Family Law Articles & Advice

Spousal maintenance is always a thorny topic, in many cases the person making the payments thinks that they are paying too much and for too long and the person receiving the spousal maintenance thinks that they are getting too little, taking into account child care responsibilities, lifestyle during the marriage or lack of qualifications or career experience over a long marriage. A husband and wife locked in a Court battle over maintenance payments after their separation in 2012 hit the news after a Court of Appeal ruling. The couple, William Waggott and his former wife, Kim Waggott split up in 2012, after a 21 year marriage. Mr Waggott was ordered to pay his wife a lump sum of nearly 10 million and spousal maintenance for life at the rate of £175,000 a year. The one thing that the husband and wife were agreed on was that the original Court ruling was unfair; the husband thinking that spousal maintenance for life gave Mrs Waggott no financial incentive to get a job and the wife thinking the amount was too low and needed to be adjusted by the date of the Court of Appeal hearing to take into account cost of living increases and Mr Waggott’s income. The battle lines were drawn with Mr Waggott applying to Court to stop the spousal maintenance for life and Mrs Waggott asking the Court for more maintenance. The Court of Appeal has ruled that Mrs Waggott’s spousal maintenance payments shouldn’t continue for life but instead end in three years’ time. The Court has also said that the amount of maintenance won't increase. As well as losing her spousal maintenance in three years Mrs Waggott also faces substantial legal costs. Reasoning behind the Court decision Mrs Waggott argued that her former husband's earnings capacity had been created during their 21 year marriage and that it was only right that she should continue to share the fruit of the marriage as her ex-husband's ongoing income was still a ‘’matrimonial asset’’. It was also argued, on Mrs Waggott’s behalf, that she should not have to invest some of the near 10 million she had received in 2012 to generate an income for herself, instead of getting ongoing spousal maintenance. It was said that would mean she was using her share of the capital of the marriage to live off when the 10 million was her entitlement to the family assets generated during the marriage. Mr Justice Moylan ruled that the former husband's future earnings capacity is not a ‘’matrimonial asset’’ and accordingly it doesn’t have to be shared with Mrs Waggott and that the wife could invest some off her lump sum and live off the interest or get employment. The Court is always keen to achieve what is known as a ‘’financial clean break’’ to sever the money ties between a husband and wife as soon as possible after a divorce. That will be achieved in the Waggott’s case in three years’ time when the maintenance payments stop. [related_posts] What does the ruling mean? In the press the Waggott Court of Appeal decision has been hailed as a victory for bread winners and the end of ‘’the meal ticket for life’’ of spousal maintenance. Does the decision mean that? The leading judge was careful to say that he acknowledged that long term maintenance can be required as part of a fair outcome in a divorce . There is therefore a danger in saying that the Waggott decision means there will be an end to spousal maintenance for life. In Mrs Waggott’s case she had received nearly 10 million and both she and her former husband had bought new houses for about 2 million each. That meant Mrs Waggott still had capital and, as importantly, had previously enjoyed a good career and so she could, in the judge’s opinion, adjust to the termination of her spousal maintenance payments without undue hardship. That won't be the case for many families where the economically weaker spouse has used all of their capital sum to pay for a new house, perhaps with a mortgage, and therefore doesn’t have the option of living off interest or the prospect of getting a well-paid job that will pay enough to cover the mortgage and bills. The frustrating thing about family Court decisions is that whilst they lay down principles of law the principles can't be applied rigidly to every family situation. Each Court decision is based on the individual’s personal and financial circumstances. That is why it is so important to get objective legal advice on what a ruling might mean for you and your family. Why? Because there is normally a range of Court orders that a Court could reasonably make in a given family situation rather than one ‘‘right answer’’. That’s why Court litigation is such a lottery as there is always a risk that you could be a loser in a Court battle. In light of this decision many breadwinners will want to review whether they should apply back to Court to stop their spousal maintenance payments for life and others will want advice on how to negotiate a clean break figure following the Court ruling. Equally those receiving spousal maintenance will need legal advice as Mrs Waggott’s case is a clear reminder, to both husband and wives, of the risks and costs of Court litigation. For help with any aspect of divorce and family finances or changes to an existing spousal maintenance order please contact us.

For one mother there was a happy ending, all thanks to the Court of Appeal. The appeal judges decided to reverse an earlier Court’s decision that said two children should be returned to the USA whether or not their mother could get a visa to re-enter the States. The family Court appeal made all the difference. The family Court appeal centred on whether two children, age 5 and 3, should return to their country of birth, the USA, at their father’s request under a Hague Convention Court application. The mother had taken the children to England, the country of her birth, without a USA Court order or the father’s agreement, after marriage difficulties made her conclude that she and the children should live in the UK. If the mother had realised the complexity of the immigration issues facing the father and herself she may well have thought twice and not taken the children out of the USA. For the children immigration wasn’t a problem as they had dual citizenship, having been born in the States and having British citizenship through their mother. The children’s Pakistani father was classified as an illegal over-stayer in the USA and if he decided to come to the UK to challenge Court rulings or to see the children he faced not being able to get back into the States, a country that he had called home from the age of 12. For the mother, as a British citizen who had entered the USA on a temporary visa and married the father in the States, it was unlikely she would be able to get a visa to go back to the States. The situation of both parents was stark. If the father ‘won’ his Hague Convention application and the Court ordered the return of the children to the States to enable the USA Court to decide on what was in the children’s long term interests, then the mother was unlikely to get a visa to go back with them. The High Court ruled in the father’s favour and the mother felt she had no alternative other than to appeal. The Court of Appeal then faced the dilemma of deciding if the children would be exposed to a grave risk of harm if returned to the USA under the Hague Convention. The mother ran this argument as there are limited defences available to try and stop a Hague Convention ordered return. The Appeal Court concluded that the children could not be removed from their primary carer despite the fact that the mother had created the situation that the family found itself in and even though the Appeal Court decision made contact between father and children problematic given his precarious immigration status in the USA. [related_posts] The family circumstances may appear unusual but as a child abduction solicitor I often have to investigate the immigration issues that arise after a child has been taken out of or has entered the UK and present the best possible evidence on immigration status and attachment. It is vital to do so as immigration status can be the key to the Court decision, as it was in this case as the children’s attachment to their mother as their primary carer, meant they would be at risk of harm in returning to the States without her. Would you risk it? The High Court decision, reversed by the Court of Appeal, shows just what a risk was taken. Sadly though there are no winners or losers in this family situation as the father now faces the same immigration dilemmas and difficulties in seeing his children. For help with child abduction or children law please contact us

In the immediate aftermath of a parental separation it can feel devastating to not be there every night to read a bedtime story to your child or, if they are older, to help them with their homework. Imagine how much more difficult it is to come to terms with a separation if one parent announces their decision to move abroad with a child. It’s highly unlikely that the parent left in the UK will be able to continue to see the child each week, take the child to ballet or football practice or to be there as a taxi service after the first school dance. I may paint a vivid picture but that is the reality for the parents I represent in child relocation applications. As a specialist children and child abduction lawyer I am in the privileged position of meeting parents and getting a snapshot of their family lives. That’s necessary to help me gain a real appreciation of why a parent is desperate to move abroad with their child or how not only a parent but the child’s extended family will be effected if a child does move abroad. What happens if a parent objects to a move abroad? If one parent wants to move abroad and the other parent objects there are a number of alternatives: The parent can still move abroad – they just can't take their child with them unless they get the other parent’s agreement or Court permission; The parent could take the child abroad without agreement or Court order – that may amount to a criminal offence under child abduction law and ultimately could lead to the child’s removal from the parent; The parent could apply to Court for permission to take the child abroad to live or the other parent could apply to Court for an order prohibiting the child’s removal from the UK. Even after Court proceedings have been started it can sometimes be possible to reach an agreement over whether a child should move abroad. It is my job when representing parents facing an application for a child to live in a foreign country to weigh up the chance that the Court application will be successful, and if the prospects are high, to negotiate the best contact arrangements. How does a Court decide my child’s future? Whether the Court is deciding on whether your child should move to France or Bermuda or if the child should live with you or their other parent the Court has to look at what the judge thinks is in the child’s best interests taking into account a set of criteria known as the ‘’welfare checklist’’. When a judge makes the decision if a child should relocate abroad the child’s interests aren’t paramount as the Court has to consider the effect of granting or refusing the application on both parents. That is why it is so important for a solicitor to know all about family life and not only what the child will gain and lose by a move abroad but how the Court decision will impact on each parent. A parent refused permission to take their child to their country of origin and where all their extended family still live may find the Court refusal more difficult to accept than a parent who wants to move for lifestyle choices or because they have found a new job based abroad. No two parents are the same and even if the parents of two children in different families have the same amount of contact with their child each week the emotional effect of a move on the parent left behind can be very different; one parent may quickly adapt to travel abroad to see the child and the other may become depressed and unable to come to terms with the Court decision. Although the Court is focused on the child’s needs as a lawyer it is my job to not only to look at the Court criteria in relation to the child but also the impact of a decision on the parent I am representing. That’s because if either parent is devastated by the Court decision and can't come to terms with the ruling then it is bound to have a negative impact on the child. That is something that a Court needs to consider when deciding whether it is in a child’s best interests to move out of the UK. [related_posts] What next? If you are a parent contemplating a move abroad with a child or a parent facing a potential Court application then the best option is to get legal advice. The sooner a parent gets specialist advice on the pros and cons of making or opposing a Court application and what steps they and their lawyer will need to do to successfully get permission or to oppose an application the better. It is like many things in life: tomorrow belongs to those who prepare for it today. For help with the process of taking a child abroad to live or for help in opposing an application please contact us

The Child Maintenance Service, the government organisation tasked with assessing and administering the statutory child support regime, frequently gets bad press for its bureaucracy and the intricacy of its rules and regulations surrounding the payment and enforcement of child support. A recent Court decision has hit the headlines because the Court of Appeal has said that a father’s sole source of income can't be classed as earnings upon which to calculate how much child support should be paid. The first two child support tribunals took the approach that if someone lives off an income then it can be viewed as ‘’income’’ but on an appeal by the father and by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions the Court of Appeal disagreed. You may question when income isn’t ‘’income’’ but the Court of Appeal decided that income for child support purposes should be considered in light of rulings on what is classed as income for tax purposes. In this family, the father derived his entire income from professional gambling, namely bets on the horses and cards. Under income tax rules and regulations earnings from gambling are not treated as self-employed taxable income even if they are a person’s only source of financial support. The Court ruled that the definition of earnings to assess liability for child support is the same as assessing eligibility for welfare benefits or liability to pay income tax. The Court ruling may make logical sense to the Department of Work and Pensions but where does it leave the parent who requires child support for their children when the other parent is earning a living from gambling or another non-taxed source? Critics have long argued that assessing child support using a statutory rigid scheme leads to these types of anomalies and that these situations were avoided when the Court had the power to order child maintenance based on what a judge thought was the right amount to meet the child’s needs. With any process there are always winners and losers and for some the Child Maintenance Service has simplified the child support process and made the collection of child support more straightforward, taking the worry out of relying on an ex-partner for child maintenance. For others, particularly where their former partner or spouse is self-employed or lives a lifestyle that doesn’t seem consistent with their taxable income the child support regime and government agency has made life more complicated than relying on the old Court system for assessing child support. [related_posts] You may think that there are very few professional gamblers so the Court of Appeal decision won't affect many children. However the rules do apply to other scenarios such as the investor living off capital gains rather than dividend income or the more common situation of a self-employed person’s reported income not appearing to reflect the reality of their daily expenditure. As a children lawyer this case emphasises the importance of getting expert legal advice when parents separate and to not sort out financial matters on a piecemeal basis. Often a husband or wife will want to agree on a split of the proceeds of sale of their house so that they can each rehouse themselves leaving issues such as spousal maintenance or child support to be agreed later on. That can lead one parent as the financial winner and the other as the financial loser if, as a result of the child support rules and regulations, the child support payments are assessed at a lot lower figure than was anticipated when committing to the new house. As frustrating as it is to wait and sort out all financial matters together the gamble of dealing with child support in isolation just isn’t worth it. For joined up advice on children law and child support please call me on +44 (0) 1477 464020 or email me at louise@evolvefamilylaw.co.uk

The race to start international divorce proceedings Most people assume, especially as we are currently part of the European Union, that if a couple decide to separate and get divorced it doesn’t matter which country they petition for divorce in as a ‘’divorce is a divorce’’. Well that response is both right and wrong. My apologies for giving a stereotypical ‘’on the fence’’ lawyer’s answer but whilst a husband or wife may achieve a divorce as a result of the decision to petition for a divorce in country A it may mean the husband or the wife's financial settlement is a lot less compared to if they had started the divorce proceedings in country B. The Court of Appeal has been hearing a case involving a German financier Oliver Thum and his wife, Catja, to decide whether to stop the divorce proceedings issued by Mrs Thum in London and to allow Mr Thum’s German divorce proceedings to go ahead: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5504825/German-financier-estranged-wife-divorce-battleground-dispute.html This scenario of a family with more than one divorce country to choose from is surprisingly common however when a husband or wife are separating they often don’t realise at that stage the financial significance of their decision to start Court proceedings in a particular country or they don’t have the means to challenge an estranged husband or wife's decision to commence the divorce in country A rather than B. In the Thum’s case it is agreed that Catja Thum started her divorce proceedings in London before her husband had issued proceedings in Germany. The question for the Court is whether her delay in sending her divorce petition to her husband should mean that her divorce petition is dismissed? That is an issue that the Court of Appeal judges are considering. It certainly won't be the last time this scenario comes before the Court for adjudication for whilst London is perceived to be ‘’the divorce capital’’ for large financial awards there will be always be a natural attraction for the economically weaker spouse to start Court proceedings in England. I am often asked to give preliminary advice where there is potentially more than one divorce Court jurisdiction and if advice is needed from an overseas lawyer as to whether it would be preferable to start divorce proceedings overseas then I can easily arrange this as I am a fellow of the International Academy of Family Lawyers, the world’s leading organisation of expert international family lawyers. [related_posts] Always seek expert advice If there is the potential to start divorce proceedings in more than one jurisdiction it is vital to get expert legal advice as quickly as possible on your options so that you preserve the ability to start divorce proceedings in the country of your choice. Sometimes people are reluctant to take the step of seeing a lawyer but an initial consultation doesn’t commit you to anything but gives you information to help you chose the right option for you. If that option is a divorce then early advice gives you the opportunity to choose the ‘‘right’’ country to initiate the Court proceedings in. For help with international divorce proceedings or financial settlements please contact us

Pilot faces a £600,000 payment and a freezing order after losing his Court battle over the enforcement of a family Court order. Whenever a divorcing couple end up in Court with a family judge making the decision on how their assets should be divided or how much spousal maintenance and child support should be paid there is always a risk that either the husband or wife or both of them may be very unhappy with the outcome of the Court proceedings and their Court Order. The dissatisfaction with a family Court judgement and financial order can lead to appeals against the decision or to orders being deliberately flouted in the hope that an ex-husband or wife won't want to launch further Court proceedings to enforce the original financial Court order. Sometimes financial Court proceedings can take on a life of their own. The media has recently highlighted the case of Richard Wilmot and his ex-wife Viki Maughan who have been engaged in a 16 year battle over payment of child support, with paternity of the youngest child being in dispute despite DNA testing. The Court has ruled that just shy of £600,000 should be paid to the ex-wife, consisting of child support arrears and legal costs. Importantly the Court has also made a freezing order freezing property, money in bank accounts as well as pension and insurance monies. The Court decision to freeze assets shows just how far family judges are prepared to go to make sure that Court orders are complied with. A read of the Court judgement emphasises just how exasperated the judge was by the ‘’utter folly’’ of the ex-husband’s actions resulting in him being ordered to pay nearly £600,000 when the child support arrears only amounted to about £115,000 with the rest of the monies being legal costs and the costs of specialists employed by the ex-wife to trace and recover the money. The case highlights the financial and emotional costs of engaging in a long drawn out Court battle but, perhaps more importantly, shows the long arm of the law, in this case over a 16 year period to enforce the payment of child support . [related_posts] In my view this unhappy Court saga reveals why it is so vital to try and reach an out of Court financial settlement that both an ex-husband and ex-wife can live with to avoid enforcement Court litigation and costs. That isn’t always possible. If a financial Court order has to be made by a judge it is important to take legal advice on appeal options and, if necessary, enforcement options to avoid the costs of the Court proceedings getting out of hand and ultimately, as in the case of Mr Wilmot, dwarfing the amount in dispute between husband and wife. If you need help with the terms of a financial settlement or a Court order please contact us.

When I read that an 83 year old had been jailed for 14 months I assumed that he had been sent to prison for a very serious criminal offence. Reading on I learnt that the businessman had been incarcerated for breaching a family financial Court order. The case of Mr and Mrs Hart highlights that family law judges do have the power to enforce financial Court orders although it remains very rare for a family Court to jail a husband or wife for contempt of Court. What led to the incarceration? In 2015 Mr and Hart got divorced and Mr Hart was ordered to pay his ex-wife 3.5 million of the couple’s reported assets of 9 million. The Court order involved the transfer of shares in a property company from the ex-husband to his ex-wife. Mrs Hart complained that her ex-husband had breached the financial Court order and she wasn’t able, as a result of Mr Hart’s actions, to run the property company. Those difficulties led to an application by Mrs Hart for Mr Hart’s committal to prison for contempt of Court. When sentencing Mr Hart to custody the judge highlighted the attempts made by Mrs Hart and her lawyers to avoid pursuing the committal application but ultimately, in the judge’s view, there was no option other than a prison sentence to ensure the original financial Court order would be complied with. Can all financial Court orders be enforced? A lot depends on the precise wording of the Court order. That is why, in my opinion it is vital to make sure that Court orders are written in a way that if either a husband or wife doesn’t comply with what they were ordered to do that the Court order can be enforced. In some situations it is important to anticipate difficulties and to therefore make sure that the family finance Court order gives a tight deadline for the transfer of property, or sets out exactly how a family home will be sold (for example recording the mechanism for agreeing the sale price and the choice of estate agent) and, where possible, providing for the sale of an asset if a transfer of property doesn’t take place by the Court imposed date. The other important thing to bear in mind is to try and keep financial Court orders as straightforward as possible, subject to the nature of the family assets. Sometimes an ex-husband and wife want to continue to co-own a property or a company together after a divorce but that type of financial settlement, even if incorporated into a Court order, can lead to difficulties and enforcement applications. That is why if there is a simple financial solution the family Courts often prefer that type of Court order to achieve closure and avoid the cost of bringing enforcement action. [related_posts] Can financial orders be varied? If a family judge has made a final financial order then normally most aspects of the order can't be changed save for the amount of any spousal maintenance. However depending on the precise wording of the order the Court could be asked to extend time to make a payment or to change how a property is sold. That is why it is important to get specialist legal advice when sorting out a financial agreement so that both an ex-husband and ex-wife know where they stand if they want to vary the financial Court order or they need the order to be enforced.   For advice on enforcing family financial Court orders or to discuss divorce financial settlement options please contact us.

Following our success at our Holmes Chapel Offices, Evolve Family Law have opened offices in Prestwich, Manchester.  This is an important decision for both our clients and our team as it allows us to provide face to face advice and services to both South, Central and North Manchester. You can now meet with us by appointment at Evolve Family Law Ltd, Suite 8, 1 Chapel Street, Prestwich, Manchester. M25 1AE Call 0161 466 0332 or contact us via our Contact Form.