It is very disappointing to learn that fathers are to be denied a legal right to contact with their children in the event of a break up under the Family Justice Review published today.

The report on family justice, led by former civil servant David Norgrove, has rejected recommendations to enshrine in law the principle that children should have a "meaningful relationship" with both their parents. Instead it will simply say that courts should keep in mind a meaningful relationship for a child with their father when they make decisions about a child's future.

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child sets out the right of a child to maintain a relationship with both parents, even if they are separated and, in my view, national legislation should support this fundamental right.

I agree that the welfare of the child must be the most important consideration but crucial to a child's welfare, in the majority of cases, will be a quality relationship with both parents.

Daily Telegraph Article: Jetsetting Millionaire Couple to Divorce in British Courts

The couple have lived their life, as the court found, "like an 18th century nobleman's "Grand Tour"". The husband is Greek and the wife is Brazilian and yet the divorce is being pursued in England.

This comes as no suprise to a matrimonial lawyer. The English courts have a reputation as the international divorce capital of the world, particularly for the wealthy. This is because the English courts provide what they determine are the appropriate settlements based on discretionary factors. In continental Europe and  indeed other matrimonial juristictions throughout the world, what one party receives at the end of a marriage may be determined by a fixed schedule or a precise formula or it may depend on the type of marriage undertaken. This approach, while producing certainty, may not be as generous to one party (generally the wife) as would be ordered in this country.

The English courts view cases by looking at three factors:

1. Needs (generously interpreted)
2. A concept of mutual sharing
3. Compensation for relationship generated economic disadvantage.

These factors have, in turn, other sub factors that a court will review. The results of applying these discretionary principles rather than a fixed approach has led to some extraordinarily generous settlements.

It is also the case that English courts are more generous and flexible when it comes to providing adequate spousal maintenance. In some juristictions, such as Canada, maintenance is determined by way of schedule or, in Scandinavian countries, maintenance can be very limited in terms of time. No such measures exist in England and therefore a wealthy wife will seek to have her case dealt with in this juristiction so as to ensure a generous maintenance return, possibly for the balance of the parties lives.

KMR attended a seminar hosted by 29 Bedford Row in relation to international family relocation, with particular reference to the recent decision of MK v CK. The theme of the seminar was that MK v CK was probably more important than it first appeared. At first glance it does no more than explain the previous decision of Payne v Payne but in fact it has supplanted it. The impact that this may have on internal relocation issues was also discussed. Thorpe LJ had commented that it was paradoxical that a mother who lives in Dover needs permission of the court to relocate to Calais but not to John O’Groats.

As might have been expected, the importance of preparing a case was highlighted as was the importance of ensuring that the correct legal representation was obtained.

The merits of mediation was also raised – the parties in MK v CK have spent nearly all of their capital on legal fees and the litigation has had perhaps an inevitable affect of polarising the parents to the extent that a negotiated agreement is now impossible.

Perhaps this is a prime example of how collaborative law could assist at an early stage?

Daily Telegraph Article: "Mothers Who Walk Out- The Last Taboo"

It is interesting that in modern society, we still hold the expectation that maternal love overrides paternal love and that a mother is cruel if she chooses to leave her children in the care of the father. My experience here is that the rise of shared residence order in the courts today reflect the fact that parents can parent equally and that there is growing recognition that the emphasis should be on who is best placed to care for the child rather than the gender of that parent.