A well respected, award winning social enterprise
Volunteer run - Government and charity funded
We help 50,000 people a year through divorce

01202 805020

Lines open: Monday to Friday 9am-5pm
Call for FREE expert advice & service info

Do you need help sorting out a fair financial settlement?

Our consultant service offers expert advice and support to help you reach agreement on a fair financial settlement quickly, and for less than a quarter of the cost of using a traditional high street solicitor.


MPs new Family Law Group includes Baroness Deech

  • maggie
  • maggie's Avatar Posted by
  • Platinum Member
  • Platinum Member
More
06 Nov 10 #233136 by maggie
Topic started by maggie
www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cma...register/memi178.htm

John Hemming - LD
Simon Hughes - LD
Lorely Burt - LD
Tom Brake - LD
Greg Knight- Con
Lord Jones of Cheltenham - LD
Andrew Selous - Con
Douglas Carswell - Con
Bob Russell - LD
Jessica Lee - Con
Jim Dobbin
Chris Ruane
George Mudie
Steve McCabe
Tom Watson
Paul Flynn
John Spellar
Malcolm Wicks
Kelvin Hopkins
Baroness Deech

lordsoftheblog.net/2010/11/03/family-law-forum/
As blogged by Baroness Deech about the Mostyn address to first meeting:
"Sir Nicholas’ talk was on the topic of What is Marriage? What obligations should it entail? Without expressing a personal opinion (because of course he is a judge) he raised the questions of whether a spouse should indeed shoulder the burden of supporting the other for life once they have married; whether agreements between a couple should be allowed to displace judicial intervention; and whether mediation can help. The audience was quite clear in their comments and votes on the issues, that a. there should be a short clear and comprehensive statement of the obligations of marriage made available to all who marry (how about on the back of the wedding certificate?), or likewise cohabit; and b. that a system of community of property on marriage would be preferable to the existing expensive and acrimonious litigation about money, and that people should able to make contracts about it.
The speaker and the audience agreed that Parliament should legislate about money on divorce, and not leave it all to the judges. But successive governments have backed away from this topic because there is no national consensus about the roles of man and woman in a relationship, and because it might lead them into morality debates, always tricky for governments. Royal Commissions take too long. We must continue the debate however. Our next APPG meeting is on 30 November and will feature the Family Law Review Project."
Haven't yet been able to find a straight report of the meeting.

Definitely something stirring : more Deech anyone?
www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?id=2010-10-18a.743.0#g743.2

  • LittleMrMike
  • LittleMrMike's Avatar
  • Platinum Member
  • Platinum Member
More
06 Nov 10 #233163 by LittleMrMike
Reply from LittleMrMike
Thanks maggie.

However I will not be getting too excited.

The whole object of spousal maintenance etc etc is to save the Treasury money and especially in the present times reform seems unlikely.

LMM

  • maggie
  • maggie's Avatar Posted by
  • Platinum Member
  • Platinum Member
More
07 Nov 10 #233225 by maggie
Reply from maggie
Judge Mostyn seems annoyed?
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-...mantic-marriage.html

"Delivering a speech in Parliament on Tuesday to the All Party Group on Family Law and the Court of Protection, Mr Justice Mostyn considered the nature of marriage as it currently stands in law. ......The judge explained that until recently divorce settlements were decided on “needs generated by the marriage”, but that in a 2000 case on which he was on the losing side (White v White) the Law Lords decided that the wealth acquired by the couple during their marriage should be split equally.
“No law was democratically passed that changed so fundamentally the nature of marriage; rather it was passed by five judges in the House of Lords without any public debate, research or consultation; the new law was retrospective and backdated to cover marriages entered into in an entirely different world.” "

  • dukey
  • dukey's Avatar
  • Moderator
  • Moderator
More
07 Nov 10 #233231 by dukey
Reply from dukey
Far too much is made of White v White and the whole "yardstick of equality" 50-50 idea, i didn't happen in White and White, and it was a huge money case as was Miller v Mcfarlane again no 50-50 division.

At the end of the day the judge will consider MCA S25(1) and try and find a fairish settlement based on assets needs and MCA.

From what ive read Maggie Mostyn can be erm whats the word hmmm lets go with prickly B)

Moderators: wikivorce teamrubytuesdaydukeyhadenoughnowTetsSheziLinda SheridanForsetiMitchumWhiteRoseLostboy67WYSPECIALBubblegum11