Whilst divorce lawyers are not marriage counsellors, they are perhaps uniquely qualified to comment upon the causes of marriage breakdown (and the benefits of a marriage preparation course), witnessing thousands of breakdowns over the course of a career.
And if that experience tells us one thing it is that there are many ways in which a marriage can go wrong, often starting with small things, and escalating into something that causes irreparable damage to the marriage.
And the other thing that divorce lawyers can attest to is the pain that can be caused by marriage breakdown, both emotionally and financially.
Anything that can prevent that pain must surely therefore be a good thing. So what are the benefits of a marriage preparation course?
Newly married couples often face challenges due to the unknown, particularly if they haven’t lived together before marriage.
And this is where the benefits of a marriage preparation course come in. A marriage preparation course is designed for couples to attend, aiding them in making optimal preparations for marriage. The courses are often run by the church, but courses are available for couples without a church background.
The course will normally take place over several sessions, and should be run by a trained team.
It is trite to say, but marriage is a huge commitment. It is essential therefore that couples contemplating marriage understand the commitment they are about to enter.
A marriage preparation course can assist the couple in fully understanding and emphasizing the importance of commitment in marriage. Obviously, a marriage entered into without full commitment is a marriage set up to fail.
Otherwise, the contents of a marriage preparation course are likely to cover two particular areas, the first designed to avoid conflict, and the second to know how to deal with conflict when it arises.
Anyone entering into marriage must obviously know the person they are about to marry. But it can be surprising sometimes how little they do know.
A marriage preparation course can help with this.
The course aids couples in recognizing and understanding differences, preventing potential conflicts that may arise from unappreciated distinctions.
And another common area of conflict, as any divorce lawyer can attest, is family. All families are different and the family background of your spouse should be fully understood, to avoid potentially damaging conflict with other family members
Again, a marriage preparation course can help with this.
With the best will in the world, it is almost inevitable that conflict will occur in any marriage. The important thing is to know how to deal with it when it does.
A good marriage preparation course will teach the couple strategies for dealing with conflict.
These may include ensuring proper communication between the couple – issues that are left unaired are only likely to get worse, and couples that don’t properly communicate are not going to be able to resolve conflict.
Obviously, conflicts should be resolved early, before they become more serious. Arming a couple with strategies for resolving conflict can make early resolution more likely.
Obviously, marriage preparation is aimed primarily at ensuring a happy marriage. But ultimately it can help to ensure that the marriage is enduring.
As we indicated above, divorce can take an enormous toll, both emotionally and financially, leaving scars that can last a lifetime.
And an awful lot of people are suffering that toll. About four in ten marriages end in divorce, and in 2021, the latest year for which figures are available, there were 113,505 divorces granted in England and Wales.
Marriage preparation courses may not be for everyone, but attending one could just help prevent your marriage becoming one of those statistics.
For further information on how we can help, please see our Expertise pages.
Walker Family Law is an award-winning family law practice, recognised as one of the leading family law firms in the South West of England with services covering family law & mediation, divorce law, child-law and arbitration.
Please contact us if you require any further information.
Resolution, the association of family justice professionals, has reignited the debate over whether unmarried couples should be given greater rights on relationship breakdown.
Resolution released survey results indicating that a majority of the population now favors increased rights for unmarried couples. The survey showed 59% support for enhanced legal protections for cohabitants, as 74% found current laws unfit for modern society.
In the light of these findings Resolution has repeated its call for a change in the law. The organization’s ‘Vision for Family Justice’ proposes financial remedies for eligible cohabitants in committed relationships upon separation.
So what exactly is the problem facing cohabitees on relationship breakdown, and what is being proposed to address the problem?
Current law treats cohabiting couples’ breakups as if they were unrelated individuals, lacking claims arising from their relationship. As a result, Resolution says, they face financial hardship, inequality and emotional distress.
Current law allows living together for decades, having children, and then walking away without financial responsibility after a relationship breakdown. Resolution argues this situation causes hardship, especially when a mother reduces or gives up working hours to raise a family.
When the Resolution survey asked cohabitees about their concerns in the event of a relationship ending, 35% said they feared having nowhere to live, (if a property is in one partner’s name the other partner has no automatic claim on it in the event of a break up).
Many mistakenly believe long cohabitation amounts to a ‘common law marriage,’ falsely assuming rights similar to married couples.
Contrary to a common misconception, no one suggests providing cohabitants with the same rights as married couples on marriage breakdown. There is no question therefore of the proposals devaluing marriage, as has been suggested in some quarters. But should unmarried couples be given greater rights?
As mentioned above, Resolution is proposing that cohabitants meeting eligibility criteria indicating a committed relationship would have a right to apply for certain financial remedies orders if they separate.
The sort of eligibility criteria envisaged would be that the couple had had a child together or had lived together for a specific number of years, as recommended by the Law Commission back in 2007.
The right to apply for financial remedies orders would be automatic unless the couple chooses to ‘opt out’. This, say Resolution, creates lesser risk than leaving couples to ‘opt in’, failure to do so disadvantaging only the financially weaker party.
Financial remedies for cohabitants mirror divorce orders but on a different, more limited basis, as proposed by Resolution.
The Law Commission proposed requiring the applicant to show the other party’s benefit or the applicant’s ongoing economic disadvantage. The value of any award would depend on the extent of the retained benefit or continuing economic disadvantage.
Resolution also consider that cohabitants should be able to apply for maintenance in their own right (as opposed to just child maintenance) for a limited period to reflect the economic advantages or disadvantages caused by the relationship which could not be accommodated by other types of orders.
In 2022 cohabiting couples accounted for almost 1 in 5 families in the UK. Resolution advocates for laws that align with modern society, offering solutions for all family structures, including those who are unmarried.
For further information on how we can help, please see our Unmarried Couples pages.
‘Parental rights’ is a term in common usage, but it relates to what is probably one of the most common misunderstandings in the area of family law.
Because there is in a sense no such thing as ‘parental rights’, at least so far as the law in England and Wales is concerned.
That may come as a surprise to many. Surely, parents have rights over their children, don’t they?
Well, not exactly.
To explain this, we need to look at the most important piece of legislation in relation to children, and the ideas behind it. We are referring to the Children Act 1989.
Prior to the passing of the Children Act the idea of parental rights was in fact central to family law in England and Wales, with terms such as “parental rights and duties”, the “powers and duties” of a parent, and the “rights and authority”” of a parent featuring in various statutes.
But those who formulated the ideas behind the Children Act realised that it was both inaccurate and misleading to talk of ‘parental rights’. The powers which parents have to control or make decisions for their children are simply part of their parental responsibilities. To refer to the concept of “right” in the relationship between parent and child is therefore likely to produce confusion.
Accordingly it was decided to replace the idea of ‘parental rights’ with the new concept of ‘parental responsibilities’. Such a term, it was thought, would reflect the everyday reality of being a parent and emphasise the responsibilities of all who are in that position.
One further advantage of this change was that the same concept could then be employed to define the status of local authorities when children have been committed to their care. This would be helpful in emphasising the continuing parental responsibility of the local authority, even if the child has been allowed to live at home.
Returning to the subject of this post, the appropriate question, therefore, is not ‘what are parental rights?’, but rather ‘what is parental responsibility?’
Somewhat confusingly, the Children Act defines ‘parental responsibility’ as “all the rights, duties, powers, responsibilities and authority which by law a parent of a child has in relation to the child and his property”.
This definition is confusing both because it still includes the word “rights”, which seems to contradict the idea of ‘parental responsibility’, and because it doesn’t actually state what the rights, duties, powers, and responsibilities are.
It was in fact a positive decision not to state what the responsibilities of a parent are. For one thing it would be difficult if not impossible to list all parental responsibilities, and for another parental responsibilities can change to meet different needs and circumstances, for example the age and maturity of the child.
However, we can give a few examples of parental responsibilities.
One responsibility is to maintain the child, a responsibility which of course continues even when the child no longer resides with the parent.
Another responsibility is to ensure that the child is educated, whether at school or at home.
And another responsibility is to ensure that the child receives appropriate medical treatment.
And, more generally, the parent will have responsibilities in relation to the child’s general upbringing, such as choice of religion, if any. This is one of those responsibilities that can change as the child matures and has a greater say in such matters.
Of course, these responsibilities can only be exercised by a parent with parental responsibility, so who has parental responsibility?
(Note that parental responsibility can be held by people who are not parents, but here we will deal with parents only.)
All mothers acquire parental responsibility automatically, as do fathers if they are married to the mother. Mothers and married fathers can only lose parental responsibility if the child is adopted.
Unmarried fathers can acquire parental responsibility if they are named as the father on the child’s birth certificate, if the mother agrees to them having parental responsibility (and a parental responsibility agreement is signed), or by a court order granting them parental responsibility. An unmarried father can lose parental responsibility either by the child being adopted or by a court order removing parental responsibility.
In short, the answer to the question posed by this post is that ‘parental responsibilities’ are all the responsibilities that a person legally holding parental responsibility has in relation to the child.
For further information on how we can help, please see our Child Law pages.
‘Parental rights’ is a term in common usage, but it relates to what is probably one of the most common misunderstandings in the area of family law’
Exploring the key legislation concerning children helps to explain this concept. We are referring to the Children Act 1989.
The creators of the Children Act recognized the inaccuracy and misguidance in referring to ‘parental rights’. The powers which parents have to control or make decisions for their children are simply part of their parental responsibilities. To refer to the concept of “right” in the relationship between parent and child is therefore likely to produce confusion.
Accordingly it was decided to replace the idea of ‘parental rights’ with the new concept of ‘parental responsibilities’. The term was considered to mirror the daily reality of parenting, highlighting the responsibilities of those in that role.
One further advantage of this change was that the same concept could then be employed to define the status of local authorities when children have been committed to their care. This emphasizes the ongoing parental responsibility of the local authority, even when the child resides at home.
Returning to the post’s subject, the relevant question is not ‘what are parental rights?’ but ‘what is parental responsibility?
Maintaining the child is a responsibility that persists even when the child no longer lives with the parent.
Additionally, parents generally bear responsibilities in the child’s overall upbringing, including decisions on religious matters, if applicable. This responsibility can evolve as the child matures, gaining more influence in decisions related to these matters.
Parental responsibility, in this context, pertains specifically to parents, although it can be held by non-parents as well.
In summary, ‘parental responsibilities’ encompass all legal duties held by a person with parental responsibility towards the child.
When child abduction is discussed most people will envisage a parent taking their child to some foreign country, beyond the borders of the United Kingdom.
But what if the parent moves the child from one country in the UK to another country in the UK? Is that child abduction? After all, the countries within the UK do not all share the same legal system.
Can a parent abduct their own child in the UK? To answer the question we need to look at exactly what child abduction means
Child abduction is actually a criminal, rather than civil, matter (although as we will see in a moment there are also civil (i.e. family law) issues to take into consideration when moving a child to another country).
The criminal offence of child abduction is set out in the Child Abduction Act 1984, which states that a person commits the offence if they send or take a child under the age of 16 outside of the UK without the appropriate consent.
So, can a parent abduct their own child in the UK? There is the answer to the question: child abduction offense occurs only when the child is sent or taken out of the UK. It is not a criminal offence to take or send a child from England, Scotland, Wales, or Northern Ireland to another one of those countries.
For the sake of completeness, we should explain what is meant by “the appropriate consent”.
What the ‘appropriate consent’ is will depend upon the circumstances, but will normally mean that a father will need to obtain the consent of the mother and a mother will require the consent of the father, if he has parental responsibility for the child. However, if either parent has a child arrangements order stating that the child should live with them then they can take the child outside of the UK for up to 28 days without the other parent’s consent.
Not necessarily.
Just because it is not a criminal offence to move a child from one country in the UK to another country in the UK it is still recommended that the parent first obtain the consent of the other parent, if the child is to be moved to a country with a different legal system, for example from England to Scotland (England and Wales share the same legal system but Scotland’s system is completely different). If you do not obtain consent and the matter subsequently goes before the court, then the court is likely to take a dim view of you moving the child without consent.
And if you do not obtain the other parent’s consent and they object to the child being moved they can apply to the court for an order requiring the child’s return, and that order can be registered in the courts of the country to which the child has been taken, so that those courts can enforce the return order.
Similarly, if there are any existing court orders in respect of a child under 16, they will be recognised and enforced in all courts inside the UK, provided the order has been registered in the court of that country.
In view of these things if you wish to move your child to another country in the UK and the other parent does not consent to the move then the best course of action is to apply to the court for permission to make the move.
If you are considering moving with your child to another country within the UK then you should first seek expert legal advice. For more information regarding moving a child within the UK, and how we can help, see this page.
For further information on how we can help, please see our Child Abduction page.
The popular media is full of stories about high profile divorce cases, often involving celebrities, and almost all involving huge sums of money.
And even the law reports of financial remedy cases largely comprise big money cases, as only couples with substantial assets can afford to get involved in expensive contested court proceedings.
Anyone reading these stories and reports can be forgiven for getting the false impression that such cases are the norm in our family courts.
But new research has shown that that is far from true.
The research project, entitled Fair Shares, which was led by the University of Bristol and funded by the Nuffield Foundation, surveyed 2,415 recent divorcees, providing the first representative picture in England and Wales of the financial and property arrangements that couples make when they divorce.
And the findings of the research were both surprising and worrying.
Perhaps the most surprising finding was just how little many couples have to share on divorce.
Far from the millions that we see in most reported cases, the research found that of those divorcees surveyed the median value of their total asset pool, including the net value of the former matrimonial home and any pensions, was only £135,000.
And nearly a fifth of those surveyed had no assets at all to share on divorce.
Perhaps it should not be surprising given how modest the assets could be, but the research found that the majority of divorcees left the marriage with under £50,000 by way of assets.
A fifth of divorcees ended up with less than £25,000, and a quarter ended up with nothing or only debts.
Only one in 11 came out of the marriage with £500,000 or more.
So much for big money divorces.
The research also found that equal division of the assets, if any, was not the norm, with only 28% of divorcees reporting that they had divided their assets roughly equally. In some cases there was an unequal division simply because the assets were divided in accordance with who owned what.
And a particularly worrying finding was that only 11% of cases involved sharing of pensions, suggesting that many people were missing out on their pension entitlement. The main reasons given for so few pension sharing cases were general lack of interest in the pension, and a strong sense that it ‘belonged’ to the spouse who had been contributing to it.
And that brings us to the last finding of the research: how few couples sought legal advice and help in sorting out their financial and property arrangements.
One of the most important things a lawyer will do before advising a client upon their entitlement in a divorce settlement is ascertain the value of the assets. Obviously, without this information it is impossible to know what a fair settlement is.
But the research found that over half of divorcees who had reached a financial arrangement had done so by themselves, only a third made use of lawyers to sort out their financial arrangements, and 12% had sought no advice at all.
It is therefore unsurprising that the research also found that over a third of divorcees did not know the value of their own pension pot, 10% of homeowners with a mortgage did not know what the equity in their home had been, and 38% of divorcees felt their knowledge of their ex-spouse’s finances during the marriage was not good.
The main reason for not seeking legal help was of course fear of the cost. However, the amounts spent on legal help were relatively low. A quarter of divorcees had had to find less than £1,000, with a further 18% having costs between £1,000 and £2,999. Only 9% had costs of £10,000 or more, with higher costs associated with greater wealth.
The message from all of this is quite clear: whilst assets may be modest, it is still worth seeking legal advice, as the cost involved can be far outweighed by the value of an entitlement that you may be missing out on.
For further information on how we can help, please see our Divorce, Separation, and Finances page.
Please contact us if you require any further information
It’s a simple question, but with a not quite so simple answer.
For the sake of this post we will assume that the parents have separated and that the children live mainly with one of the parents. We will call that parent the ‘parent with care’, or ‘PWC’, and the other parent the ‘non-resident parent’, or ‘NRP’ (these are terms that are no longer officially used, but they make it easier to explain what follows).
When the parents separate they will obviously need to sort out a child maintenance arrangement. Hopefully, they will be able to do this between themselves by agreement, but if not then they will need to have it sorted out for them.
Until the advent of state-arranged child support maintenance under the Child Support Act 1991, that meant the PWC applying to the court for a child maintenance order.
As we will see in a moment, the court still has the power to make child maintenance orders. However, the Act took away that power in the vast majority of cases, giving it instead to what is now the Child Maintenance Service (‘CMS’).
Accordingly, in most cases where the parents cannot agree a child maintenance arrangement they (usually the PWC) will have to ask the CMS to sort it out for them.
So how long does a CMS child maintenance arrangement last?
The answer to this is actually quite simple.
A CMS child maintenance arrangement lasts until the child attains the age of sixteen, or if they are in full-time education (up to and including A level or equivalent), until they attain the age of twenty. (It should be remembered that since 2013 the law has required that young people continue in education until the age of eighteen, unless they are in employment or training.)
But the end of a CMS child maintenance arrangement does not necessarily mean the end of the NRP’s liability to maintain the child.
What happens if, as is obviously often the case, the child goes into advanced (i.e. tertiary) education, or remains dependent beyond the age of twenty for some other reason? Can the NRP be required to pay maintenance for the child in such circumstances?
The answer is yes, but as the CMS no longer has jurisdiction the matter has to be dealt with by the court.
As mentioned above, the court still retains the power to make child maintenance orders, just as it did prior to the coming into force of the Child Support Act.
But the rules as to how long the maintenance lasts under an order are quite different to the rules as to how long a CMS maintenance arrangement lasts.
The starting-point is that a child maintenance order should not extend beyond the date of the child’s eighteenth birthday.
However, the court can order that the maintenance should continue beyond the child’s eighteenth birthday, if the child is still in full-time education, or if there are special circumstances, for example where the child remains dependent because they suffer from a disability.
The next question, then, is what is ‘full-time education’?
The answer to that depends on the court, but the court can include tertiary education up to degree level, including any gap year. Accordingly, a NRP could potentially be required to pay maintenance until the child is twenty-two years old.
In short, you will be liable to pay child maintenance until the child attains the age of sixteen, but could be liable all the while they are in full-time education, which can include tertiary education.
As we stated at the outset, hopefully separating parents will be able to sort out child maintenance arrangements by agreement, but if they do then they should also agree how long the maintenance should last, having regard to the above.
If you need help sorting out child maintenance arrangements, including how much should be paid, then you should seek expert legal advice.
For further information, please see the Child Arrangements page.
In many divorces pensions are one of the most valuable assets, often second only to the former matrimonial home. It is therefore essential that pensions are properly taken into account in the divorce settlement.
Unfortunately, many people are unaware of the importance of pensions and how they are split on divorce, with the result that all too often they do not receive their true entitlement in the divorce settlement, which can result in them suffering economic hardship in old age.
In this post we will give a basic outline of how pensions are split in a divorce, but obviously there is no substitute for expert legal advice.
There are in fact three ways in which pensions can be dealt with on a divorce, although only one of these actually involves splitting of pensions.
The first way that pensions can be split in divorce is by way of an ‘offsetting arrangement”, whereby the pension-holding party keeps the pension, but the other party is compensated by having a greater share of the other assets.
Offsetting can be attractive where, for example, the party without the pension wishes to retain other assets, such as the former matrimonial home.
However, offsetting is not without its disadvantages.
For one thing it is impossible to equate the value of a pension with the value of a physical asset. They are quite different things.
And secondly of course the party without the pension can find themselves with insufficient pension provision, and insufficient time to accumulate sufficient provision.
This is where the court orders that part of the pension benefits be paid to the other party, when the pension comes into payment.
Pension attachment also has its disadvantages, for example the party in whose favour the order was made has no control over when the other party takes the pension.
Because of the disadvantages pension attachment orders are quite rare.
This is where the court will share the pension(s) between the parties.
Pension sharing involves the splitting of one party’s pension, usually on a percentage basis, so that part of the pension is transferred into a pension in the other party’s name.
Pension sharing is usually the most satisfactory way of dealing with pensions on divorce, as it can ensure a fair division of pension assets. However, only about 10% of divorces involve pension sharing orders, so many people are clearly missing out.
Now that we know the options for dealing with pensions on divorce, the next question is: how much should each party get?
Of course, before that can be answered we need to know how much the pensions are worth.
And valuing pensions can be quite tricky, often requiring the services of a pension expert.
In most cases the valuation used is what is referred to as the ‘cash equivalent transfer value’, i.e. the amount that could be transferred out of that pension fund into another.
Once a satisfactory valuation has been obtained, a decision can be made as to how much each party should receive. Whilst this is ultimately a decision for the court, financial advice may well be required to ensure that any arrangement works as desired.
In deciding how pensions should be split the court will take into account the same factors that it considers when deciding the financial settlement generally, such as the means of the parties, their needs, and their ages. Whether part of the pension was accumulated prior to the marriage can also be relevant.
All else being equal, and provided there is no offsetting, then a fair outcome could simply be that the pensions of each party are equalised, so that the value of each party’s pensions are the same. Again, however, expert advice should be taken as to what is a fair outcome in each case.
Relationship breakdown will obviously usually mean that the parties will no longer have anything to do with one another (save, perhaps, for any ongoing maintenance liability).
But where the parties have children, and especially where the children are dependent, they will still have to deal with each other, to sort out arrangements for the children.
And of course the parties may enter into new relationships, which can add an extra dimension to those arrangements.
If a parent enters into a relationship with a new partner then it is obviously likely that the children will come into contact with the new partner, especially if the parent and their new partner live together.
Seeing their parent with someone else may obviously be upsetting for some children (although many take it in their stride). Introducing children to the new partner should therefore be approached with care, perhaps on a gradual basis, rather than treating it as a ‘fait accompli’.
And consideration should also be given to the other parent, who may understandably have concerns about the children meeting and spending time with the new partner.
If possible the parent with the new partner should discuss those concerns with the other parent, and reassure them that the children will come to no harm.
Of course, it isn’t always possible for separated parents to discuss and agree matters in an amicable fashion. In such a situation there are two common scenarios that may occur: the other parent may want to stop their ex introducing the children to their new partner, and they may even demand to meet the new partner.
As mentioned above, the other parent may have genuine concerns about their children meeting and spending time with their ex’s new partner. Those concerns may be just general worry about the effect upon the children, or may be specific concerns, based upon information they have about the new partner, or what the children have told them.
If the parent is sufficiently worried they could apply to the court for an order restricting the children’s contact with the new partner, but this should really be seen as a last resort.
They should first try to discuss their concerns with the other parent, and could also consider resolving the matter via mediation.
If they do go to court they should understand that they will have to prove to the court that the children have suffered, or are likely to suffer, ongoing harm by having contact with the new partner. Merely being upset when they first meet the new partner is unlikely to be sufficient, as the court generally takes the view that if a new partner is a part of the parent’s life, then they should be a part of the children’s lives also.
Of course, simply not knowing the new partner can naturally cause the other parent to worry about their children’s welfare. They may therefore want to be reassured by meeting the new partner.
This can be a good idea, provided of course that all parties are happy to meet, but what if they are not? Can the other parent force a meeting?
The simple answer is that they can’t, and even the court will not force a meeting to take place.
However, again if the other parent’s concerns are sufficiently serious for the matter to go to court then the court will want to check that the new partner poses no threat of harm to the children. This could be done, for example, by the court appointing a welfare officer to investigate, and the welfare officer meeting the new partner.
For further information on how we can help you, please see the Child Arrangements page.
The Ministry of Justice has published its latest quarterly statistics bulletin for the family justice system, for the period April to June 2023.
The statistics provide a snapshot of the current state of the family justice system, and whilst some of the figures are good news, some most definitely are not.
Beginning with an item that may be considered good news, the number of divorce applications made in the quarter was down 30 per cent on the same quarter last year, to 24,624.
The quarter last year was of course the first one after the introduction of the new no-fault divorce system, so it was expected that the figure in that quarter would be higher than usual, with many couples waiting for the new law to come into force.
Some people feared that the new system, which arguably made divorce easier, would lead to an increase in the number of divorces. But this new figure, which is about the same as the quarterly figure before the introduction of no-fault divorce, suggests that this may not be so.
Another feature of the new system is that it introduced for the first time the possibility of both parties applying for the divorce jointly. The new figures indicate that about a quarter of all divorce applications are being made jointly.
Another welcome development is that the statistics show a 6 per cent reduction in the number of public law children cases (i.e. cases involving social services) being issued in the quarter, reducing the workload of an overburdened court system.
Unfortunately, for technical reasons the statistics do not on this occasion include figures for how long public law cases are taking to be dealt with, although the latest court management data, for July 2023, indicates that these cases are taking some 40 weeks on average, much longer than the 26 week period in which they should be dealt with.
And that brings us to one of the most worrying statistics contained in the bulletin: the time taken for private law children cases (i.e. cases between parents sorting out arrangements for their children) to be dealt with.
The statistics show that whilst there was a welcome 4 per cent drop in the number of such cases being issued, the cases were taking on average 47 weeks to reach a final order. This is up almost 3 weeks from the same period in 2022, and continues an upward trend seen since 2016.
This really is a concerning statistic, caused by the high workload of the courts. The effect upon the families concerned, particularly the children, can only be imagined.
Another unwelcome statistic with regard to the workload of the courts is an increase in the number of financial remedy applications issued during the quarter.
There were 11,040 financial remedy applications made in April to June 2023, which was up 20 per cent from the same period in 2022. Meanwhile, there was an increase in the number of such applications being disposed of by the courts, but this was only 15 per cent, so did not keep up with the number of new applications.
Of course, the main workload of the court comes from applications that are contested, rather than uncontested applications, where the parties are just seeking a consent order to give effect to an agreed settlement. Happily, only about a quarter of the applications were contested, with about the same number of contested applications being issued in each quarter over the last two years.
The figures also show how many people involved in family court cases had legal representation.
Legal aid was removed for private law cases in 2013, and the latest figures show that in April to June 2023, the proportion of case disposals where neither the applicant nor respondent had legal representation was 40 per cent, increasing by 26 per cent since January to March 2013, and a slight increase from April to June 2022.
Finally, the statistics provide further disappointing news when it comes to mediation.
In the quarter family mediation starts decreased by 2 per cent, and total outcomes decreased by 3 per cent, of which 58 per cent were successful agreements, which is about half the number of successful agreements prior to the removal of legal aid in 2013.
This is disappointing, as the statistics clearly indicate that it would more than ever be beneficial to have family law matters resolved by agreement, rather than having to use the over-stretched court system.
All in all, these statistics provide little in the way of good news, and much that is not. The family justice system is still clearly under considerable strain, as it has been for some years now.
