Author: Merrick Solicitors

Children can stay at both separated parent’s homes under lockdown

Posted on March 24, 2020 by - FINANCES

Children with separated parents can continue to stay at both their mum and dad’s homes during the coronavirus lockdown.

The Government has written a clause into its new rules to ensure children whose parents don’t live together are not prevented from seeing both parents.

It confirms parents are free to move children under the age of 18 between both their parents’ homes throughout the initial three-week lockdown.

The rules for separated parents were published by the cabinet office in its ‘Full guidance on staying at home and away from others’ document after the prime Minister addressed the nation to put the UK on lockdown to help prevent the speed of covid-19.

Children under-18 can see both parents

Boris Johnson restricted people’s movements – saying there are only four reasons why people can leave their houses – with immediate effect.

children with separated parents

1. Shopping for basic necessities, for example food and medicine, which must be as infrequent as possible

2. One form of exercise a day, for example a run, walk, or cycle – alone or with members of your household

3. Any medical need, or to provide care or to help a vulnerable person

4. Travelling to and from work, but only where this absolutely cannot be done from home.

Under point three, there’s a clause which states: “…where applicable, this includes moving children under 18 between their parents’ homes.”

An estimated 1 in 4 families in the UK are headed by single parents.

Cabinet Office Minister Michael Gove MP clarified the issue on children with separated parents in a BBC interview.

He said: “My heart goes out to people who are having to wrestle with all the emotional difficulties.

“The key thing here is that if you want to ensure that children can see both parents, then they can be moved from one parent to another…I wasn’t sufficiently clear earlier, it is the case that children under the age of 18 can see both parents.”

 

What can we learn from the Bezos divorce?

Posted on July 25, 2019 by - FINANCES

Are there lessons we can take from the recent divorce of Amazon billionaires Jeff and Mackenzie Bezos?

The divorce was finalised with little fanfare by a Washington area judge in the first week of July. Mackenzie Bezos exited the marriage with 4% of Amazon stock, worth an estimated $38 billion. That’s a huge amount, but considerably less than the 50 per cent stake in the couple’s vast assets to which she was legally entitled.

Some commentators have argued that with such wealth ‘each dollar means less and that can turn down the emotional thermometer’ of divorce. But even so history is littered with drawn out and contentious high value separations.

Admired

The Bezos’ are to be admired for the way they maintained their dignity as they move on after 25 years of marriage.

From the start they seem to have had an agreed path in mind. In January the news of their divorce was announced from their individual Twitter accounts. They both stressed they would continue as ‘parents and friends’.

As we know through experience, that is frequently the intention but it’s not always how it pans out.

Six months later and the divorce is done with no public sign of acrimony.

So, what did the Bezos’ do well?

Keep it private

Very few real details of the divorce have entered the public domain, and virtually nothing has come from the former couple themselves.

While not everyone’s divorce is going to make front page news, that doesn’t mean there won’t be outside interest. Family, friends and work colleagues may well press for detail on what’s happening. However, it makes sense to keep that information in the hands of those who really need to know.

Certainly, sharing social media updates on the finer details of your finances and personal arrangements during a split is not to be recommended.

So, be mindful of who and what you tell if you don’t want people openly discussing your private affairs. This can add another strain to an already difficult situation.

Leave the children out of it

In many high-profile splits we are presented with images of one or other partner being the ‘perfect parent’. Though the Bezos’ have four offspring, there was clearly a deliberate attempt to ‘keep them out of it’ and we couldn’t agree more.

Give children only the information they need – what is happening, what to expect and who is living where. Protect them from the stuff that is nothing to do with them such as who did what to whom; they are not your confidante.

Reassure them that it’s not their fault and where possible maintain a relationship with your ex for their benefit. That’s a hard one, we know, but where it’s appropriate you should be cordial and treat each other with respect.

Divorce is never easy, but kids usually adapt to change better than adults and bearing witness to a well-handled separation is a powerful life lesson.

Keep emotions in check

Another hard one but allowing the emotion to take over and influence your decision-making is unlikely to be of benefit in the long run.

We can’t know how the Bezos’ behaved behind closed doors but the image they present – cool, calm and collected –  suggests they remained focussed on the process. That’s a factor that helps in ensuring an early resolution of all the issues.

In any negotiation it’s sound advice to stay neutral. Don’t get wound up by details that do not impact on your overall goal. Taking your anger and frustration into a meeting means you’ve already lost.

Plan your financial future

While the sums involved meant neither party was ever going to go short, there will still have been some pretty detailed thought about their financial lives AD (After Divorce). Mackenzie, for instance, announced she would be giving half her wealth to charitable causes. That’s not a decision to be taken lightly no matter how much you’ve got.

Having a plan for life AD helps to inform important decisions. These might include what will happen to your share of the money from the sale of the family home or the splitting of a business or other investments.

Most couples pool their resources and one person usually assumes responsibility for the management of the funds involved.  If that wasn’t you, the future AD can feel daunting, but it presents the opportunity to action your own choices. The keys to that are good advice and sound planning.

So, whilst you may not be in the world’s top one per cent of richest people the keys to  a successful divorce are the same – keep it private, keep the kids out of it, keep a hold on those emotions and have a plan……always have a plan.

Divorce law change one step closer

Posted on June 27, 2019 by - DIVORCE

A law change to bring in ‘no fault’ divorce has moved a step closer.

MPs this week approved the bill at its second reading in the House of Commons. It will now undergo further scrutiny from a committee of MPs before being considered by peers in the House of Lords.

The Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Bill removes the need to find fault in order to start proceedings in England and Wales.

Justice Secretary David Gauke told the Commons that at present couples could not separate “if they have grown apart” unless they have the means to live apart for two years.

Rise in divorce rate

He also said a change in the law would help in situations where there was one abusive partner, but the other did not want to raise these issues in court for fear of the relationship further deteriorating.

What you need to know about divorce law changes

Mr Gauke said a rise in the divorce rate once the law was changed was inevitable because people have been holding off their separation, waiting for a legal change.

“So, the likelihood is there will be an increase because of that waiting list,” he said.

He added evidence from other countries suggested “once that initial spike has been dealt with… the divorce rate is unlikely to increase and it is likely to remain much the same.”

Mr Gauke added: “The Bill responds constructively to the keenly felt experience of people’s real lives. This is a Bill for anyone who agrees that the end of a relationship should be a time of reflection, and not of manufactured conflict.”

The proposed changes follow the Supreme Court’s rejection of a woman’s appeal for divorce after her husband refused to agree.

Tini Owens wanted to divorce her husband of 40 years, on the grounds that she was unhappy with his behaviour. But her husband Hugh refused to agree to it and the Supreme Court unanimously rejected her appeal. It meant the couple must remain married until 2020.

No fault? Not always

MP Fiona Bruce was concerned that the removal of fault, without any opportunity to challenge, would mean that some who are genuinely wronged cannot put anything on record on what they feel about the reasons for the divorce.

Removal of fault sends out a signal

She said: “Sadly, I believe it will make divorce easier…because it will allow one party to walk away from the most important commitment they are likely to have made in their lifetime, without giving any reason at all and without their spouse being able meaningfully to object to their decision to do so.

“The removal of fault sends out a signal. I am particularly concerned about the signals sent out by the Bill to young people – that marriage can be unilaterally exited, on notice, by one party, with little if any recourse available to the party who has been left.

“I fear it signals that marriage need no longer be entered into with the intention of its being a lifelong commitment, as it is today – perhaps it will be signalled more as a time-limited arrangement that can be ended at will.

“It is interesting that, in my law firm, I am now hearing the phrase “My current partner” coming into usage.”

Protection for co-habitees

Wera Hobhouse urged the Government to also do more to improve the legal rights of co-habitees.

She said: “There is much more that can be done to bring our marriage laws into the 21st century.

“We must recognise that marriage and civil partnerships are not for everyone, and that young people who do get married are doing so later and later. Our legal system needs to catch up with society, in which millions of couples choose to live together without making a formal commitment.

“The Law Commission suggests granting essential but limited legal rights to couples who have lived together for at least three years. Such legislation would complement the new divorce, dissolution and separation laws.  I urge the Minister to take another look at that proposal.”

Verbatim report of this week’s second reading in the House of Commons

What you need to know about divorce law changes

Posted on April 23, 2019 by - DIVORCE

The Government has announced its intention to overhaul the UK’s divorce laws, which have been in effect for almost half a century. Here’s a Q&A on what’s proposed.

What are the main changes?

In the future, divorcing spouses will only be required to make a statement that the marriage has irretrievably broken down. This is instead of the situation now where evidence has to be provided on behaviour or separation and the court rule on whether it’s satisfied the marriage has broken down irretrievably.

Why are the changes being introduced?

The laws were described as archaic and outdated by campaigners. They do not believe a spouse should have to prove someone is to blame for the marriage irretrievably breaking down. The belief is that often couples simply grow apart and they should be allowed to separate through a ‘no fault’ divorce.

What are seen as the major advantages?

Reformers are most concerned with how divorce can affect children. The current system leaves parting couples to apportion blame, often resulting in increased animosity and tension. This can not only impact children but also make it harder for ex-partners to develop positive co-parenting relationships.

Will a partner still be able to defend a divorce application?

No. Ministers have decided that as it takes both spouses to save a marriage, allowing one to contest a divorce is of no use. The Ministry of Justice said the practice should be scrapped as it can be misused by abusers to continue coercive and controlling behaviour.

Will getting divorced be a quick process?

A minimum timeframe of six months from petition to a divorce being finalised will be introduced. The current two-step legal process, known as decree nisi (a court order stating when the marriage will end) and decree absolute (when the marriage legally ends), will stay in place.
However, it will take a minimum of 20 weeks to go from the petition stage to decree nisi and six weeks from there to decree absolute.
At the end of this period the applicant will have to affirm their decision to seek a divorce.

Why has the Government acted now?

It said it would review the laws following the high-profile case of Tini Owens, who the courts ruled would have to stay married until 2020 because her complaints about her husband’s conduct were found not to amount to unreasonable behaviour.
The Government carried out a 12-week consultation last year, receiving more than 3,000 pieces of evidence.

When will the changes come into effect?

Not just yet. The Government has said it will introduce a bill just as soon as the Parliamentary timetable allows. Many have interpreted this as Brexit having an adverse impact on the Government’s time for other business.

What about civil partnerships?

Parallel changes will be made to the law allowing the dissolution of a civil partnership. Currently, civil partnerships of more than one year must also be proven to have irretrievably broken down.

Read more: Not everyone agrees that all the changes are for the better.

 

Helping someone who doesn’t believe they’re addicted

Posted on April 23, 2019 by - RELATIONSHIPS

Behavioural health advisor Jonathan Edgeley helps people beat their addictions and guides their families through the turmoil of dysfunctional relationships. Previously he spoke to Merrick Life about how he uses his personal experience of addiction to help others.

In the second part of this interview, Jonathan explains that when a family is on its way to rock bottom, an intervention may be the only solution.

“An intervention is where a family have got a situation where they are convinced their loved one’s repeating patterns of problematic behaviour are having a very negative impact on their lives and the family’s. It is becoming very disruptive – but the loved one doesn’t accept they have a problem.

“An intervention is a very loving thing to do for somebody. You will probably have heard that everyone needs to reach rock bottom before they are able to get help.  An intervention, essentially, moves the bottom up to where they are.

“We create what we call a ‘recovery team’ within the family.  They could be the partner, children and a couple of close friends, brothers, sisters, mums and dads, those people who have got a vested interest in helping this person get well.

“Generally, we get them all around the table, no less than three really, but up to seven or eight people.

“We then allay any of their fears and resentments by taking them through an educational process on the disease concept.  What we are looking to achieve is understand that this person is suffering with an illness, rather than it being a choice.

“We need to understand how they feel about this person, whether there is anger, whether there is rejection. What we are doing is, we are looking at a team, and we are looking for a captain. Somebody whose spirit is strong, doesn’t hold any kind of real anger or resentment towards the individual and is going to be able to lead that family recovery team.

Love and hope

“Essentially, we are creating a compassionate family team that are willing to meet their family member with love and hope.

“We have to explain that their loved one didn’t make a conscious decision one morning to be an addict, and to wreck their life, their career and family. It’s not a moral deficiency or a choice in that respect. They are suffering with a degenerative illness which, if it isn’t arrested, will only get progressively worse.

“By following a proven model we guide each family member to write a letter, that states they love them, they are there to help, however they are becoming increasingly concerned about their drinking or substance misuse and are willing them to get the help they so desperately need .

“The letters are written without blame or shame and are created to connect on a feelings level with empathy and love ensuring the person receiving them is left in the knowledge that help is on offer.

“The planning stage can be extremely powerful and at times bring up strong emotions. However, it’s essential on the day of the intervention the family stay calm and have practised their letters; remain focussed and are not drawn off track.

“Once they’ve written those letters, we share them with one another in the group.

The bottom line

“Then we move them to something called ‘Bottom Line’. This is something each family member is prepared to do should their loved one not accept the help. For example, ‘if you don’t accept the help offered today, then I will have no alternative but to move out of the family home and take the children’.

“That might be one.  Another one might be, if it is a child, ‘if you don’t take the help that is on offer, then I’ll be taking your car from you’.

“So, it is something that is quite significant, but it has to be something they are prepared to do. This is really, really important and is an essential part of the intervention process. The family must stick to their bottom lines otherwise it could scupper any chance of them accessing treatment in the future.

“We invite the loved one to a family meeting, on a certain date, at a certain place. This is generally a mutual venue or in their family home.

addiction intervention

The family must stick to their bottom lines

 

“The family are there, we have the process. We know who is saying what and when. They will bring their letters; they sit down. It is a very, very powerful and moving experience.

“I facilitate that process because generally, we can expect a degree of kickback from the loved one.

“When everyone says what they need to say, the loved one will either agree to accepting the help or not.

“If they say ‘yes’, great. The family hug their loved and explain they have been working on finding them a treatment facility that meets their love for horses, the outdoors or specialises in music therapy and other things that connect with the heart of the family member. ‘We’ve got a car outside, your bag is packed, and we are good to go’.  And that’s essentially how it works.

‘I’m not going’

“Now, if that person says ‘no, I’m not going’. We hand it back to a family member to deliver their bottom lines.

“90% of the time people will accept it then and they will go.

“In situations where they don’t, then we just have to leave it. Everybody implements their bottom lines and sticks to them. This is when the family need to pull together and support one another to stick to their bottom lines. Generally, what happens is the situation comes back around again. They get to a point where the individual goes “I can’t handle this anymore. I’ll go.”

“This might be a week or a month later. But generally, the situation is turned around, and they do accept the help at some point and go down the process.

Emotionally charged addiction intervention

“This is often an emotionally charged situation. What I’m there to do is advise the family and ensure they are looked after emotionally and therapeutically.

“I can create options in terms of the treatment facility, so that it meets their needs and their budget.

“I’m there from that initial consultation, through to intervention planning, through to intervention, through to transportation to the treatment, through to case managing the situation for their loved one while they are in treatment, feeding back to the family.

“Then on discharge creating an appropriate aftercare programme, so they reintegrate appropriately with the family and within the community and back into work.

“Essentially I’m there to offer somebody a chance of a better life. A chance of a life without mind and mood altering substances or behaviours.”

 

Jonathan Edgeley is the Founder of Montrose Advisory which offers independent support and guidance to families seeking a solution to a behavioural health problem. He takes a family through the complex world of addiction and mental healthcare and creates robust care pathways to meet their loved one’s specific needs, circumstances and budget.

 

No fault? Not always

Posted on April 10, 2019 by - DIVORCE, RELATIONSHIPS

Do this week’s widely-approved changes to divorce law risk a potential disservice to one very important section of people?

The Government has announced legislation to overhaul divorce law with the intention of reducing conflict between parties.

The move to ‘no fault’ divorce follows a public consultation in which more than 3,000 interested parties took part.

Proposals would end the need for spouses to evidence at least one of adultery, behaviour, desertion, two years’ separation (if the other spouse consents to divorce), or five years’ separation (if the other spouse disagrees). Instead, one or both parties would provide a statement of irretrievable breakdown.

While the proposals that will update 50-year-old laws have been generally welcomed, they may remove an important part of the healing process for spouses who’ve suffered through their marriages.

Family view

Merrick Life has spoken with two families who’ve recently experienced the divorce process. We heard from them that attributing blame for the marriage breakdown was actually a powerful positive.

‘Malcolm’, who has been supporting a family member through their divorce, said: “There will be many divorces where there is no blame. But when there is behaviour that has led directly to the breakdown of the marriage, then it just feels like an opportunity to voice that is being squashed.

“In so many areas of life we are being told we have to address feelings. It is part of the process of healing to get things out that have happened. The concept of ‘no fault’  flies in the face of that.

“For my family member it’s part of their recovery. It’s making them  feel better. It has made them sit down and think about everything that’s happened and realise it’s not their fault.

“The end result would be the same under a changed law but the journey may be harder. There doesn’t appear to be the opportunity to get all that stuff out and deal with it.”

Client view

A female client also told us: “I think there’s a danger that by trying to make everyone fit under this umbrella you’re saying that what some people have been through is irrelevant, and it can’t be irrelevant.

“If there has been abuse in the relationship then I think the courts should listen sympathetically to that.

“I’m sure ‘no fault’ will be fine for many couples but for me it would have been a disaster. I had to summon every ounce of courage and energy to seek a divorce. The abuse I suffered was not just verbal and physical but also financial.”

“If everything is ‘no fault’ for those like me it is not true, it’s not realistic.”

Government view

The Government admitted that for some being able to blame their partner for the breakdown was a cathartic experience.

The report says: ‘Some thought that ending the availability of conduct-based facts would remove the right of “innocent” parties to name the “guilty” party.

‘The role of the court, however, is not to adjudicate on who was at fault for the breakdown of the marriage, only to satisfy itself that the legal threshold of irretrievable breakdown is established.

It later adds: ‘We appreciate that some respondents believed that parties who were “wronged”, as they saw it, should have an opportunity to set this out by using a conduct-based fact. But we also heard arguments from groups representing victims of domestic abuse that – on balance, given the limited legal effect of this and its risk of heightening conflict – this is unnecessary as part of the process of obtaining a divorce.’

Merrick view

Merrick principal Amanda Merrick welcomed several aspects of the proposed changes, including reducing time limits for a separation with or without the other party’s consent.

But she added: “There are, of course, couples for whom no-fault would be the preferred route. For some people though, such as those who have been in an abusive relationship, assigning fault or blame to the other party is empowering; very often the start of their healing process.

“Divorce reform should therefore be about creating options. It shouldn’t be about making it the same for everyone no matter what experiences have brought them to this point.

“Few, if any, undertake divorce lightly and for those who have suffered the petition is often the first step towards re-finding their voice and being heard; it is the start of a journey to move away from the past towards a better future  .”

Justice Secretary David Gauke said new legislation will be introduced to Parliament ‘as soon as parliamentary time allows’.

There’s a summary of what’s proposed here and you can read the Government’s response to the consultation here.

 

 

 

Government announces divorce law changes

Posted on April 9, 2019 by - Merrick News

The Government has announced legislation to overhaul divorce law with the intention of reducing conflict between parties.

The move follows a public consultation which heard from more than 3,000 interested parties. This included many with direct experience of divorce who voiced their support for reform.

Current law requires spouses to evidence at least one of five ‘facts’: adultery, behaviour, desertion, two years’ separation (if the other spouse consents to divorce), or five years’ separation (if the other spouse disagrees).

Here’s what’s proposed:
  • The option for one spouse to contest divorce will be removed.
  • The irretrievable breakdown of a marriage will be retained as the sole ground for divorce.
  • There will no longer be requirement to provide evidence of ‘fault’ for the irretrievable breakdown.
  • There will still be a two-stage process currently referred to as decree nisi and decree absolute.
  • The law will introduce a minimum timeframe of six months, from petition stage to final divorce.

The Government has also said it will retain the bar on divorce applications in the first year of marriage.

It will also move to modernise language used in the process. It was found terms such as petitioner, decree nisi and decree absolute can cause confusion. They will instead be aligned with the terms used in civil partnership dissolutions – applicant, conditional order and final order.

Introducing the changes, Justice Secretary David Gauke said: “Hostility and conflict between parents leave their mark on children and can damage their life chances.

“While we will always uphold the institution of marriage, it cannot be right that our outdated law creates or increases conflict between divorcing couples.

“So I have listened to calls for reform and firmly believe now is the right time to end this unnecessary blame game for good.”

New legislation will be introduced to Parliament ‘as soon as parliamentary time allows’.

You can read the Government’s response to the consultation here.

We’ve written about ‘no fault’ divorce previously here.



Surrogacy now
an option for single parents

Posted on March 28, 2019 by - CHILDREN, RELATIONSHIPS

The number of parents using surrogates in the UK is rising thanks to high-profile celebrities, changing public attitudes, and corresponding law reforms. Barrister Jennifer Lee told Merrick Life the latest law change is most welcome.

 

Just over a year ago the government published its first ever guidance on how to start a family using a surrogate.

The publication was recognition that surrogacy rates are increasing. That’s in part due to a relaxation in the law that allowed same sex couples the same rights as heterosexual couples to apply for parental orders, which confers legal parenthood for a child born through surrogacy on the intended parents. Parental orders are ‘transformative’ and last for the child’s entire life.

In 2016, 368 parental orders were awarded – that’s up from 194 in 2012.

And in January this year, after a prolonged legal fight, the law was further changed to extend the same right to single people wishing to have a family this way. To apply, single parents must have a genetic link to the child born through surrogacy.

For Jennifer Lee, the changes reflect shifting views on an often-controversial area.

She said: “The law allows more people to apply and reflects the fact that society has moved on.

Surrogacy for single parents

“It ends the discriminatory bar against single parents from applying to become the legal parents of children born through surrogacy. The reform will pave the way for a wider group of people to apply to become parents via the surrogacy route, whether they be single fathers or single mothers, including older women who are increasingly seeing surrogacy as a viable route to starting a family.

“I think we will see more people resorting to surrogacy. I would expect an increase in applications from single people; just as we saw more same sex couples applying after the law was changed in 2008 to allow those couples to apply.

“Also, celebrities such as Tom Daley and Elton John (who have both had children through surrogate mothers) have raised awareness about surrogacy in general.

“It has huge relevance for modern people’s lives. Advances in science now allow older women to conceive, or to have a child through a surrogate if they wish.

“A lot of women are freezing embryos. It’s becoming a feature of modern life.  When you are slightly older, you may be more ready financially and mentally to have a child. But biologically, you might no longer be at a stage where you can carry a child yourself.

“With the recent advances in technology and the increasing number of women choosing to freeze their eggs, surrogacy is becoming an increasingly attractive option.”

Ms Lee said that while the latest law change has been widely accepted, there are still issues to be addressed.

Misconceptions

“There are still a lot of misconceptions among the general public about the legal position under English law. I would certainly urge anyone considering surrogacy to seek specialist legal advice at the outset, before embarking on that journey.”

The now retired former president of the Family Court, Sir James Munby, has suggested we reconsider the current restrictions on paying surrogates anything more than “reasonable” expenses. And that we draw upon the model used in other countries – such as the United States and Canada. In those countries highly-regulated, commercial surrogacy systems are in operation, supported by surrogacy-friendly laws.

Ms Lee explained: “Because surrogacy arrangements are enforceable in certain states in the United States, and in Canada, that framework minimises the risks for all concerned. It ameliorates the risk of the surrogate mother changing her mind, and indeed the risk of the commissioning parents changing their minds.

“At the moment, under English law, those scenarios are entirely possible and we know it happens. That’s why pursuing surrogacy abroad, in countries where such arrangements are supported by surrogacy-friendly laws, can be an appealing option.

“In England, surrogacy agreements are entirely unenforceable. Surrogacy is legal, but advertising for a surrogate, or entering into a surrogacy arrangement for profit, is not. We are years behind places like California.

“Sir James Munby has called for better regulation and a more transparent system, which provides safeguards for all concerned.

Altruistic surrogacy

“This ensures that surrogate mothers are protected, not exploited, and are properly paid for their trouble. And that if someone changes their mind down the line you have a contract in place to fall back on.

“There is an argument that surrogacy done out of goodwill with no commercial element, in other words altruistic surrogacy, has worked well here for the past 30/40 years.

“However, because surrogacy arrangements are not enforceable, it is not an airtight system. Issues do arise for both the surrogate and the intended parents.

“So, for instance, a surrogate may decide to retain the child. And there have been cases where the intended parents have had to bring their surrogate to court.

“A system of informal arrangements is not entirely in keeping with the increasing numbers of people who are looking at surrogacy as a way of starting their family. There is uncertainty built in, which has led to increasing calls for the advanced system we see in California and Canada, for example, being replicated here. You would have to adapt these systems to suit the UK context but, in my view, a more watertight, legally-binding arrangement would provide certainty for everyone concerned.”

Ms Lee thinks there is still some way to go before we are ready to accept that carrying a child for another should involve contracts, with the threat of court sanction.

Controversial

“The move to a California type system is controversial. It has been the longstanding position here that commercial surrogacy is a criminal offence. It will take time for people to find such a concept palatable, but it is certainly gaining ground.”

Ms Lee said there are valid concerns that such an arrangement would incentivise vulnerable women to become surrogates.

However, provided there are robust safeguards to ensure that potential surrogates understand the risks involved, and are not being pressured into an arrangement, her view is that it might well be a model that works.

Right now, she argues, it is most important there is greater public awareness of what the law actually means.

“There are children in this country born through surrogacy who are living with parents who are not in fact their legal parents because no parental order was ever made. Many people do not realise that, under English law, the surrogate (and her partner if she has one) will be the legal parent(s) until and unless a parental order (or an adoption order) is made.

Legal advice

“Real problems can arise. For example, if there’s a dispute about the child’s upbringing between the surrogate and intended parents, or if one of the parents dies. Not being the legal child of that parent might have real ramifications when it comes to inheritance.

“It is also not uncommon to see intended parents entering into a surrogacy arrangement without first obtaining specialist legal advice.  The intended parents may have decided to embark on a surrogacy arrangement, paid a lot of money to an agency overseas, but rather left the taking of legal advice until the very end.

“You might be faced with the baby’s due date being a month away and the parents realising at that stage that they’ll have to apply for a parental order upon their return to this jurisdiction, and leaving themselves very little time.

“Some parents may not realise that they need to apply for a parental order in this jurisdiction, so as to secure legal parenthood for their child born through surrogacy.

“Those are the sorts of cases that can become tricky.”

 

Jennifer Lee is a specialist family law practitioner at Pump Court Chambers in London.
She has a thriving practice in matrimonial finance, and wide experience of complex children cases. She has developed a niche practice in surrogacy and modern families, having acted for commissioning parents in Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act cases. Jennifer also acts in Court of Protection matters. She is ranked as a “leading junior” in The Legal 500, and in Chambers & Partners.



Addiction ruins relationships, take it from my experience

Posted on March 28, 2019 by - FINANCES

Addiction and controlling behaviour can ruin relationships. Jonathan Edgeley knows the story from both sides.

Behavioural health advisor Jonathan Edgeley is uniquely qualified to help people beat their addictions and guide their families through the turmoil of dysfunctional relationships.

As a teenager filled with fear, inadequacy and self-loathing he began looking for other activities to fulfil his inquisitive mind and channel his insatiable appetite to change how he felt. At secondary school he found a new world of drink and drugs that would take his life on a rollercoaster ride of highs and ultimate lows.

Throughout his 20s, while outwardly successful professionally, his life was spiralling out of control.

Finally, after an intervention from his father, he accepted that he needed help and so started the long road to recovery. That journey began in 2006 and four years ago Jonathan decided to put his own experiences of addiction to good use helping others.

Self-destructive

He said: “I grew up in a world where money was deemed a token of success and well-being. If you were wealthy you were well.  I watched my mother and father’s marriage break down due to alcoholism on my mother’s side which had a devastating effect catapulting my already self-destructive behaviour to another level.

“My mother and father eventually divorced and my mother began to drink more heavily.  Sadly, four years ago my mother died due to drinking. The loss of my mother hit me like a train

“However in her death she provided me with the greatest gift. The evidence I needed – alcohol kills. I had stopped, and other people can too. I just needed to get the message out that recovery is possible.

“What enables me to connect with a family or somebody who’s got an addiction, is the fact that I am an addict. I am in recovery, I have been there and I know the route out.

“I’ve been through the whole process of having to go through treatment, and the run-up to that, and how bad things had to get in order for me to actually realise that I’d got a very serious illness.

“I can talk to people about that and explain how my life spiralled out of control, and how I’ve managed to gain a degree of power over it. I have experienced relapsed. I’ve experienced marriage, children, births, deaths – all of those things in recovery. The takeaway from this is I didn’t have to use mind or mood altering substances to get through it.

Emotional mood swings

Jonathan’s work now involves him linking with family lawyers. They call on his expertise and experience when a problem is identified and a family member needs professional help. The situation has typically got to the stage of wanting to leave a loved one because of their drinking, emotional mood swings or volatility or the children are suffering and at risk of psychological trauma.

The work is much easier if the person concerned is open to help.  In that scenario Jonathan will talk to those involved to get background and understand their situation in granular detail before putting together a tailored pathway to meet their needs, including therapies.

Jonathan added: “When I have that conversation with their families and loved ones, I can really connect with them. Meeting them where they are at that particular point and help them make some realisations and compassionately guide them throughout the process.

“I can connect with somebody who says, ‘this guy gets it’. What I’m able to do is go in at a different level completely from, say, a GP.

“I can say something like ‘I understand, you’re all right, you’re safe, you are going to be ok. I’ve been where you’ve been. I want to help because I’m sure that you don’t want to live the life that you are living now. Would you agree?’

“And often, they will say ‘no, I don’t. But I’m petrified of doing something about it because I’m not quite sure how it’s going to end up. What I know for certain while I’m using drugs or I’m drinking is what the outcome is going to be. I get high, I drink, I forget’.”

Rebuild relationships

The best-case scenario is the person receives the help they need and the partner and family members are willing to try to rebuild relationships with professional guidance.

But frequently those with the addiction are not prepared to accept they have a problem that needs tackling. The family concerned may then have to go through an emotional and often painful process that includes an intervention.

Jonathan said: “You know, this is the dark side of the addiction. The disease is so powerful that it wants to keep you in its grip. The important thing is that an intervention is approached with love and compassion. The family often require a degree of education to help them understand that addiction is a disease not a choice.

“I know all of these things and feel all these emotions going on. Whatever the addiction might be, it changes how they feel. And they’re scared of these feelings coming very powerfully back when they stop taking drink or drugs, or whatever it is they’re doing.

“And, it is really, really sad but that’s where it goes. So, if you can imagine that the people on the receiving end of that, the children, the wives, the husbands, the family members, the fathers, the mothers, all of these other people that are witnessing somebody who is in the grips of an addiction.

“They see they are slowly killing themselves. But that person is in such denial, people around them feel quite powerless to do anything.

Enabling behaviour

“They don’t know how to approach it; they don’t know what to say. They’re fearful that they push them further away, they are fearful that they may then leave. They are fearful that they may then carry on drinking or taking drugs and die early.

“This enabling behaviour unfortunately is pushing the loved one further into their addiction and supporting their using. This has to stop, as it can lead to further upset and ultimately death.

“All of these things have got a counter-argument to them. It is a positive counter-argument, that if you don’t do something, they are going to die anyway. If we don’t do something now, then this thing will only get worse.

“I’ve never seen anybody get better without clinical or therapeutic intervention to help them overcome their issues.”

The second part of this interview Intervention: How do you help someone who doesn’t believe they have a problem? will be published shortly.

 

Jonathan Edgeley is the Founder of Montrose Advisory which offers independent support and guidance to families seeking a solution to a behavioural health problem. He takes a family through the complex world of addiction and mental healthcare and creates robust care pathways to meet their loved one’s specific needs, circumstances and budget.