Two important legal decisions are featured in the press today which highlight the tensions between existing Family Law in England, based on a traditional, British model of a heterosexual nuclear family, and modern society, in which there is a multitude of family compositions.
The first case considered the rights of 2 sperm donors (whose sperm was used to conceive a child for a Lesbian Couple) to be involved in the life of theChild, whom it had always intended would be raised in a nuclear family by the 2 women. In reaching a decision that as a matter of principle, it may be appropriate for a sperm donor to be involved (to varying degrees) in the child’s life, the court had to consider the competing interests of the child, the biological father and the psychological parents. The need for the child to have an understanding of his or her origin and roots also had to be balanced against the potentially detrimental effect of the disruption caused to the primary family unit, by the unwelcomed involvement of the donor.
In the second case, the court addressed the conflict between existingMatrimonial Law and religious laws governing Marriage Breakdown. It is of course well-known, that there are many ways in which the current law in England does not sit well with religious practices and custom under religions such as Orthodox Judaism and Islam, and that this can create difficulties for couples when separating. Traditionally, it has been made very clear that the jurisdiction of the courts cannot be ousted in favour of religious tribunals and that English Law will take precedence when there is a conflict. In this case however, the Judge allowed a young couple in their 20s to use the Beth Din in New York to resolve the issues arising from their separation, in order to allow them to Divorce in terms which were aligned to the practices by which they had lived and married. The case therefore throws open the question as to what extent people who have lived their lives according to different rules and practices should be allowed to determine such matters in line with those rules, rather than having a potentially incompatible solution imposed upon them.
Both cases highlight the complexities which are raised when a specific case raises consideration of issues which are outside of the traditional model, and the way in which the Law is evolving in order to keep up with the realities of modern British society. As a Family Solicitor, it suggests interesting times are ahead.
Contact our specialist Family Law team
If you would like to talk to any of our Family Law Solicitors please contact them on 0800 916 9055, or e-mail enquiries@rjwslatergordon.co.uk.
Our Family Lawyers operate across the country and can offer immediate and accessible representation anywhere in England & Wales.
A case reported in The Daily Mail on Friday (9 November 2012) reveals Mrs Justice Baron’s reasoning behind a £8.7 million payout by a husband (estimated to be worth more than £35 million), to his former wife.
The parties (identified only as Mr and Mrs Y) were married for 26 years but the Relationship Breakdown occured after the husband became ‘very enamoured’ of a ‘young artist/singer’.
The customary financial remedy proceedings were issued and the wife sought £11.2 million. The husband offered £7 million. The Judge (in her Judgment released yesterday) awarded £8.7 million to the wife.
After incurring £1.1 million in legal costs (collectively), the husband contended payment of this sum would be ‘gut-wrenching’. However, the Judge dismissed this, holding he was a ‘member of an illustrious family with many successful forbears who managed to accumulate great wealth. In fact, his ancestors, who include prominent military commanders, made a large contribution to the life of the nation in the 19th century.’
Baron J was satisfied the wife had not been ‘disingenuous or tactical’ in seeking to re-start her new life in London; nor were her general expectations ‘outlandish’.
I suspect that many (and particularly the men) who read this Judgment will form the view that this result is highly unfair and demonstrates the outlandish generosity visited by the English family legal system on wives who fund ‘lavish’ lifestyles, courtesy of their husbands’ wealth post-Divorce.
In reality, section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 clearly establishes the principles that must guide a court considering any financial remedy application, to include one involving the fabulously wealthy. Judges adopt a pragmatic approach when deciding how Financial Resources are to be shared. This case is no different. The husband in this case retained his Oxfordshire estate with 11 acres of gardens and 1,500 acres of farmland, left to him by his grandparents. His estate also includes 14 homes in the same village, two in a neighbouring village and one in a nearby town, a farm with 350 acres adjoining the main estate and a pub and equestrian centre in the village. I think he’ll manage to struggle by.
English Judges are increasingly inclined to give weight to Pre-Nuptial Agreements when deciding financial remedy cases. The outcome in Mr and Mrs Y’s case might have been dramatically different if there had been a properly prepared agreement in place. The corollary to the cries that English Judges are too generous to wives is the ability of spouses to regulate what happens on marriage breakdown through pre-nuptial agreements. This case is a salutary lesson about the wisdom of obtaining legal advice about one’s potential entitlements and obligations on marriage breakdown sooner rather than later!
If you would like to talk to any of our specialist Family Law Solicitors please contact them on 0800 916 9055, or e-mailenquiries@rjwslatergordon.co.uk.
Our Family Lawyers operate across the country and can offer immediate and accessible representation anywhere in England & Wales.
The parties (identified only as Mr and Mrs Y) were married for 26 years but the Relationship Breakdown occured after the husband became ‘very enamoured’ of a ‘young artist/singer’.
The customary financial remedy proceedings were issued and the wife sought £11.2 million. The husband offered £7 million. The Judge (in her Judgment released yesterday) awarded £8.7 million to the wife.
After incurring £1.1 million in legal costs (collectively), the husband contended payment of this sum would be ‘gut-wrenching’. However, the Judge dismissed this, holding he was a ‘member of an illustrious family with many successful forbears who managed to accumulate great wealth. In fact, his ancestors, who include prominent military commanders, made a large contribution to the life of the nation in the 19th century.’
Baron J was satisfied the wife had not been ‘disingenuous or tactical’ in seeking to re-start her new life in London; nor were her general expectations ‘outlandish’.
I suspect that many (and particularly the men) who read this Judgment will form the view that this result is highly unfair and demonstrates the outlandish generosity visited by the English family legal system on wives who fund ‘lavish’ lifestyles, courtesy of their husbands’ wealth post-Divorce.
In reality, section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 clearly establishes the principles that must guide a court considering any financial remedy application, to include one involving the fabulously wealthy. Judges adopt a pragmatic approach when deciding how Financial Resources are to be shared. This case is no different. The husband in this case retained his Oxfordshire estate with 11 acres of gardens and 1,500 acres of farmland, left to him by his grandparents. His estate also includes 14 homes in the same village, two in a neighbouring village and one in a nearby town, a farm with 350 acres adjoining the main estate and a pub and equestrian centre in the village. I think he’ll manage to struggle by.
English Judges are increasingly inclined to give weight to Pre-Nuptial Agreements when deciding financial remedy cases. The outcome in Mr and Mrs Y’s case might have been dramatically different if there had been a properly prepared agreement in place. The corollary to the cries that English Judges are too generous to wives is the ability of spouses to regulate what happens on marriage breakdown through pre-nuptial agreements. This case is a salutary lesson about the wisdom of obtaining legal advice about one’s potential entitlements and obligations on marriage breakdown sooner rather than later!
Contact our specialist Family team
If you would like to talk to any of our specialist Family Law Solicitors please contact them on 0800 916 9055, or e-mailenquiries@rjwslatergordon.co.uk.
Our Family Lawyers operate across the country and can offer immediate and accessible representation anywhere in England & Wales.
