Prenuptial agreements have always been in the background of many family proceedings. On many occasions the judiciary have resisted them. This, bearing in mind that our fellow EU member states have been recognising them for years.

Our Courts have always held the view that they should not be subservient to an agreement reached between the parties in family proceedings. However, then came Macleod, followed by the much famous case of Radmacher.

Now the Courts appear to recognise an agreement freely negotiated between parties, with the benefit of independent legal advice. A change in the law to give proper recognition to prenuptial agreements is currently being considered. This is a huge development in the area of family law.

Prenuptial agreements require very careful drafting otherwise they may fail the enforceability test. It is believed that prenuptial agreements are going to form the future of many family finances.

This week the Pope declared war on parents naming babies after celebrities, fruit or popular sports cars. In an address to parents, the ever-progressive pontiff pleaded with worshipers to ‘give your children names that are in the Christian calendar’. So Apple, Brooklyn and Ferrari are out, Francisco and Giulia are in.

But Benedict’s not the only authority figure to stamp down on one of the sillier by-products of celebrity culture. The following names have all been banned around the world for reasons of taste, decency or just plain daftness.

1) Talula Does The Hula From Hawaii (New Zealand)
New Zealand law bans names which could cause offence to a ‘reasonable’ person. Good thing too – the country is a stupid name hotspot. We found a couple from the islands who tried and failed to call their son ‘4Real’, but nothing beats the ridiculous moniker above. It belonged to a 9-year-old girl before a judge had her renamed during a custody battle. ‘It makes a fool of the child,’ he said. It certainly made application forms a pain in the butt.

Has New Zealand banned any other names? Oh yes. The judge listed some that were also blocked: Fish and Chips (twins), Yeah Detroit, Keenan Got Lucy and Sex Fruit. Number 16 Bus Shelter and Violence were allowed.

2) Venerdi AKA ‘Friday’ (Italy)
Maybe this is what the Pope was talking about. Back in 2008 a court banned an Italian couple from calling their child Venerdi (translation: Friday). The judges reckoned the name – taken from ‘Robinson Crusoe’ – would expose the boy to ‘mockery’ and was associated with ’subservience and insecurity’. The parents, however, might have the last laugh; they threatened to call their next child Mercoledi (Wednesday).

Has Italy banned any other names? Italian courts can step in ‘when the child’s name is likely to limit social interaction and create insecurity’. In Turin, Andrea was rejected (and changed to Emma) as it’s a boy’s name in Italy. Dalmata has also been rejected, as it means Dalmatian.

3) Brfxxccxxmnpcccclllmmnprxvclmnckssqlbb11116 (Sweden)
No, we didn’t fall asleep on the keyboard. That is an actual name a Swedish couple tried to inflict on their son back in 1996. Apparently the name is pronounced ‘Albin’ (we’re not sure how), and the parents chose it as a protest against Sweden’s admittedly strict naming laws. Tax authorities must give their blessing to both first and surnames before they can be used.

Has Sweden banned any other names? Oh yes. Some favourites include Metallica, IKEA, Veranda and Q. Google was OK though.

4) Gesher AKA ‘Bridge’ (Norway)
Back in 1998 those nasty Norwegians threw a woman in jail (admittedly for only two days) when she failed to pay a fine for giving her son an ‘unapproved’ name. Eccentric Kristi Larsen said she was instructed in a dream to name her son Gesher (Hebrew for ‘Bridge’), but the court were having none of it. Kristi did have 13 children already though, so maybe she had just run out of ideas.

Has Norway banned any other names? Undoubtedly, though in recent times they have replaced their list of officially sanctioned names with a general ban on monikers featuring swearing, sex and illnesses.

5) Chow Tow AKA ‘Smelly Head’ (Malaysia)
Unlike many countries which are gradually relaxing name laws, Malaysian authorities have cracked down on unsuitable titles in recent years. In 2006 government killjoys published a list of undesirable names that weren’t in keeping with the religious traditions of the country – such as Cantonese moniker Chow Tow – which means ‘Smelly Head’.

Has Malaysia banned any other names? Lots more Chinese efforts such as Ah Chwar (‘Snake’), Khiow Khoo (‘Hunchback’), Sor Chai (‘Insane’). Malays should also steer clear of Woti, which means ‘Sexual Intercourse’.

6) @ (China)
With more than a billion fellow countrymen, finding a unique name in China is difficult. Perhaps that’s why one couple called their baby the ‘@’ symbol – in Chinese characters it apparently looks a bit like ‘love him’. Bless. Unsurprisingly, however, the authorities were less sentimental and publicised the moniker as an example of citizens bringing bizarre names into the Chinese language.

Has China banned any other names? The police have control over all names given to children because they issue identity cards, but details of rejections are not widely circulated.

7) Miatt (Germany)
Country living up to stereotype alert! Surprise, surprise the Germans are somewhat officious when it comes to baby naming laws. Regulation-loving Deutschland has an entire department (the Standesamt) which decides if names are suitable. Miatt was rejected because it didn’t clearly show whether the child was a boy or a girl, but sometimes the decisions are somewhat arbitrary…

Has Germany banned any other names? The likes of Stompie, Woodstock and Grammophon were turned down, whereas the similarly strange Speedy, Lafayette and Jazz were allowed.

Anus (Denmark)
What is it about Scandinavian countries and name laws? The Danes are even tougher than the Swedes in this regard, with parents given 7,000-odd names to choose from by the government. Special permission is needed to deviate from the list, with ethnic names, odd spellings and even compound surnames forbidden. Luckily for him (we assume it’s a ‘he’), Anus was one of 250-odd names rejected each year.

Has Denmark banned any other names? Well, Pluto and Monkey had lucky escapes…

9) Ovnis (Portugal)
Before naming your child in Portugal, best consult this mammoth, 80-page government doc (and have it translated to English) that tells you which names you can and can’t use. It’s pretty strict (and random) – Tomás is OK but Tom isn’t – and celebs can forget about the likes of Apple and Brooklyn, which aren’t even on the banned list. Essex girls rejoice, however – Mercedes is allowed!

Has Portugal banned any other names? There are more than 2,000 names on the reject list, including Ovnis – Portuguese for UFO.

10) Akuma AKA Devil (Japan)
Here’s a name the Pope definitely wouldn’t approve of. In 1993 a Japanese parent called his son Akuma (which literally means Devil). The authorities decided this was an abuse of the parent’s rights to decide a child’s name and a lengthy court battle ensued. Eventually the father backed down and junior got a new, less demonic name.

Source: Yahoo Lifestyle

Alan Johnson accuses Home Secretary of ‘lack of concern’ for domestic violence victims

In an interview with The Independent, Alan Johnson, the former Home Secretary and current shadow minister, has accused his successor of developing a ‘pattern of behaviour’ that prejudices women.

He cites in particular the government’s decision to defer a decision on the domestic violence protection scheme, introduced by Mr Johnson. He also refers to the decision to opt out of a European Union directive on human trafficking.

Mr Johnson said:

“I don’t doubt that Theresa May meant it when she said that she wanted to end violence against women and girls.”

However, he added that her actions demonstrate “a lack of concern for victims of domestic violence and trafficking.”

A Home Office spokesman said:

“The Home Secretary has made clear she considers tackling violence against women a priority. This Government is committed to protecting victims of domestic violence and that is why we have continued to provide £3.5m funding for Independent Domestic Violence Advisers and Multi-Agency Risk Assessment Conferences.”

For the interview, visit The Independent website.

Source: http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed65149

Parity calls for greater support for male victims

The Observer reports the findings of Parity, the equal rights campaign group, that two in five of all victims of domestic violence are men.

Parity’s findings are published in a report, Domestic Violence: The Male Perspective, which can be downloaded from its website.

The charity’s analysis of Home Office statistics shows that since 2008 just under 40 per cent of domestic violence incidents relate to male victimisation. Twent-five per cent of victims have been attacked between six and 20 times. The charity says that in many instances of attacks on men the police take action against the man involved. Parity also complains that there is little or no support for male victims (or the children).

The Observer article can be read here.

Source: http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed65152

Ministry of Justice to review measures in the Children, Schools and Families Act 2010

Sue Berelowitz, Deputy Children’s Commissioner for England, has welcomed the Ministry of Justice decision to look again at the measures in the Children, Schools and Families Act 2010 that would allow journalists to report more widely on family court proceedings. She said:

“We really welcome the decision by the Ministry of Justice to look again at the measures to allow journalists to report more widely on family court cases. We understand the reasons behind the calls for greater transparency in these proceedings. But children and young people have expressed deep anxiety about these moves and told us that they were seriously worried about information from their private lives being placed into the public domain. Their concerns were brought to Parliament’s attention in the Office of the Children’s Commissioner’s report on media access to family courts.

“We have long advocated for assurances that a child’s privacy is upheld and the utmost sensitivity is demonstrated before any information from the family courts is made public. Any change to the current rules on reporting must put the best interests of the child first. We will continue to work with the Ministry of Justice to ensure these children’s lives are adequately protected.”

A spokesperson for the Ministry of Justice said:

“In recognition of the sensitivity of this area, the government wants to look closely at the changes the Act would introduce before any final decision on implementation is taken.”

Meanwhile, the Newspaper Society has complained in a submission to the House of Commons’ Justice Select Committee that the Act has rendered virtually unreportable legal cases covered by the Act.

The submission says:

“In the final event, the Act became the vehicle for a regime which not only ensured total anonymity for all those involved, thus completely defeating the objective of greater accountability of those involved in the system, but which also, if brought into effect in its present form, will arguably place greater restriction upon the media’s ability to report than is presently the case.”

Source: http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed66112

Barnardo’s says children are being left in abusive homes longer than necessary due to court delays. Vulnerable children are being “damaged” by delays in care proceedings in England and Wales, a charity has said.

Barnardo’s wants to see a 30-week limit after figures showed children waited an average of 57 weeks – sometimes in abusive homes – for county courts to make care or supervision orders. In family courts, proceedings took an average of 45 weeks, it said.

A Ministry of Justice spokesman said the government was “committed to reducing unnecessary delays”.

Barnardo’s said court data showed that at the end of 2009 there were 50% more unresolved care proceedings cases than at the end of 2008. According to the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (Cafcass) in England, new applications accounted for less than half of this increase – suggesting the courts were taking longer to close a significant number of cases, it argued.

Barnardo’s chief executive Martin Narey said uncertainty had spread through family courts, with “additional, sequential expert assessments being routinely ordered”. “This, paired with the evident lack of credence given to social workers, is causing unnecessary delay,” he said.

“The courts need urgently to reflect on the damage these delays are having on extremely vulnerable children.” He said a year of a child’s life was “an inordinate amount of time for them to be trapped in desperate limbo, unclear of their future and very possibly at risk”.

“During this time, these children might remain at home with neglectful or abusive birth families or be living in emergency foster care, expected to settle with families they may subsequently have to leave. “At a time when stable relationships and secure attachments are vital for a child, they are instead engulfed in a period of uncertainty and confusion,” he said.

Boy’s two-year wait for care order

In one case highlighted by Barnardo’s, two-year-old Michael was removed from home on an emergency protection order (Epo). He had wait more than two years for his full care order, by which time he was four years and four months old. It was another year and a half before he was placed with an adoptive family. Michael went through 11 placement changes between the first Epo and adoption.

He was involved in parenting skills assessments at two different family centres and was also seen by a psychiatrist. A social worker from an adoption team saw him six times, and he had three different allocated social workers. The boy was placed in the care of his father and his father’s partner on a trial basis but the arrangement broke down. The same thing happened 10 months later.

Barnardo’s also said the figures – which were revealed in written answers to Parliamentary questions from Liberal Democrat MP Annette Brooke – also revealed a “postcode lottery” for children awaiting care. In London, county court proceedings in 2008-09 took an average of 65 weeks, while similar proceedings in Humber and South Yorkshire took 46 weeks.

The figures covered only cases where a care or supervision order was made, not cases where orders were refused, where emergency protection was given, or where children were put in secure accommodation.

‘Radical culture shift’

There are no comparable figures in Scotland, where care decisions are handled by the welfare-based Children’s Hearing system rather than the courts. Family lawyer Christina Blacklaws said social workers dealing with public law cases were often inexperienced, lacking in confidence and simply “overwhelmed” by their workload. She told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “In London, we’re running at 33% vacancy rate for social workers… so even if they have the ability to undertake these complex and difficult assessments, they just don’t have the time.”

A lack of court judges and the number of days they sat further delayed proceedings by months, she added.

Barnardo’s said there needed to be a “radical culture shift in court practice” and said the government should give “urgent consideration” to a number of measures, including setting new limits to ensure all cases were dealt with within 30 weeks, or 12 weeks for children under 18 months.

‘Detrimental effect’

Hugh Thornbery, director of children’s services at Action for Children, said the figures were “a cause for serious concern” and called for more to be done to ensure vulnerable and neglected children were not left in limbo.

“For children who are unable to stay with their birth families, entering the care system is an extremely uncertain and unsettling time, and it’s critical that their care provision provides them with the stable and secure home environment that they need.

“Being left languishing in emergency foster placements for unknown extended periods of time can only have a detrimental effect on children, and risks giving them a false sense of security at a time when they need stability the most,” he said.

A Ministry of Justice spokesman said a family justice review was under way and 4,000 extra sitting days were added to family courts this year to deal with cases.

“The panel leading the review shares Barnardo’s concerns and has met its representatives to discuss suggestions for reform,” he said.

“We are also exploring proposals to make better use of local performance groups to give local decision makers more ownership of the system, empowering them to tackle the local causes of delay.

“The government is clear that every child’s case should be dealt with as quickly as possible to minimise trauma and keep young people safe from harm.”

A Stourbridge man who turned to crime to pay his bills has left his wife facing a financial crisis, according to local press reports.

Alan Peck, aged 52, walked out of the home he shared with childhood sweetheart having forged her signature on a mortgage to pay off his spiralling debts.

At Wolverhampton Crown Court on Friday May 28, Peck, aged 52, was sentenced to a 14 week jail term suspended for two years for making a false representation to obtain a mortgage for £48,000 on the home he shared with Belinda in Clent Road, Amblecote.

The couple married in July 2005 but Peck announced he was leaving suddenly in November 2009. He is now petitioning Belinda, his third wife, for divorce and insisting she either buys him out of the mortgage or sells their home.

“Whilst this case is a criminal one relating to a forged signature, is does highlight a situation that many divorcing coupes can find themselves in,”

“Being married to someone has certain legal implications, like a share of assets and, as in this case, debts. Many people are not aware of this.

“Also, when a relationship goes wrong, one party may pressure the other to sell a property to cash in on the perceived equity there – or at least to cut outgoings. If there are no children involved, it is possible a court could force this action.

Source: http://www.familylaw.co.uk/articles/lord-chief-justice-calls-for-family-cases-to-be-shortened

More than two-thirds of parents blame financial pressures for getting in the way of family life, with mums and dads often blaming each other for failing to devote enough time to quality home life. Some 55 per cent of mothers said their children’s fathers made too little effort – and 38 per cent of fathers accused mothers of the same thing.

The survey, of 3,000 parents and 1,000 children, found that mums and dads considered days out and holidays to be the highest quality family time. However children disagree that family time has to break the bank with 66 per cent saying they are happy to spend time with family at home rather than going out.

The poll was conducted for National Family Week, which aims to encourage families to spend more time together and get parents and children to take part in active hobbies.

The World Cup kicking off this year will see many specialist lawyers preparing a for a busy time as relationships break up following the strain of the partner following England’s campaign, according to the Daily Mail.

A study has shown there was a significant increase in couples seeking divorce in the fortnight after the world cup. The emotionally charged atmosphere lead to confrontations and can be the last straw for a long suffering partner. It is important that people don’t make life-changing decisions at times of emotional stress-like the aftermath of a football game, and consider their situation carefully.

Pressure is mounting on domestic violence abusers to stop their actions towards spouses and children with the announcement of a new Government programme. One of the new Government’s policies is that, whenever possible, offenders should contribute to victims’ services and programmes tackling abuse as part of their reparation. The plan is to use proceeds from the Victim Surcharge to deliver up to 15 new rape crisis centres, and give existing rape crisis centres more stable, long-term funding.

The Victims Surcharge system currently raises money to support victims of crime and witnesses from offenders whose sentence is, or includes, a fine. The Government are also looking to improve ways that rape complaints are dealt with by the authorities, and beginning a consultation process. Domestic violence can take many forms including beatings, burnings, threats, sexual abuse, taunting and bullying.

In the UK more than two women per week are killed by current or ex-partners, and one in four women in the UK experience domestic violence in their lifetime, according to UK charity Women’s Aid, often resulting in terrible injuries. The latest domestic violence figures are terrible:

• Domestic violence accounts for between 16 per cent and one quarter of all recorded violent crime.
• One incident of domestic abuse is reported to the police every minute.
• 45 per cent of women and 26 per cent of men have experienced at least one incident of inter-personal violence in their lifetimes.

Although men are also victims of domestic violence it is women that are much more likely to be victims of domestic violence and abuse than men.

The Government’s ambition to end violence against women and girls’ has been laid out by Theresa May, speaking at the annual Women’s Aid Conference. Theresa May says the new Government’s plans also include supporting a pilot scheme to help victims of domestic violence who have no recourse to public funds because of their immigration status. Home Secretary and Minister for Women and Equalities Theresa May said:

“As both Home Secretary and Minister for Women and Equalities I believe I have a unique opportunity to bring about real change to the lives and the status of women in this country and my ambition is nothing less than ending violence against women and girls.

“I am under no illusion though; this will take time and effort. In these tough economic times, while Government has a clear role to play, it’s vital that we all work together and with a more considered,  targeted and sensible approach I believe we will achieve real results.

“I can confirm our commitment to continue funding the No Recourse to Public Funds scheme and to more long-term, stable funding for rape crisis centres to support the many women who experience abuse. As well as this we will work towards providing real solutions to prevent violence against women from happening in the first place.”

The Home Office is planning a cross-government ministerial violence against women meeting to discuss new, improved approaches to tackling the issue of domestic violence.

Victims of domestic violence can also apply for injury compensation via the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme (CICA).

Facebook is finally adopting a CEOP internet safety button on its websites, a long awaited panic button and information link offering online safety advice to young people.

The news follows a long-running debate between the UK’s national centre for protecting children, the Child Exploitation and Online Protection (CEOP) Centre, and Facebook; as well as other social networking sites.

The announcement has been made in the wake of ongoing concerns about child safety on Facebook and other internet sites which promote social interaction with strangers.

CEOP has long wanted all social network websites to adopt its one click button on their sites so children can get immediate police help and advice, in the event of any suspicious activity from other internet users.

There have been a number of high profile cases involving predators targeting children on networking websites. Young Facebook users across the UK are now the focus of a new initiative by CEOP and Facebook.

Now for the first time all Facebook users in the UK, especially those aged 13 to 18, can have direct access to CEOP’s advice and reporting centre. Youngsters will be able to ClickCEOP from their homepage, offering advice on online safety as well as a dedicated facility for reporting instances of inappropriate behaviour.

Chief Executive of CEOP Jim Gamble said:

“By adding this application, Facebook users will have direct access to all the services that sit behind our ClickCEOP button which should provide reassurance to every parent with teenagers on the site.

“We know from speaking to offenders that a visible deterrent could protect young people online. We urge all Facebook users to add the app and bookmark it so that others can see that they are in control online.”

Access to the ClickCEOP button will be provided via an application that users can add or bookmark so that it appears on their homepage as not only a constant source of help and reassurance for them but also as a strong visual signal to their friends, family and others that they are in control online.

Joanna Shields, Facebook’s Vice President for Europe, the Middle East and Africa (EMEA) said:

“There is no single silver bullet to making the internet safer but by joining forces with CEOP we have developed a comprehensive solution which marries our expertise in technology with CEOP’s expertise in online safety.

“Nothing is more important than the safety of our users, which is why we have invested so much in making Facebook one of the safest places on the internet.

“It is only through the constant and concerted effort of the industry, police, parents and young people themselves that we can all keep safe online – whether on Facebook or elsewhere.”

The application is backed by a new CEOP page that will look to engage with young people to help raise the profile of online safety.

The initiative is being seen as a welcome collaboration between CEOP and Facebook that combines Facebook technology expertise connecting people and organisations and CEOP’s knowledge of internet safety and security; as well as CEOP’s role as the national centre for child protection.

Divorce laws in England and Wales are in desperate need of radical reform, Nicola Hesdon, Head of Family Law at Keith Park Solicitors, said today.

Unfortunately, these days in modern Britain, divorce is common.  Although the law in this area has come a long way over the years, couples still have to point the finger of blame, if they are to obtain a successful divorce.  Nicola Hesdon commented “having to have an element of blame often gets in the way of successfully resolving the financial matters upon divorce.  It is extremely outdated”.

Couples who want an immediate divorce have to prove that their spouse has, either behaved unreasonably or committed adultery.  More often than not, this creates animosity.

For consumers the advent of “Tesco Law” with the promise of low or fixed fee legal services may be a welcome relief.  This is especially so in an environment where consumers seek value for money, but how do you measure value?  Solicitors and Barristers have for many years charged their time at a set hourly rate.

Recently the Master of the Rolls predicted that Tesco Law would remove from the market place the “billable hour” and replace it with fixed fees.  Any lawyer who has worked with fixed fees will know that this does not automatically mean low fees.  What consumers are acquiring is a great deal of expertise backed with years of education and continuous training in order to provide the commodity that they seek.

Tesco are clearly experts in the field of providing mass products at low prices but anybody who thinks that a legal service is akin to a can of beans is in for a shock.

The only way that low or discounted fixed fees are going to come about is by the services to which they relate being provided by lesser qualified individuals.  The Legal Services Act 2007 will do little I suspect in providing the safeguards around ‘non-law firms’ to ensure quality of products, which standards lawyers have had to aspire to under the Code of Conduct 2007 and its predecessor.

The only saving grace for traditional law firms with the dawn of ‘Tesco Law’ is the potential to ultimately market for mass Professional Negligence claims against the providers of volume, remotely accessed legal services at low prices.  Such suppliers, in trying to produce these services cheaply, may do so as a consequence without sufficient regard for quality. That quality having been achieved traditionally by reason of the work being done at reasonable hourly rates, reflecting the many years expertise and qualification which apply to such areas of work.

Ask any law firm who have had to advise families whose deceased relatives have used certain ‘Will writing companies’ only to discover that the Wills are negligently drafted or the companies no longer exist and didn’t carry Professional indemnity insurance.

There is a well known and perhaps suitable adage to be applied in this context that you only get what you pay for; let’s hope that consumers are more discerning about the acquisition of legal services than they are cans of beans.

Nick Hall
Keith Park Solicitors