![\"family](\"http:\/\/www.marilynstowe.co.uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/02\/Clocks.jpg\")
<\/p>\nA week in family law<\/h2>\n
Following swiftly on from the Court of Appeal\u2019s judgment in the Owens<\/em> case<\/a>, interim findings from research exploring how the current divorce law works in practice have been published<\/a>. Key findings of the research include that the majority of divorces are based on \u2018fault\u2019, i.e. blaming one spouse for the marriage breakdown, that divorce petitions are not necessarily accurate records of who or what caused the breakdown of the marriage, and that fault can create or exacerbate conflict, which can affect negotiations about children or finances where the law expects parties to work together.<\/p>\n The report concludes:<\/p>\n \u201cIn reality, we already have divorce by consent or \u2018on demand\u2019, but masked by an often painful, and sometimes destructive, legal ritual with no obvious benefits for the parties or the state. There is no evidence so far from this study that the current law does anything to protect marriage. The divorce process is currently being digitised. This is a timely opportunity for law reform so that divorce is based solely on irretrievable breakdown after notification by one or both spouses.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Quite. Now can we please have this long-overdue reform?<\/p>\n Guidance given to judges in January 2014 to routinely publish their judgments is not being consistently followed<\/a>, leaving the public with a patchy understanding of the family justice system in England and Wales, new research from Cardiff University\u2019s School of Law and Politics suggests. The research found that judges were struggling to find the time to publish judgments safely, without identifying the children and families involved.<\/p>\n Dr Julie Doughty, who led the research, said:<\/p>\n \u201cThe judgments now published provide more information about the role of the family courts than was available prior to the guidance, but there are inconsistences in the way courts have responded which can present a confusing and not necessarily representative picture of the system as a whole.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Interesting. I run an online case digest, which publishes links to all (or almost all) family law judgments I come across. The figures for the number of judgments I link to each year clearly show the increase in published judgments since the guidance, and also a drop-off in the last year: 2013 \u2013 476; 2014 \u2013 734; 2015 \u2013 773; and 2016 \u2013 575. Is the initial enthusiasm for the guidance diminishing?<\/p>\n I\u2019m not sure that it\u2019s really news, but a report by the National Audit Office has found that at least \u00a33 billion in child maintenance payments ordered by the Child Support Agency (CSA) may never be collected<\/a>. According to the report three-quarters of the \u00a34 billion in payments owed by absent parents, some dating back more than 20 years, are considered \u201cuncollectable\u201d by the Department for Work and Pensions, a further \u00a3527 million of arrears is described as \u201cpotentially collectable\u201d, \u00a0and just \u00a3366 million is assessed as being \u201clikely to be collected\u201d. The CSA was replaced by the Child Maintenance Service (CMS) in 2012, and CSA cases are being transferred to the CMS.<\/p>\n I agree entirely with the assessment by Janet Allbeson, senior policy adviser for single-parent charity Gingerbread, who said:<\/p>\n \u201cThe government\u2019s approach to winding down the CSA is a smokescreen for a desire to turn the page on the past. Too little was done in the past by the CSA, and now too little is being done by the new Child Maintenance Service to collect outstanding debts.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Suella Fernandes MP has introduced a new Private Member\u2019s Bill<\/a>, aimed at reforming family justice. The Family Justice Bill 2016-17 has not yet been published, but it is described as:<\/p>\n \u201cA Bill to make provision for the enforcement of Child Arrangement Orders, including times within which enforcement action must take place; to establish a presumption in favour of shared parenting under Child Arrangement Orders; and to make provision for a commission to review and make recommendations on the operation of family justice; and for connected purposes.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Hmm, enforcement of child arrangements orders, a shared parenting presumption and a commission to review family justice. Haven\u2019t we been here before? The Bill is expected to have its second reading debate on 12\u00a0May.<\/p>\n And finally, a lesson on the grounds for a maintenance variation application<\/a>. If you want an upward variation of a maintenance order, then it\u2019s probably best to come up with some reason or reasons why the maintenance should be increased, such as that your outgoings have gone up, or the income of the person paying the maintenance has increased, making them able to pay more. It would also help if you give a good reason why you are sitting idly at home, rather than using your ample qualifications to earn a living yourself. Having said all of that, I wonder how many judges in this country would call you a \u2018parasite\u2019\u2026<\/p>\n Have a good weekend.<\/p>\n Photo by\u00a0Clare Black via Flickr under a Creative Commons licence<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n \t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\n
\n
\n
\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/dominiclevent.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/footer-300x100.png\")
<\/a>