It is encouraging to see how Coldplay singer, Chris Martin, is championing the collaborative approach to his marriage break-up when describing his ‘wonderful’ divorce from Gwyneth Paltrow.

Media reports say they have agreed to share care of their two children and split their joint £120 million fortune equally.

The couple’s decision to avoid a costly courtroom battle over the division of their assets and children’s futures and opt for a harmonious separation – will no doubt strike a chord with many people seeking a civilised and low-key process.

However, collaboration is certainly not only for the rich and famous. In fact, whatever your financial resources, it makes sense to reach agreement in a non-confrontational process, particularly if children are involved.

The parties each appoint their own collaboratively trained lawyer. They meet to work things out and are backed up by support and legal advice. All sign a contract committing them to trying to resolve matters by agreement, without going to court. It places emphasis on respectful and dignified resolution, putting any children at the heart of the process and keeping the details private.

It likewise provides a compelling argument for arbitration, an alternative to courts introduced four years ago. As the first qualified arbitrator in Leeds  – and among the first trained arbitrators in the UK – I can vouch at first hand that this option is quicker and simpler and can also be less distressing for all parties. Arbitration is also likely to be more cost effective because it is not subject to the same delays as the court process.

A family arbitrator decides on who should have what and, just like a judge, bases that decision on relevant facts and evidence – taking into account the views of both parties. The award is final and binding on both parties.

Another choice for divorce by settlement, rather than dispute and court ruling, is Mediation, which involves an independent third party – a mediator – who helps both sides come to an agreement. It is a highly effective method for couples to discuss issues between them that can result in a swift resolution and save on legal expenses.

Jones Myers has vast experience helping couples reach a constructive settlement to their differences, avoiding protracted arguments and promoting co-operation between them.

If you are interested in learning more about the collaborative process, contact Norman Taylor at Jones Myers for a free of charge conversation about the process and its suitability for your situation.

If you have any comments, queries or concerns on wider divorce related issues, leave a comment below, call the Jones Myers team on 0113 246 0055 or tweet us on @helpwithdivorce.

The post Why collaboration reduces the pain and cost of divorce appeared first on Jones Myers.

Figures reveal that nearly half of all parents fighting to gain access to their children are doing so without legal advice, which only emphasises the unfairness of the current system – particularly if one parent is represented by a solicitor and the other is not.

Divorce is stressful enough without the added trauma of not having the professional support to guide you through the process

The survey, conducted in partnership with the Magistrates’ Association, surveyed 461 magistrates sitting in a variety of courts across the UK and revealed that justice really is limited to those who can afford it.

These results do not surprise me. Readers of our blog will be aware that we raised concerns about the cuts to legal aid back in 2013 when Lord Neuberger warned that that there would be serious repercussions as a result.

My fear has always been the impact these cuts would have on families and children – and unfortunately, it would seem I am now proved right.

And it is not just the children who are disadvantaged: it is also the court system itself which is failing. Cases which should only take an hour are now taking a whole day because parents representing themselves often do not understand the process, or are too stressed to present their case effectively.

There is also a risk that courts may make the wrong decision in cases where litigants in person don’t know what information to bring before the court.

So what is the solution? Some would say the court issues could be solved by increasing the number of judges and staff but this is unlikely to happen. Realistically, the problems flow not because of a lack of staff, but because there are many people representing themselves in contested and bitter fights in court.

Although the Government believes that mediation is panacea of all ills, it really only applies to couples who have both signed up willingly to the scheme and want to help themselves. Even this fails more often than not because both sides are so entrenched in their own opinions that it usually takes a court to resolve the issue or impose solutions.

The issue is much more complex and needs to be revisited. By removing legal aid, the problems that have been under the surface are now being exposed which is why it is important to take action sooner rather than later.

Incredulously the Ministry of Justice states that legal aid remains available, yet the department’s own statistics reveal that between 1 April 2013 and 31 March 2014, less than 1 per cent of the 828 family law applications for legal aid were successful.  Further proof perhaps that government is out of touch, or worse, doesn’t care?

Should the government re-examine the issue of family law and legal aid? What is the impact for the future?  Please share your views by leaving a comment below, drop us an e-mail or tweet us @helpwithdivorce

The post The haves and have nots following Legal Aid cuts appeared first on Jones Myers.

On April 22, the family justice system had a major reboot to make it more streamlined and efficient. Many of the changes are concerned with how the courts that make up the system are re-organised and re-designated.

But there is one very important change that is it worthy of more widespread comment. It is now compulsory for anyone planning to divorce  to attend a mediation information and assessment meeting (called a MIAM) before they may apply to take disputes over children or finances, including property and pensions, to court.

For many working in the family justice system, the requirement to meet a mediator to discuss other options before being allowed to go to court cannot come soon enough. Since legal aid was largely withdrawn from family lawyers a year ago, the family courts have seen an explosion in the number of people representing themselves.

Data secured under the Freedom of Information Act reveals that in November and December 2013 over half (52%) of all parties attending court proceedings about child matters were unrepresented. This is unprecedented. Moreover, the same data reveals that between April and December 2013, family courts across the UK had to deal with a third more unrepresented parties, compared to same period in 2012.

This is causing delays for all court users, as someone who is not properly represented is entitled to receive additional help from the judge for which there is not adequate court time available. It means delays for resolving cases relating to child contact and residence, as well as financial matters.

But will the siren call from government to “mediate, not litigate” actually work?

Unless the public is better informed about its benefits, I have my doubts. Mediation is effective because it is a voluntary process which enables parties to stay in control of some of the most important decisions about their family’s life. Despite mediation being available in the UK for almost 40 years, that message is not reaching those who need to hear it most.  It is a message which many lawyers were – and are – prepared to spread.  Yet, the withdrawal of public funding for legal advice for family and divorce matters, means that many people are no longer consulting solicitors, and are unaware that there is still public funding available for mediation.

Mediation is not a soft option.  At a time of separation, emotions can run high and for some, the prospect of trying to tackle difficult issues with the person causing them pain is too much, even if a mediator is there to keep the conversation on an even keel.  Mediation is not a substitute for legal advice: it is complementary to it.  This is difficult for some couples to accept, particularly if they expect that mediation will mean that legal fees can be cut out altogether.

Suffice to say mediation can be a difficult sell. Despite the government retaining legal aid for mediation and promoting it hard, the number of mediations in the West Yorkshire area between April and December 2013 fell by over 40% year-on-year.

As a lawyer and a mediator, this concerns me. Crowded courts and underemployed mediators are symptomatic of the urgent need for family law services to be more affordable. And for me, that is all about lawyers and mediators working in tandem to keep people out of court at a price most people can afford.

Fiona Kendall, a partner at Jones Myers, is a founding member of the Lawyer-Supported Mediation network www.lawyersupportedmediation.com

If you have any queries about the new legislation and how it will affect you then please call us 0113 246 0055, leave us a comment below or drop us an e-mail.

You can follow us on Twitter @helpwithdivorce

The post Changes to the family courts – will they boost mediation rates? appeared first on Jones Myers.