By Jones Myers Family Law Solicitor, Jane Bolton

The issue of coercive control and its devastating effect on victims has been re-enforced in a landmark High Court case where the term ‘gaslighting’ appears in a published judgement for the first time.

Coercive control has been a criminal offence in England and Wales since 2015. It happens when someone personally connected to you displays controlling and manipulative behaviour to make you feel controlled, dependent, isolated, or scared.

Gaslighting is a form of coercive control used to distort victims’ sense of reality and lower their self-esteem. The term originates from a 1938 play ‘Gaslight’ where a husband’s manipulation of his wife includes dimming gaslights and telling her she is hallucinating. It also affects all sectors of society.

The recent High Court case centres around a woman who had been raped and abused by her partner. The father of her child and a mental health care worker, he convinced her family and health professionals that she had bipolar disorder.

The case went to the Court of Appeal after a judge in an initial ruling warned the mother that, if she continued with her claims or rape and abuse, her child would be taken into care and adopted. He also issued a consent order setting out time when the father could see his child.

However High Court Judge, Mr Justice Cobb, decreed that the mother was a vulnerable and naïve woman who had been subjected to emotional control/coercion. He also said there was no clear medical evidence that she suffered from bi-polar.

Agreeing that the use of the term gaslighting by the mother’s representative, human rights lawyer Dr Charlotte Proudman, was ‘apposite,’ Mr Justice Cobb said, ‘the father’s conduct represented a form of insidious abuse designed to cause the mother to question her own mental well-being, indeed her sanity.’  

It is a major step forward that this case sets a precedent for the use of the term gaslighting in the family courts and is instrumental in highlighting public awareness of coercive control.

Latest Government statistics reveal the volume of recorded domestic abuse-related crimes in England and Wales continues to rise with 845,734 reported cases in the year ending March 2021. This represents a six per cent increase on the previous year.

The effect of these crimes on victims includes anger, shame, fear, isolation, resentment, psychological problems, self-harm, and feelings of powerlessness. Many worry that their children can also become targets of abuse.

As a firm which witnesses the devastating effect of domestic abuse on victims, our skilled and sensitive family law specialists can help victims of abuse, or threatened violence, to protect themselves and their loved ones.

We encourage anyone who is in this position to talk to us about the issues they are facing. We can assist with decisions regarding their relationship and refer them to fellow professionals including counsellors.

If you are concerned about coercive control, gaslighting, domestic abuse or any aspect of family law, call us at Leeds on 0113 246 0055, Harrogate on 01423 276104, or York on 01904 202550. Visit jm2023.jonesmyers.co.uk, email info@jonesmyers.co.uk or tweet us @helpwithdivorce

The post Coercive Control and gaslighting – what you need to know appeared first on Jones Myers.

A case handled by Jones Myers has helped five Supreme Court judges to rule that a divorced surveyor should not have to increase payments to his former wife who mishandled her finances after they broke up.

The case of Graham and Maria Mills, who divorced in 2002 after a 15-year marriage, has put the spotlight on the ‘meal ticket for life’ scenario in which a wife receives maintenance in her life time.The highest court in the land rejected the Court of Appeal’s decision to back Mrs Mills’ request to increase monthly payments from £1,100 to £1,441 because she fell into debt after making bad property investments with a £230k settlement from Mr Mills when they divorced.

The Supreme Court judges were in no doubt that Mr Mills should not have to pay an additional amount due to his ex-wife’s poor financial management – and they restored the existing periodical monthly payments of £1,100.

Previous case outcomes which the judged drew on before reaching their decision included North v North in 2007 when Jones Myers successfully represented a husband who appealed against his ex-wife receiving maintenance payments following the expiry of over 20 years since separation and partly due to bad investments she had made.

Jones Myers founder, Peter Jones, said: “We can conclude from the Mills V Mills decision that the Supreme Court will not support a party seeking an increase in maintenance to bail out their financial difficulties which have been caused by their own failings.

“However, the principle of an ex-spouse receiving lifetime maintenance in certain limited situations, remains intact.

“Coupled with the substantial financial costs of this prolonged and very public dispute are the high emotional costs and stress which will undoubtedly have taken its toll on both parties. In retrospect, had they given more careful consideration of the possible repercussions, it may have resulted in both parties behaving differently.”

For more information about divorce and finances, family or children law or Contentious Trusts and Estates, 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 Jones Myers case assists Supreme Court judges’ maintenance ruling 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.