Author: Merrick Solicitors

Five thoughts on ‘no fault divorce’

Posted on May 23, 2018 by Merrick Solicitors - DIVORCE

The highest court in the land – the Supreme Court – is considering its judgment in the case of Owens v Owens.

This high-profile and long-running case has provoked huge debate as it raises important questions about our divorce laws. Many in the legal profession believe the law is out of step with modern life and needs reforming.

In England and Wales since the 1970s, there is only one legal ground for divorce, which is that the marriage has irretrievably broken down.

The person who starts the proceedings must prove this by establishing one of five facts: adultery, unreasonable behaviour, desertion, two years separation with the other party’s consent, five years separation (no consent required).

Mrs Owens’ divorce petition has been contested by her husband – something that happens in only a small percentage of cases. The High Court and the Court of Appeal have rejected Mrs Owens’ claims. She has appealed to the Supreme Court in the hope of getting the divorce she wants.

Campaigners have highlighted the Owens case as proof the system needs to be changed. Otherwise, people in similar situations can find themselves trapped in a marriage they no longer wish to be in.

In approximately 60% of cases, the system relies on one party to blame the other for the marriage failure. Many have argued that it is time for ‘no fault divorce’.

Campaigners argue that marriages sometimes just run their course with no one party any more to blame than the other. And surely no one should be forced to stay in a marriage when they are unhappy?

The Supreme Court will deliver its verdict later in the year.

In the meantime, here are five points raised by the Owens case and the much talked of ‘no fault’ divorces.

Unnecessary conflict

Under the current system, the requirement to cite adultery or unreasonable behaviour can provoke unnecessary conflict in proceedings. Waiting two years isn’t always the best option when there are financial issues to be resolved too.
It may be that the marriage has just run its course. But unless the parties are prepared to wait the only option is for one to make allegations against the other. While in some cases this may seem like a means to an end, it frequently soon escalates when written allegations against a partner are prepared for submission to court. Many practitioners argue the system should move away from the confrontational, particularly if there are children.

The current system is hypocritical

Sir James Munby, when President of the Family Division, denounced the current law as “based on hypocrisy and lack of intellectual honesty”.
After ruling on Owens, he said couples must engage in “consensual, collusive, manipulation” of the law to gain a divorce.
This led to concern amongst family lawyers that the ruling would lead to couples making more lurid allegations against each other to ensure a divorce was granted. Research published last year by the Nuffield Foundation showed our divorce laws incentivise people to exaggerate claims of unreasonable behaviour or adultery to get a quicker divorce.

Sir James Munby said divorce law was based on hypocrisy

No fault divorce: Conciliation isn’t for everyone

For all the talk in the media and amongst the profession no-one yet knows what ‘no-fault’ divorce really means or how it will work. Is it to be an addition to our existing laws or a wholesale replacement? And what would that mean for those cases in which there has been conduct relevant also to the associated financial or children issues? Under current legislation the decree nisi acts as a finding of fact on the contents of the petition.

Man has been laying blame since the beginning of time. Adam blamed Eve and God for his fall from the Garden of Eden and Eve in turn looked to the serpent for encouraging her to take the forbidden fruit.
Conciliation isn’t for everyone and in some cases the blame game can provide its own form of catharsis. A blanket removal of the existing grounds for divorce may not provide the panacea that is expected.

Many in unhappy marriages look to divorce to give them a fresh start in life. They require the cathartic experience of being able to say why exactly their marriage failed. And, to put it bluntly, they want to name the party they believe was to blame. And also recite the poor treatment that resulted in their marriage irretrievably breaking down. To deny that experience could serve to cause more conflict (not less) when dealing with associated financial or children issues.

The Family Court is entrusted with a very wide discretion for a reason; because no one solution fits all. It’s a principle that perhaps should not be overlooked when deciding the part no fault divorce should play in modern day relationship breakdown.

The Supreme Court doesn’t make new laws

Those looking for a ruling in Owens v Owens to lead directly to a law change are very likely to be disappointed.
The Supreme Court’s president, Baroness Hale, has already said: “It is not the job of the courts to legislate – only Parliament can do that. Our job is to interpret law that Parliament has given us.”

Government action is therefore needed

Parliamentarians should be watching what is happening and getting ready to step in. Divorce law in England and Wales is out of step with our nearest neighbours Scotland, most other countries in Europe, and North America.
Despite numerous calls to change the law, successive governments have failed to do so. An attempt to introduce no-fault divorces in 1996 failed after it was described by the Government as unworkable. A Private Members Bill in 2015 failed to win backing, though Baroness Butler-Sloss has signalled her intention to try again.

Government inaction is possibly because they don’t want divorce to look too easy. But in the real world couples do split up. Surely there should be a mechanism to make sure, where both parties are agreed, unnecessary obstacles aren’t placed in the way, causing additional suffering for all concerned?

Family law reform in spotlight at Supreme Court

Posted on May 11, 2018 by Merrick Solicitors - CHILDREN, DIVORCE, RELATIONSHIPS

Court 1, The Supreme Court - Family law reform

Two cases with potentially far-reaching consequences for family law reform will be heard at the Supreme Court this week.

The hearings could shape the future look of divorce and civil partnerships.

Owens v Owens

The case of Owens v Owens underlines the need for no-fault divorce to finally be adopted in England and Wales.

Tini Owens claims she’s “locked in” to her marriage with farmer Hugh Owens which broke down after she had an affair. She filed for divorce, but Mr Owens represented himself and opposed the petition. Her request was denied.

Her appeal was rejected by the High Court and then the Court of Appeal. She was, however, given leave to appeal to the Supreme Court and this is due to be heard on Thursday.

Family lawyers group Resolution has been given permission to make representations, given the importance of the likely ruling.

Family law reform?

As the law stands, the requirement to allege adultery or unreasonable behaviour provokes unnecessary conflict. Reducing that hostility must be a better way forward and would assist in making divorce law fit for purpose.

Previously we looked at this from the all-important perspective of a child.

Currently, Mrs Owens is forced to stay in a marriage that she no longer wants to be in. She’s having to appeal to the highest court in the land to grant her wish.

Whether this case will lead to direct reform, only time will tell.

At the Court of Appeal, Sir James Munby ruled: “Parliament has decreed that it is not a ground for divorce that you find yourself in a wretchedly unhappy marriage, although some people may say it should be.”

Baroness Hale, President of the Supreme Court

And the President of the Supreme Court, Baroness Hale, said only last month: “It is not the job of the courts to legislate – only Parliament can do that. Our job is to interpret law that Parliament has given us.”

Hence, all eyes will be on the Supreme Court on Thursday.

That will follow a case at the start of the week with potentially far-reaching consequences for civil partnerships and co-habitees.

Steinfeld

Same-sex couples have had the right to enter into a civil partnership since 2005 and to marry since 2014. No such right to civil partnership exists for opposite-sex couples.

This omission has been challenged by Rebecca Steinfeld and Charles Keidan, a couple in a long-term relationship. They wish to formalise their arrangement but have an ideological objection to marriage, based on what they consider to be its patriarchal nature.

The couple sought a judicial review of the government’s decision not to offer civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples. Both the High Court and Court of Appeal ruled against them.

While the government has been looking at whether a change in the law is required, the couple are now to have their case heard by the Supreme Court.

At the heart of this is the truth that some co-habitees want a legally binding relationship other than marriage that affords protection in the event of a relationship breakdown or death.

Previously we explained the lack of legal protection for co-habitees and some of the myths surrounding their ‘rights’.

There are more than three million co-habiting couple families in the UK. Surely it is right that they have the option to choose a legal status right for their beliefs?

Court 1 of the Supreme Court will be the testing ground for reform.

Baroness Hale: By University of Salford Press Office [CC BY 2.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

Why Prince Harry and Meghan should consider a pre-nup

Posted on May 2, 2018 by Merrick Solicitors - FINANCES, RELATIONSHIPS

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle should embrace a modern marriage trend and sign a pre-nuptial agreement before stepping down the aisle at Windsor Castle.

That’s the view of leading family lawyer Edward Boydell who said pre-nuptial agreements that specify what will happen to income and assets in the event of a marriage ending have increased dramatically in recent years.

There has been speculation the couple might have one drawn up as both have experienced the aftermath of divorce. Princess Diana and Prince Charles split when Harry was 11 and Ms Markle’s parents when she was six. Her own first marriage ended after just two years.

Many observers insist it’s not the ‘royal way’. But Mr Boydell, barrister and head of the family finance team at London’s Pump Court Chambers, says there are many reasons why it would make sense.

Edward Boydell says royals should consider a pre-nup

Pump Court Chambers’ Edward Boydell

Mr Boydell told Merrick Solicitors: “It’s a really good idea for people with complicated lives and complicated finances to have thought through what they would want if the marriage ended, rather than having to battle for it at that time.

“I would say of all the young couples getting married this year Harry and Meghan have the most complications. Of course, we all wish them a long and happy marriage but being a thoroughly modern young couple, they may well have taken steps along this line.”

Pre-nups no guarantee, but…

There is no absolute guarantee that a pre-nuptial agreement will determine the financial provision made at the end of a marriage. But since precedent set in 2010, a pre-nup can significantly improve the case of anyone relying on it.

Mr Boydell said: “Up until that point they had been viewed with distaste and were seen as rather anti-marriage. Since 2010 there have been thousands signed.”

The starting point for the division of finances in divorce is generally equality of property and assets.

However, 21st century relationships come in various shapes and sizes meaning that no one solution fits all. With people living and working longer many families reflect not one, but two or more significant relationships.

So how can a ‘pre-nup’ help?

It can ringfence assets which have, for example, been built up in a family over generations.
It can look to safeguard assets for dependents from a previous relationship.
Where both parties are established financially, it can set out terms for any sharing of their existing and future wealth.
It can short-circuit expensive litigation following separation

But Mr Boydell said finances aren’t the only concern. Often it is the arrival of children and planning their futures that is also uppermost in people’s minds.

Mr Boydell said: “Sometimes where the couple are going to live can be an issue. They may meet and marry in London, but part of the agreement is they live overseas within, say, five years.

“In the case of the royal couple, there could be thought as to where any future offspring should be raised given Ms Markle’s American roots.”

Have Meghan Markle and Prince Harry discussed a pre-nup?

Looking ahead: The happy couple

In marriages in later years the only provision might be around future care needs. Favourite pets also figure highly on some people’s list of concerns.

Mr Boydell said: “I had a case where both parties brought dogs into the marriage. The pre-nup stated that in the event of divorce they each kept their own dog. The marriage didn’t last and that’s exactly what happened.”

Challenging a pre-nup

If the pre-nup is entered into properly it leaves limited room for challenge. Common grounds for doing so have been if the pre-nup was unfair from the outset, a party didn’t have good, or any, legal advice or there wasn’t full disclosure of assets.

Mr Boydell said there was now a greater challenge around ‘need’. This may be because separating couples frequently enjoy greater financial wealth during the course of the marriage than at the time of their wedding.

He said: “We are seeing more attacks based on need. For example, ‘the agreement signed doesn’t now meet my needs because we have since lived for many years in a £5m house’.”

Neither are pre-nups the preserve of the fabulously wealthy. Though Mr Boydell said often they were used when both people bring assets into the marriage, there were also many occasions when there is a relative in the background keen to protect the family wealth.

He said: “If the family want to hand over assets at some stage during their life they may also want to make sure it can’t land up in the hands of some ne’er do well son-in-law or daughter-in-law.”

With the countdown on to May 19 the royal couple have probably left it too late if they haven’t yet signed a pre-nup.

Mr Boydell said: “The venue is booked, Meghan’s family have their plane tickets, the guests have been invited. There would be enormous pressure to sign an agreement now which would run the risk of causing duress. These things must therefore be done in plenty of time before a wedding.”

Pre-nups aren’t romantic

Amanda Merrick echoed this sentiment.

She said: “Pre-nuptial agreements are not romantic. They force a challenging discussion about issues many would prefer to ignore at a time when the focus is ‘til death do us part rather than divorce.”

Amanda Merrick

She advocates time and space well in advance of the big day to allow for proper consideration. This gives any agreement the best chance of holding good in the face of a subsequent relationship breakdown.

Miss Merrick added: “Lack of financial compatibility has long been cited as one of the most common reasons couples break-up. Meaningful discussions in anticipation of a pre-nuptial agreement can therefore provide an opportunity for a much-needed dialogue.”

‘Marriage is fragile. Financial harmony is critical for validation, freedom, power, respect, security and happiness. Couples must realise the great importance that money has in their relationships and learn to define guidelines for money management’
– Washburn, Carolyn and Darlene Christensen. 2008. Financial harmony: A key component of successful marriage relationship

Royal photo By Mark Jones [CC BY 2.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

We’re hiring! Could you be our next family lawyer?

Posted on May 1, 2018 by Merrick Solicitors - HIRING, Merrick News, WORK

Family Law Vacancy

We thought we’d show you the Magnificent Seven – our brand values here at Merrick Solicitors.
They’re important to us, we work by them every day.

Unless you can relate to them, we’re probably not the firm for you.

If you don’t believe that client care is the central core of what a family lawyer does, then we’re definitely not the firm for you.

We know some may be thinking ‘brand values? Corporate twaddle more like’.

But that’s another thing you should know about us. We don’t do corporate twaddle.

We don’t do across the board legal services either.

Expertise in family law, delivered with a touch of northern realism, that’s what we do.

Don’t let TV put you off seeking the legal advice you need

Posted on April 24, 2018 by Merrick Solicitors - DIVORCE, RELATIONSHIPS

Don’t let TV put you off seeking legal advice | Merrick Solicitors

People in need of legal advice about their relationship are being urged not to be put off by recent negative headlines.

The BBC’s new drama series, The Split, portrays the larger-than-life antics of high-end family lawyers and their even wealthier clients. The programme has sparked a rush of newspaper articles comparing the fictional series with real-life counterparts at some of the country’s biggest law firms.

Much of the coverage has focussed on the fees charged by some of the London circuit’s highest-profile family lawyers.

Karen Leadbetter, associate solicitor with Merrick, said it would be a concern if those who needed it were put off seeking qualified legal advice for fear of being landed with exorbitant costs.

She said: “If you’re trapped in a relationship or marriage you want to get out of, it must be frightening to see some of these articles and their talk of charges of £600-an-hour.

“That’s not the norm and we always discuss whether clients have tried or are willing to consider marriage guidance. Divorce should be a last resort.”

Associate solicitor Karen Leadbetter

Withdrawal of legal aid

The withdrawal of legal aid for most divorces has left people with two options when a relationship irretrievably breaks down.

If they have the means they can instruct a solicitor to act on their behalf. If funds aren’t available, they can endeavour to handle their own divorce or separation. This has led to a huge spike in the number of DIY – or litigant in person – divorces reaching the courts.

To counter this, Merrick is pioneering a new service structure. This includes payment tiers intended to ensure charges are commensurate with individual circumstances.

One of these is #AccessUs which offers the firm’s years of legal expertise at a heavily discounted rate to those with limited finances.

Karen said: “For many people it’s not by choice they end up representing themselves but because legal aid isn’t available or they cannot afford legal fees.

“There are risks involved in doing this and the individual going into this process alone can be at a disadvantage.

“There is often distrust with feelings running high between the two parties. Trying to deal with matters yourself in these circumstances can be a hindrance to obtaining a settlement. People can also sometimes rush to proceedings, without attempting to negotiate a settlement.

“Proceedings can also take longer because litigants in person are not familiar with the process and the language used. When children and complicated finances are involved it’s even more important that qualified legal advice is available.”

People need to protect themselves against risk

Karen, noted in the profession’s Legal 500 as someone who ‘fights hard for her clients’, added: “There are risks that people need to protect themselves against. For instance, upon divorce, where circumstances allow, the obtaining of a financial clean break court order is needed. Without this the parties may be able to bring a financial claim in the future.”

Merrick is committed to ensuring that, whatever their resources, clients can access the information needed to make informed decisions. This has come as a welcome surprise to some looking for help.

Karen said: “When we’ve had a consultation and been through the financial circumstances they have sometimes been surprised and relieved that our rates are based on their financial means. Otherwise they would have to walk away, not able to engage us.”

Each Merrick fee earner is committed to #AccessUs. The work stays with that solicitor and isn’t instead passed to a junior member of the team.

More on Merrick’s services can be found here.
To contact the team email info@merrick-solicitors.com or call 0161 838 5410.

Merrick is based in Manchester but regularly takes its services on the road to London and Cumbria.

#lawforgood could replace what our legal system’s lost

Posted on April 13, 2018 by Merrick Solicitors - DIVORCE

#lawforgood may not be a social media hashtag that’s too familiar to readers just yet – but hopefully that will change.

I first fell in love with the law when I was 13, inspired by a triple whammy of influences.

Leon Uris’ courtroom opus QB VII hit our TV screens around the same time our class read Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird with its theme of racial injustice. The novel’s hero, Atticus Finch, is a model of integrity for lawyers.

And there was 12 Angry Men, with Henry Fonda slowly convincing his fellow jurors to confront their own prejudices.

Together these three stories, each concerning a quest for justice, had a profound effect and determined my desire to work in the law.

I qualified as a solicitor in 1989. This was a time when access to justice was part of the fabric of our society never questioned.

Most firms had a legal aid offering and public funding was readily available.

Erosions to legal aid

The erosions to this system since have been gradual but ultimately seismic.

In April 2013 the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act (LASPO) came in to force imposing wholesale changes to the legal aid system for family law.

Now, to obtain advice or representation you must pay on a private basis. This is unless domestic violence is involved or mediation is your preferred method of resolution.

I stopped doing legal aid work in 1999, disillusioned by the ever-increasing bureaucracy. I have instead acted for some clients at a similar rate but on a private basis.

Meanwhile, official figures from 2017 show the proportion of family law cases before the courts in England & Wales where neither party had legal representation was 36%, up by 19% in just four years.

Courts axed

And magistrates and county courts like those in Kendal, Cumbria, were axed last year in a cost-cutting move. This was despite a campaign by the local newspaper – The Westmorland Gazette – arguing against the loss of local justice.

The traditional defender of the law against politics was the Lord Chancellor. Until very recently that role too was political leaving the law with no voice in the Cabinet. It was left to our judges to make a noise the government simply cannot ignore.

Last May the President of the Family Division, Sir James Munby, was forced to condemn the cruel policy of separating older people who need to go into care homes. ‘“People die of broken hearts,” he said.

In August he warned the nation would have blood on its hands if an NHS hospital bed could not be found for a teenage girl at acute risk of taking her own life.

Whether or not you believe Theresa May when she says she does not have a magic money tree what is clear is that any resources available to the government are unlikely to be directed towards family law reform and enabling access to justice.

Thankfully, family lawyers the length and breadth of England and Wales believe they have a responsibility to provide the answers.

Access to justice

Examples as to the truth of this statement can be found on Twitter – #whatabouthenry and #nofaultdivorce – to name but two.

At Merrick we have launched #AccessUs – a case-managed service intended to increase access to justice. Every member of the team is tasked with dedicating time to it.

We’re now interested in talking to colleagues across the profession to see whether more can be achieved by uniting efforts.

‘After all, the only thing that is going to save mankind is if enough people live their lives for something or someone other than themselves.’ – Leon Uris, QB VII

In my world that is #lawforgood

Amanda J Merrick
Principal

*A version of this article appeared in The Westmorland Gazette April 5 2018

COURT HAD TO JAIL CONTEMPT OF COURT OCTOGENARIAN AFTER 7-YEAR DIVORCE CASE

Posted on March 29, 2018 by Merrick Solicitors - DIVORCE, FINANCES

A judge had no choice but to jail an 83-year-old after he spent years deliberately frustrating the courts, according to a barrister in the divorce case.

The sentencing of millionaire property developer John Hart created media headlines earlier this month. The pensioner was given 14 months for contempt of court after repeatedly refusing to hand over business documents following his long-running divorce case.

Judge Stephen Wildblood QC took the unusual step of handing down a prison sentence after describing Mr Hart as an “exceptionally poor and untruthful witness”.

The judge said he had made every attempt to stop the contempt reaching crisis point but “orders of the court and the rule of law must be observed”.

In June 2015, four years after divorce proceedings began, Mr Hart was ordered to hand over £3.5m of their £9.4m wealth to his wife of 24 years, Karen Hart. As part of that she was also awarded his shares in Drakestown Properties Limited – a company owning two estates of industrial units in the West Midlands.

The shares were transferred, making her the owner of the company. But Mr Hart had “done his utmost to frustrate her ability to run it efficiently and effectively” as he “bitterly resents” that the company had been transferred to his former wife, said the judge.

After delaying the transfer, Hart and his staff “stripped out” management records, leaving behind only two bank statements and a collection of licences and leases.

Mr Hart was ordered on two occasions, in February and July 2016, to provide information to his ex-wife, but failed to co-operate, leaving Mrs Hart with difficulties in her management of the company.

Frustrate the courts

Judge Wildblood said: “This is a man who has received repeated warnings already that he must comply with court orders and he has chosen, repeatedly, not to do so.”

After being sentenced, Mr Hart is now on bail pending appeal on April 18.

Barrister Peter Mitchell has represented Mrs Hart since 2014 and believes the court was left with no alternative action.

Mr Mitchell told Merrick Solicitors: “A jail sentence following civil contempt is rare as is the jailing of an octogenarian. Therefore this makes for a very unusual case. But Mr Hart has been an exceptionally difficult litigant. He has done everything possible to frustrate the courts over many years.”

The judge praised Mr Hart’s ex-wife for being “exceptionally patient” in the proceedings and Mr Mitchell said she took no pleasure from his plight.

He said: “She was upset, she wasn’t looking for her ex-husband to go to jail. But she has had to fight him every step of the way. Three years after finishing litigation he’s still making it impossible for her to move on with her life.”

Barrister Peter Mitchell

Mr Mitchell said despite the judge’s strong stance he did not believe courts were getting tougher on those who try to block justice.

He said: “There have always been a corpus of litigants who are as difficult as they can be. It is incredibly frustrating for the courts because it is unnecessary.

Mr Mitchell, of London’s 29 Bedford Row Chambers, said: “It is both professionally challenging and extremely interesting, I’ve never been in a case like this before.”

Loss of relationship

The judge, sitting at the High Court in Bristol, said prison would have a “marked effect” on Mr Hart. He added: “Mr Hart has not only lost some of the money which he holds so dear, but he has also experienced the loss of his relationship with his former wife and children.

“From the upbeat, proud and canny businessman that I first saw three years ago, he is now an isolated and sad man seemingly unable to enjoy for his remaining years the millions of pounds that he still owns.”

Commenting on the case, Amanda Merrick, principal at Merrick Solicitors, said the parties involved had the means to fight on until justice was done. That would not be the case for the majority who found themselves in a similar position.

She said: “In most cases there aren’t the assets to justify a protracted fight. In these circumstances when faced with attempts by one party to avoid the other’s claims, commerciality often dictates defeat before a fair and proper outcome can be achieved.

“These incidences are only going to increase as the decision-making process becomes more stream-lined to accommodate a system that is failing for want of proper funding.”

The judge said the ”unnecessarily protracted litigation” had placed an immense burden on public funds in terms of court time and this would continue as a result of Mr Hart’s incarceration.

Miss Merrick added: “Perhaps this case should now encourage a more robust approach by the courts at a much earlier stage in financial remedy proceedings, particularly when faced with an obviously recalcitrant litigant like Mr Hart.

“Obligations regarding disclosure and compliance with court orders are fundamental to the Family Court’s decision-making process.

“To those parties who think the rules don’t apply to them the message should surely be loud and clear from the outset, not after nearly seven years of litigation.”

ACCESS TO FAMILY LAW DELIVERED WITH A TOUCH OF NORTHERN REALISM

Posted on February 22, 2018 by Merrick Solicitors - #LAWTODOOR

If you want to ensure there’s more widely available access to your legal expertise, how best to make sure it reaches those in need? Not by just sitting in a city centre office waiting for people to navigate a maze of names and find their way to you.

This is why I launched our ‘on the road’ family law service #LawtoDoor – a name which reflects a long-held belief that the law should be visible and those who practise it should be accessible.

Currently, we operate monthly #LawtoDoor days in Cumbria and London.

In our hometown of Manchester we’re as happy meeting those we can help in their homes or places of work as at our offices.

It’s about making it as easy as possible for people to get the qualified legal help they need.

We are often the first professional service to be consulted and that is not a responsibility to be taken lightly. Some people are nervous about seeing a solicitor; by the time they sit down to talk to us it’s most likely their marriage or relationship is nearing an end, if not yet over. Acknowledging this and starting that conversation is undoubtedly hard.

Seeing clients in a less threatening, less invasive environment hopefully helps them and it’s important as there’s a lot of information that needs to be exchanged. From there it’s up to us to explain how it will be and what to expect. Maybe it’s the northerner in me, but I’m inclined to tell it like it is. It’s important that our clients are told what they need to know, not what they want to hear.

Often at the outset clients can also fear that months later they will be left with little money or without an arrangement that allows for quality time spent with their children. Contrary to this our aim is to ensure they achieve the best outcome in all the circumstances and can look forward rather than live in the past.

Legal aid is now only available in a small number of cases but there are many family lawyers with a genuine desire to help.

Here at Merrick we now have three levels of service offering. We call them Prestige, Benchmark and #AccessUs – more information about them can be found here.

We are proud that #AccessUs allows us to act for those who may not otherwise be able to afford the best available legal advice.

With #LawtoDoor we are redefining boundaries that otherwise limit accessibility to our services.

Both are #lawforgood, another of our initiatives which we will talk about in a future post when we consider the importance of rebuilding trust in our legal system.

As someone commented on Facebook in response to our latest #LawtoDoor event:

‘To make access to the law is a vital basic human right. Thank you for this innovation. So much of our legal rights are now eroded we have to use the legal system because it is the backbone of history. It is slowly being tampered with to make access impossible. This is a very good move.’

To find out more or make an appointment telephone 0161 838 5410 #itsgoodtotalk #familylaw

Future dates for London and Cumbria can be found here.

Amanda J Merrick
MERRICK

22/02/18

HOW FAMILY MEDIATION CAN EASE DIVORCE CONFLICT FOR CHILDREN

Posted on February 21, 2018 by Merrick Solicitors - CHILDREN, DIVORCE, RELATIONSHIPS

A primary concern for any parent divorcing or separating is the effect this has on any children in the relationship.

It’s clearly an unsettling time for all concerned but possibly more so for those witnessing the breakdown of their parents’ relationship. With more than 100,000 couples filing for divorce each year, one in three children is likely to experience parental separation before the age of 16, according to the Family Mediators Association.

Going to court can sometimes polarise parents creating additional tensions. Children inevitably feel these. Mediation is a more informal way to resolve the conflicts and disputes that can arise.

In particular it can be a very useful forum to address issues relating to children. These are so often driven by emotional factors, which the Family Court is unable to resolve.

Due to the communication involved in the mediation process relationships are often better preserved. This gives an opportunity for separating parents to continue to work together in the future for the benefit of their children.

At Merrick, our focus is on resolving disputes as quickly and cheaply as possible.

Most agreements need some give and take from both sides. Even so an agreed outcome is almost always preferable to the imposition of a solution by a judge.

Our job is to empower our clients, so they understand the impact of any compromises and are on an equal footing with their ex, when they need it most.

We strongly recommend that legal advice is obtained before entering mediation to give it the best chance of success.

We certainly would not advise anybody to enter such a difficult and far-reaching process on an uninformed basis. Believing that mediation is a quick-fix, cheap option to end a relationship without understanding the legal ramifications is not helpful and can often have unintended consequences.

Each individual set of circumstances are different. Only after listening and understanding those circumstances will we advise a client whether or not their case is suitable for mediation. If it is, and mediation is their preferred option, we will make the appropriate referral.

Here are some important points about the mediation process:

Mediation is voluntary for both parties.

If both parties agree to it, the impartial mediator facilitates negotiation and has no vested interest in the outcome.

Whilst being flexible to the needs of each party, the mediator is in charge of the process ensuring that sessions have focus and the whole process is going somewhere.

Mediation is confidential, except where there are any concerns of risk of harm to a child or vulnerable adult. Details of the mediation will not be referred to in evidence in any court proceedings about the same issues.

Typically, more than one session is needed to reach an outcome to stand the test of time and deal with underlying issues of conflict.

The decision-making rests with the participants. If an agreement is reached it is presented to the court for approval. This isn’t simply for rubber-stamping. The judge will consider the reasonableness of the terms proposed in all the relevant circumstances.

If, unfortunately, a negotiated settlement does not prove possible, we will support clients through the court process.

Family law is complex and each set of circumstances unique. Whether you are fact finding or have already made a decision, do seek properly informed legal advice.

More from Merrick about children in divorce here. Useful information from the Family Mediation Council here.

19.02.2018