What would YOU change if you could?

It is an offence to lie to the court or to lie in sworn documents. However, the Court rarely takes a hard line on the issue as it is only at final hearing when lies (can) become apparent. The Judge will draw inferences from the lies and make adjustments as necessary but this is no real deterrent as you only get penalised if you get caught and the extent of the lie(s) is/are never investigated.

Charles

My ex told the biggest fattest lies! like he spends almost £400 a month on the girls during access days! If its £10 - £15 a week they are doing extremely well! The whole form was a lie, i pointed it all out having done mine to the book and my solicitor said not to worry as those forms (E i think it was) didnt mean anything! He also said he had no other bank accounts when i gave them proof.

Divorce, especially regarding children, should not be adversarial. One legal party should be appointed who deals with both parties. This would prevent the ludicrous situation where one party can get legal aid and get legal assistance while the other party has to pay an extremely large amount of money for legal representation as the system believes they earn too much - even though they are paying for a number of resident children and receiving little or no maintenance!

I think fathers/mothers who offer to pay for the dream wedding should only offer this by way of a loan i.e. You can have the money but if you divorce they get it back in full before you start divorce proceedings. Easy to implement by way of contract, most couples wouldn't think twice at signing up for this during the honeymoon/wedding period. This would provide a real reality check for couples in this position as there is now an additional financial penalty to consider before divorce.

I think that the marriage laws should actually be used as written.

The length of a marriage should be taken into consideration as well as the contribution of each partner. Just because a child is involved it shouldn't provide the right of one partner to live off the other indefinitely if they have a short marriage.

If one partner has provided all the finances it shouldn't automatically be assumed that the other has provided equal "support" - it shouldn't just be ignored if one partner has brought everything to the table.

If children are involved, they should be seen as equal parents unless can be proven otherwise. The transfer of assets from one person to the other to "protect the future" of the child should not occur - if one partner is financially encumbered in the future it should not be automatically assumed that the other will not care for the children.

Maintenance should be abolished and replaced by assistance. The ability for each partner to live independently of the other should be foremost at the court's consideration. One partner should not be allowed to live indefinitely off the other unless the marriage was long or the people involved are older.

Fathers rights towards access of their children should be no different from that of the mothers. Judges and others who have restricted or denied access in the past when there is no evidence to support such restrictions should be punished by law.

There should always be the need for a clean break - the absolutely wicked punishment of a joint lives order should be outlawed. If the partners have been together thirty years then their clean break could be in fifty years time (which effectively means joint lives). However if two people have been together say five years, there should be a clean break say when the children are 18 or 21. Indefinite maintenance should be outlawed.

What assets each partner brought into the marriage should be taken into account - as it is in law - but never ever is.

Once an assistance order is in place, it should be only rare and deserving cases where an increase in payment is awarded at a later date. Just because two people have been married, the partner receiving assistance should not have an automatic right to receive capital or an increase in monthly payments from the other.

Judgements should be made available for the public to see easily. The case histories should be written in plain, common sense english.

I so agree with tragiccomic's comments, especially the need for a clean break.

It really is a lifetime of punishment for the ex-spouse and is grossly unfair when the recipient of potentially permanent support has decided not to be a part of the marriage anymore and even more so when there has been a very generous division of assets as well.

It should be written in that at some point the beneficiary of a consent order has to take steps to stand on their own two feet again.

My views on joint lives orders are well known to any regular reader of this forum, but I do accept that there is a place for spousal maintenance in family law. And yes, I think there are circumstances where spousal maintenance may have to be continued for some considerable time. But surely the supporting spouse should have some light at the end of the tunnel ?

In most continental systems ( if not all ) maintenance ia awarded for a comnparatively short period, and I think that this can cause injustice to the dependent spouse, but surely there has to be some compromise between two extreme positions.

The typical judicial response to complaints about lifetime orders supporting spouse can always apply for a variation / discharge. I have one or two comments on this.
(a) Variations are risky, the outcomes uncertain, and can be cost-sensitive. Variation applications are safe only on the redundancy or retirement of the paying spouse, or a really substantial dimunution in income.
(b) I'm afraid I have always maintained that a capitalisation of a periodical payments order is not a discharge - it a substitution of a capital provision for income. The supported spouse gets all her money, but it is all upfront, and the supporting spouse still pays it.
(c) I believe it is difficult for anyone saddled with a joint lives order to escape it. Even if the circumstances are such that maintenance is no longer appropriate, there is likely to be a nominal order rather than a discharge.

I could go on, but I would also like to see consideration given to two specific reforms :
Firstly, that nobody should ever be saddled with a maintenance order or orders ( including CM ) that would reduce his income below income support entitlement plus 15% of the surplus.
Secondly, nobody should have to pay more than 50% of net income in maintenance. I admit that such orders would be rare - but I have come across some that are higher.

LMM