The online information & webinar resource for private family lawyers.
New to watch
Video | Security & Lump Sums in Financial Remedies - Zak Virgin, Mills & Reeve
'Tax issues with overseas assets or income in divorce' - Sofia Thomas
When ignorance isn’t bliss: Practical Tips on Avoiding Negligence Claims
Nuptial Agreements: The latest thinking with Richard Todd QC
New to read
-
Latest Family Court statistics show a decrease in number of cases started in Family Courts by 1%
Figures from October to December 2019 released. News, 26/03/2020, free -
Coronavirus Guidance:Compliance with Family Court Child Arrangement Orders
Guidance issued by The Rt. Hon. Sir Andrew McFarlane News, 25/03/2020, free -
The Remote Access Family Court: COVID-19 (coronavirus)
Document issued by Mr Justice MacDonald News, 23/03/2020, free -
MS v FS (No.2: Costs and Ancillary Issues) [2020] EWFC B8
The husband had sought to set aside a decree absolute and a financial consent order in proceedings involving what was described as "frankly shambolic and unacceptable case preparation", leading to the loss of a full court day and the case being part-heard. The starting point as to costs was set out in FPR 2010 rule 28.1: the court may make any order as to costs "as it thinks just". As a set-aside application this was not within the definition of "financial remedy proceedings" and so rule 28.2 applied rather than rule 28.3. Mr Recorder Allen QC decided that the wife should pay 80% of the husband's costs, and costs were to be assessed on the indemnity basis. Her conduct in dishonestly obtaining a decree of divorce and a financial order had taken the circumstances of this case out of the norm. Judgment, 19/03/2020, free -
MS v FS [2020] EWFC B9
The husband alleged fraud and sought to set aside a decree absolute and a financial consent order, both from 2011, in proceedings involving what was described as "frankly shambolic and unacceptable case preparation", leading to the loss of a full court day. Mr Recorder Allen QC found as a fact that the husband had been unaware of the divorce and financial proceedings instigated by the wife. Although Mr Recorder Allen QC had made a finding of fraud, the divorce petition was voidable rather than void, and he declined to set it aside in this case. The financial consent order was set aside and the matter would be listed for a new directions hearing. Judgment, 19/03/2020, free -
Webinar: The Secret family Court: Fact or Fiction?
Webinar to be broadcast on Thursday 26th March, 4pm-5pm. News, 19/03/2020, free -
Re T (Parental Alienation) [2019] EWHC 3854 (Fam)
The five-year-old daughter had always lived with her mother, but had been the subject of legal proceedings between her parents for most of her life. All other avenues to engage and promote a good and loving relationship with the father having failed, he was now seeking an order that he should be the child's primary carer and that she should live with him. This application was supported by the child's Guardian. After hearing evidence regarding the consequences of the child being denied a relationship with the father, the mother ceased to actively oppose the father's application. Agreed findings were made that the daughter's relationship with the father had not been consistently promoted by the mother, that the mother was not in a position to promote a positive relationship between the daughter and the father, and that the mother had alienated the daughter from her father. HHJ Raeside (sitting as a judge of the High Court) made further findings including that the father would be better able to promote a relationship between the daughter and the mother. The child's welfare was best met by a transfer of care to her father, as well as an immediate change of school. Judgment, 17/03/2020, free -
E (Child Abduction: Child's Objections) [2020] EWHC 491 (Fam)
The daughter and both parents were British citizens. The mother had returned to England with the daughter, telling the father that it was for a short break. The father sought the daughter's summary return to Lanzarote in Spain, where he lived. The mother opposed the application on the grounds that the child objected to returning to Lanzarote, and that there was a grave risk that a return would, as per Article 13(b) of the 1980 Hague Convention, cause physical or psychological harm or otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation. The CAFCASS Officer told the court that the child was very firm in her view that she would not wish to return to Lanzarote without her mother. Mr David Rees QC found that the child was objecting in Hague Convention terms to the return, and he was satisfied that he should exercise the discretion not to return her. Also, if the child returned alone, the father would not be in a position to both support her financially and provide care for her, and thus the objection under Article 13(b) was also made out. The application was dismissed and the child would remain in England and Wales. Judgment, 17/03/2020, free
