forum.

The petitions themselves can be accessed through the article at Wikivorce, on the Petitions Section of Divorce Manual or at the bottom of this post.

Petition: Child Autonomy

Petition: Court Culture

Westminster Debate for KIDS: Further Related Coverage

2009-11-19T12:15:00.001-08:00

The Guardian, Thursday 19th November

The Telegraph, 16th November

The Mirror, 16th November

Family Law Week

Mishcon De Reya, Monday 16th November

Family Lore Focus, Wednesday 11th November

Dads House, November 2009

Westminster Debate in The Times

2009-11-16T10:56:00.001-08:00

Today, The Times reported on the Westminster Debate for KIDS, which took place on November 9th, 2009. You can read the article here.

Westminster Debate for KIDS (Kids in Divorce or Separation)

2009-11-10T12:12:00.000-08:00

In commemoration of the 20th Anniversary of the Children Act 1989, Divorce Manual and Mishcon de Reya hosted a debate in the Houses of Parliament last night on the welfare of the child and the significance of that welfare in private family law.

At the heart of this debate was the notion that although the Children Act 1989 specifically insists that the welfare of the child be of paramount consideration in every family law case, the reality is such that this is just not happening. As a result the debate was a discussion of two parts: targeting the problems and from there, considering solutions.

Acting as Chair for the evening, Divorce Manual was privileged to sit among the panel members: Lord Justice Munby, Lord Justice Wall, Lord Listowel, Tim Loughton MP, Bob Reitemeier and Sandra Davis.

The audience, which was made up of politicians, senior academics, psychiatrists, therapists, heads of family organisations and government departments as well as interested individuals offered up some highly insightful questions which made for a lively and interesting debate. Lord Justice Munby expressed the view that the system was in need of financial support and that organisations offering mediation needed to be encouraged. Lord Justice Wall held similar views but went on to express his concern about intractable disputes and the stark realities that colour the system’s ability to resolve such conflict and how this conflict ultimately impacts upon children.

Lord Listowel reminded us that both the public and private sector are not mutually exclusive and went on to explain that many of the solutions offered that evening for the dilemmas faced in private family law could impact directly on public family law and to that end solutions needed to be carefully considered as other children going through other sectors may suffer.

Tim Loughton also expressed enthusiasm for making mediation more widely available and shared his concerns about the current system. Tim was particularly concerned about the need to support the concept of marriage and to try to help families to stay together as much as was reasonably possible. Bob Reitemeier spoke of the nature of parenting and the current culture in place in the West, which sometimes overlooks the autonomy of the child, which had long term implications not just on parenting skills but on how the family justice system copes with families struggling with unresolved conflicts and how children feel about their place in the family unit and themselves. Sandra Davis began the debate with a video clip of a little girl expressing her personal hurt and frustration at her parent’s struggle to cope with their divorce and she then went on to describe the traumatic effects of the current legal process on children and why the system needed to change.

It was fabulous to hear the panel share their extensive insight with the audience and once they had offered their perspectives on the various problems they observed from lack of funding, to the adversarial nature of court culture and beyond, discussing these thoughts with the audience, they moved on to considering solutions.

Although the panel members viewed the problems from different angles, it was clear that there was much common ground, not least of all once we began to look more closely at the possible solutions. Despite the echoed sentiment that lack of resources and intractable disputes were large obstacles to the smooth running of the family justice system, Tim was rather optimistic that changes for the better could take effect and make a difference.

Solutions offered ranged from more mediation, to compulsory conflict clinics and the need to recognise the autonomy of the child as a legal right. The audience welcomed these suggestions and elaborated upon them, sharing their wealth of experience with the panel and offering solutions of their own, such as retreats for conflicted parents and more support for children through the bolstering of social workers.

Despite the debate lasting for two hours, it was clear that we could have gone on; the desire to talk about issues surrounding children and to raise awareness is extraordinary and to that end, the debate was a timely and poignant event, not least of all because of the anniversary of the Children Act which the debate in part celebrated that evening.

Divorce Manual would like to thank Sandra Davis of Mishcon for the wonderful
opportunity to chair this debate and for sharing their perspective on a pressing problem that needs urgent attention. Special thanks must also go to Tim Loughton for allowing us to use the exquisite Grand Committee Room in Westminster and for kindly agreeing to sit on the panel that evening. My thanks also to the rest of the panel, who graciously gave up their Monday evening despite hectic schedules, to be with us and to share their superb wealth of knowledge and experience with us. A big thank you also to Westminster Events and Sound, without whom none of the gadgets and gizmos in the room would have worked and for their patience with me over the preceding months!

Westminster Debate for KIDS in The Guardian

2009-11-10T02:14:00.000-08:00

Divorce Manual was privileged to be able to Chair the Westminster Debate for KIDS last night and prior to the event itself, The Guardian's Afua Hirsch has written a very informative piece on the debate and its focus, which can be found above.

What makes your Family Unique?

2009-09-30T06:26:00.000-07:00

To celebrate Parents' Week 2009, Divorce Manual invites you to share your thoughts on family, to write down what makes yours special or just to tell us about family moments that have touched you, either for the better or otherwise.

This post is for you, mums, dads and kids: celebrating the diverse ways in which families live is just one way of expressing the huge potential for happiness in every home. What does your family say about you?

Keeping Mum

2009-09-11T07:44:00.000-07:00

You Rang, M'Lord?

One of the biggest problems when trying to cope with someone who is in a lot pain, is trying to work out whether they communicate in earnest or heavily sedated with their own delirium.

That afternoon, prior to my going to collect son from The Lord’s flat, my mobile rang. It was The Lord. “Hi. Son is asleep.” I could sense the irritation in his voice and instinctively, knowing The Lord as I do, I could feel this conversation was going nuclear. “Oh” I said. The Lord countered “Why do you think he’s sleeping? Hmm?” At that moment, I wanted to reply that he was probably sleeping because he had contracted yet another tummy bug at The Lord’s house and although fully recovered was probably feeling weak still. This time, I managed to restrain myself and told a half truth, “Well, it’s his first day at his new school, he was probably overwhelmed by it all”. The Lord was not listening, he was on a mission, Mission Go Get Mamma and he had identified his target “Well? Did you feed him breakfast? Was he well this morning? What did you feed him? Did he sleep?” I answered all his questions, from what son ate to how he slept, all indications that son had behaved normally and healthily, but this was not really at the heart of the questioning. Then, we struck oil “I think son should spend the night with me this evening. He is asleep, we don’t want to wake him. Anyway, it’s time we consolidated the contact. I should have son on Thursday through to Sunday. It’s Thursday today”. Bingo. The fight to change our contact schedule was back on. I affectionately call it The Grand Master Plan.

No matter how many times I allow myself to believe that The Lord has made peace with our plight, I always know deep down that the Grand Master Plan is at work. This Grand Master Plan has little to do with what son needs or wants; it is a plan borne out of hurt pride and some wounds that I did not make but that I now must take responsibility for, not because I am a good person but because son’s stability depends on it. Bearing that in mind, I replied calmly that I did not think there was any reason to change the Contact Order and that I would be collecting son at the usual time. I also knew that son often fell asleep in the car with The Lord as they frequently travelled to The Lord’s London flat and stayed there most of the time. I did not say that last part. I really wanted to, I really wanted to call The Lord out on his double standards, but then I realised there was no point and that it was my turn on Facebook Scrabble and I had just seen a brilliant word to put down..... “You know what Natasha...” I suddenly heard The Lord’s voice escalate, abuse came flying through the telephone cable and then I heard myself go into autopilot. How many times had I heard this reaction? Too many to recall. “Look, we are way past the stage of being hostile with each other. If you can’t speak civilly to me, then I’m going to put the phone down”. I anticipated the raging thunder of expletives and listened for a couple of seconds until the sounds became disjointed. And then I hung up.

The phone rang again. It was The Lord “Don’t ever put the phone down on me!” Oh boy. The Lord had called back to tell me that? He must be really mad. “Look,” I said “If you can’t speak nicely I will put the phone down”. I could feel The Lord imploding “NO YOU WILL NOT!” Alright, I thought, I could see The Lord was wound up and although it was mildly amusing, I thought I better give the guy a break “Okay, I’m sorry.” But my sense of humour got the better of me “Why don’t you tell me when I can put the phone down? How about now? Or maybe now? Or perhaps.....now? Or should I wait until you’re really mad and then put the phone down?” Unsurprisingly, The Lord did not find this funny; he began to raise his voice.....and then I put the phone down. He did not call again. Did he then have a meltdown and do karate actions by the window? I will never know.

When I came to pick up son, The Lord appeared to have calmed down. He took our son and placed him in the car. He then proceeded to talk about altering contact again on the basis that son was sick and I explained that was not necessary as he was not sick, just tired and that he could, by all means have son as usual over the week end. It turned out that he wanted son, but he wanted to alter contact. Son was not happy with the proposed contact and wanted to stick to our usual routine. In broken French, The Lord then proceeded to call me an imbecile for asking our son his view. It was difficult not to giggle post the Franglais insult, as quite clearly the word sounds very similar in English and without the French accent to disguise it, the insult was laid bare . Under normal circumstances, if son were sick, I would not have asked son’s opinion. But he was not sick, just weak from the tummy bug and I saw no reason not to get his input. At five, he was quite able to express a basic opinion like this. The Lord was clearly getting worked up and no matter what I said, it was getting interpreted as either a veiled insult or a slur on his character. I had had enough and son needed to be removed from what was fast becoming a battle ground of epic proportions and then it happened. I retaliated. The Lord persisted with his accusations about son’s exhaustion and then it came out “Well, quite frankly, if you didn’t keep feeding him pre-prepared food that had travelled for miles in the car, son wouldn’t get sick!”

I imagine Hiroshima would have felt something like this. The Lord, wild eyed and fluffy hair convulsing, retorted “Well, you never cook for our son. EVER! And stop gesticulating!” There was a moment of stunned silence. Did I not cook for our son? Yes, yes, I did. It’s alright. Panic over. And the gesticulation? Both my hands were resting on the steering wheel but I had inadvertently lifted two fingers off it and they were stuck out as if in the advanced stages of Rigor Mortis. I imagine they were ‘put out’ by the accusation. I looked at The Lord “Did you just say I don’t cook for our son? In all seriousness?” The Lord was silent. I had inadvertently hit a nerve. A big one. The Lord was so busy glossing over the veneer of fatherhood that he was immensely vulnerable when it came to the real nitty gritty of parenting. I backed down at once. He continued to talk aggressively and I suggested we talk once he had calmed down. As if the interaction could not get any weirder, The Lord began to chant “Now be a good girl and just answer my questions. Be a good girl and do as I say. Mummy is a silly girl, isn’t she?”. I would have liked to have felt the completeness of the hilarity of that moment, but gripped with leonine determination at wanting to get son away from the battle and an overriding sense of anxiety as I realised that the Grand Master Plan was here to stay, I asked The Lord calmly to step away from the car and allow me to shut the car door. The Lord refused. I asked several times, very coolly. Each time he refused. This went on for five minutes. Son was sleepy and looked completely disinterested in our Stand Off, which in itself was of some comedic value, but eventually I told The Lord that if he did not move away I would call the Police. A flicker of discomfort or was it fear, swept across his eyes. In utter defiance of my asking him to do something, he remained an obstacle to the door for a while yet before he moved away. As we drove off, I told son not to worry about the fight and that it was normal for mummies and daddies to argue sometimes. I am not sure son was overly impressed with my excuse but then again, son just wanted to sleep.

Neither The Lord nor I did son justice that day. We both failed to put our frustrations aside. Yet realistically, how much bullying does any one human have to take before they are free from another’s wounds? The answer, I fear, lies in the passing of a further thirteen years.

Keeping Mum

2009-08-15T11:49:00.000-07:00

Cogito Ego Sum?

The holidays means extended son sharing time and although the biological pull towards son’s centre of gravity is powerful and when denied, melancholy, I have become adept at dividing my time and my temperament, so that parts of my brain effectively shut down and only re-operate when needed. In short, when son is not around, I block out my mothering instincts and fill up my goody basket with buddies, blogging and poolside butterfly.

The week that followed was exceptional in many ways; one of my best and oldest friends was flying in from Hong Kong for a few days and a group of us were meeting up at a Persian restaurant for food and chit chat. That evening, walking down the street where the restaurant was I could see familiar figures standing outside the entrance and began to label each body as it came into full view. There was my friend, a mountain of kindness and contentment for over a decade; next to him, the dry wit of the house, a vocal masterpiece looking for love in a haystack grown out of confusion, convention and criminal shoes; on his right, kindness’s brother, a sweet soul with the sort of sensitivity that women would starve themselves for and last to emerge from the hazed huddle, the Married One. His aura was quiet, and you could never tell whether he was just taciturn or plain tortured. Either way, he would become the focus of the evening and like a martyr to the modern man, he would offer his happiness up for scrutiny.

As is inevitable, the conversation veered towards women and relationships pretty quickly after the short lived talking shop phase and perhaps because I was the only female or perhaps because I was the only one stupid enough to get married and then divorced in the space of two years, I was politely spared any dissection, but the Married One, was not. “Guys, I have to leave after dinner, I can’t stay for drinks”. Silence. Then, Dry Wit sniggers. I throw him a glance which says “Please don’t make one of your smart ass comments; Married One is at least five inches taller than you and appears to work out”. To no avail. Dry Wit counters “Why? Have you been electronically tagged by Wifey? She’s in America now, right? So, you have to go home, to an empty house because you promised wifey you wouldn’t break your curfew?” An eruption of snickles and at this point I can barely restrain myself, but I suddenly remember that Married One is heavily outnumbered and the ego may well need a rescue. But how to do this without it obviously looking like a rescue? There is no point in shielding a man’s ego if you make it known that this is your intention. The ego does not like this. Not one bit. It is a bit like doubling back on yourself. You might as well not bother.

I thought for a moment. “Married One” I say, “I will also need to head back too, shortly after dinner, so the rest of the guys can have some hubbly bubbly together and no doubt you will see them all before our friend here goes back to Hong Kong”. Oh yeah. That was smooth. I am impressed with myself, really. I back Married One up, ego intact, manage to kind of divert the attention away from him and then, to top it all off, I further distract the guys with the promise of apple flavoured shisha post dinner delights. I am in the middle of thinking about how I should really be therapist to the stars, when all hell breaks out over the table. It’s the Vocal Masterpiece, “So, you mean to tell us, that you have to use the house phone to tell Wifey you are alright; you can’t just call her on your mobile?! Pussy!!!” Good god. All I wanted was some kebab and rice.

Married One composes himself after looking slightly crestfallen, “Well guys, when you get married you will understand, but I really do need to do this”. Had I been protecting the wrong ego? Was this man truly happy in his submission? The rest of the table look disappointed and somewhat frustrated. It occurred to me that when families are created both platonic and not, the ego has to prioritise who it will defer to. That was it; the ego, in its many different shapes and sizes, was just an instrument of division; division of the self, the soul and life circumstances.
I had the privilege of teaching a male friend to swim that week. He was nervous about the water and knowing this, I tried hard to make the lesson fun. Still, his fear of looking less than masculine with every fall and every flop meant there was more talk than swim that day. Had I been with a female friend and she had fallen in the water or belly flopped, we would have laughed together. This time, I had to drown my giggles at the bottom of the pool to avoid hurting a man’s most fragile point. His “I”. Was this really a part of the male psyche? We are led to believe that we all have egos, women too and yet we seem less afraid of the fool in us. I couldn’t help but wonder whether that was a fair take on the difference between the sexes.

I have always believed that men and women share the same qualities but express them differently yet the ego differential has me stumped. In order to be truly happy, must women pander to a seemingly larger ego, or just find one comparable to their own?

In a world where husbands and wives compromise to survive, is our fate sealed by the score keeping ego? Or should we strive to eliminate the ego in all of us and find peace in the purge?

Keeping Mum

2009-07-08T15:32:00.000-07:00

I need a fix and he needs a fix

And so it was that I had been lusting after a Frapuccino on and off all day and with one thing and another it seemed unlikely that I was going to get my caramel caffeine fix until it came time to pick up son from the Lord, whereupon he called half an hour early to tell me that son wanted to come home.

I must confess, knowing that the Lord is very sensitive, that my first thought lay firmly and squarely with the realisation that I was, yet again, for the tenth time today, being cheated out of my Frapuccino, but that was only for a nanosecond. Then, the panic set in. First of all, I worried about son; why was he miserable and what had happened? Then, I worried about the Lord. What had gone so terribly wrong that he had not been able to placate son? Then, I worried about myself; what would the Lord make of this incident? Would he take the view that this was my fault (which is usually the view he takes) and what would his knee jerk reaction be? A speed dial to the therapist, to recount the horrid trauma of son being awkward, conclusive proof that I was in fact evil to the core and needed to be set in a straight jacket so that Lord and son could spend the rest of their days playing football and being uninterrupted during their belching contests whilst I languished in a mental asylum, bouncing off crisp white cushioned walls?

Oh, it was all too much. I knew the Lord would be trying to rationalise the event as some kind of definitive evidence linking to some definite time period or other where I may have looked at him in a way that although was inadvertent vacuous staring (which usually occurs during our therapy sessions, when I am being accused of being Satan’s younger, slightly more sinister sister) may in fact have been interpreted as outright malicious glaring. Oh god, the angst!

This train of thought went on for about five minutes as I drove in the car to pick up son. I then stopped my thought process and realised that being afraid was not helpful. If nothing else, it felt very uncomfortable and very silly. I decided to keep my chin up and think of a way to make this better; to diffuse the Hiroshima style inquisition that awaited me. And then it hit me: I would arrive at the Lord’s flat, whereupon I would enter and engage with son and Lord to make clear that Lord and I were friends and that son would not get away with playing us off against the other. Now, son is cheeky little mischief maker and I cannot blame him totally for this as I am also a cheeky little mischief maker but I knew that I had to place down boundaries for this little monkey, so I also decided to suggest we all go out for a coffee, to show solidarity with the Lord. It suddenly dawned on me for the first time, that I was having to placate two children in my life; the Peter Pan I married and the monkey I conceived.

When I arrived, the Lord was playing football with our son and they seemed fine. I said as much and was greeted with a grumpy statement along the lines of yes, it’s fine now, but it wasn’t. Ever the dappy optimist I chirped back, well that’s quite normal for children to have moods, no need to worry! Thor would have been proud of the Lord’s subsequent glare.

I made the suggestion to get a coffee together (the Lord was reticent for me to enter his flat for some reason) and I told son to drive in the Lord’s car and I would follow behind, in mine, which he gladly consented to. The Lord said son wanted to go to his favourite bistro for some food and we did just that. At the restaurant son decided to play up and I removed a toy from his hand with a view to getting him to focus on eating his dinner. Son was tired and started to cry and whilst I was placating him, the Lord decided to take the dissenting opinion and asked me to give the toy back to son. This caused some confusion and son, sensing, Nero like, his chance to retrieve the toy took one look at me, lifted his index finger and shouted “Give me my toy mummy and go away!”.

Well, this was quite shocking behaviour, quite shocking and I told son as much. The Lord was still taking the dissenting view and then I heard son say “Flick off” under his breath. This was not a phrase I had used myself but I was aware of the innuendo, oh yes. I could see also, out of the corner of my eye that the Lord seemed to derive some sense of satisfaction from son pushing me away and whilst I felt a sense of frustration for his meanness of spirit, I understood too that he was nursing wounds from a life which started before I came into the picture and made his watercolour into an impressionist painting. I did ask the Lord though to explain to son that such language was not acceptable and reiterated that I always told son off for being rude to the Lord, which he knew from our previous outings together.

Focusing now on son, I took the view that to “Flick off” as he put it was a very good idea indeed. I would show that little uber-brat the action and reaction effect! I told him that such language was unacceptable and said that I would leave the table, which I did. At this point, my mind had done a mischievous little u-turn and all of a sudden, as if by mental magic, I remembered the Frapuccino, the missed opportunity to sip from the cup of eternal delight. Un-phased by son’s temporary tantrum, I hot-footed it back to the car and to my local Starbucks where I finally got to order my slushy iced dream. It seemed a cruel irony then that the phone rang; it was son calling to apologise and then the Lord told me they had eaten and that I should meet them back at the flat. I gleaned that the Lord must have made son call to say sorry and I thought that was good of him. He also made the effort to tell son that being rude to mummy was not the ‘done’ thing either.

Reunited with son at our flat, I bathed him and put him to bed and he went out like a light. As I watched him curled up, with his head resting neatly on the big cream pillow, I saw the world of pain the Lord felt every time he allowed his heart to beat to the drum of his hurt. The Lord may never come to realise that he has an ally in me, but I have an ally in patience. For now.

Westminster Debate: Failing to Care

2009-07-07T05:45:00.001-07:00

On Monday 6th July, together with No2Abuse, Divorce Manual hosted and chaired the debate 'Failing to Care' at Westminster, which focused on children in the care system, families and social work.

The debate illicited an enormous amount of interest from the audience who after a moment's silence, began to ask the panel insightful and powerful questions about the future of the family justice system. Together with the audience, the panel touched upon child abuse, mental health, the ever growing definition of the concept of family, divorce, thresholds for risk and the quality of social work in Britain.

It was a privilege to be able to welcome Lord Listowel, the Vice Chair of the APG, on the panel at the last minute, who graciously accepted my invitation and was a thought provoking, positive and passionate contributor to the evening's debate. The audience too were marvelous and the courage of both mothers, fathers and young adults as they spoke out about their experiences was touching and admirable. It was refreshing to note that at least one young lady who spoke that evening had had a good experience in the care system and it served as a stark reminder that we need to continue encouraging the gifted and vocational professionals in the sector as well as being resolute about promoting positive changes overall.

Many thanks also to the panel who kindly came to contribute their wealth of knowledge and experience to the debate and to share it with all of us and a special thank you to John Hemming, without whom we would not have been able to conduct the event at Westminster and a thank you to his recording team and John Green who set up the recording facilities for the evening.

Panel Members:
John Hemming MP
Ivor Frank, Barrister
Tim Loughton MP
Will McMahon, Care Leavers' Association
Teresa Cooper, No2Abuse
Wes Cuell, NSPCC
Terri Dowty, ARCH
Natasha Finlayson, The Who Cares Trust
Dr Eileen Munroe, LSE
Lord Listowel, Vice Chair APG

Chair: Natasha Phillips (Divorce Manual)

Keeping Mum

2009-06-17T08:40:00.000-07:00

Son's Head Revisited

Once again, I found myself in the Head’s office with the Lord this morning. Son had not finally decided to claim his stake in independence and burn the school down (although at five I would have accredited that with some ingenuity and criminal elegance) but to discuss son’s impending move to his new school.

It was an awkward morning at first, made all the more awkward by the Lord’s brave efforts at trying to get Head to actively encourage our leaving, a move I could see The Lord had made to try and smooth things over, which was understandable but I could feel my cheeks warming red and my eyeballs expanding just a little, the pupils dilating in shock and horror (and not just the ones standing outside the door eavesdropping).

Nevertheless it was a cheerful, upbeat meeting and after, we went for some food. The Lord had been kind enough not to cross examine me on finding full time work on this occasion and even came up with a good plan for son and I to move to London in the future, which I could do on my own. He told me he wanted to start up another business which he could do from home involving research and for a brief moment, I thought about how he had often tried to acquire more contact by means of alluding to this possibility. Moving in to London would give the Lord an opportunity to force the issue of contact as we would be living so much closer and I wanted to tell him that our proximity was not the issue but that son’s stability was. This, however, would be jumping the gun and I was allowing the legacy of our history to presuppose his motivations.

Although I have not been wrong yet about how patterns in our life have evolved post the separation, I reminded myself that the last sentiment was unhelpful and that looking forward and without fear was the most sensible option. Sometimes a blatantly philosophical outlook just makes you feel like a bimbo. At other times, it reminds you of how resilient the human condition is.

I could not fault the Lord this afternoon; he was truly charming, although I could have done without the rather graphic and crude jokes that accompanied his sartorial wit (he crossed so many boundaries, I ended up feeling like a fugitive on the run). It was a lovely meal and we spent a total of three hours together (counting down the time had become a force of habit, a way to remind myself that the torture would soon be over. Now, looking at my watch, I stared at the hour hand with pleasure and contentment, for the first time in a long time).

In the back of my mind, a really irritating, pedantic little voice made itself known “Natasha, this does not mean the Lord will not do what he thinks is right in the future; this does not mean that he has put to bed the issues that have been plaguing him for so long. Don’t be a bimbo. On guard, my girl, on guard”!

Realising the sad complexity of the truth and the understanding that the road to hell is often paved with good intentions, I mentally acknowledged the niggling voice, put my best foot forward and made my way to the car. But not before I told the voice to clam it.

Keeping Mum

2009-06-10T05:59:00.000-07:00

Make me an Offer I can't refuse

Today, the Lord and I had an appointment with son's headmistress. The purpose of our visit was to chat about future schools for son and not at all about son's behaviour. Ironically, son is model pupil and aspiring gent (headmistress's words, not mine – obviously she has not seen son get antsy when denied renegade jelly babies before bed time)which is funny really as I made a living out of being a full time rebel at school, although admittedly a polite one (Me at thirteen in school: "I am now going to do a speech on why religion is an illusion and a political tool designed to simulate independent thought processes within an entirely dependent and vulnerable demographic"....I know, I know, it was that awkward pre-pubescent phase).

The Lord and I had a fantastic meeting with the head, where we narrowly managed to avoid World War Three, this time between the headmistress and the Lord who inadvertently and quite innocently, passed a statement which may or may not have appeared to indicate that another school was trying to poach son from present school. After engaging in a little damage control, the Lord and I had a chat outside the school gates. Now, these chats are always emotional minefields and I do tend to worry about how my sentiments will get interpreted. For instance, The Lord asked to speak to me prior to our meeting this morning and as he did not wish to discuss anything on the phone, I took the view, as historical evidence was on my side, that I was about to face an inquisition. Would I be questioned again on son’s eating habits? Quizzed on the chemical properties of milk? Worse still, had son said something that may have led the Lord to believe that I was the engineer of a rift between himself and son?

It is at times like these when I always have to check myself, to remind myself that the Lord is human and that time moves on and allows feelings to change and evolve if both parties are meticulous in their respect for one another. I had been meticulous, godammit and I wasn’t going to let my anxiety tarnish my open mind. My worries were legitimate but the extent of my concern was not. The need to talk was solely about son’s scholastic future and whilst this conversation in and of itself posed the risk of communication setbacks, weaving topics like contact (which the Lord always does as he is unhappy with the contact arrangements) and intent in and out like the mental merry go round such communication invariably is with the Lord, I continued to remind myself that the Lord was just a man. A man with quite a good plan as it turned out.

The Lord and I had lunch together and we discussed many things. Cabbages and kings. Schools and locations, logistics and statistics; underscored, it seemed, by less and less of those unwelcome guerrilla tactics. We discussed the option of my moving to London, which I had always envisaged for son, as there was a school there that both the Lord and I wanted son to attend. We spoke of the possibility of my getting full time work, which I explained was my intention and the Lord hinted this would be the way forward with a view to me financing a new place to live in town and that ‘we’ could find other solutions and what about son changing contact so that if I could not move into town, he could stay with the Lord? I thought that this was not a good idea at this time as son was adjusting well to his new life and more upheaval at a time when his schooling was going to change would destabilise his environment too much.

I reassured the Lord by telling him that I looked forward to a time when son moved freely between us as he wished and re-iterated that my concerns were genuine and not borne out of a desire to prevent more contact. I told him of the work that I was doing, anxious all the while that he might feel my involvement in the courts was somehow a reflection of our own history there but I decided to trust him, to allow him to trust me. And although he pushed quite hard to get me to find full time work immediately (which seemed odd as it felt like an invasion of my privacy), I did not think anything of it at the time. I laughed, he laughed, we swapped insults, traded perspectives; oh, it was all going so well.

At the end of the meal, I got up from the table feeling elated. We were doing it, we were really doing it; full and frank communication uncomplicated by suspicion and subterfuge. And then the Lord hit me with a revelation. As we stood outside the restaurant, I could see his eyes fill with renewed determination; there was a shift in the atmosphere. “You know Natasha, anything is possible if we can get along. I can help you with, well, solutions, Natasha”.

When I left the Lord four years ago, I took the view that whatever maintenance the Lord gave me should be limited as it was not my money that I worked to earn and was reticent to take anything as it made me feel morally uncomfortable. I swallowed my pride to prioritise the day to day care of son as I felt being a full time mother was important with such a small child and with a view to working full time when son was big enough to understand things. As a result, finances are strained but manageable. However, to move towns, I knew I would need an income and the Lord has in the past tried to offer financial help with a trade off for more contact.

How could I explain any more clearly that my views were based on our son’s best interests? That he saw son frequently and almost shared the time 50-50, leaving me to wonder why there was always an implicit tug of war in our communication.
In my less hopeful moments, I feel drained, bullied and harassed by the constant impositions the Lord makes, the perpetual offers by all accounts I should not be able to refuse, and yet in my better moments, I see the Lord’s frustrations and feel a deep sadness for his labyrinth hurt.

Leaving the Lord this afternoon, I left him with a parting thought. “I know that you are not happy with contact as it stands but I genuinely believe it is right for our son. We already do get along and there will be times, just as with married couples, that we will disagree and get angry; maybe you had a bad day at work and you might have taken it out on me and I may have had a bad day and gotten emotional with you. This does not mean that there is a differing intent beneath the surface. It just means that there are two parents who love their son very much and who both want the best for him. As his mother, you should know that I would never want to burden our son with bitter emotion or any kind of emotional displacement towards you”. I wanted to tell him that the logistics of divorce was such that true 50-50 sharing was an enigma, a known destabilising factor that did more harm than good in a world where children need an anchor. I wanted to tell the Lord that I was not the enemy, that his anxieties and misplaced assumptions were the gremlins infiltrating his thoughts and that I wished he would trust me. But how could I, knowing how these sentiments always fall on deaf ears.

The Lord had also told me that afternoon that he was planning to leave his job to do something else. Did this mean he wanted to find more flexible work to make a case for more contact? I did not know the answer to this, but I did know that the issue of contact would continue to be a thorn in our side and that the Lord was going to use son’s scholastic movements as a way to wage his war rather than build stability and a mutual trust between us. It was just a game. Aunty Elle turned out not to be his girlfriend after all; the Lord had not even been on a date since our separation.

So where did I stand, this afternoon, in the pouring rain, wondering how many more strategic manoeuvres I would have to face and deflect? Where was my heart, when my head was being tested and my will tried for the millionth time? I would need at least two pralines before I could mull this particular emotional conundrum over with any gusto. But one thing was clear; if the Lord did not get a girlfriend soon, I was going to have to think very seriously about finding him one. Hmm, such calculations are not my forte. I would need at least three pralines, one of my more mischievous girlfriends and at least three good chick flicks to really get into the spirit!

Keeping Mum

2009-06-08T05:38:00.000-07:00

The Birthday

Son had his birthday party this week end and miraculously, the heavens emptied themselves just before the party and the sun burst through the clouds and lit the venue up with warmth and light. Son’s friends’ parents were very impressed and remarked on the wonderful weather change; I momentarily got confused and thought that perhaps the Lord had also managed to conjure up the good weather as well as the lovely venue and then realised, quite rationally, that this was not possible.

This year’s party though, came about with a twist. I had received an e mail from a very close mutual friend who I had not heard from for years and was delighted to hear from her. Son and her daughter had been best friends and I thought immediately to invite them to the party. This was a big decision, which I made in the blink of an eye but with full awareness. This would be a good test of The Lord’s thresholds and a good faith gesture on my part to show that despite personal views on how events had transpired during our divorce, there was never a question of my not being egalitarian in relation to our friends. I subsequently asked the Lord if our friend could attend and he agreed to the invite very happily.

Children can smell birthday presents from one hundred paces away, and son is no exception. At 6am, he awoke bright eyed and brain bleary, but filled with excitement and anticipation and so we fell out of bed and went into the living room to open the presents. His first music bag, complete with a selection of CD’s he asked for, thrilled him and the stuffed furry animals grandpa had gotten him instantly needed to be named. I suggested we give the animals names that reflected their origins (Swahili for the cheetah, Bengali for the tiger and Chinese for the Snow Leopard) and I could see son’s eyes begin to glaze over. Unsure as to whether this was due to the early start or the standardised reaction son gives me whenever I try to make the environment as exciting as a sugar high, I persevered under the delusion of the former and tried to lure son into the spirit of the name game by saying we would consult the computer as to which names from which region might please him. As I know son loves fiddling on the computer, I thought this was a master stroke, one which would allow son to have fun and choose a lovely name for his new pets whilst opening his mind to the myriad adventures and emotions geography offers.

So far so good. We found some online dictionaries and started looking. But son was clearly not ‘feeling’ the process. We chose three names quickly and moved on. After the present ceremony was over, we got ready for the party and then made our way to the venue. The Lord was already there and soon after son’s friends began to arrive. The morning’s events included a puppet show and then party food. The puppet show was lovely despite the momentary shock the parents visibly expressed when it looked like the puppet princess was about to get naked (it was a rendition of the Princess and the Pea) and when the clamp came out, one of the mother’s couldn’t resist asking if the fluffy handcuffs were to follow. I confess to being doubled up with a giggle fit at this point and in no fit state to make any kind of intelligent remark. It was the quirkiest damn puppet show any of us had ever seen, but if the parents were laughing hard, the children were laughing harder.

The day went without one bad incident although there were occasions when I could see the Lord was mildly perturbed by the affection son showed me; sensitive to this vulnerability, I took the opportunity to remove myself from the party at one point to allow father and son to interact. I hoped this would assuage the Lord and give him the interaction he needed. The mutual friends turned up and even stayed to have lunch with us afterwards. There was an implicit awkwardness to the scenario there, but overridden by a desire on everyone’s part to see the bigger picture. It was fascinating to observe and sometimes I wondered how I felt about the awkwardness, a torn ligament healing itself. It was a mixture of relief and tension. Mild symptoms masked by a determination to express the unconditional love for a small being that makes up the largest sentiment in one’s soul.

Being a divorced parent is indeed like SAS style training for the United Nations; Nuclear reactor sighted? Check. Reactive chemicals identified? Check. Neutralising properties administered? Check. Disaster averted!

Keeping Mum

2009-05-27T15:45:00.000-07:00

Handover

Catch up: Having agreed to go to therapy with the Lord of War, who insisted on the sessions under the pretext that I was quite mad and that he needed to get full custody of our son on that basis (and have me committed at the same time), and subsequently having been cleared of all charges and allowed to remain the mother of my child, things appear to be calming down. Things appear to be more civilised. And yet, with what cannot be seen bubbling away under the surface of the Lord of War's armour, this pacifist mum is always......on guard!

Handover this week went remarkably well. The Lord was quite charming; over lunch he made jokes about my eating habits (apparently I have a good apetite) and even told me that I had a lovely smile, despite there being some basil stuck inbetween my teeth (which he also kindly pointed out).

We strolled up and down the main streets of London with our son. It was hot, so the Lord decided it would be nice for our son to wear a T shirt and shorts and went into a store to purchase these items as he was in a thick tracksuit and jumper and the weather had become quite warm. The purchase of said items went without a hiccup and the Lord was kind enough to buy these items but needed reassurance that putting on newly bought underpants would not compromise the integrity of our son's hygiene. After a debate as to whether it would be ok for our son to wear pants that had not been first washed and my repeated confirmation that no harm would come to our son, the pants, shorts and T shirt went on and we went on our way.

We stopped at our favourite frozen yoghurt shop and ordered our respective yoghurts. This ended our afternoon together and son and I waved goodbye to Daddy and left London to go home.

It is not unusual under such circumstances for children to repeat parrot fashion what they have heard in other environments and that day I learned many things. Clearly, there had been some debate over milk and its 'growing' properties. The Lord and I have always been at odds over the milk debate, his belief being that all children must drink the stuff even if they hate it and my belief being that as long as children find a calcium rich food they like, milk drinking need not be compulsory. For some reason, this remains a bone of contention for The Lord (pun intended). So you can imagine my surprise when son began to tell me that not only did his father advocate milk drinking and insist on it (nothing new there) but Daddy's 'friend' Aunty Elle also said the same. Oh great; it's not enough that The Lord continues to fly the banner of 'lactose living' but I was now being ganged up against by a mysterious relative called Elle on the subject.....

Now. I have been looking forward to the day when The Lord finds love again. This is not altogether an altruistic sentiment on my part. The devil makes work for idle thumbs and over the last two years, I have been that life's work..... but wishing him happiness is certainly something I would consider a part of my subconscious desire to see The Lord live life again to the full. But why, oh why, did he have to find love with a doctor? Now, not only do I get to hear what The Lord thinks about milk and other such matters, but I get a parody of sermons superimposed onto these mantras which include breakdowns of the benefits of milk and how one must look at the colour of one's pee to ascertain whether or not one has drunk enough water and, in fact, the virtues of checking one's eyeballs for yellowishness, the reason for which now escapes me. Am thinking this is a bit much for a four year old to digest but in true son style, he takes it all in his stride. For my part, knowing that son is grounded and that I have a healthy sense of humour, these changes are not destabalising; they simply are.

And it would appear that for now at least, Aunty Elle has taken the edge off The Lord's sensitivities. Eyelashes crossed.

Podcast: Families Need Fathers

2009-05-13T13:40:00.000-07:00

Jon Davies, CEO of Families Need Fathers explains the illusion of the adversary and why mothers look to FNF for support.

Podcast: John Hemming MP

2009-04-28T14:45:00.000-07:00

John explains the hidden problems in the family justice system and why removing the court's stiff upper lip will create the kind of flexibility that turns rigid process into riveting progress.

Radio Wey: Webster's Week

2009-04-27T01:55:00.000-07:00

On Friday 24th April, Divorce Manual was privileged to be asked to co-host Webster's Week with Jonathan Webster. Special Guest, Philip Hammond MP, was grilled by Jonathan on the Budget and was very sporting in answering some probing questions.

Divorce Manual also got the chance to highlight the latest news and developments in the Family Justice System as well as have a good old natter with Jonathan on the local and international news front.

Many thanks to Radio Wey for having Divorce Manual on the show and for the photographs showing us all getting up to mischief!

(The show will be uploaded shortly).

Human Rights Awards Ceremony April 2009

2009-04-19T15:59:00.000-07:00

This month Teresa Cooper received a Human Rights Award for her outstanding work in exposing the difficulties in care homes around Britain. I was allowed to come along to the ceremony and make a nuissance of myself :)

Podcast: Carl Gardner

2009-04-15T07:29:00.001-07:00

Carl Gardner, barrister extraordinaire and passionate professor, explains the art behind law-making and why bishops are best suited to cloisters and not courts.

Podcast: Lucy Reed

2009-04-14T13:02:00.000-07:00

Lucy Reed gives an insider's view of the Family Justice System and tells Divorce Manual why the internet is a barrister's final frontier...

Podcast: Family Lore

2009-04-11T12:36:00.000-07:00

John Bolch, Cyberspace's very own Gentleman of Family Law, talks to Divorce Manual about the constants and the changes in the family justice system and why even gallant lawyers take time out to shoot at things.

Podcast: Radio Wey

2009-04-03T15:06:00.000-07:00

Radio Wey chats with Divorce Manual about the impending media proposals for the English Family Courts and whether the courts are private or in fact secret.

Podcast: Breakup Angels

2009-04-03T15:05:00.000-07:00

Kirsten Gronning and Jackie Walker explain the innovative ideas behind Breakup Angels and why snorting is acceptable behaviour during a relationship crisis.

Podcast: No2Abuse

2009-04-03T14:59:00.000-07:00

No2Abuse tells Divorce Manual why our Nanny State can no longer ignore child abuse.

INTERVIEW, MARCH 2009: Fiona, Divorce Survivor Blog

2009-03-09T03:44:00.001-07:00

Fiona’s blog on Scottish Family Law and Divorce “Divorce Survivor” is a personal account of her experience and her observations on the Scottish system which suffers too with flaws and faults. In this interview, Fiona tells us why she started blogging, what problems the Scottish system faces and details some highly insightful observations of the tone and flavour of Divorce in Scotland.

How did you find yourself in the world of Scottish Family Law?

My background is in engineering and mental health and I have two children who are now young adults. Our son is currently at home studying engineering and his sister is in Australia, half way through a year's round the world trip. I separated 10 years ago before the Family Law(Scotland) Act 2006 so without consent I found myself in the world of Scottish Family Law for almost 5 years before the actual divorce.

What led you to start blogging?

I was travelling to Europe a lot and spent time in airport lounges reading or hooked up the internet trying to fathom out how the law worked. Blogging seemed like a good way of sharing information and news and learning from others. There appeared to be no other blogs about Family Law in Scotland or even non commercial sites or forums. It also requires a bit of thought on my part because it is so different from my usual day to day work.

What would you say today is the most fundamental malfunction of the Scottish System?

A lack of dedicated family courts. To my knowledge only Glasgow has dedicated family courts and I have heard solicitors complaining it takes two weeks to get an urgent case before a judge. From a layperson’s point of view, court rules and procedures are difficult to follow and sifting through the ordinary rules is complicated and it is not possible to understand them just through reading them. The win/lose approach of traditional advocacy to secure the best possible deal for one party at the expense of the other does not serve separating families well.

How do divorcing parties in Scotland feel about the legal representation they receive in general?

I think it is very difficult to ascertain what divorcing parties really feel about legal representation in Scotland. On the whole divorce does not receive the same media coverage in Scotland as it does in England and there has been very little use made of the internet in the past, although that is changing. No one likes paying money to a solicitor and there are a few very vocal people but the majority are silent. There was a new independent Scottish Legal Complaints Commission launched in October 2008 and in some quarters there are concerns about how independent it really is. Family lawyers here seem cautious and fairly conservative.

Can you tell us a little about the set up in Scotland of the Family Courts and the system as a whole?

There are two different procedures for divorce. Divorce is available where a marriage has broken down irretrievably and is established by proving one of four circumstances: adultery, unreasonable behaviour, one years’ separation with consent or two years' separation without consent. In the last year figures are available 92% of divorces were granted on the separation grounds. Conditions for using the simplified procedure are the ground for the divorce being relied upon is one of the separation grounds; the action is not being defended by the other party to the marriage; there are no children under 16; neither party is applying for an order for financial provision on divorce and there is no indication that either of the parties is unable to manage his/her affairs because of mental illness or impairment. To apply for a divorce under this procedure the applicant fills in a form giving the reason for the divorce and information to support it. This is submitted to the court and if the other party does not object the court will grant the divorce decree.

When the conditions for a divorce under the Simplified Procedure are not met the Ordinary divorce procedure is used and it is advisable to use a solicitor. The action begins with the solicitor for the pursuer drafting the summons (Court of Session) or initial writ (sheriff court). This is a formal document stating all the facts which is sent to the court. Where both parties are in agreement the action proceeds as an undefended divorce. Sworn statements are usually provided by the divorce applicant and the solicitor submits the statements to the court. The judge examines the case in private and the divorce decree will then be granted unless the court requires further information.

The defender may decide to defend the action, either because they object to the divorce itself, or because they dispute some aspect of the future arrangements for the care of any children, the proposed financial provision on divorce or both of these matters. If during the process defended actions are settled by agreement a Joint Minute of Agreement can be drawn up.

If the divorce involves a dispute in respect of children and the action is being defended in the sheriff court, the next step in proceedings is a Child Welfare Hearing. The sheriff may also order such a hearing in other instances where they consider it appropriate. This is intended to bring about the quick resolution of disputes about children, proving that this can be done in a manner consistent with the child’s welfare. All parties are required to attend the hearing personally and are under a duty to provide the sheriff with as much information as possible so that he or she can take whatever steps necessary to deal with the matter. The court may also refer the dispute to a mediator accredited to a specified family mediation organisation at any stage in the proceedings

Where a divorce is defended in the sheriff court the next stage is an Options Hearing. This is intended to give parties a chance to meet before the sheriff in order to ascertain if agreement can be reached without proceeding to a full proof (see below) or, if this is not possible, to focus the precise disagreement between parties.

If the matters at issue are not resolved the case proceeds to a 'proof.' A proof is a full court hearing where evidence is given by witnesses in proceedings open court. It can be reported by the media, subject to certain restrictions aimed at protecting 'public morals' and children. If the grounds of the divorce action are proven, the court will grant a decree of divorce.

What would say the Scottish Family Court's philosophy is in relation to processing cases as an overall impression?

The approach is relatively narrow and as the family courts are not hugely cultivated, it is perhaps viewed as secondary to our other courts.

Is Collaborative Law an option in Scotland?

Alternative dispute resolution is well developed and one of the strengths of Scottish divorce. The introduction of collaborative law in Scotland is relatively new but suits the ethos of settling out of court well.

How has the economic downturn affected the Family Justice System in Scotland?

The economic downturn has affected mainly lawyers involved in property and so far Family Law does not seem badly hit. House prices tend to fluctuate so much in Scotland as they do in England. According to the media the biggest effect so far has been an increase in the number of men who qualify to divorce in England & Wales or Scotland applying here because they perceive the Scottish system is less generous to wives.

What are the strengths of the Scottish system?

The law aims to provide certainty and out of court settlements and it is underpinned by the "clean break" to encourage parties to readjust to a lower standard of living or a return to independence. There are now also some rights to financial provision for cohabitants.

If there was one thing you could change about the Scottish system, what would it be and why?

The introduction of a mandatory Family Law protocol so everyone is clear where they stand and when there is good reason for complaint.

09/03/09

INTERVIEW, FEBRUARY 2009 : Jackie Walker, Breakup Angels

2009-02-19T07:26:00.000-08:00

Jackie Walker is one half of a dynamic, pioneering duo which also includes Kirsten Gronning and together they make up the ground-breaking organisation Breakup Angels, which is dedicated to helping people going through divorce emotionally, financially and pragmatically.

Breakup Angels makes up part of the cutting edge Collaborative Movement in Family Law and together with life coaches, lawyers and many others, the organisation focuses on working through life crises with the compassion and the respect required to really make a difference.

In this interview, Jackie tells us why adversarial methods are a thing of the past and how Breakup Angels fits neatly into the twenty first century’s vision of Family Law.

1. Jackie, yourself and Kirsten Gronning are the co-founders of Breakup Angels; what kind of organisation is it and how did you come up with the idea?

Breakup Angels is a fast growing collaboration of quality professionals and organisations including family lawyers, financial consultants, coaches, mentors, counsellors and mediators skilled at supporting separating and divorcing people. We offer - or find someone through our network of experts who offers - support for all the reasonable emotional, financial, legal and practical issues which arise for people who are facing separation; going through the process, or who are still trying to find answers well after breaking up.

It’s clear that traditional adversarial methods of resolving family conflicts are impacting adversely across every aspect of family life. Newer initiatives eg. collaborative family law, whilst welcome, are slow to make an impact. In 2006 more than 132,000 couples divorced in England and Wales, impacting 125,000 children with huge financial and emotional cost. Countless other co-habiting, unmarried couples split too with similar issues and we are starting to see civil partnership breaking down too.

We felt that there needed to be a new approach to relationship breakdown and want to see people who need help get the right help and not just approach the legal profession as their only port of call.

2. Both you and Kirsten focus on different angles within family dilemmas: how do they work together?

Yes, Kirsten has vast personal experience of the practical processes of family law and her focus within Breakup Angels is at the coalface when people are actually getting divorced, visiting lawyers, going to court, negotiating settlements etc. My own experience is more focussed on those who realise that their relationship is breaking down, who are considering divorce and also those who are have gone through it all and are now looking to build a new life for themselves. I tend to focus on people’s emotional wellbeing. Together therefore we cover every angle and the way we work is openly recognising what the client needs – because we take every situation on its own merits we can refer the client to the most appropriate helper.

3. What kind of training is involved?

Both Kirsten and I are qualified coaches. Kirsten has a Life and Executive coaching diploma and is a Mackenzie Friend. I’m a Master Practitioner of NLP (neuro linguistic programming), Timeline Therapy and Hypnotherapy. Much of the training is experiential and both of us have quite unusually challenging divorces to draw upon. Whilst I don’t believe it’s necessary to break a leg to know it’d be sore, in the case of divorce I believe that having gone through the process is a key part of the training and enables us to empathise with the client allowing us to offer hope.

4. When the Family Courts are unable to offer families the support they need and the cost of court is prohibitive, organisations like yours offer a real alternative for mind, body and wallet! What other factors about the Family Justice System do you note that makes it an awkward arena for the resolution of family issues?

Family law has come a long way since the early 80s when it was seen as just another type of litigation .The formation of the Solicitors Family Law Association led to Resolution, the name for the group of over 5000 solicitors, who are committed to promoting a non-confrontational atmosphere in which family law matters are dealt with in an sensitive, constructive and cost-effective way.

The majority of cases which go to court – 9 out of 10 - settle before the final hearing2. One of the law firms we refer clients to report that 74% of their firm’s cases start the court process, usually as a means to negotiate with a recalcitrant spouse. With their average divorce costing almost £10K (multiply that by two to get both parties costs) and by two again to allow for the fact that London lawyers often charge more than double the rest of the country, you can see how much money people are spending on divorce. How many of these people regret going to court in the first place? Why are they there? What could have been done at an earlier stage – by their lawyer or themselves – to prevent it from going to court?

Lawyers are supposed to tell their clients about mediation but I wonder how many do. My clients often think mediation is the same as couples counselling and others say they have never been told about mediation by their lawyers. Who is responsible for marketing the advantages of mediation? If it’s down to lawyers then it’s plainly not happening. If it’s down to not-for-profit agencies, how much more money can be put towards their marketing efforts to get the message across?

But the growth of collaborative law is, hopefully a positive indicator of the commitment of a growing number of lawyers who recognise the need for a different approach to divorce – one moves away from over 30 years of adversarial law to one which encourages splitting families to want to find their own solutions. We feel this is a great, if late, start – but it still begs the question as to who will educate them in this way? Because if the message can’t be put out fast, then the courts will continue to be used by people who are in a really hard place because they’ve left it all too late; when it’s easier to use litigation as a last resort (and for the wrong reasons) than to consider dispute resolution options and take part responsibility for the breakup – and how to deal with it.

5. The concept of third party family support during divorce has been promoted in America and seems to be working well as a model there: bearing in mind the cultural differences between the States and the UK, and our tangible cynicism when it comes to medical experts, your brand of guidance offers a perfect middle ground. What would you say to families who may be shy to try your service?

We have now amassed a raft of case studies which prove the benefits of working with a non judgemental third party. In the UK it has taken time for people even to consider counselling or going to their doctor – however the tide is turning and it’s becoming so much more commonplace for people to recognise that they need or want help and that it’s now available. In the UK divorce coaches do not need to have the medical expertise (it’s too off putting for many who think they’re going to see a shrink) – we are able to bridge the gap by being able to help them look forward and build up self confidence, give the most needed and most lacking ingredient which is support and be a shoulder to cry on. Families who are going through a rough patch can kiss and make up or kiss and break up when they are working with us and it’s only fair to say that this is the way forward – a couple who can understand one another’s reasons without anger or angst in order to help the whole family build a new life – together or apart.

6. Breakup Angels is taking part in the Starting Over Show in March this year; can you tell us about the show?

We are delighted to be a part of this ground breaking show which shares Breakup Angels twin missions of informing and inspiring the newly single and others going through life changing situations in a safe, informative and inspirational environment.

The Starting Over Show is the first UK event to help people bounce back from relationship break ups and life crises.

The venue is the lovely Old Ship Hotel by Brighton’s Pier and the date is Sunday 15 March. Breakup Angels will be hosting the free financial and debt surgery and there is also a free legal surgery from Wikivorce. Breakup Angels Facilitators will be offering free laser coaching sessions. The guest speaker is Daily Mail columnist Anna Pasternak (Daisy Dooley Does Divorce) and the Divorce Doctor Francine Kaye will be running a workshop.

Courageous men and women who are going through or facing separation or divorce and who want to learn that there are many ways to get a divorce or break up, and to see the choices open to them will find a very warm welcome!

7. Collaborative Law also shares the same spirit as your organisation; the desire to work with rather than against family conflict is catching on in the UK: is there a place for resources like yours within Collaborative Law?

Absolutely and we have worked with clients in the collaborative process as well as spoken to collaborative lawyers about their client’s needs.

Clients pre-collaborative process may have a number of questions which they feel they can't put to their lawyer or they may feel unready to appoint a lawyer yet but pressure may be put on them by their (ex) partner. If they are going through the collaborative process, they may feel the process is not going well because they can't communicate their needs and preferences in the four-way meetings, or they may worry about losing control in the meetings and what effect this will have on their ability to stay in the process.

As a result we offer our program:

"What's stopping me from reaching agreement in Collaborative Family Law" which is a support program designed for people thinking of, or going through, the Collaborative Family Law Process and who are looking for help for the non-legal questions.
Areas where Breakup Angels can really help with non-legal support include support with emotional issues, for example:

• To find the courage to enter into the process.
• To learn how to communicate more effectively in the 4 way meetings.
• To understand their partner's emotional state (and their own) in order to understand their respective needs and wants.
• To find the confidence to believe in their ability to make the right choices.
Previous clients have also requested support with practical issues for example:
• How to find a collaborative lawyer right for them.
• What questions to ask of their collaborative family lawyer.
• To discuss alternatives; to off-load; to have an independent yet knowledgeable expert second opinion.

Clients are also assured that they are doing everything they can engage with the collaborative family process and that they make it as time and cost efficient as possible. This is an important factor in enabling the whole family to move on after the process is ended and the agreements signed.

We are unable to answer any legal questions but we will encourage you to ask these of your lawyer. With your permission, we will work with your lawyer. By using our services you are likely to save not only time and anguish, but preserve family assets by becoming better equipped to acknowledge and deal with the tension which leads to prolonged argument and escalating legal costs.

8. The legal system may be hesitant to incorporate organisations like yours because they do not have a governing body: how would you address this concern?

It is heartening that parts of the legal profession are now recognising our contribution and how, by working together for example, by sharing expertise and best practice in Breakup Angels, we are creating a win/win/win outcome – better support and best possible solutions for the families breaking up, with reduced cost and stress. We will be ready to welcome them. There are many legal companies already who are more than happy to embrace our offerings and we know that it is only a matter of time before others are brave enough to follow suit.

9. What has been your best experience to date running Breakup Angels?

To date, my best experience given that we are a fledgling company is the wholehearted welcome from professionals and clients alike. It seems to us that we are addressing the key issues head on, in a way which none of the individual experts could do given their professional bias. We act as a voice for both client and professional to provide a better support service leading to less adversarial cases and it is an opportunity which we are proud to take on.

10. If there was one piece of advice you would give to divorcing couples, what would it be?

We’d ask them what they were looking to achieve by divorcing and then the piece of advice which is most needed is – Your solicitor may or may not be the best first port of call. Please remember that the other person has a right to respect as a human being even though they seem to be at loggerheads with you just now. Please remember that they too are working through a tough situation.

INTERVIEW, FERBUARY 2009: Justin Patten, Human Law Mediation

2009-02-05T06:02:00.000-08:00

Justin Patten is an experienced solicitor turned accredited mediator and set up Human Law Mediation in 2002 when he observed that mediation was a powerful tool for legal dispute resolution. Justin has written several articles for high profile publications on issues relating to mediation and is frequently interviewed and his advice sought out on this fast growing and fascinating area of law. Justin also has his own award winning blog, Human Law. In this interview, Justin tells us why mediation is the way forward and how it is shaping our attitudes towards resolving legal dilemmas.

Can you tell us a little about why you became a solicitor?

I became a solicitor as I felt that the work would be intellectually challenging yet do something that would interact with people as well.

Your field of expertise is mediation; how does mediation work?

To some extent this depends on the type of training you have had in mediation and the field of law that you work in. Generally it involves the mediator sitting down with the parties initially together and thereafter on an individual basis to identify the issues and whether there is scope for a solution.

What different types of mediation are there and is it a flexible and responsive medium?

I prefer a different form of wording because it may be better to say what forms of ADR (alternative dispute resolution) there are.
Essentially you have mediation, negotiation (which we all do every day), conciliation and arbitration to name but a few. In family law you have what is called mediation but it is less formal and more direct than say commercial mediation. Essentially the tools of ADR are flexible and can be tailored to the individual situation.

As a lawyer, how do you find mediation and legal intervention work side by side?

It works side by side as any lawyer should be looking for an opportunity to settle a case provided it is in the clients' interests. Since mediation works in at least 70% of cases it is a tool which can enable a lawyer to help settle a case prior to going to trial.

Lawyers are born to battle; are there any difficulties in using lawyers in the mediation process and does their involvement drive mediation away from collaboration and towards polarisation of the parties?

The statement "lawyers are born to battle" is a little provocative but there can be an unnecessary polarisation in the mediation process due to macho posturing by lawyers. There can be difficulties but effective lawyers have an understanding of the process and know when to give and take. If a lawyer knows what he or she is doing, problems can be avoided.

How do you see mediation evolving in the Family Justice System?

I think you will, see more of it and it becoming more formal, more like the commercial system.

Many going through this system have been exposed to mediation and found that it only works if the parties are open and honest with each other: can a mediator coax that good nature out of the parties involved?

This is a very real issue for mediators. I think coaxing the good nature of parties may be idealistic but ultimately a mediator will identify and communicate to a "difficult" party that in some circumstances settlement is really in their interests.

What would you say are the ingredients needed to be a good mediator?

Ability to listen. Optimism. Integrity. An understanding of the human condition. An ability to know when to apply pressure on a party and when to be quiet. Sometimes silence can be your best tool to resolve a dispute.

What has been your best experience to date in mediation?

Recently I settled a case with a Queens Counsel in mediation. It was satisfying to settle a very difficult case when the parties were at such loggerheads and at times settlement looked unlikely.

If there was one thing you could change to the mediation process, what would it be and why?

I thought about this and I can honestly say I am happy with the process primarily as it is so flexible. The danger is that if we move to more regulation, mediators will be afraid to experiment and try different things. We must value diversity and flexibility in the process and recognise the individual strength of mediators.

INTERVIEW, FEBRUARY 2009 : John Bolch, Family Lore

2009-02-02T10:50:00.001-08:00

John Bolch is a highly experienced Family Law solicitor at Winch & Winch Solicitors and has a blog called Family Lore which is an excellent site for up to date information on Family Law and the people who work within the system. John was one of the first members of the Law Society's Family Law Panel and is also a member of Resolution. In this interview, John explains why the Family Justice System is often misunderstood.

What led you to work as a Family Law solicitor?

Quite simple: When I finished my articles (i.e. training), the firm I was with had a vacancy in their matrimonial department. I had already spent much of my articles doing family work, I liked the work, and I stayed on.

Which aspects of Family Law do you focus on and do you do any Legal Aid work?

Most of my work these days comprises divorce, ancillary relief (financial/property settlements on divorce), private law children disputes and cohabite disputes. Of those, ancillary relief probably takes up the most time.

I gave up doing legal aid work about five years ago, after having spent about twenty years doing predominantly legal aid work.

The Family Justice System has been heavily criticised in the press over the last two years; do you feel that the criticisms are warranted?

Some, but not most. Unfortunately, privacy rules have tended to work against the system, as they have created a lot of misunderstanding. Yes, mistakes are made, but generally all of those involved in the system are caring people who work hard to achieve the best for all concerned, especially the children – that has been my experience at least.

What is the most prevalent complaint about the system that you hear on a regular basis from your clients, notwithstanding the possible discomfort at not getting the result they wanted in its entirety?

Probably the most common complaint is from husbands and fathers, who feel that the system is biased against them. Of course, there is no presumption in favour of either party, and it is usually practicalities that decide with whom the children should reside and what the financial/property settlement should be.

The government seems to be upsetting the general public, specifically those with families, with their new and arguably draconian measures on child support: many feel the government has turned Britain into a Nazi State where civil liberties are being eroded away without the nation's consent – what is your view?

This is a difficult one. On the one hand there obviously need to be effective means to enforce payment of child support, but on the other hand I have no time for the headline-grabbing ‘quick-fixes’ of which this Government is so enthusiastic. Of course, part of the problem is making the system fair, and I am not convinced that any system based upon a rigid formula can ever be fair in all cases. The old court-based system was not perfect, but at least it worked a lot better than the child support system.

You are the author of a well known and wonderful blog called Family Lore which highlights the issues of the day in the system and promotes existing and up and coming views on the practice of family law. Pressure groups online seem to be having an effect on how the government responds to its policies in this area, most recently seen by the new media proposals in the family courts: how important would you say is the internet when considering its potential for instigating more effective legislation and directing pragmatic precedent?

It is of increasing importance. The internet is becoming the primary means for voicing opinions, something that the Government recognized when it set up ePetitions. Unfortunately, the Government’s (lack of) response to ePetitions all too often seems to indicate that they are not listening, and are just paying lip-service to the new media. I think they will soon have to listen.

Lawyers are often perceived by the public as large and grey with rows of sharp retractable teeth! Does court culture in your opinion, with its ingrained adversarial approach make it easier or harder for families to resolve their dilemmas not just in the short term but in the long term too?

Well, I can assure you that my teeth are neither sharp nor retractable! Having said that, I agree entirely that the adversarial approach is not appropriate to resolve family disputes. This is, in fact, recognized by the system, which encourages settlement at all stages up until final hearing. Unfortunately, all too often the parties demand their ‘day in court’, sometimes encouraged by their lawyers.

Collaborative law is being used more frequently in Britain; how do you see this area of law evolving over the next five years?

It’s all about take-up. Coverage is pretty sketchy at present, and there is no point in going to the time and expense of training to be a collaborative lawyer if there are no other collaborative lawyers in your area, as there will be no one to represent the other party. If we get national coverage, however, then I see the collaborative approach becoming a major alternative to the conventional ways of resolving disputes, perhaps even the most popular method.

What strengths do you note about the Family Justice System?

As I’ve indicated above, I believe its main strength is the people who work within it. For the most part they are caring, dedicated people doing their best under difficult circumstances, and getting very little credit for it. I fear that all of the criticisms and lack of rewards may mean that the system will lose a lot of good people, and discourage new talent.

If there was one thing about the system you could change, what would it be?

There are so many things that I would like to change: a presumption of shared residence, clarification of rules for settlement of property disputes, property rights for cohabitees, a proper reform of child support (or even a return to the court-based system), better funding of the courts, a separate divorce court – the list goes on. The one thing, however, that I think I would most like is a modernizing reform to the divorce laws, including a proper no-fault system – that alone could do so much to reduce animosity and conflict between separating spouses.

INTERVIEW, JANUARY 2009: Suzanne Kingston, Dawsons LLP

2009-01-23T02:18:00.000-08:00

Suzanne Kingston is head of the Family Law department at Dawsons LLP, specialising in family work and has extensive experience in financial matters as well as specialised children cases. A consummate lecturer, she has also written several articles and is frequently sought out by the press for her progressive and incisive opinion.

As well as being an accredited Resolution Mediator, Suzanne has also helped to pioneer the Collaborative Law Movement in England.

How did you come to work as a family law solicitor?

I trained as a solicitor and knew that I wanted to do family law from the outset. I got a family law seat and asked if I could qualify into the family law department which I did. I have therefore been doing family law work for 22 years.

Your work has been very varied, from writing articles for the BBC and online journals on the impact of new precedents in private family law to your involvement with the Law Society Family Law Panel; what in your opinion are the ingredients which make for good legislation?

I think it is important when considering new legislation for the law makers to take soundings from a wide variety of people who are able to provide their views and opinions.

You are also involved with the Children Panel; can you tell us about the Panel and the kind of work it does?

The children panel was formed to provide specialist solicitors for family law cases involving difficult children issues. The Solicitors on the panel have to pass an accreditation scheme and are then able to provide advice and assistance not only in relation to private law family matters but also public law family matters. This means that Solicitors will be able to assist in disputes between two private individuals in relation to their children eg mother and father but also where social services are involved and local authority cases. In those sorts of cases, children themselves are often represented by a guardian and the solicitor give the child's view to the Court.

Mediation is something that you have dedicated a great deal of time to within your practice as well as the use of Collaborative Law to assist your clients: what are the differences between the two?

Mediation is where the mediator acts as a neutral facilitator assisting the couple in reaching an agreement in relation to their cases whereas in the collaborative law process both clients have their collaborative lawyer with them at meetings and the case is conducted by way of a series of four-way meetings with both clients and both lawyers present. Further, in the collaborative law process, the clients and the solicitors sign a Participation Agreement which contains a disqualification clause. This means that if the collaborative process breaks down then the collaborative lawyers are no longer able to act on behalf of the clients and the client must choose new solicitors.

In relation to Collaborative Law, as a phenomenon that had its birth in America in 1990 and was then subsequently exported to England around 2003, can you observe any differences between the two countries' approaches and is there more room for improvement in England's practice of Collaborative Law?

In many ways the English practice of collaborative law has come on in leaps and bounds and is extremely sophisticated. There are probably two major differences between the collaborative law practice in the States and in England and Wales. In the States, more use is made of third party neutral professionals eg: independent financial advisers, accountants, valuers come into the process to help and also more clients are referred to divorce coaches (family consultants) to assist them in relation to any therapeutic issues they may have. At the moment these two features of collaborative practice are less common in England and Wales.

With what may conceivably be viewed as a now three pronged practice of private family law (mediation, collaboration and the dreaded adversarial process) are the three prongs in reality mutually exclusive or can they work efficiently in tandem?

Normally, at the outset, the Solicitor spends some considerable time going through process options with the clients and choosing which is the appropriate process for that particular client. However, it is possible to use the different approaches together and so they are not mutually exclusive.

The world of family law legislation is a fast expanding one and is constantly trying to keep up with the speedy evolutionary nature of the practice of that law, which seems to be moving away from the court room: would the family justice system benefit from a more streamlined set of rules and regulations and if so what would you suggest as a way to move forward?

Perhaps the one thing that could change in English family law is for there to be discretion in terms of financial outcomes so that people approach their financial disputes with more certainty. At the moment, there are a number of competing cases dealing with different aspects of a financial dispute which mean that it is sometimes difficult to advise a client at the outset as to the most likely outcome of their financial dispute. Further, I think some consideration should be given to the forcibility of pre-nuptial agreements so that England and Wales would be put into the same position as many other jurisdictions around the world.

The practice of Family Law requires not only an in-depth knowledge of the legal process but also, a keen understanding of the human condition: can you think of a moment when you felt pleasantly surprised or overawed by a client's compassion?

On several occasions. I have been truly impressed by a client's ability to be selfless and to see the situation from the other party's point of view. That is why I am still doing this work after 22 years!

What advice would you give someone today who was contemplating getting married?
Think about getting a pre nuptial agreement!

If there was one thing you could change about the Family Justice System what would it be?

I would say there are a few developments I would like to see which I have already mentioned, namely discretion in terms of financial outcomes and some consideration should be given to the forcibility of pre-nuptial agreements so that England and Wales would be put into the same position as many other jurisdictions around the world.

INTERVIEW, DECEMBER 2008: Shaun O'Connell, McKenzie Friend

2008-12-08T10:48:00.000-08:00

Shaun O'Connell is a vastly experienced McKenzie Friend and works on several areas of the law, not limited to Family cases but inclusive of environmental and Human Rights issues.

Having witnessed the system first as a self represented parent and then as an advisor to other parents, Shaun's personal involvement in his own case and subsequently his interaction with the family courts as a McKenzie friend, a field in which he has personally been involved in setting precedent, make him the ultimate eye: an all seeing one. In this interview, Shaun explains the delicate balance between the difficulties in the system and the strengths.

What led you to work in the family courts?

I studied Ecological Science at university then travelled in Europe. I then did a PGCE to become a teacher. I worked with children for 12 years. I had a few problems with my wife and got beaten up regularly by her so I met the Family Courts and discovered that argument and facts presented in behind closed doors can be left out of the Judgement, State bodies can commit perjury and pervert the course of justice without any effective redress, hearings invented that have never taken place, and under the guise of discretion all manner of assumptions and matters may be judged to be fact when material evidence exists to disabuse the Court.

No-where in any of the Judgements will you find an analysis of my own children's welfare including my daughter's daytime wetting since 1997 to 2005 at the very least, my son's referrals to child and family guidance every year since 1997 except for 2003, counselling at school for low self esteem and lack of confidence in 2004 and referral to psychiatrist in 2005 and severe behaviour problems at school nor the school forging school reports as they had unlawfully changed my children's surname without my knowledge.
I can no longer teach children as it is too painful but began assisting others alongside the Environmental Law Centre (www.elc.org.uk) - the only non-Governmental law centre in the UK. The effects of the decisions can be very severe. I was stopped from seeing my own children in October 1999 and then in April 2000 given an order for no contact direct or indirect, section 91(14) order and a ten thousand pounds costs order for the pleasure of it.
In 2002 I met Dr. Kartar Badsha who along with others assisted me and became involved with their work. The Environmental law centre gave me free in-house training and advice, helped me with my own predicament but more importantly acted humanely when I was at my wits end and gave me a glimpse that all was not well in the UK. ELC is a 'we' organisation not 'I' and we are just finishing our protocol for referral to McKenzie Friends via ELC.

What kind of things are you asked to do as a McKenzie Friend?

Most people do not have experience of Courts, they do not know what a trial is. They do not understand the legal process or terminology. By the time most people find us findings of facts have been made. They seek advice and usually their money has been wasted on lawyers paying privately or they have used up legal aid in fruitless battles for justice. Others feeling aggrieved may not understand the law, legal terminology, legal process prior to trial, and the importance of honesty.
We will not lie on behalf of anyone but do the adversarial role of presenting the case in the best light possible and seeking evidence to back up our case and dismantle the opposition case. We have to read case papers as so many parents are unable to read their papers properly as they are emotionally blocked with the trauma, we prepare submissions, statements, give advice on steps to take, we give them varying strategies to take so that they choose their way with warnings of what may happen with each strategy presented and of course attend Court with them. We may act on their behalf with leave of the Court.
Often we find ourselves counselling people as they just want to talk their worries away. We also collect case studies of prima facie evidenced cases for various submissions to Europe and the UN

Have you seen any changes to the way the McKenzie Friend is treated in court?

I only started acting as McKenzie in 2003. I had by then accumulated six years of representing myself in my own case. Now in 2008 there has been an opening up of the system to permit McKenzie friend to act as advocate. Five times to date I have been granted the right of audience and it is helpful as often as McKenzie friend all the party is often dong is repeating what the McKenzie friend tells them.
Many people claim that they have felt let down by their legal team and at the end of the day it is their choice to seek alternative support. I can foresee that this maybe a dangerous route to go as some misguided or without proper thought may set up potentially harmful Judgements in the Higher Courts leading to bad precedents such as Judges talking to children or CAFCASS officers/ social workers asking children under 14/ 15 who they want to live with as early as age six.
I think this has been a big development and at least there is a chance of pursuing arguments that previously lawyers would not pursue in case they affect their careers. There are many dubious theories being used by so-called experts in the family division and court reporters. Attachment is the classic. So far not one Court reporter has been able to answer how they assess attachment because there is no methodology. It is purely subjective opinion.
I have noticed that as I became more distanced from fathers4justice I was treated better. They somehow perceived a threat where-as our weapon is the word and law. It went from having a security guard every time I went to Court to the present situation of being granted rights of audience and finding that the Court is more willing to take us more seriously.

Being unable to access the same databases as lawyers who have the advantage of large resources in-house, what resources do you rely on to prepare your cases?

Large cities usually have a good selection of the available law reports in central libraries and Universities, the internet is a useful tool but sometimes people don't realise that mere words in an article do not make law. We mostly stick to Higher Authorities such as European Court judgements and statute law [all available on the internet] and common sense. Most English law is discretionary and behind the use of discretion hides all manner of sins. Some law books are also useful.

How do you find the judges at different levels of the court hierarchy?

The higher up they are the more practised they are. I would say it is individual Judges rather than level of hierarchy that is the important factor. Generally speaking District judges are failed solicitors, Circuit Judges have a better knowledge of law and I have had brutal experience at hands of Senior circuit judges. High Court judges have a highly political role and have not inspired the greatest of confidence.
Appeal Judges vary immensely. I would say in their defence that the policy brought in by Thatcher of the Courts being funded by itself has had a very detrimental effect as well as the over-riding objective in particular to give time for other people's cases. Over time Judges who we have met more regularly are more prone to assist once they realise we do not play dirty tactics and are acting honestly.

You must face some frustrating aspects of the court system on a daily basis: what is your worst experience to date?

This is a difficult one to answer as there are so many experiences - there was the case that was transferred to a Court 120 miles away at 2pm the day before the hearing [the father lost his payment for B and B and it caused us delay in preparation], documents being before the Court that the party is unaware of, the failure to give copy of the court bundle to the LIP, late serving of documents/ reports on the day of the hearing, prima facie perjury and underhand acts by the opposing parties and the sheer lack of independence of Guardians. I have been ejected from Court (on the basis that there is no such thing as McKenzie friend in family proceedings], prevented from pursuing argument and cross examination, and on one appeal [DJ to Circuit Judge] informed that putting insufficient weight on a factor is not a valid ground of appeal! That case we were winning the argument and then at 14.20 the Judges mobile went off and she returned a different character. Winning the facts of the case but then losing in the discretionary use of powers in the Judgement under the Children's best interests. Watching a mother being taken to prison after her barrister had pursued an adjournment [which was refused so witnesses could not attend] and then seeking permission to appeal when both the Judge and the barrister knew permission to appeal was not needed from committal hearings.
In another case the Judges informed us that the section of the Children's Act on unmarried fathers being forced to apply for parental responsibility has been determined as compatible with the European Convention in B v UK. No such authority exists as far as we can tell. I think the worst moment was two years ago on being given the right of audience by LJ Potter and I shook and trembled with anger at the way he bludgeoned any sense of a fair hearing and tried to order the father to provide his skeleton argument and all evidence he relied upon in two weeks and the mother could give her reply the day before the hearing.
Even prima facie procedural law which the Judge must obey has been regularly breached.

Have you had any good experiences in court?

Yes undoubtedly. Getting right of audience granted after a withering attack on my character by barrister for the Local Authority - that was a nice feeling since it was the Judge who protected me that day. A three day hearing in the Court of session where we spent the first day roundly criticising the top English Judges for their lamentable actions and yes we did win that one. Seeing parents cry with happiness when told they will be able to see their child. Watching a social worker kick the door as he was forced to admit he did not investigate fact or evidence. At the higher end of the spectrum we seem to be getting biscuit crumbs and without seeing the bench memorandum - an advisory opinion of the case lawyer [which is disclosable under ECtHR decisions] have no knowledge of what the case lawyers opinion is or what facts the Judge relied upon or was informed of. We tend to win battles on the whole but not the wars. Otherwise we would have some very interesting precedents set-up. Even in the last week we have won two Appeals and lost a challenge to ICO under sections 6,7 and 8 Human Rights Act 1998 but with a very interesting Judgment made.

There are so many divides in the family sector, from judges who disagree with each other on policy and mothers' groups and fathers' groups who are in conflict over contact issues for example; how would you feel about the courts trying to implement a more collaborative process to give every family the ability to be heard un-stifled by strategy and secrecy?

I think the gender wars are very unhelpful. Any mother who loses a hearing will blame it on her sex and vice versa. I do not believe in State intervention to the extent that is taking place and rapidly increasing. I think any divorce/ separation is harmful to children and a whole industry has been created out of the misery. This society of ours has lost it's way. They say a dog is for life and not just for Christmas - the rule applies to children.
I think people should think long and hard before having children and if they decide to do so it should be for better or for worse. Most cases could be sorted out without the prolonged process that is in place. 90% of cases would be just reducing the conflict and sorting out time. Sadly some parents resort to lying and manipulating the system to get their own way and that is not helpful to the children and should be regarded as acting against the children's best interests. Experience has shown the Courts tend to favour the PWC [parent with control] and in effect reward the wrongdoer in cases where the parenting of the PWC is poor.
There are many industries now evolved which make their lucrative livings from the system - DV, contact centres, adoption, experts, foster care etc. One expert alone has £2 million in assets alone. Families should not be money spinning businesses and vested interest groups and even the meek and the mild such as FNF are now getting Government funding and media coverage to keep the system going.

The media may be given the ability to report family cases in order to bolster the notion of a fair and impartial hearing: do you think media reporting will have a positive effect in achieving this goal?

There has been no change at all. It was always at the discretion of the Judge to allow media in. The Journalists will be self-serving and report what goes into the Judgement and if a journalist is present the Judge may well behave in a manner which he would not do otherwise. How many journalists does the Public think are available to attend trials? Most cases [99% or more] won't have a journalist and it is those cases to be more worried about. Only fully open Courts will hold the hands of the Judge and make the system workable. The law as it is worded is largely fine but from experience the mighty hands of the State are rarely rebuked for their acts. The Courts must be accountable to the Public.

If there was one thing you could change about the system, what would it be?

Judges to become judges again totally independent of the State and to obey their judicial oath to do justice by mercy and right in open Courts and funded by the State to allow them to do their jobs properly. However given the acts of successive Governments this seems a pipedream. This act alone would allow just and right precedents to be set-up.

INTERVIEW, NOVEMBER 2008: John Hemming MP

2008-11-28T16:25:00.000-08:00

John Hemming is the Liberal Democrat MP for Birmingham Yardley and tirelessly campaigns for increased accountability in government. With extensive experience in family law, John chairs the innovative organisation Justice For Families which aims to reduce the number of injustices in public family law. John is also involved with several other areas of politics including the government’s energy policies.

Labelled "eccentric" by The Times in 2006, John, a former Scholar in Natural Sciences at Magdalen College, Oxford specialising in Theoretical, Atomic and Nuclear Physics, shares with us his acute insight into the failings of the family courts and why exposure is the only way forward:

How did you come to work as a politician for the Liberal Democrats?
I joined the Liberals when I was 16 (in 1976) because I wanted a fairer society and when I assisted a candidate a couple of years later I felt I could do a better job so offered over time to be a candidate. I stood in 6 general elections winning on the 6th time.

You do a great deal of work within the public family law sector; could you tell us a little about the different aspects of the system you focus on?
I look at the system from end to end. There are so many injustices it is shocking. The worst thing is the results for the children both those wrongly removed and those left to face abuse.

There is a strong feeling amongst the British public that their government is infringing on their fundamental rights in relation to the way family law operates: why do you think this is?
The secrecy prevents accountability which allows corruption to seep in.

The recent debate over media reporting in the family courts has had a mixed reaction; with judicial discretion as a suggested preliminary hurdle to getting a case 'opened up' to media scrutiny, will media exposure make a difference?
It doesn't work with judicial discretion. Judges won't admit they are mad. If people really knew what was going on they would not tolerate it.

The very sad story of Baby P has caused a national outcry and the media has clearly made a difference by exposing this particular case, but there are many other issues that indicate a severe fall in competence levels within the system: what, in your opinion, is at the heart of these symptoms?
The Self-serving nature of the system. I have jointly written an article with two social workers that is available on the net.

Damaging instances of oversight like the now scrapped, incentivisation process in relation to adoption are also worrying: do these policies come about due to poor judgment or is there something more to the irrational policy making decisions that is not immediately obvious?
Parliament is out of touch because ministers are able to avoid answering written questions properly.

Another area that you are passionate about is the legitimacy of medical expert evidence: what safeguards would you suggest in order to prevent misplaced trust in untested medical theory?
The use of the system of a judicial expert and permitting second opinions. The family division conflates the two roles and has the judge responsible for making the judgment.

What other weaknesses do you observe in the system?
I could write a book, but a few examples are: lawyers dragging out cases to make money for fees; experts making misleading statements for fees; Social Workers "advocating for the child" and pressurising people to mislead the court.

Are there any strengths that you note?
There are some people doing a really good job. James Munby is making a difference as well as the volunteers who work for various organisations aimed at reforming the system.

If there was one thing you could change, what would it be?
Secrecy because people would not tolerate the reality of family injustice.

INTERVIEW, OCTOBER 2008: Jacqui Gilliatt - Barrister

2008-11-28T08:55:00.000-08:00

"Jacqui Gilliatt is a family law barrister, currently working at 4 Brick Court Chambers in London and specialises in cases involving children. Jacqui is also the general editor of the Family Law Week blog and has written several articles on family law. Jacqui's own blog, 'Bloody Relations' is an entertaining, award winning and informative resource for people seeking to know more about the Family Courts.

I had the privilege of having a very 'bloody' debate with Jacqui about Family Law and her perceptions of the system as someone who enters it from the advocate's angle on a daily basis. In the following interview, Jacqui addresses some of the issues that have been covered in the media most recently and puts to bed the myth that barristers don't have a sense of humour….."

What motivated you to become a barrister and what led you to Family Law?

My mother told me I should become a barrister because I like arguing so much! So, of course, that was the last thing I was going to do. I had not yet learned that, maturity is doing what your parents say you should do even though it is your parents who told you to do it. I didn’t know any lawyers – all my family worked in the public sector so it didn’t occur to me as a career option until I got a job working for the Lord Chancellor’s Department.

I was working on civil and family law reform and in the end decided I’d rather join them than beat them. I also realized that I was a bit fed up being a back room girl working at the bottom of the civil service food chain. The bar offered the perfect opportunity for me to see a direct result from how I did my job and I loved the idea of being an advocate – probably from watching too much LA Law. The Children Act was just coming through Parliament and it seemed an exciting time to be doing family work. Family work also provides a fascinating study of human psychology and meant that I would get to be able to be paid to be a nosey parker!

Which Chambers do you work at and what are their fields of expertise/ distinguishing characteristics?

I work at 4 Brick Court in the Temple in London. There are 37 barristers in chambers and we mainly do family work.

Which area/s of Family law do you work in (and for how long) and what is the most fascinating aspect for you?

I specialize in children work and have done that almost exclusively for the last 8 / 9 years. I really enjoy the interface with other disciplines such as medicine, psychiatry and psychology. I also love the fact that I meet people from all walks of life in all sorts of different situations – no day is ever the same. I feel very privileged to be able to have the sorts of conversations with clients I have on a daily basis.

On the negative side, it can be very demanding from an emotional point of view. Care cases, in particular, take a long time and by the end of them you will have got to know your client pretty well. If the outcome of the case is that children are removed into care, even when objectively that may be the only realistic and protective plan, it is almost always a huge and hugely distressing loss for the parents and not an outcome that gives rise to any sense of rejoicing for any of the lawyers involved, whomever they are representing (although there may be some consolation in a job well done or done to the best standard).

There are some cases which stay with you for a very long time- I worry about whether there was any stone I left unturned or how the client will cope with the outcome and there are some very distressing cases when it can be very difficult to dislodge from my brain some particularly awful mistreatment of a child. It is important to pace yourself so that this does not become overwhelming.

What changes have you noticed in the years that you have been practicing, both procedurally and culturally (i.e. court culture)?

Although probably light by comparison with other jobs, it does seem like there is a lot more form filling & drafting of documents than when I started in pupillage in 1991. There are far more solicitor advocates and I think probably more litigants in person – but that may just be my impression. I think courts are much less formal than they used to be and there is more of a tolerance to the varieties of lifestyles of those who come before the family courts.

The biggest cultural change has been the attitude of the courts to fathers, particularly unmarried fathers, who were often sidelined in the past. There is now an expectation that fathers will be and should be involved in care proceedings and generally in caring for their children. It is much easier to get decent contact and even shared residence. It’s still a bit unpredictable but the principle that fathers should be included in the lives of their children is well embedded in the court culture.

Have you any criticisms of the way the courts function?

Generally speaking I think the courts function pretty efficiently although there are some courts where papers go missing with monotonous regularity. The main problem is that it takes far too long to get your hands on a court hearing and too often a case cannot go ahead even when it has been listed because the court runs out of time.

There are some new practices being adopted which might make a difference (not listing cases a long way in advance but leaving it to the final directions hearing) but it is too early to say and one problem with this approach is that we don’t know until very last minute when a case is going to be heard. I have had one listing recently which just says sometime in May next year. I don’t know when we will be given more precise dates and it makes it hard to commit to doing a case.

I also long for the day when technology hits the court service – it would be great to be able to access the internet at court – this is happening already in Crown Courts but not in family courts. It would also help litigants if they could have access to legal materials online. It would help if we could have access to printers so we could get orders and other documents produced quickly. Sometimes you can get court staff to print stuff but you have to go through quite a rigmarole of sending emails etc. I have only ever had one brief on a CD – I have a fantasy about a paperless court room but I think it is a long way off.

What positive elements to the courts and practice do you notice?

Judges on the whole are pretty sensitive to the feelings of litigants in family cases and that can make a very big difference. Even if the client does not get what they want, it really helps if they feel they have been treated with respect and understanding. Most court staff are extremely helpful and go out of their way to troubleshoot problems and support litigants.

What is your perception of the effectiveness of mediation, which is essentially a collaborative process when working side by side with the court process which is effectively adversarial?

I’m the wrong person to ask in a way because the cases that come to me from the mediation / collaborative law route are the ones where the mediation approach has not been successful. It is also much less used in relation to children although there is interest within the collaborative law community to tackle issues about children as well.

There is court based mediation in many family courts where Cafcass officers mediate between parents and / or send suitable cases off for out-of-court mediation. This can work pretty well at least to narrow the issues down but some parents do report that they feel pressurized to reach agreements they are not happy with or feel that the Cafcass Officer is very quick to take sides.

Some Judges take a mediation approach, particularly if one party is not represented, and if they are good at it, it can be very productive. Research in the past has not shown that mediation is effective in terms of saving money – not that this should be the only way of valuing the approach – I suspect that parents come away much happier from a good mediation than where a solution has to be imposed by the court.

How has the changing legislation and the volume of it impacted on practice?

I’m not sure that it is changing legislation that has made a huge difference to practice in the family courts. There is more impact from other changes such as the fact that cases are reported online so quickly and it can be quite hard work to keep up with it all. Also cases are reported whether they are legally significant or not and you have to wade through a lot of cases to find the one that makes a difference.

The volume of work never seems to stop growing but unfortunately the number of Judges is limited so that it takes a long time to get a case in front of a court. Another change which has made a difference is that there is an expectation that local authorities disclose more and more documents. This in itself is a good thing but it means that even a relatively straightforward case generates volumes of papers.

Sir Mark Potter in his speech in Israel this Summer was candid about the Family Courts and called for more open courts to be encouraged; what is your view?

I am in favour of more open courts but I am not yet persuaded that there should be media access to all family cases. I do see that there are powerful arguments in favour of access but I don’t think that it needs to mean every case being susceptible to being reported in the papers (although it’s not something I would go to the barricades over).

Many parents would say that it is quite bad enough that everything about their lives is pored over by a bunch of strangers – the lawyers, the Judge, the usher, trainees, social workers etc – without having to worry about tabloid headlines.

The press are doing a good job of suggesting that all they want to do is responsible reporting of serious issues and defend parents against the iniquities of state interference but I don’t think that is what would happen in practice. For example, in one of my cases, the father was convicted of accessing child pornography and as a side issue, largely irrelevant to the child protection issues, he and his partner had engaged in swinging. The partner was subjected to a great deal of abuse in the community after his conviction which was reported in the press and she had to move home to get away from harassment.

The effect of more reporting of the care proceedings with salacious details about the sex life would have done nothing but cause her pain and possibly resulted in actual injury and later in life the children would know that these embarrassing details about their father and their early life had been splashed all over the papers. There was also evidence in the case about the horrendous way in which he had treated the children’s mother which included many episodes of extreme sexual violence. She could not even face taking part in the case and press scrutiny would have only added insult to injury.

The other point to make is that this was not an unjustified interference in the family’s life by the state. By most people’s standards this father was not a fit person to look after children. It is difficult to see what public interest would be served by wide reporting of the details. I have been disappointed by the quality of reporting about matters which are in the public domain and by the assumptions made by some reporters that what they are being told by aggrieved parents is always accurate and the state is always in the wrong.

There are many ways short of absolute access in which the courts could be opened up. Access could be given if all parties agreed to it, including the Guardian representing the child. Access could be given so that journalists could get background information without leading to reporting of identifying information.

Access could be given for journalists to hear certain parts of the evidence, such as the medical evidence, if the concern is, as often currently expressed, that it is the experts who are getting things wrong. There could be much more by way of docu-dramas and fictionalized reporting.

There could be a lifting of the restrictions on documents which could be shown to the media so that they can get a better sense of the facts of a case and a lifting of the restrictions on parents and local authorities about giving interviews to the press. There could be some sort of independent observer scrutiny of courts or regular inspection such as by Ofsted or a similar body. All judgments could be made available in an anonymised form. And more blogs, of course!

If you could change one thing about the Family Courts, what would it be?

I’ve got a little list! It would have to start with more Judges, though. It is obviously always bad if a child is removed (from both parents or from one parent by the other) on an interim basis and it turns out at the final hearing that the evidence does not justify removal. It is even worse if it takes up to a year for the court to work this out.

Other ideas include: allowing unmarried fathers without parental responsibility and grandparents the automatic right to make section 8 applications (for contact and residence), Judges to have discretion to grant public funding to family members other than parents to be represented in care cases, an unfettered and automatic right for parents to see all documents held by the local authority about the family, better training for lawyers in relation to social work theory, child development etc, feedback from & possibly competence grading by Judges for experts who give evidence, separating the support & enforcement roles of social workers …..

It’s probably about time there was a top level inquiry into the family justice system so that there can be a proper informed debate about reforms. Unfortunately all that seems likely at the moment is a squeeze on public funding at all levels ie payment for lawyers, the court service budget, the local authority budgets.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How Does the UK Divorce Process Affect Children?

2008-03-25T14:42:00.001-07:00

This discussion forum is for children who have had the chance to reflect on their childhood, living through divorce. If you are an elderly teen or an adult who experienced the court process or the effects of the process, this forum is for you:

Speakers' Corner: For Children Only

2008-03-25T14:41:00.001-07:00

This forum is for children who have been affected by divorce. You can write your concerns here, whether it's a worry about how your parents are coping, how you've been affected or how the court system has caused problems between your family members. This is your forum, to make yourselves heard; you can even write anonymously:

Wall of Shame

2008-03-25T14:36:00.001-07:00

This is where you get to tell your weird and wacky Family Court stories. Please omit all names of judges, lawyers etc.

Labyrinth Look-Out

2008-03-25T14:28:00.000-07:00

This section is dedicated to your queries about how to access information. If you need help on how to find the right books or how to look up past cases that relate to your divorce, this is the section that can help. The Manual will answer any resource related questions you have and any general questions relating to the divorce process:

Hung, Drawn & Court-Ordered

2008-03-25T14:27:00.000-07:00

One of my greatest bug-bears about the Family Division is that it does not offer lawyers a functional and efficient forum for them to practice their skill ethically and effectively. Divorce Manual invites solicitors and barristers to post their complaints about the system below:

Nothing Father From the Truth

2008-03-25T14:26:00.000-07:00

This section is for fathers who have faced the horrendous reality of the Family Division and found that because they were not married to the mother of their child, they were not treated like fathers and awarded proper contact with their children. The Manual considers a change of the law in this area to be a priority and I invite all fathers in this situation to share their thoughts:

Out of Site, Out of Mind

2008-03-25T14:22:00.000-07:00

This forum is for any general comments in relation to the site or the Family Division. Your views, reviews and thoughts are all welcome here: