The introduction of the Child Support Agency (CSA) in 1991 sparked much debate as to whether the payment of child maintenance should be dealt with by the courts or by a Government agency.
The CSA has been widely criticised for delaying the completion of child support calculations; for inaccuracies in assessments; and for its inability to properly enforce payments to parents who desperately need the funds to support their children.
Many non-resident parents also feel let down by the agency because of the long delays associated with payment calculations. There are cases of people being faced with enforcement action many years after an assessment has been made. Often, the non-resident parent has not been made aware of arrears and in a number of cases the arrears figure provided has actually been wrong.
Due to these reported problems, many divorcing parents decide to take an alternative route and agree child maintenance in a Court Order. Unfortunately, Court Orders only overrule the CSA’s power for 12 months. This means that if there is a disagreement regarding payments after 12 months from the date of the Order, either person can apply to the CSA for a maintenance assessment.
This “12-month rule”, is a contentious issue amongst child support specialists, who believe that the 12-month rule prevents couples from reaching agreements themselves because of the relatively short “shelf life” – why agree, if 12 months down the line one person could rip apart the arrangement in an application to the CSA?
The CSA argues that the rule is beneficial because it gives parents access to a free scheme and enables them to have payments re-calculated to ensure they are continuing to receive the money they are entitled to. However, from this year, people will be charged to make an application to the CSA or to request that it collects maintenance on their behalf. The Government is today considering the Welfare Reform Bill dealing with this very issue in Parliament.
In theory, the ability to make an application to the CSA after 12 months can work if you are happy with the assessment the CSA makes. But in practice, what happens if you want to appeal the calculation? Your case will ultimately be resolved by a Tribunal Judge as the CSA doesn’t have the power to rectify it. This then incurs additional legal costs and causes further delays, begging the question – is this rule having the desired effect?
If parents opt to make an agreement in the form of an Order, should they not be able to rely on that Order for the duration of the children’s minority – or at least until their circumstances change?
Kim Fellowes, a Partner at Silk Family Law, is currently lobbying the Government for change. As the Chair of Resolution’s National Child Support Committee, Kim is urging the Government to reconsider this rule, which effectively renders Court Orders redundant after one year.
What do you think? Is the 12-month rule unfair? Should we restrict the Court’s powers regarding child support payments?
If you have been affected by the 12-month rule please let us know.
Networking sites such as Facebook, Twitter and MySpace have enabled people to interact virtually, introducing a new dimension to communication and socialising, via the net. The question is, just what effect is this virtual forum having on relationships and marriages?
Continue reading…
The English comedian Russell Brand (36) filed for divorce last week against his American wife Katy Perry (27) in Los Angeles Superior Court just 14 months after the couple married.
Whilst many predicted the marriage wouldn’t last, Katy and Russell remained optimistic and decided against protecting their individual wealth with a pre-nuptial agreement. Russell reportedly commented that he wished to preserve the sanctity of marriage claiming he was entering in to the marriage for love and that “he ain’t having no pre-nup.”
This was certainly a wise move for Russell, but it turns out it may not have been a great decision for Katy.
Continue reading…
For many couples embarking upon a separation or divorce, Christmas can be the most difficult time of the year. The season built around family time and celebration can be a cruel reminder of the pain and distress divorce can cause people coping with uncertain and turbulent relationships.
It has been reported that an unhappy wife in Reading hung a banner on the M4 sending a clear message to her husband this December – “FOR XMAS DAN, JUDE WANTS A DIVORCE.”
Continue reading…
The latest national statistics for UK divorce rates have astounded many with the only increase being in those aged over 60. This increase, referred to by many as ‘silver separations’ has sparked debate as to whether this increase is demonstrative of the social shift in attitudes towards divorce amongst the baby boom generation.
So what could be the reason for this boom in the statistics? Could it be that after 25 to 30 years couples find they no longer have the relationship they had thought? Are couples simply waiting until their children are independent before deciding to separate? Or is it that 60 is the new 40, with many seeking to live their lives to the full in retirement, with or without their other half?
Divorce in retirement can be incredibly daunting to the estranged spouse. It can lead to a feeling of extreme loneliness after having spent the majority of your life with someone. There is not only an enormous emotional void to fill – there may also be severe financial concerns. How will the marital assets be divided? What if one person is without a pension? How can the marital assets be protected for the children to avoid new partners reaping the benefits? What if your spouse has ill health?
These are all issues which will be considered during divorce proceedings. When considering an appropriate financial settlement the goal is always to achieve a fair settlement for each person that ensures that the needs of both spouses are met – and if possible, it is always best to do this in an amicable and cooperative way.
So why has there been a rise in silver separations? Please let us have your views.
If you have any questions about the impact of divorce after retirement, contact us.
Up until today, the legal assumption has been that when an unmarried couple own a property jointly, they each own an equal 50% share unless they declare otherwise in writing.
The Supreme Court has handed down a judgement today that overturns that assumption and could cause huge uncertainty among the thousands of unmarried couples in the UK who own property together, if they were to separate.
Our cohabitation specialist Wayne Lynn, explains the ruling and its implications for cohabiting couples:
In 1985 an unmarried couple – Mr Kernott and Miss Jones – bought a house in joint names. When their relationship broke down eight years later, Mr Kernott moved out of the house and Miss Jones continued to live there with their two children, paying the mortgage and bills by herself.
In 2006, Mr Kernott said that he wanted to claim an equal share of the equity in the jointly owned home, and Miss Jones launched an appeal against that claim.
The Supreme Court unanimously upheld Miss Jones’ appeal, and ruled that she holds a 90% share in the property, giving Mr Kernott a 10% share.
This case has massive implications for unmarried couples who separate after living together.
The Supreme Court is essentially moving a step closer to the approach taken to property ownership amongst married couples when they divorce, in order to achieve a fair outcome. What it means in practice is that if the court can infer through a couple’s actions that they intended to own their property anything other than equally, then if there is no evidence as to the shares in which they intended to hold it, it has the power to decide how property ownership should be divided according to what the court considers to be fair.
Whilst the Court’s willingness to achieve a fair outcome is to be welcomed, the majority of couples won’t ever consider whether their shares in a property could change if they separated from their partner. This could lead to unintended and unexpected consequences unless couples are clear as to how they intend to own their home, and could lead to further litigation as couples argue over who owns the home and in what shares. This makes it even more important for people intending to buy property together to seek legal advice.
To avoid losing their shares in a property further down the line, couples will need to discuss how they intend to share ownership from the start, and consider entering into a formal agreement to provide a more certain outcome if the relationship ever broke down.
If they don’t, they might be faced with an unexpected outcome that neither of them intended, which can lead to unnecessary heartache at what is already a very difficult time.
For most couples, a substantial lottery win is a dream come true. But what happens to those winnings if the couple separates?
Should they be shared? Should they be kept by the person who bought the winning ticket?
This thorny issue recently fell to Mr Justice Mostyn in the High Court to decide.
Continue reading…
According to a recently published report by the Office for National Statistics, there has been a marked decline in the marriage rate, accompanied by a significant rise in the number of couples who choose to live together without marrying.
The statistics also show that, 10 years after a couple began to live together, almost four in 10 couples have since separated, half have married and only one in 10 are still living together as a couple.
Yet how many people in unmarried, cohabiting relationships actually know their rights if their relationship breaks down?
Continue reading…
For many years the main cause of divorce in this country has been infidelity, but recent research shows this may no longer be the case. The research suggests that ‘falling out of love’ or ‘growing apart’ is the reason most separating couples now give for divorcing.
But just how accurate are the statistics? Do they really reflect the truth about relationship breakdown?
There are so many factors that could be at play here. To file for divorce in the UK you have to prove that the marriage has irretrievably broken down on one of five grounds: adultery, unreasonable behaviour, two years separation (provided both people agree to the divorce), desertion (of at least two years) or five years separation.
On that basis, couples keen to speed up the divorce process are forced to cite either adultery or unreasonable behaviour in order to move things forward. But what if the unfaithful spouse is not prepared to agree to the divorce on those grounds? Perhaps they’re not prepared to admit their affair?
The alleged affair could well be the reason for the marriage breakdown, but for the divorce to move forward, the person initiating it might have to rely on a claim of unreasonable behaviour to avoid the divorce being defended (and therefore costly for everyone involved).
This is certainly reflected in some of the high profile celebrity divorce cases that hit the headlines. Cheryl Cole was reported to have issued a so called ‘quickie divorce’ petition citing her husband’s ‘unreasonable behaviour’, when in fact a series of affairs was widely known and reported.
So it could be that whilst an affair is the real cause of marriage breakdown, people give other reasons in order to speed the divorce process up or avoid a costly court battle.
Or perhaps it’s true, and unhappy couples who ‘fall out of love’ no longer feel compelled to stay together because they are married or for the sake of the children and they’re not afraid to say it.
And don’t forget that this is all set against a backdrop of falling divorce rates across the board. The recession has certainly had a part to play in that, and there’s a lot of anecdotal evidence to suggest that falling house prices have forced families to stay together for financial reasons, or that the fear of redundancy is keeping unhappy couples together for financial stability, rather than taking the risk to go it alone.
As always, things are never as straightforward as they might at first seem. So what do you think? What are the real causes of marriage breakdown in the UK?
Couples across the state of New York were celebrating earlier this summer when legislation legalising same sex marriages was passed.
Thousands of New Yorkers quickly tied the knot, but their celebrations might have been dampened with the knowledge that despite the new legislation, married gay and lesbian couples still don’t have the same rights as married heterosexual couples.
Continue reading…
