My nicely wrapped copy of Family Law landed on my desk today (yes, I am a geek at my desk on a Saturday, and yes I am a double geek that I actually like reading this stuff!).

 Lots of interesting stuff this month, so I thought I would give you a quick run through.

First off - the lastest on Domestic Violence.

On the Comment page, there is a piece written by District Judge Millward, the President of the Association of HM District Judges.   She raises the concern that the Domestic Violence Crime and Victims Act 2004, brought into force on 1st July 2007,  simply isnt working.  The idea behind it was sound, it criminalised DV in that it made a breach of a non molestation order a criminal offence.

However, when a criminal act occurs the file has to go to the CPS, who are apparently not recommending prosecution of breaches because the circumstances do not meet the requirements of the Code for Prosecutors.   If that is the case, then surely going back to the old system of arrest and being brought before a judge for trial (usually within hours) has to be right.  Indeed DJ Millward makes the point that if the statistics bear out the so far anecdotal evidence then the Act ought to repealed and we should revert to the old law.

While I am saddened that it appears the Act is not working, I am glad to see that this is getting immediate attention and I hope the situation is resolved swiftly.  I just hope that Government moves as quickly as it should on this, if it proves necessary.

Moving on there are two articles on the McCartney-Mills saga.  A solicitor gives us a quick rundown of the salient points from a legal standpoint which in short are:

CONDUCT: Although both parties alledged conduct the judge declined to hear evidence on the points on the basis that it would not effect his overall decision, using the McFarlane judgement, where Baroness Hale said that conduct would generally not be taken into account "save in the most obvious and gross cases".

LITIGANTS IN PERSON: Apparently is it accepted in the family law community that Ms Mills did herself no favours in representing herself as the judgement makes it clear that she did not have the tools to challenge her husbands legal team; going on to comment that the fees she may have saved were minimal in what it may have cost her by representing herself.  Halting what I hoped was not going to be a global suggestion that self repping is a bad idea, the writer ends this section with "In most family lawyer's experience, the court generally goes out of its way to ensure that LIPs are assisted in ever manner possible within the boundaries of fairness".  I have to say, I certainly have to echo that sentiment.

NEEDS/SHORT MARRIAGE: While it was accepted that this was a short marriage, becaue of course the parties have a child, the focus had to be on needs.  Simply due to the very large asset pot, this meant that Ms Mills walked away with around 6% of the assets - not something we are likely to see as a result in ordinary money short marriage with child cases.

The piece ends with a note that Sir Paul perhaps should have considered a pre-nup...well yes, and that it the advice that we are all currently giving in practice - especially to high net worth individuals.

 The second article on this case is perhaps a little more interesting in that it concerns the divorce procedure used in the case.  Basically both parties had filed UB petitions.  They agreed to both stay their petitions while the AR was decided...so no nisi was in existence, the intention being that once the money had been resolved they would file a 2 year petition, the money order being perfected and made into an actual order once nisi was granted.   Hmmm interesting, and gets round what can be a sticky issue that to get financial resolution quickly the only real way to do it is with an early UB petition.  However, in "normal money" cases who has the funds to start one petition, file it, stay it and then do another?  Somehow I can't see this one taking off....

And finally in part one, there has been another reported Removal case.  Despite calls from the Poole pressure group for change in this area, it appears that the law remains that on a well presented plan coupled with a well founded reason for wishing to remove a child from the jurisdiction, permission is generally granted.

I can't help feeling sorry for the parent left behind when one parent makes a unilateral decision to move to another country.  I have often wondered what the children really do think, when the initial excitement of the adventure of a new country wanes.  Here are a couple of comments drawn from children who this has happened to:

I can't say that this is the view of all children in these cases...but perhaps more research into the children's views post move is necessary to make sure that this area of law is working for children. 

LB2