The online information & webinar resource for private family lawyers.
New to watch
Nuptial Agreements: The latest thinking with Richard Todd QC
Financial Remedy Courts Update
Jurisdiction in Financial Remedies: The Brexit Effect
Egocentrism, narcissism and narcissistic personality disorder in family law settings
New to read
-
Case summary: CB v KB [2019] EWFC 78
The court was concerned with: first, the complex calculation and capitalisation of future income streams, which represented the realisation of assets built up during the marriage; and second, the question of whether this would be sufficient to meet future income needs. Judgment, 17/01/2020, free -
SR v MA (Temporary Leave To Remove From the Jurisdiction) [2019] EWHC 435 (Fam)
The mother requested permission to take her nine-year-old son on holiday to Brazil. The boy was living with the father in England, while the mother had previously made and then withdrawn a wrongful removal claim under the 1980 Hague Convention. Roberts J accepted the mother's evidence that she intended to ensure the child's safe return at the end of any stay in Brazil. The risk was that she would change her mind once the boy was there or be persuaded by her family not to return him. On balance, Roberts J was persuaded that the potential benefits to the child of spending time with his mother in Brazil outweighed the potential risks of a wrongful retention, provided that certain protections, including mirror orders, were in place before the visit. Judgment, 14/01/2020, free -
KW v ST [2019] EWHC 3665 (Fam)
A circuit judge sitting in the Family Court had held that the father, on a single occasion, had sexually abused his daughter. Holman J found that the judge's findings, in a very difficult case, were unreliable. He identified ten issues with them, including that no independent expert view had been brought to bear upon the forensic evidence. Justice, not only to the father but above all to the child, required that the whole matter be reconsidered afresh by a completely different judge. The very young age of the child made this an exceptional case and so the re-hearing would take place before a High Court judge. Judgment, 14/01/2020, free -
Case Summary: Neil v Neil [2019] EWHC 3330 (Fam)
Mr Justice Moor recently gave judgment in Neil v Neil [2019] EWHC 3330 (Fam), concerning the applicant husband’s (‘H’) application to set aside part of a final order in financial remedies proceedings on the grounds of the respondent wife’s (‘W’) alleged fraud. In an extensive judgment, Moor J made numerous serious findings of fact against W, concluding ultimately that ‘Her conduct has been egregious. The court cannot and will not ignore it… This is one of those very rare cases where I must take into account W’s conduct. I am clear that, if I allowed her to proceed with a claim for maintenance, I would be allowing her to benefit from her fraud. Whilst I accept that this was a long marriage with a child, W’s conduct, in my view, is the magnetic factor that, in effect, trumps everything else.” Moor J ordered a set aside of part of the final order, disposed of the case finally, and ordered W to pay H’s indemnity costs. Judgment, 10/01/2020, free -
Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Bill
The Bill makes important changes to the legal process for married couples to obtain a divorce, for civil partners to dissolve their civil partnership, or for obtaining a judicial separation. News, 09/01/2020, free -
Divorce ‘blame game’ to end
Divorcing couples will no longer have to blame one another for the breakdown of their marriage as a Bill that seeks to reduce family conflict enters Parliament today (7 January 2020). News, 08/01/2020, free -
Re C3 and C4 (Child Arrangements) [2019] EWHC B14 (Fam)
This hearing followed on from that in Re C1 and C2 (Child Arrangements) [2019] EWHC B15 (Fam), involving the same father but a different mother. In this hearing, the mother of these two children, aged six and eight, applied to extend an existing s.91(14) order for a period of five years. Keehan J found that the defects in the father's personality and his character were such that he posed a risk of serious emotional and psychological harm to the mother of these two children, as it had been found to do with regards to the mother of the two children in the earlier hearing. A period of two years would be an appropriate one to give the father the chance to make the changes that he needed to make, for his own benefit, and for the benefit of his children. However, Keehan J regretted that, in the absence of further incidents since 2016, there was no legal basis for making or extending a non-molestation order and that application was dismissed. The mother's application for costs was refused. Judgment, 03/01/2020, free -
Re C1 and C2 (Child Arrangements) [2019] EWHC B15 (Fam)
The father applied for child arrangements orders in respect of these two children. Pursuant to s.91(14) of the Children Act 1989, the mother applied to prevent the father from making any further Children Act applications without leave of the court. The father was a litigant in person, but also a qualified member of the Bar, and yet his behaviour during the hearing was described by Keehan J as appalling, aggressive, incoherent and intimidating, for example with regard to the expert witness psychologist during cross-examination. This supported the conclusions in her report as to his lack of empathy and narcissistic personality disorder. An order for direct contact would have a devastating impact upon the mother, which would have a serious adverse impact indirectly on the two children. Keehan J was entirely satisfied that it was not in the best interests of either child to have direct contact with the father, and a s.91(14) order was imposed upon him for a period of two years. He was urged to seek professional help. Judgment, 03/01/2020, free
