Reform may be in the air but will it improve family law?

Family Law | 14 May 2018 4

“It’s going to be an important week for family law in England and Wales this week.”

Graham Coy, Partner at the London Stowe Family Law office, starts the week with his thoughts on two landmark cases at the Supreme Court and reflects on Baroness Deech’s proposed Bill.

“Today, Rebecca Steinfeld and her partner, Charles Keidan will argue that a Civil Partnership should be available to heterosexual couples along with same-sex.

Having suffered defeat at the Court of Appeal in February last year, they are now taking this fight to the UK’s highest court.

Rebecca and Charles do not want to get married, meaning along with 3.2 million other same-sex cohabiting couples they have practically no legal rights if their relationship comes to an end.

Neither can they enter into a Civil Partnership which would give them the same rights as married opposite-sex couples and same-sex if the relationship broke down.

But is this a breach of their human rights? Today, the Supreme Court will listen to their case and announce their decision later this year.

In the meantime, the uptake in registered Civil Partnerships has declined after the introduction of same-sex marriage; dropping from 6,305 in 2007 to just 890 in 2016. This has prompted the Equalities Office to begin a consultation on the future of civil partnerships. Whatever the outcome civil partnerships will change.

Locked-in a marriage

Secondly, on Thursday Mrs Tini Owens will try to persuade The Supreme Court that previous judges have been wrong in refusing to allow her to divorce her husband on the basis that he has behaved unreasonably.

Now a locked-in wife, she cannot get divorced unless her husband changes his mind and agrees or she waits five years.

This leaves the court to decide what the law means when one party in a marriage is said to have behaved unreasonably.  What is reasonable behaviour and what is unreasonable?

One size does not fit all

Last week we saw another attempt by Baroness Deech to radically reform the way in which financial matters are dealt with when a marriage or civil partnership breaks down.

The Bill, given its first Reading last Friday in the House of Lords, calls for maintenance to be limited to a fixed period of five years. This apparently will make mediation easier, reduce legal costs and recognize that a marriage is a partnership of equals.

The term ‘meal ticket for life’ has been banded around a lot in the coverage of this story but there is no ‘meal ticket for life’. In 1984, the law was amended to ask Judges to consider when maintenance should end. There is no reform required.

For me, a strict cut off is unfair. There is no ‘one size fits all’. Every family is different, every case is different. This is the real world that as family lawyers, we see every day of our working lives.

Change always comes with consequences. In this case, the weaker financial party will seek more of the capital up-front and /or a greater share of the pension.

What we need is far greater consistency between judges and greater clarity from them as to how the current law should be interpreted and applied.

Of course, there are those high-profile cases where legal costs get out of proportion but they are few and far between and do not justify such a sweeping level of reform.

And I do not believe that mediation will be more widespread as a result.  What will make mediation more mainstream is greater government support and more support from the legal profession.

For me, I am hoping that Baroness Deech’s Bill will fail and that The Supreme Court will make decisions that provide clarity and take the law forward for the benefit for all.

Family law needs to change to improve so what I would like to see is a thorough public debate about changes, reforms, consistency and greater clarity from the sector and the main political parties.

Sadly, I am not optimistic but let’s see what the next few months bring”.

Graham was based at the firm's London Chancery Lane office. His career as a family law specialist has spanned three decades. He is an experienced advocate, mediator and arbitrator who has worked in all areas of family law.

Share This Post...

Get in touch

    Request Free Call Back

    We remain open for business during the COVID-19 outbreak. Submit your details below, and we’ll arrange a free, no-obligation call back at a time to suit you. To ensure we are the right fit, we need to make you aware that we cannot offer Legal aid.


    1. robin hood law says:

      SO, what about unmarried couples that spend years and years together, are left holding the children, and then walk away being homeless, as not on the mortgage and not married ? reform from the stigma that attaches to christian beliefs. Relief for unmarried mums and walk away with absolutely nothing, or a paper that entitles them to a home while they care for their children whilst the father lives a life of luxury and fun. Then when she has done all that, she hands the house back or gets forced out to be homeless . Any news ? would be appreciated

    2. Mr T says:

      There should be absolute equality after divorce in terms of child support. It’s arguably the biggest killer of men and a direct cause of parental alienation aka child abuse. If a parent cannot financially cope they should be held responsible for discussing with their ex partner. The rule being if they cannot financially afford to care for their children then transfer residency or come to an agreement.

      Too many women later on in life are now choosing paternity fraud by getting with a man having a child then leaching off him a meal ticket for 16 years if not more. When actually they should work and get handouts and probably have new partners who are earning. The current system is legalised extortion of mainly dads. It is a blatant breach of human rights of men and needs to be removed or changed to be fair.

    3. spinner says:

      “apparently will make mediation easier, reduce legal costs and recognize that a marriage is a partnership of equals.” – The problem you have is that practically every other developed nation in the world including Scotland does have fixed terms and so there is a mountain of evidence about how it work’s much better than English family law which is a mess.

    Leave a Reply


    Newsletter Sign Up

    For all the latest news from Stowe Family law
    please sign up for instant access today.

      Privacy Policy