Maintenance payments: Can’t pay or won’t pay

The extent to which a parent should take financial responsibility for their child is an issue on which most people have a strong opinion. In his recent decision of Green v Adams [2017] EWFC 2017(read full judgment here) Mr Justice Mostyn made his position pretty clear, saying of Mr Adams ‘his parsimonious approach to the support of his son is little short of scandalous.’ Continue reading

Surf’s up online – but is it safe?

Once there was a time when our mistakes lasted as long as our memories. But today, the internet has become a dominant media channel, and it has a very long (and public) memory. Protecting your privacy and reputation is now more than ever, a complex business. Continue reading

A delicate balance – children’s privacy vs public interest in the family courts

Part one of this blog dealt with the decision in Re J, a very difficult case concerning a 7 year old boy (‘J’) whose mother had alleged that he was gender dysphoric and wanted to live as a girl. At a final hearing in July (2016), a judge found that the mother had imposed this belief upon J and, in doing so, had caused significant emotional harm to J, and that J’s interests were better served by living with his father. Continue reading

Gender identity – how the courts approach children’s right to choose

Re J is a very difficult case concerning a 7 year old boy (‘J’). His parents had separated acrimoniously and his mother was refusing to allow J to spend time with his father. This was largely because (she said) the father was uncomfortable with the fact that J identified more strongly with being a girl than a boy. Continue reading

A single approach to abductions?

The 2015 case of Re C (internal relocation) appeared at the time to dramatically alter, and simultaneously clarify, the approach to be taken by the courts in relocation cases. Re C seemed to state that whether a relocation is internal or international, the same principles will be applied by the court in determining whether the move is to be permitted. This therefore provided clarity to a line of case law providing variable interpretations as to the weight to be placed on such factors as the intentions of the relocating parent. Continue reading

What type of parent is Rob Titchener?

Being a family lawyer can be a disadvantage when trying to enjoy a television or radio drama. Family law is easily misunderstood and its realities can get in the way of a good storyline; nobody really wants to watch reasonable and calm lawyers helping parties negotiate sensible solutions in an amicable way. Continue reading

The dawn of a new era for resolving disputes in relation to children

We have a lot to celebrate with the recent launch of the new Children Law Arbitration Scheme. Thanks to the introduction of this new form of dispute resolution, arbitration can be used in children cases to find fast, effective and flexible solutions. Continue reading

Moving forward

Parental Alienation is a difficult, complicated and emotive subject. It involves one parent trying to ensure that the child does not have a healthy relationship with the other parent. Usually by thwarting contact between the child and the other parent, encouraging the child to be hostile towards, or fear, the other parent, and sometimes making false allegations of physical or sexual abuse against that parent. Continue reading

The lengthening arm of the Supreme Court: the case of Re B (A Child)

Last week saw the publication of a Supreme Court judgment in a case with an unusual background which has intriguing implications for jurisdictional issues concerning children.

The facts are so unusual because although the child (B) had been born in the context of a stable same-sex relationship, the operation of law at the date of B’s birth, which was prior to 2009, meant that her non-biological mother, whom B called ‘Mimi’, did not have parental responsibility for her. Therefore when the mother secretly relocated with B for a new life in Pakistan, two years after the relationship acrimoniously broke down, B’s removal from the jurisdiction of England and Wales was not unlawful.

Continue reading