February 2012 – Recognition of both parents’ rights to see their children

In responding to the review of the family justice system recently undertaken by David Norgrove, the Government have confirmed that the right of both mothers and fathers to see their children following the breakdown of their relationship will be set down in law. Campaigners for fathers’ rights complain that currently there is a bias in the court system towards a presumption that mothers are the children’s primary carer in circumstances where increasingly this is not the case.

In an attempt to prevent parental separation (where children end up losing contact with the non-resident parent, normally the father) from occurring, Judges will have a formalised legal duty to ensure that both fathers and mothers have an ongoing relationship with their children unless the behaviour of one or other of the parents has raised concerns over the safety or welfare of the children. Any parent who does not accept the role of the other parent could face serious penalties and even imprisonment.

What the changes will not do is establish a presumption of a shared parenting arrangement for parents after the breakdown of their relationship. In other jurisdictions where this presumption does exist it has led to judges becoming bogged down trying to share out children’s time with both parents.

What will also not change is the fact that the interests of the children always come first, as set out in the Children Act 1989.

The Government is trying to reduce the number of family law cases that proceed through the system to a fully contested hearing and has committed £10 million for mediation services to encourage more parents to settle outside of the court arena.

February 2012 – Law Commission to review two aspects of matrimonial finance law.

The Law Commission’s ongoing project on Marital Property Arrangements is to be extended to consider two aspects of the law on financial provision following the breakdown of a marriage or civil partnership: to what extent one party should meet the other’s needs and how “non-matrimonial property” (assets that were not built up during the marriage or were acquired, for example, through inheritance) should be treated.

There have been a large number of reported cases on both these points in recent months, including LMP’s case of Jones v Jones [2011] 1 FLR 1723 in respect of pre-acquired wealth. The aim is to bring clarity to these two areas that are at the moment causing particular difficulties in the world of matrimonial finance.

A consultation paper is expected later in 2012 with the full report due in 2013.

16 January 2012 –  Family Law specialist Amanda Andrews has joined the firm, taking the number of partners to six.

Amanda comes from leading Kent solicitors Cripps Harries Hall LLP where she was Head of its Family practice. She specialises in dealing with mid to high-net-worth individuals and with complex Children Act cases.

Amanda is recognised as a "key individual" by the annual market research directory on the legal market Chambers & Partners  with clients being "impressed by her legal knowledge and experience, intellectual and emotional intelligence, efficiency and empathy."  Legal 500, also a respected sector directory this year describes Amanda's team as delivering "an unrivalled combination of client empathy, robustness and depth of knowledge."

Amanda explains her decision to join Levison Meltzer Pigott: "London offers greater challenges in terms of complex Family work.  I have very much enjoyed working close to home, the benefits in terms of family life and of course the opportunity to grow and develop a practice and a reputation.  Now, however, I'm at a stage that I'm looking to step up a gear professionally and believe that the specialist Family Law focus of Levison Meltzer Pigott matched with the culture of this niche partnership will suit me and my future professional aspirations just perfectly."

LMP Managing Partner Simon Pigott agrees: "As with any small firm, personalities matter.  Amanda will fit well with the team and her experience and approach to her work is very much what our clients and contacts expect from a member of Levison Meltzer Pigott. We are delighted that she has joined us."

01 December 2011 – Levison Meltzer Pigott, is to support the work of The Forces Children’s Trust (FCT), the charity devoted to helping children whose father or mother has died, or has sustained life threatening injuries whilst serving as a member of the British Armed Forces. <MORE>

25th October 2011 – Chambers Directory confirms “upfront, professional and honest. "Levison Meltzer Pigott providing a "first-class service" <MORE>

22 September 2011 – Legal 500 declares Levison Meltzer Pigott a “Class act’ and once again a top tier for Family Law <MORE>

September 2011 - Plans to give financial rights to non-married couples shelved.

The idea of the “common law wife” lives large in the minds of the general public and the press but it is in fact a myth. Currently unmarried individuals have no rights for financial remedies such as maintenance or lump sums against their former partner. This can often lead to financial hardship at the end of a long relationship.

In 2005 the previous Government asked the Law Commission to look into the law in this area to consider whether unmarried couples should benefit from all, or some of, the rights that apply to married couples on a divorce (and that now also apply to Civil Partnerships). In 2007 the Law Commission recommended a new scheme giving unmarried couples such rights.

However on 6th September 2011 the Justice Minister announced that the Government does not intend to follow these recommendations in this parliamentary term. The announcement appeared in Hansard <CLICK HERE>. This announcement is despite the increasing number of couples who choose not to marry and who can often find themselves serious financial trouble at the end of a long-term relationship.

Nicola Fletcher acted for the wife in the recently reported case Z v Z (DIVORCE : JURISDICTION) [2010] 1 FLR 694)

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE JUDGMENT

Nicola represented the wife, a French national, who had been living in London with the children since 2007. The husband, also a French national, worked for a multi-national company and was frequently away on business. The marriage broke down and the wife issued a Petition in London but the husband disputed jurisdiction on the basis that he was not habitually resident in England & Wales.

Ryder J found that the husband was habitually resident in England & Wales and that the Court therefore had jurisdiction under Article 3 of Brussels II Revised. He found that the autonomous EC interpretation of habitual residence, unlike the domestic interpretation, did not give determinative significance to the length of time a person spent out of the country. The focus instead was on the parties’ “centre of interests” and the husband had relocated to London in 2007 with the intention of being with the wife and children for as long as his job lasted. When the marriage broke down he intended to return to France when the opportunity presented itself but he did not communicate that intention and on the facts of the case it did not change his habitual residence.

Julian Ribet acted for the wife in the recently reported case K v B 2010 EWHC 2151 (Fam)

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE JUDGMENT

For many years now the mixing of financial and children related issues in litigation and negotiations has long been regarded by those practicing family law as being wholly inappropriate. Sometimes this can be difficult for clients to understand, as there is often a connection between the level of the financial provision made for the parties and the practical arrangements for the day-to-day care of the children.

This case shows that in some rare cases the Court will consider that it is reasonable to link financial and children related issues. In this case, on an ancillary relief appeal, the Court considered a bargain struck between the spouses: the wife's Sharia Law claims to a dowry would be dismissed and in return the husband would give up his rights of custody arising on the child reaching 7 years old under Sharia Law, and provide a contingency fund in the event of abduction/wrongful retention by him.

The husband had appealed against a preamble contained in the final ancillary relief order which left the wife's dowry claims open, and at the appeal hearing a compromise was agreed by the parties once they had heard the expert evidence. Both parties then sought costs orders against the other. When coming to his decision, the judge took account of the custody issue, even though no formal applications under the Children Act were before him. He took the view that on the facts of this case a settlement would have had to cover both children and financial matters.

The Judge felt that the wife could not have given up her dowry claims which were her only bargaining chip to persuade the husband to give up his Sharia Law custody rights. If the husband had taken the child to an Islamic country, the wife would have had very serious problems recovering the child unless the husband had formally given up his custody rights. Faced with the possibility of losing her child the Court felt that it was not unreasonable for her to use her only leverage which was her dowry claim.

The judge stressed the need to take a broad view of the litigation. The Court retains a discretion and must take the conduct of the parties into account when considering the issue of costs. The Judge found that the husband's conduct in not agreeing to give up his custody rights until the appeal hearing was unreasonable. The wife had proposed an order in the terms finally agreed many months prior to the appeal hearing which the husband had declined to accept. As a result the Court felt it appropriate for his litigation conduct to be sanctioned and he was ordered to pay a substantial contribution towards the wife's costs.

Levison Meltzer Pigott is pleased to have received an outstanding endorsement in the 2011 edition of Chambers and Partners which stated:

The Firm: is among London’s leading family law boutiques. Recently it has been at the forefront of developments in family law. It was involved a case entitled re Child X which has helped to clarify the rules concerning media attendance at the Family Courts. According to sources ‘it runs sensible well reasoned arguments'.

The guide goes on to give Levison Meltzer Pigott a special endorsement for client service stating that the firm has the depth of expertise across the partnership to provide the client with an excellent service’.

LMP is pleased to have retained its top category ranking in the current edition of The Legal 500, which stated:

“Levison Meltzer Pigott is a niche, ‘highly competent’ family firm with a number of well-respected practitioners such as the ‘fantastic’ Simon Pigott, Jeremy Levison, Alison Hayes, Julian Ribet and Nicola Fletcher. The group regularly handles high-value ancillary relief work as well as children cases.”