This week sees the second reading of a bill which, if passed, would enable opposite sex couples to enter a civil partnership.

Since 2004 only same-sex couples in the United Kingdom could be in a civil partnership which gives them the same rights, responsibilities and entitlements as married couples in key areas.

The milestone move to extend civil partnerships to heterosexual couples has been championed after the Supreme Court ruled that current laws are discriminatory to restrict civil partnerships to gay couples and incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.

The case centred on 37-year-old Rebecca Steinfeld and 41-year-old Charles Keidan who met in 2010, became engaged in 2013 and have two children. Saying the “legacy of marriage”, which they believed treated women as property for centuries, was not for them, the duo became embroiled in a long legal battle for a civil partnership which they felt would best suit their relationship and life circumstances.

Civil partnerships are widely believed to give unmarried couples and their children greater security. Couples in these partnerships and married couples have the same rights regarding their children and applying for child arrangement orders and relating to financial remedies which include maintenance and property rights.

The similarities extend to protection from domestic abuse, inheritance claims and the process which must be followed to dissolve the relationship – with a decree absolute required to terminate a marriage and what is called a final dissolution order or nullity order needed to terminate a civil partnership.

However, whereas in a marriage adultery is one of the five reasons for divorce, civil partnerships cannot be dissolved due to adultery. The second main difference between civil partnerships and marriages is that civil partners cannot regard, or allude to themselves as being ‘married’.

If it passes its second reading this week, the bill paving the way forward for heterosexual couples to enter into civil partnerships has to progress through more stages before receiving Royal Assent to becomes law.

With over 3.3 million cohabitating couples in Britain, many of whom have children, the outcome for those seeking an alternative way to cement their relationship and commitment will no doubt be eagerly awaited. However, no matter what drawbacks there may be, a civil partnership offers a good deal of security and is better than the “no man’s or no woman’s land of cohabitation when there may be no rights at all.

Contact us for an initial no cost meeting by calling our Leeds office on 0113 246 0055, our Harrogate office on 01423 276104, visit jm2023.jonesmyers.co.uk, email info@jonesmyers.co.uk or tweet us @helpwithdivorce

The post Civil partnerships or marriage for heterosexual couples: what’s the difference? appeared first on Jones Myers.

Jones Myers team

Our highly experienced team at Jones Myers has opened a new office at Windsor House, Cornwall Road in Harrogate as we mark our 25-year anniversary.

The milestone for our specialist family law firm, which operates out of Leeds and London, is to accommodate an increase in instructions from our clients in North Yorkshire.

The move has been widely featured across print and broadcast media including The Yorkshire Post, The BusinessDesk, BusinessLink, Bdaily, the Harrogate Advertiser and Stray FM.

2017 has been a formative year for our practice, which was founded in Leeds by Peter Jones – one of the country’s leading family lawyers and a former national chairman of Resolution.

We are consistently ranked in a joint Top Tier position by the Legal 500 and Chambers guides for Leeds, West Yorkshire and North Yorkshire.

Chambers 2018 describes us as, “A very strong firm – not just in finance but also in children cases.” It adds, “Expertise in dealing with financial remedy nuptial cases adds depth to their practice.”

The latest edition of the highly respected Legal 500 guide describes Jones Myers as “a family practice that is one of the best in the area” and attracts praise for our “sensible, expert, conciliatory advice that does what it says on the tin.”

Our clients are based regionally, nationally and internationally, and we have earned an enviable reputation working exclusively in divorce, separation, complex financial disputes, children issues and contested wills and estates.

Our team of experts, which include a Deputy District Judge, an experienced mediator, a family law arbitrator and our own in-house barrister, jointly combine 250 years of legal experience.

Our move to Harrogate follows the recent expansion of our highly respected children’s department who are regarded as leading experts in issues of residence, contact, relocation, child protection and international child abduction.

Peter Jones said: “The services we provide at our Harrogate office complement those at our Leeds and London locations. We are proud to be recognised as lawyers who look for solutions to problems and are acknowledged for supporting families and children. We advise and guide where possible on options which can avoid conflict and unnecessary costs.

“A big ‘thank you’ to our valued and talented team in what is a momentous year for the firm.”

For more information about any aspect of divorce or family law, call Jones Myers at our Leeds office on 0113 246 0055, our Harrogate office on 01423 276104, visit jm2023.jonesmyers.co.uk, email info@jonesmyers.co.uk or tweet us @helpwithdivorce

The post Why our expansion to Harrogate has made a media splash!   appeared first on Jones Myers.

By Peter Jones, founder

A senior judge’s call for parents with valuable homes to be forced to pay more child support highlights a loophole in the system which is criticised as being unfair and does not put children’s interests first.

Since 2012, child maintenance payments have been based on income only, with assets not included in calculations by the Child Maintenance Service (CMS), which decides the rate. This means that people can live off their capital, declare a low income and pay minimal child support.

While Mr Justice Mostyn has said that the law is unjust and should be changed, in my opinion a more comprehensive solution would be to return child maintenance in matrimonial and non- matrimonial cases to the jurisdiction of the family court. The courts should be accessed through one uniform procedure, regardless of the parent’s matrimonial status.

Here judges have a wide discretion and would ensure that the family assets are shared to achieve fairness – with the first consideration being the welfare of any children.

This would also free up the CMS to concentrate on its other vital responsibilities such as pursuing parents who do not pay and enforcing child upkeep.

In addition, the Matrimonial Causes Act should be re-examined with a view to making it fit for purpose for today’s modern and evolving world.

Drafted forty years ago, it has been criticised for provoking conflict and confrontation. In 2013, retiring High Court judge Paul Coleridge aptly said: “The days of the gladiatorial wars of the titans are over. The dinosaurs have had their day.”

As members of Resolution, all Jones Myers family lawyers are prominent supporters of alternative dispute resolution – striving to resolve family disputes constructively, to try to avoid costly, public and stressful litigation.

Our approach encourages clients to co-operate and reach agreement wherever possible about dividing their assets and securing the future of their children, whose interests should be at heart of everything.

For more information about children’s issues or any aspect of family law, call Jones Myers at our Leeds office on 0113 246 0055, our Harrogate office on 01423 276104, visit jm2023.jonesmyers.co.uk, email info@jonesmyers.co.uk or tweet us @helpwithdivorce

The post Why the dinosaurs’ days are numbered in the current child support system appeared first on Jones Myers.

The findings of a four year Law Commission review of how English couples’ finances should be sorted out – will be unveiled shortly.

The Law Commission’s report will cover whether or not pre-nuptial agreements should become law, and this has been the main focus of the UK media to date. However, the report on Matrimonial Property, Needs and Agreement which will be published on February 27, is actually much more wide-reaching.

As a dual qualified family law specialist in English and Scots law I particularly welcome this review as it represents an opportunity to look at how out of kilter English family law has become in comparison with its Scottish and European cousins.

As well as examining how marital property agreements can be enforced, the report will also look at how much financial support one spouse or civil partner should give to the other following divorce or dissolution.

Among the aspects under review is “non-matrimonial property”.  This could include property that has been inherited or given as a gift or assets acquired by either party before marriage or civil partnership.

Key areas that could face reform include:

• The demise of long term maintenance for ex-spouses
• Ring-fencing assets brought into the marriage by one or both parties
• Ring-fencing inherited wealth
• Pre-nuptial and post-nuptial agreements becoming legally binding

All of these are principles which are long-established north of the border.

Under Scottish divorce law, there is greater certainty – but potentially less discretion. For instance, the property available for division is narrowly defined. This “matrimonial property” is valued at the date of separation. It will include anything acquired during the lifetime of the marriage but exclude any inheritance or gift which has not been converted into matrimonial property. In England and Wales judges tend to focus on ensuring that both partners are adequately provided for – regardless of how the assets were acquired.

Other principles used to divide assets under Scots law are:

• Matrimonial property being shared equally – since the starting point is that fair sharing is equal sharing
• Financial support being paid for a maximum of 3 years – encouraging the receiving spouse to maximise his or her earning capacity after a period of adjustment
• Support being made available to prevent a spouse suffering financial hardship as a result of the divorce

In Scotland couples can also agree to a binding financial settlement between themselves without the need for a court to be involved, whereas, in England and Wales, unless a judge reviews such an agreement, there is a risk of it being unpicked at a later stage.

Whilst there are undoubtedly arguments in favour of both systems, I will be interested to see whether the English approach starts to take on a tartan hue in the light of the report. I will be still more interested to see whether the report’s recommendations will be taken on board by Justice Secretary Chris Grayling, rather than simply generating debate.

If you have any questions or concerns about dividing marital assets, please call us on 0113 246 0055, leave us a comment below or drop us an e-mail.

You can follow us on Twitter @helpwithdivorce

The post Will divorce the Scottish way herald the way forward for England and Wales? appeared first on Jones Myers.

Here at Jones Myers we have long campaigned for legislation that supports unmarried couples – whatever their gender – and their children, in the same way as their legally wedded counterparts, should the relationship break down.

With the Joint Committee’s scrutiny of the forthcoming Marriage (Same Sex) Bill the time is right to address the potential for gender discrimination in all cohabitating relationships. Enabling opposite sex couples to enter civil partnerships will go a long way towards creating the security and protection for vulnerable families that has been long overdue.

However, the law moves slowly and it could be many months or even years before heterosexual couples have the legal rights offered by civil partnerships. Therefore, we recommend partners who live together draw up a cohabitation agreement to avoid one party being left destitute should the relationship flounder. In cases where one or both parties have been previously divorced, the needs of the ‘first family’ children will be a key consideration when couples opt to live together rather than marry a second or third time around.

The questions we encourage partners to consider are rooted in the ‘what if’’ scenario. Hard as it may be to contemplate the emotional and financial impact of one party leaving, dying or inheriting wealth, planning for these situations can be a helpful safeguard against later trauma.

Couples with children from a previous marriage should consider these questions in particular:

• How will you ensure that your children, including those from a previous relationship are protected financially and emotionally in the event of your death?
• Should a property be in joint names and if so what shares will the ownership be?
• What happens to that property if one of you dies and can the survivor stay in that property forever or at all? What about financial support for the survivor?
• When do your children receive your part of the property as their inheritance?

Our legal and financial experts help each party to look at these issues in ‘round table’ meetings, leading up to, and beyond, signing a cohabitation agreement as regular reviews will take account of any changes in personal circumstances.

At the present time such cohabitation agreements are enforceable with the courts supporting the rights of cohabitees in financial and capital claims.

Let us hope that before too long, the legislative process on these matters catches up with society’s needs and the reality of millions of people’s lives.

The post Another small step in the right direction for cohabiting couples appeared first on Jones Myers.

Here at Jones Myers this week we welcomed the news that civil partnerships have proven to be five times more popular than expected, with over 106,000 people entering into a civil partnership since they became legal in 2005.

It was expected that no more than 11,000 or so couples would take the plunge in the first five years but the popularity of civil partnerships has far exceeded official expectations – emphasising that these relationships have a key part to play in society.

The Civil Partnership Act 2004 allowed same-sex couples in the UK to register their relationships for the first time. People who enter civil partnerships get a package of rights and responsibilities akin to those enjoyed by spouses, including on tax and benefits. They may apply for parental responsibility in respect of their partner’s children and for the full range of financial orders available to married couples on divorce. In other words, should the relationship break down, the same factors which influence how finance is settled on divorce will influence a financial settlement for civil partners.

After an initial peak of 16,100 civil partnerships in 2006, the first full year they were legal, annual figures have been between 6,000 and 7,000 couples with a six per cent increase last year. This might appear low when compared to the 241,000 marriages in England and Wales in 2010– a number which increased by 3.7 percent from 2009 – but in fact represents a significant and consistent level of demand for civil partnerships.

There were slightly more male partnerships last year: 3,351 compared with 3,444 female. One interesting observation is that the average age for entering a civil partnership is over 40 for men and 38 for women – nearly a decade later than the average ages for marriage of 32 and 30 respectively. Some sources expect future statistics to be even higher after Theresa May lifted the ban on religious buildings being permitted to host civil ceremonies in England and Wales. Although the plans were announced last February the legislation was only implemented in December after public consultation – and the first ceremony of this type only took place in May. As the option for religious buildings to host civil partnership ceremonies is just that – an option – it remains to be seen how much effect this will have on the figures.

Sadly, but perhaps inevitably, the growth in civil partnerships means that the number of dissolutions is also rising with 962 in 2011 – an increase of 28% over the previous year. This is a significant proportion of the partnerships which have been formalised in the last five years. It will be very interesting to see if, long term, the figures fall in line with those for marriage/divorce or provide us with a fascinating social contrast.

Suffice to say that Jones Myers’ team of legal experts can advise on constructive resolution of issues arising from any relationship breakdown – whether marriage, civil partnership or cohabitation. We can advise on pre-nuptial agreements, help couples through divorce or dissolution and also help them to avoid the trauma of court to resolve financial issues, through mediation and collaborative family law. Contact us for more details.

What do you think about civil partnerships? Let us know below, drop us a Tweet @helpwithdivorce or call us on 0113 246 0055.

The post Keeping it civil –partnerships prove hugely popular appeared first on Jones Myers.

The Lawrence/Gallagher case may have briefly hit the headlines before passing quietly into media archives, but the judgment is remarkable for several reasons. Not least of these is the matter-of-fact conclusion that the same rules that apply to a marriage breakdown should also apply to division of assets on dissolution of a civil partnership.

Peter Lawrence and Donald Gallagher lived together for ten years before entering into a civil partnership, which ended just seven months later. In June 2011 Mrs Justice Parker ruled that the partnership assets – including a London flat owned by Mr Lawrence which pre-dated the relationship – were worth around £4m and Mr Gallagher was entitled to a total settlement of around £1.7m.

Mr Lawrence took this to the Court of Appeal, where Lord Justice Thorpe said that Mr Lawrence’s attempts to remove the London property from the applicable assets were ‘quite unrealistic’. He did, however, allow the appeal in part, reducing the lump sum payable to Mr Gallagher by nearly a quarter of a million pounds.

Lord Thorpe explained that, although this was a civil partnership and not a marriage, the same rules applied, effectively reinforcing that legal treatment of civil partnerships on breakdown is equivalent to treatment of breakdown of a marriage. Lord Justice Moses and Mr Justice Ryder agreed; you can see the full judgment here.

It’s a sad fact that, as relationships become shorter and lifetime commitment rarer, what was once seen as a short relationship is now considered a medium or lengthy one. The longer the relationship, the weaker the argument for ring-fencing non-marital (or non-partnership) assets. This could also apply to post-separation acquest and, indeed, inherited wealth as well as pre-relationship assets.

Arguably, a much more important consideration is allowing for the parties’ respective needs and living expenses – and this, along with the assets, was a key factor in Lord Thorpe’s judgment.

Whether it’s a marriage or civil partnership that breaks down, it’s clear that the courts see no distinction. What’s important is to avoid the stress of going through the court process at all – especially as far as the Court of Appeal, with all the pressure and cost that involves.

Just as we would recommend a pre-nuptial agreement to even the happiest of engaged couples, so a cohabitation agreement or pre-cip (pre-nups for civil partners) could be key to an amicable outcome should the relationship break down. These agreements are easily updated as circumstances change and do not represent any lack of commitment to the pairing.

If it does all end in tears, don’t rush to the courts. Mediation and collaborative law are much less stressful, quicker and cheaper routes to reaching an amicable solution, and couples now have access to family law arbitration as a genuine alternative to the court process. Follow the links or visit the Jones Myers website for more information.

The post Why is the Lawrence/Gallagher judgment a landmark? appeared first on Jones Myers.