The story of Kimberley Walsh taking advice to draw up a pre-nup shortly before her recent Barbados wedding to Justin Scott has been ringing from the media rafters – catapulting the topic back into the spotlight.

Kimberley’s last minute dash to her solicitors was said to be sparked by the regrets of her long-standing friend Cheryl Fernandez-Versini who failed to draw up a contract ahead of marrying entrepreneur, Jean Bernard, in July 2014, after a whirlwind romance.

However, even if Kimberley went ahead with such an agreement, it may not have the desired effect of influencing a judge’s ruling should the couple – who have been together 11 years and have an 18 month-old son – split and fail to agree a division of assets or child arrangements.

The reasons behind this are twofold. Firstly, while pre-nups are increasingly being taken into account by the courts in the event of a dispute, they are still not legally binding. They also carry much more weight if they are set in place well in advance of a wedding – rushing into one just days before the wedding ceremony may render it irrelevant.

Secondly, there are substantial differences between the two ladies’ circumstances, which make it hard to compare like with like. Cheryl and her soon-to-be-ex have built up assets separately (they have known each other less than two years and he is reputed to be wealthy in his own right). As the vast majority of her wealth was likely amassed before meeting her husband – and without his input – it would have been sensible to enter into a pre-nup a reasonable time before marrying in order to protect it.

By contrast, Kimberley’s 11-year relationship has covered most of her adult life and her entire career to date. A late pre-nup days before her marriage will, in our experience, have less influence. Her husband could argue that he has supported her throughout her rise to pop stardom and subsequent success as an actress and television presenter. Eleven years is considered to be quite a long relationship these days, and once married, any pre-marriage cohabitation is treated as being part of the duration of marriage itself.

The difficulties encountered with pre-nup agreements are that judges remain concerned when the agreements are signed under pressure. There is little time to reflect or be confident about the terms and judges may ignore or vary them.

To avoid these risks, set up the agreement in good time, make sure there is full financial disclosure- and get good legal advice.

Jones Myers has a wealth of experience in helping separating couples, whether married or not, to achieve a constructive settlement of their differences in a way that avoids protracted arguments and promotes co-operation between parents in decisions concerning children.

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

The post Why pre-nups don’t always strike the right chord appeared first on Jones Myers.

Could a landmark Supreme Court ruling allowing a woman to make a claim for financial support from her ex husband 20 years after their divorce open the floodgates for similar claims?

The unanimous decision by five Supreme Court judges to allow Kathleen Wyatt to seek a payout from her former husband multimillionaire Dale Vince is unprecedented.

Ms Wyatt and Mr Vince were penniless New Age travellers with a small son, Dane, at the time of their divorce.  Dale Vince made his fortune years later after founding the successful green energy company Ecotricity and was awarded an OBE. While Mr Vince is said to be worth £107m, his former wife lives on a limited income.

Many family lawyers and media commentators doubted that Kathleen Wyatt would win her case after such a long time lapse. I was not surprised as I had been involved in a not dissimilar case at the Court of Appeal some years earlier. The judges disagreed and they ruled that because there was no financial order in place at the time of the divorce – and no time limit in family law on making such orders – Ms Wyatt could apply to the Family Division of the High Court to make a claim for financial support.

There is no guarantee that Ms Wyatt will receive a substantial payout from the family court. However, the Supreme Court ruling is a timely reminder to all separated couples to have an order in place when they divorce to ensure that there will be no financial claims in the future.

Without this ‘closure’ either party could, like Kathleen Wyatt, come back with a claim for financial support from their ex many decades later. This can apply to husbands just as much as wives.

Although few people are likely to amass millions like Dale Vince, there are many of more modest means who could find their finances looking healthier some years after a divorce.  For example, an inheritance or a lottery win could change someone’s financial status substantially. Without a financial order an ex husband or wife could make a claim on that windfall.

The only way to ensure that future wealth and assets are protected is to seek legal advice when you are considering divorce. However, the demise of legal aid means that many thousands of divorcing couples are denied access to the expert advice they need.

Droves of couples are now undertaking DIY divorces and may not have considered the need to have robust financial orders in place which will give clarity and certainty to avoid delayed claims coming home to roost. Many may come to mutual agreements not endorsed by a court and which could come back to haunt them in the future. Whilst that may seem to be fine it is a recipe for disaster many years later.  No one should have to return to the court years later with all the anguish, stress and cost risking damaging a new relationship.

Dale Vince has described the court’s decision as “mad”, but his rags to riches tale should be a salutary lesson for all divorcing couples.

If you have any questions or concerns about financial orders, or any aspect of separation or divorce, please leave a comment below, drop us an e-mail or tweet us @helpwithdivorce

The post Rags to riches – delayed divorce payout ruling is cautionary tale appeared first on Jones Myers.

A report from the National Association for Child Contact Centres (NACCC) shows that last year only 9,000 children used a centre. This compares with 15,000 in 2013. Referrals from solicitors also halved over the same period.

The centres are designed as neutral spaces where parents who can’t agree access arrangements can meet their children to enjoy time together. Now centres are closing at unprecedented rates – and in some parts of England and Wales, including the north, there are none at all.

The government promised to put children at the heart of its sweeping changes to its family court system. Yet these disturbing statistics from NACCC demonstrate further chipping away of a decent support system for both parents and children.

As regular readers of our blog know, Jones Myers has been very vocal about the impact of the demise of legal aid on families. We warned that axing funding would lead to more parents representing themselves in court and to increased stress on the whole family. However, we could not have predicted that these vital children’s contact centres would also fall under the axe because they rely heavily on solicitors referring clients.

Sadly, the closures are likely to hit fathers hardest as they are often the ones most likely to be struggling to sustain relationships with children following separation or divorce.

NACCC is launching a campaign to encourage parents to use the contact centre and to stress that they don’t need to be referred via lawyers or the courts.

Chief executive Elizabeth Coe said: “Given that family breakdown costs the country an estimated £49 billion a year, family legal aid cuts may prove a false economy unless more is done to let families know that the contact centres are there to help, and parents can apply to centres directly themselves.

“The best outcomes for children following a separation come when parents can work together and where conflict is reduced. Contact centres can facilitate this at a time when parents are themselves struggling emotionally.

“We want to ensure that this message is clear: families can access child contact centres directly and they don’t have to go through the courts and legal system.”

We would wholeheartedly support NACCC’s campaign. Without its contact centres some parents could go months without seeing their sons and daughters. That is surely a scenario that sits uneasily within a family justice system designed to focus on the best interests of the child.

Have you an experience of using child contact centres, or do you have any views on these closures? Please leave a comment below, drop us an e-mail or tweet us

The post Contact centre closures leave parents and children in cold appeared first on Jones Myers.

I was saddened but not surprised to read how one in seven employees revealed that relationship breakdowns have set productivity plummeting in their workplaces.

The findings of a Resolution survey which interviewed 4,000 adults online also highlighted that 9% of staff either had to leave their jobs as a result of divorce or separation from a cohabiting relationship – or knew a colleague who had done so. Six per cent of recipients said work colleagues had been off ill with the stress of a breakup – and 5% outlined how separation or divorce had reduced productivity.

Among the worrying revelations is that only 10% of workers think their employers offer adequate support for employees going through a breakup, while 34% say more support is needed in the workplace for people undergoing separation or divorce.

I wholeheartedly agree with the survey’s findings – particularly against a backdrop where stress caused by divorce has been exacerbated by the demise of Legal Aid.

The report is a strong call to action for employers and their directors and managers to take measures to ensure that the welfare of their people remains a priority. There are over two million small businesses in Britain – i.e. companies with less than 50 staff – and it is vital that employees are on top form. Having one or more off sick invariably affects the bottom line.

It is likewise inevitable that the impact of undergoing marriage and relationship breakdowns will also permeate people’s working lives. Therefore anything that can be done to support workers going through trauma and problems should be encouraged as the right and logical thing to do for the sake of the business.

With 42% of UK marriages expected to end in divorce, we have previously mooted the idea of employers introducing workplace divorce surgeries as a staff perk – stressing how seeking out expert legal advice at the early stages of a relationship breakdown can help prevent confrontation and chaos later.

Although there is a plethora of information available these days, I still find that there are a lot of urban myths still abounding. For example, only recently clients have come to us believing that there is a legally recognised relationship often referred to as the “common law wife”, that in relationship breakdowns everything is split “down the middle”, that children of separating couples live automatically with their mother – and that every divorce case has to go to Court for a decision on financial matters – all of which are not true. Bosses are therefore advised to speak to an enlightened family lawyer to dispel these myths and put things into context.

The family lawyer is the gatekeeper/project manager who can identify what sort of help is required in any particular case. The employer should benefit as well as the employee, as what is good for one is generally good for the other. It will also show the member of staff that their boss cares – certainly something that will make a difference to the employee.

Employers can also take action by commissioning an experienced life coach to support their people though the non-legal issues that arise at this difficult moment of change. This support can help workers to get into a mind-set where they can make rational rather than emotional decisions.

The countdown to Christmas and the festive break is undoubtedly a period when extreme emotional and financial pressures can push an unstable relationship into breakdown.

With this in mind, employers forecasting their sales and profitability figures for 2015 can also ensure they know how to access the available support required in such situations – for the wellbeing of their people and the financial health of the business.

The post Relationship breakdowns in business: advice for employers appeared first on Jones Myers.

The announcement comes as the government’s own figures reveal that 60% of parents are now without a lawyer when they go to court to contest arrangements for their children.

Statistics from the Ministry of Justice also show that the number of litigants in person contesting financial matters rose to over 30% for the first time.

It pains me to say “we told you so”, however as regular readers of our blog will know, we predicted that the demise of legal aid for most family matters would propel more people into DIY divorces with far reaching consequences for the wellbeing of both parents and children.

The government’s £1.4m investment in increasing advice at eight Personal Support Units in England and Wales is akin to putting a sticking plaster over a broken limb.

Couples need expert legal advice before they attend court, not when they are turn up on the day for their hearing.

Other elements of the initiative include increasing online advice for separating couples, using law graduates and retired volunteers to provide extra advice, and directing people to lawyers giving pro bono (free) support and even legal representation.

We would agree with the Law Society’s comments on the measures below:

“Legal aid cuts have forced more and more people into “do it yourself” justice, where they find themselves in strange surroundings, dealing with unfamiliar procedures while trying to sort out the future of their children, family home and finances.

“A support strategy is not the solution for the many vulnerable people who need early, expert legal advice. Pro bono advice can never be a substitute for a properly funded legal aid system.”

The government says it is committed to helping divorcing couples resolve their issues outside court, yet this latest ‘knee jerk’ measure is directed at those who find themselves in that very place.

It is perhaps worth reflecting that no one would expect you to remove your own appendix; why therefore does government think that everyone can be their own (objective) lawyer? So often it is that good advice early on which can resolve matters – saving financial and emotional cost and court time. I doubt if government will listen.

Perhaps we should all buy the DIY book on surgery….just in case.

Do you have experience or views on going to family courts without a lawyer? Do you think this new service will help?

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

The post Why pledge to advise couples without legal support creates confusion appeared first on Jones Myers.

The lack of Legal Aid for most family law matters means that couples now have to fund their own divorces. This has left unprecedented numbers of people representing themselves in family courts, even in complex cases.

We have written previously about our concerns that public funding cuts are leading to a two tier family law system.  Sound, professional support to guide couples through their separation and help them to resolve financial and children’s matters, should not be the preserve of the very rich and should be accessible and affordable for those who need it.

Divorce is a ‘distress purchase’ – that is an expense you haven’t budgeted for. So how do you fund a solicitor and the expenses associated with the process?  Here are five options which we recommend you discuss with your lawyer at a first meeting as some of these may not be appropriate or available:

1. Use savings or investments

If you have savings they may not be earning much interest so you could use them to pay for legal advice. You could also cash in ISAs or other investments; however do take independent financial advice regarding any such action and any potential tax consequences. If savings or investments are in joint names you may be able to reach agreement that certain funds be set aside to cover each party’s legal costs.

2. Find a firm that specialises in litigation funding

There are litigation funding firms throughout the UK who offer credit schemes to fund the cost of a lawyer and all costs associated with the divorce. If you don’t have savings, are unable to borrow the money from another source, or have a low credit score, then this could be an option – although rates of interest are likely to be on the high side. You can find out details from us or from an independent financial adviser (IFA). Resolution, the association that represents 6,500 collaborative family lawyers nationally, including Jones Myers, has recently launched an online option with one such company.

3. Use a Sears Tooth Agreement

Under a Sears Tooth Agreement you sign a deed to assign your financial settlement to your solicitor, who takes out their costs – including any court fees, third party costs and related expenses – before you receive your capital. This is not a popular option with law firms because of the potential risks involved because if you don’t receive the expected settlement they could be out of pocket.

4. Draw on loans and credit cards

A bank loan with a competitive interest rate can be an effective way to fund legal costs. However, a bank will check your credit rating and will want assurance that you can meet the monthly payments.  Funding your divorce on your credit card will incur high interest rates if you make minimum monthly payments – although this could be a solution in the short term or as a last resort. Some credit card companies offer 0% interest for six or nine months which is worth considering if a financial settlement is likely to be agreed in the same timescale as the interest free period.

5. Ask your family 

Although you may see turning to your nearest and dearest as a last resort because you are concerned about burdening them, a family member may be willing to help out with a loan until you receive your financial settlement. Be realistic and upfront about what you want – if you need £2,000 than say so at the outset, and spell out in writing that it is a loan and how – and when – you will pay them back.

You can keep costs down if you and your ex are both prepared to take a non-confrontational approach to your break-up.  Using collaborative lawyers will avoid court battles and the lawyers will steer you through your separation and divorce, helping you to reach agreements that suit you both.

If you have any concerns or questions about how to fund your divorce call us on 0113 246 0055, leave us a comment below or drop us an e-mail. You can also follow us on Twitter: @helpwithdivorce.

The post Five ways to fund your divorce appeared first on Jones Myers.

A taskforce led by Sir David Norgrove has concluded that mediation figures are down by a third, not because of a lack of funding, but because separating couples and even solicitors are unaware that legal aid is still available to fund mediation assessment and mediation sessions.

The withdrawal of legal aid for divorce and custody disputes has been successfully communicated both within the legal profession and amongst the wider public, but this has it seems, unintentionally resulted in the wrongly held belief that it also included the withdrawal of all funding for mediation services.

As such, the taskforce has concluded that the main barrier to couples accessing Mediation Information and Assessment Meetings (MIAMs) is one of poor communication.

Prior to the changes to the The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO) mediation sessions, although voluntary, were commonly utilised because it was often a pre-requisite for those seeking to access legal aid. However, problems have been rife since the changes were unleashed and readers of our blog will be aware of our disapproval of legal aid cuts to family law.

Providing better channels to communicate the availability of the mediation services will undoubtedly be of some benefit, but the key point missing in the taskforce’s recommendations is the fact that couples do not tend to refer themselves to mediation in the first instance. They are referred by someone within the system, commonly family solicitors and lawyers, who understand the benefits of utilising the service and can communicate that information and advice to their clients.

Cutting the legal aid funding, predictably resulted in a reduced level of referrals, and the comment from Simon Hughes on the day that the Children and Families Act provisions came in to force, saying: ‘I want lawyers out of the process as much as possible’ is, in my opinion, not the correct way to begin building the referral numbers back up.

To increase the take up of MIAMs, the report is recommending that funding be provided so that all separating couples over a 12 month period (not just those who have a legal aid contract) can gain access to an initial mediation assessment. It also recommends that an interactive website and helpline be set up by the Ministry of Justice (MoJ).

But while I feel that any additional financial contribution from the government is to be welcomed, I think the taskforce’s proposals will only add to the current confusion around the best options for divorce. The withdrawal of legal aid is one reason why mediation figures are down, the other is that many couples going through a divorce do not understand how mediation works – and are also unclear about how to access it.

Going forward, we need to see better signposting of the services that are available, and an increased visibility of trained mediators who are ‘authorised’ to undertake these MIAMS meetings, combined with a cohesive structure that enables those working in family law to remain best placed to advise their clients as to the most appropriate course of action open to them.

The funding is already available for more mediators, but they require referrals in order to keep their services viable. Working with law practitioners will mean that separating couples can meet and be guided through the initial process of seeking a mediated solution, at less cost both in terms of emotion and expense. This won’t be possible if there is a history of Domestic Violence, but even where there has been disharmony, it is often possible to resolve at least some of the issues in mediation.

What other measures could be introduced to improve the take up of mediation? Should legal aid be made available permanently for MIAMs? Please share your views by leaving a comment below, drop us an e-mail or tweet us @helpwithdivorce

The post Why mediation taskforce proposals will cause further confusion 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.

The government’s latest plan for parents to agree amicably to their child maintenance agreements or face a fee fills me with despair.

Under proposed new rules parents unable to reach a mutual agreement on payment will both be charged a fee if they ask the new Child Maintenance Service to intervene. The paying parent will have a 20% fee added to the maintenance payment while the receiving parent will have to pay 4% to ensure they receive the money to which they are entitled.

I am deeply concerned by this change and think that once again government is failing vulnerable members of our society when they are facing a crisis and most need support.

First of all separating couples are no longer eligible to claim legal aid for most divorce and child contact issues – now they are once again being targeted as the government seems determined to keep civil matters out of the court system.

Single parents – 95 percent of whom are women – will undoubtedly feel under great stress as they struggle to chase maintenance and have to pay money, which they probably can ill-afford, in a bid to receive their just payments. And, if they need advice and support about the new system, this will cost them £20 to use a service that calculates how much they are owed.

My other worry is that some single parents will be deterred from making new child maintenance claims, or could even settle for an inappropriate arrangement, resulting in their children losing out on vital financial support.

While the former Child Support Agency was indeed inefficient, at least it allowed parents take action against ex-partners who were trying to avoid their responsibility. Pension Minister Steve Webb’s argument that the CSA was using an IT system riddled with defects and costing £74 million per annum to run reveals the true reason why changes have been made.

He may state that parents need to be responsible for agreeing financial support for their own children support, but the reality is these changes have been made to cut costs and remove people from the child support system, which is in my opinion, the only place where these disputes can be properly settled.

Instead of targeting those already most disadvantaged and needy, the government should consult parents, family lawyers and other relevant third parties to come up with a system that ensures vulnerable single parents receive the support they deserve – and are entitled to.

Do you think that the new child maintenance policy is penalising those single parents most in need?  We’d like to hear your views and if you have any questions about child maintenance payments please call us on 0113 246 0055, leave us a comment below or drop us an e-mail.

The post Will single parents and children be the losers under new child maintenance reforms? 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.