Financial and Legal Advice - Page 8

As a Mortgage Capacity Advisor my main role is to ascertain the amount of mortgage lending a divorcing individual or couple can borrow to help them negotiate a fair settlement.

Although each individual or couples’ circumstances differ, and each assessment is unique, it is this type of assessment that I am often involved in.

However, more recently I have received several enquiries for, what I have come to call, a ‘Reverse Mortgage Capacity Assessment’.

This is where the amount of mortgage lending required is already known and what I am instructed to explore is how much income will be required to achieve the required level of borrowing.

The ‘income’ in most cases refers to maintenance payable by the ex-spouse. However, it could also refer to any form of income required to achieve a certain level of borrowing.

This could relate to an individual who is looking to increase or decrease working hours; switch roles or seek new employment.

With regards to maintenance income, whether spousal or child, I am often instructed to explore how much maintenance is required to achieve varying borrowing amounts, which, for example, could range from £100,000.00 – £500,000.00 in intervals of £100,000.00. This can help highlight how much additional income is required to achieve suitable housing.

The results of these reports often vary drastically due to mortgage lenders varying criteria regarding maintenance income. Some mortgage lenders are happy to use 100% of maintenance income if there is a Child Maintenance Service Agreement or Court Order in place.

The payment of maintenance will usually need to have been in place for several months, typically 3-6 although some lenders require 12 months history of this income with Bank Statements to prove it.

Many mortgage lenders will only consider a percentage of this type of income and some will not use this income whatsoever.

What is interesting and important to know for the negotiation of maintenance, is that large amounts of spousal or child maintenance may not always have the desired effect where mortgage borrowing is concerned. This is because many mortgage lenders are uncomfortable lending to those who rely heavily on maintenance income.

Therefore, it is important to be sure that the amounts agreed will help and not hinder any mortgage related plans.

About Natasha

Natasha Palmer is a qualified Mortgage Advisor at Simpson Financial Services Ltd with offices in Coventry and Leamington Spa.

With over 10 years experience in Financial Services Natasha starting her career in Financial Administration. She became qualified to advise on Mortgages, Protection and General Insurance in 2008 and then spent the next 4 years advising home owners, first time buyers and small businesses on the most appropriate lending and protection solutions.

Becoming a Director of Simpson Financial Services in 2010 she then went on to win the Insurance Institute of Coventry’s Young Achiever of the year award in 2010/11.

Her career in Mortgage Capacity Assessments started over lunch with a with a local family solicitor one day who asked if she could provide mortgage capacity details for a divorcee having difficulties negotiating future housing needs with their soon to be ex. Natasha began producing Mortgage Capacity Assessments from that day on.

She can be contacted at natasha@simspsonfs.co.uk and you can check out her services on the website: mortgagecapacityassessments.co.uk.

Few would dispute that going through a divorce is a stressful and complex process, especially when it involves relocating.

It is important to be aware of all the rights and responsibilities that come with separation, even more so when children are involved.

It is an offence under The Child Abduction Act 1984 to remove a child under the age of 16 from the UK without appropriate consent.

Anyone wishing to move abroad with their child/children must obtain suitable permission.

Here are the dos and don’ts of moving abroad with children after a divorce, and what to do if an individual does not want to give consent to their child/children relocating.

Do:

• Obtain consent

It is vital that appropriate consent from every person who has Parental Responsibility for the child/children is obtained. This can include the child’s mother, the child’s father, any guardian of the child, any special guardian, any person named in a child arrangements order as a person with whom the child is to live or anyone who has the benefit of a Parental Responsibility Agreement or Order.

This must be in writing and unambiguous otherwise there may be doubts as to whether proper permission was given.

• Consider the correct application

In cases where consent is refused, applications to the Court can be made. There are different applications depending on whether or not there is already a Child Arrangements Order in place.

The welfare of the child is always paramount and there is no presumption in favour of the parent making the application.”
Plan ahead

Enquiries should be made as early as possible. This could include research into schooling, places to live, employment options and a support network. It is also vital to look into whether there are any additional immigration requirements.

Don’t

• Act too quickly

External relocation should not occur until appropriate consent(s) from those with Parental Responsibility or an Order of the Court giving permission has been given.

Anyone who moves without this consent risks imprisonment under The Child Abduction Act.

Preparation and research should be done well in advance as all the processes can take a significant amount of time, especially if the Court is involved.

• Damage relationships with your child/children

All parties involved should remain impartial; relocation should not be used as a way of frustrating the relationship between the child/children and the other parent.

Remember, the child’s welfare is paramount and if this is in question this will affect the decision of those with Parental Responsibility and/or the Court.

Keeping children in the country

If an ex-partner intends on taking the child/children involved out of the UK and there is a disagreement, urgent legal advice should be obtained.

There are certain applications that can be made to the Court to try and prevent external relocation from happening.

If refusal of consent by the Court is desired, clear reasons should be made as to why the application is being opposed.

These should focus on the welfare of the child and why it would be more secure if they were to remain in the country.

About Ann Robinson

Ann Robinson is a solicitor specialising in Family Law at Blacks Solicitors- lawblacks.com –  ARobinson@LawBlacks.com

The McLaughlin decision is a common-sense recognition that all children have the same needs and should not be discriminated against because of their parents’ relationship choices.

It is one that those campaigning for reform of the law with regard to cohabiting couples will welcome as a step in the right direction as much as those who campaign to end child poverty.

If children’s best interests are the primary consideration, then it is difficult to see why their parent’s marital status should be a reason not to meet their needs (and potentially place them in poverty).

This is something family law as well as the benefits system will have to grapple with if it is to meet the needs of all children.

Click here for more articles from Woolley & Co

About Kathryn McTaggart

Kathryn is a divorce and family solicitor with Woolley & Co, based in South Wales and has strong links with West London.

She specialises in divorce and separation, as well as related financial matters, and has a particular interest in disputes around children.

This includes specialist knowledge of applications by a parent to move with a child to another country.

www.family-lawfirm.co.uk

Feature Photo by Duangphorn Wiriya on Unsplash

These days, divorce is rarely out of the news headlines.

While gossip columns cover rumours and facts about celebrity splits, the more serious sections of the media cover the issues raised by the UK’s current divorce laws and, in particular, the question of whether they are still fit for purpose.

The Five Grounds for Divorce in the UK

There are only five grounds for divorce accepted throughout the whole of the UK.

Three of these relate to couples having split up in practical terms and therefore are essentially just recognising an existing state.

One is adultery (which is legally defined as having sexual relations with a member of the opposite sex) and one is unreasonable behaviour.

Scotland permits divorce where one party has undergone gender reassignment surgery and has obtained an interim gender-recognition certificate. No part of the UK, as yet, has a “no faults” divorce option, not even Scotland. Scotland does, however, allow for divorce in a much shorter time frame than other parts of the UK.

Where both parties consent to a divorce, a year’s separation is sufficient, as compared to two years in England and Wales.

Where only one party consents to a divorce, two years’ of separation is acceptable, as compared to five years in England and Wales.

The Issue of “Unreasonable Behaviour”

Research from Oxford University highlights a significant increase in the number of people seeking divorce on the grounds of unreasonable behaviour. In 1971 it was used in 17% of divorces granted to wives and 2% of divorces granted to men.

In 2016 the figures were 51% and 36% respectively. This raises the obvious question of what has caused this increase and it would be very interesting to see the figures split out for Scotland, post the implementation of the Family Law (Scotland) Act 2006, (which amended the Divorce (Scotland) Act 1976) and England and Wales over the same period.

This might go some way to answering the question of whether this change reflects a genuine feeling on the part of one of the separating spouses, a feeling which can be substantiated in court, or if it is simply a convenient way to allow people to make a clean break and go their separate ways without the need for an extended period of separation.

The Advantages of Splitting Quickly

Most of us can probably appreciate the idea that people prefer to get unpleasant experiences over and done with quickly and even when the split is amicable, divorce probably comes under that category, at least for the majority of people.

There are, however, practical reasons for wanting the decoupling to move forward as quickly as possible and that is the fact that divorce proceedings finalize the divisions of a couple’s assets (except in very exceptional circumstances).

This can be particularly important where there is a significant difference in income between the two divorcing parties as being left in matrimonial limbo could have a serious detrimental effect on the lower-earning partner since they would only be eligible for a financial settlement once the divorce proceedings were actually underway. 

Click here for more articles by Kerry Smith

ABOUT KERRY

Kerry Smith is the head of family law at K J Smith Solicitors, a specialist family law firm who deal with a wide range of issues including divorce, domestic violence, civil partnerships and prenuptial agreements.

The high-profile case of Tini Owens revealed that being unhappily married does not justify being granted a divorce.

The Supreme Court ruling that Mrs Owens must stay in a “loveless” marriage to her husband is the culmination of an expensive and protracted legal battle with wider repercussions.

The validity of the original evidence that 68-year-old Mrs Owens gave to illustrate the “unreasonable behavior” of 78-year-old Hugh Owens lies at the heart of this landmark case.

Mrs Owens filed for divorce in 2015 before moving out of their marital home and the case escalated when Mr Owens refused to agree to a divorce.

In 2016 a Family Court judge rejected Mrs Owens 27 allegations of her husband’s unreasonable behaviour as “flimsy” and “exaggerated”.

Last year, three Appeal Court judges said that whilst the marriage had irretrievably broken down, they rejected her appeal as she had failed to establish that the effect on her of the behaviour made it unreasonable for her to remain in the matrimonial home.

The five Supreme Court justices who ruled against Mrs Owens “with reluctance” were obliged to base their decision on the original evidence she gave to the Family Court and, of course, the interpretation of the law.

With 60 per cent of all divorces granted on grounds of adultery or unreasonable behaviour, this case has reinforced the importance of submitting evidence that can be proven wherever possible.

Lord Wilson, one of the five Supreme Court justices said the “question for Parliament” was whether the law governing “entitlement to divorce” remained “satisfactory”.

As expected, the recent outcome has intensified the campaign by Resolution – a national family law group which promotes non-confrontational solutions in family law – for the government to introduce ‘no fault’ divorce.

Widely criticised as ‘archaic’, the existing 1973 Divorce Act stipulates that to enable a divorce to be sought straight away there has to be allegations of adultery or behaviour. In this case had Mr Owens not defended the case then in all probability an undefended ruling would have been granted.

However, his defence demanded that the proof of the allegations was necessary.

The introduction of no fault divorces – a legal separation granted by the courts without one person saying anything bad about the other – would make it easier for spouses to make their separation more harmonious, avoiding antagonism and high-profile court battles.

It would also avoid acrimony in regard to arrangements for the children and also finance.

Stepping up its call for reform, Resolution says the Supreme Court’s decision confirms that the “divorce crisis” in England and Wales required urgent Government action. As a specialist family law firm, Jones Myers has been at the forefront of Resolution’s no fault divorce campaign.

In the meantime, Mrs Owens must wait until February 2020 to petition for a divorce – by which time she and her husband will have lived apart for five years.

This is usually a sufficient period to be granted a divorce, without a spouse’s agreement – unless they can show extreme financial hardship, which is rare.

Click here for more articles from Jones Myers Family Solicitors

About Peter Jones

 Peter Jones is one of the country’s leading divorce and family lawyers. A qualified arbitrator and mediator, Peter set up Jones Myers as the first niche family law firm in the north of England in 1992 and has acted for a string of high-profile clients.

Renowned for his sympathetic approach, he is a former national chairman of Resolution, a former Deputy District Judge – and instigated the D5 Group of law firms that promotes excellence in family law. www.jonesmyers.co.uk

The landmark ruling – that divorced surveyor Graham Mills should not be forced to keep coughing up increased maintenance payments resulting from his ex-wife’s bad financial decisions – reinforces the need for ‘clean break’ orders.

The Supreme Court overturned the Court of Appeal’s decision to increase Maria Mills’ monthly maintenance payments from £1,100 to £1,441 after she fell into debt.

Mrs Mills’ circumstances resulted from her making poor investment choices with the £230k financial settlement her former spouse gave her when they divorced back in 2002.

While the headlines of this high-profile case put the emphasis on an “end to meal ticket for life” for spousal payments, the reality is that Mr Mills is still inextricably tied into paying what is called a joint lives order.

Widely considered to be the most onerous maintenance order, it obliges him to continue giving Maria Mills £1,100 a month until she remarries, he or she dies – or the court makes a further order ending the payments.

The case initially escalated after the surveyor’s circumstances had changed and he applied to the court, over a decade after the settlement, to end the payments. In retaliation, his ex-wife fought to have them increased.

The case can be seen as part of an overall move towards clean break orders, so that the more advantaged party may pay more capital for a clean break. The court, for many years had had a duty to consider the possibility of a clean break in each case but sometimes there is not sufficient capital funds to pay to the less advantaged party to achieve this.

Such an order prevents both parties from making future and further financial claims of any kind against each other. There is an overall trend in court judgements over the last few years, that wives should maximise their own income capacity – even when spousal maintenance is paid.

Following the ruling, the lawyers for both Mr and Mrs Mills suggest further negotiations will be needed to look at capitalising maintenance – a means of helping to achieve a clean break even when there is a joint lives maintenance order.

It is a matter of interest perhaps that in Scotland spouses are only maintained for a maximum number of years. This may soon be regarded as a favourable option for England and Wales.

Whatever the wider outcome, the cost of litigating this case in the highest courts in the land will have resulted in heavy financial and emotional costs for a warring couple whose marriage ended sixteen years ago.

Click here for more articles by Vanessa Fox 

About Vanessa

Keebles partner Vanessa Fox, has been head of the firm’s family law department since 1991.

The latest edition of the Legal 500 Guide praises Vanessa for her ‘broad knowledge of finance and childcare, and for her passion for collaboration; she is efficient, caring and robust’.

Collaboratively trained and a qualified mediator, Vanessa is a former chair of South Yorkshire Resolution and a member of the Law Society’s Family Law Panel and the Children Panel.

She can be contacted on 0114 290 6232 or at vanessa.fox@keebles.com

Spousal maintenance is a thorny topic.

Traditionally English law has recognised the concept of maintenance for life on divorce, with the breadwinner (male or female) expected to support the financially weaker party.

Recently however there have been a slew of cases suggesting this principle is falling out of favour and in practice there are often moves by the financially stronger party to achieve a clean break divorce if possible, or to limit the scope of maintenance payments rather than sign-up to open ended awards.

That is why all eyes were on the conclusion of the long running Mills v Mills saga this week which went all the way to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court had been asked to consider whether the court was entitled to decline to increase Mrs Mills’ maintenance payments to fund payment of all or some of her rent when her housing needs had been catered for in the original divorce proceedings.

Mr and Mrs Mills separated in 2000 after 13 years of marriage, divorcing in 2002.  At the time of their divorce it was agreed that their now adult son would continue to make his home with Mrs Mills.

The parties reached agreement on the financial claims between them, with Mrs Mills taking a total of £230,000 of the net equity of the family home (approximately 91%) and receiving maintenance payments of £13,200 per year.  The husband kept the parties’ shares in their surveying companies and £23,000 of cash from the sale of the family home.

Mrs Mills’ maintenance award did not include provision for rent, as it was anticipated she would use her capital award to purchase a mortgage free property.

Even though it was accepted by both that she had no ability to raise a mortgage, nevertheless later in 2002 Mrs Mills purchased a house for £345,000, raising the balance on mortgage.

What then followed was a series of property transactions where Mrs Mills “committed herself to borrowings which were too high”.  

These are neatly summarised in the Supreme Court’s judgment, but ultimately the result was that by the time Mr Mills applied to court to stop maintenance payments in 2015, Mrs Mills was living in rental accommodation, had no capital and debts totalling £42,000.

Mrs Mills cross applied, seeking an increase to her maintenance award, as she now had rental costs which had not been factored into the original award.

The decision of the first court saw the order remain at the rate of £13,200 per year with both parties’ applications failing. Both appealed, and in the Court of Appeal, Mrs Mills successfully argued to increase her maintenance to £17,292 per year, which included her shortfall in her rental payments.

Whilst Mr Mills was not permitted to appeal the decision that he should continue paying maintenance, he was given permission to appeal the decision to increase the maintenance award to cover the shortfall.  The Supreme Court allowed his appeal and effectively restored the maintenance to the 2002 amount.

The judgment makes clear that Mrs Mills’ housing needs had been catered for within the original capital award given to her in 2002 and that Mr Mills should not be expected to bear the consequences of his ex-wife’s poor financial decisions over the last 16 years.

Whilst these cases remain fact specific and the Mills v Mills decision does not totally bar future claims being made due to the court’s wide discretion, it does give us a strong indication of the law in this area.

Spouses seeking to increase their maintenance award to meet a need that was already catered for with a capital award face a tough test. Even though it was accepted that Mr Mills could afford to pay at the higher level and that Mrs Mills had a greater need, it was not considered fair that he should meet this greater need.

The question of fairness will play a key role in future cases looking at this point.

What paying parties may find disappointing about this case is that Mr Mills remains obliged to pay his ex-wife maintenance, even at the original level.  Mr Mills has now been paying maintenance for 16 years, three years longer than the parties were married and living together.

The question of how long maintenance should be paid remains unanswered and fact specific.  No doubt, the Mills v Mills case will be an incentive to those wanting to push for further change in the area of spousal maintenance. Many argue that a lifelong maintenance payment obligation is outdated and patriarchal and that the law should support financial independence between divorced couples.

For the moment the message is clear: whilst Mrs Mills is not required to move to full financial independence from her ex-husband, she must now meet her increased housing costs herself and cannot look to her ex-husband to meet her needs generated by the choices she has made; responsibility for these choices rests solely with her.

About Stacey Nevin

Stacey Nevin, an associate in the Family & Divorce Law team at Kingsley Napley LLP. She works on cases involving all aspects of family law including maintenance cases, private children cases and relocation cases.

Making the decision to end a marriage is not an easy one and can bring with it numerous considerations on top of significant emotional strain.

To assist in making the decision to end a marriage and all the key considerations more manageable and concise, we have mapped out the need-to-knows when it comes to the divorce process in a step-by-step format.

There is certainly much to consider when it comes to embarking on divorce proceedings but the information below should make the prospect of ending a marriage less daunting, with much-needed clarity to help make the process as manageable as possible.

From applying for a divorce to contesting a divorce petition, with regard to all key legislation and terminology, we map out the divorce process, what you can expect and how the process can be made simpler in our comprehensive guide.

The Divorce Process Explained: Step by Step

In England and Wales, a divorce can be granted to any couple who have been married for at least a year and whose marriage has irretrievably broken down.

This however is only possible if:

(1) their marriage is legally recognised in the UK; and

(2) at least one party to the marriage has a permanent home/residency in the UK.

Why Choose Lawyers in the Divorce Process?

Whilst it is not a compulsory measure, many couples deciding to end their marriage do choose to seek advice from lawyers during a divorce. This can be for numerous reasons, including:

• an unfamiliarity with the legal process and a need for guidance and legal advice
• support needed because of the emotional strain inherent in many relationship break-ups.

How to Apply for a Divorce

For anyone who is looking to apply for a divorce, a divorce petition must be issued. This is essentially a means of seeking permission from the courts to divorce. Whilst many couples decide to do so, it is not compulsory to seek and engage lawyers to assist with the divorce process.

A divorce petition must:

• give details of the parties to the marriage
• state the grounds on which a divorce is sought
• provide evidence that the marriage has irretrievably broken down
• be accompanied by the marriage certificate or another form of proof of the existence of the marriage.

Proving Irretrievable Breakdown

There are five possible ways of proving irretrievable breakdown:

(1) Two years’ separation if both parties to the marriage give written agreement to the divorce.

(2) Five years’ separation if both parties have not provided written agreement to the divorce.

(3) Adultery, which means that the petitioner’s spouse had sexual intercourse with a third party. It is not possible to rely on this ground if the parties to the marriage continued to live together for six months or more after the petitioner discovered the adultery.

(4) Unreasonable behaviour, which means behaviour making it unbearable for the petitioner to continue their marriage to their spouse. Domestic abuse, including emotional abuse, and alcohol or drug issues are commonly cited examples of unreasonable behaviour. It is important to note that this is a subjective test and many different behaviours could be classed as unreasonable.

(5) Desertion, which means that the petitioner’s spouse has abandoned them without good reason and without seeking their agreement. The period of desertion must be at least two of the past two-and-a-half-years.

Challenging a Petition

Whilst this is relatively unusual, anyone wishing to contest a petition, or who receives a defence to their petition, is best advised to seek legal advice if this hasn’t already been carried out.

Next Steps

Decree Nisi

Following the issuing of the divorce petition, and providing the petition is undefended, the court will grant a decree nisi when it is satisfied that the petitioner is entitled to a divorce. The decree nisi is the precursor to the decree absolute.

Decree Absolute

This is a legal decree that officially dissolves the marriage and frees each party to marry another person should they wish to do so. The decree absolute can be applied for after six weeks and a day have elapsed since the decree nisi.

If the petitioner fails to apply for the decree absolute within four and a half months of receiving the decree nisi, the respondent is able to apply instead.

More articles from Cordell & Cordell

About Barbara Johnson-Stern

Barbara Johnson-Stern is proud to be a London divorce solicitor. She works hard to continually improve the level of service and representation given to her clients.

One of the biggest and most important aspects of her work is being prepared.  As Abraham Lincoln said it, ‘If I had eight hours to chop down a tree, I’d spend six hours sharpening my axe.’ The vast majority of the work I do every day for our clients is sharpening the axe,” Ms. Johnson-Stern said.

“I think it’s essential that I’m prepared so that my clients are prepared to either reach a resolution or litigate. Preparation is essential in helping clients develop goals and develop strategy for how to reach those goals.”

cordellcordell.co.uk

Feature Photo by Danielle MacInnes on Unsplash

In a divorce, the Respondent is asked to sign and return the Acknowledgment of Service – a document with a series of questions which the court sends to the Respondent with the divorce petition.

The Respondent is required to answer the questions and sign and return the document to the court.

In my extensive experience, respondents frequently fail to return the document to the court.

What happens next depends on what ground for divorce – which I have outlined below – you have used:

Adultery: the Respondent has to sign the acknowledgement unless you have a signed confession statement before the petition was issued.

If the Respondent refuses to sign, and you do not have a clear photograph of the other party having penetrative sex with another person of the opposite sex, you won’t get your divorce. You will have to amend your petition to another ground, which involves an application to court.

Behaviour: the Respondent doesn’t have to sign the acknowledgement – his or her solicitor can sign it. If no one signs it and returns it, you have to obtain a set of papers from the court for personal service, pay for an enquiry agent to give the papers to the other party, file a statement proving that that took place from the enquiry agent, wait 14 days, then apply for a decree nisi – which you will get.

2 years’ separation with consent: the Respondent must sign the acknowledgement or you will not obtain a divorce on this ground.

5 years’ separation: provided you can prove that the other party received the divorce papers, by arranging for the papers to be given to him or her by an enquiry agent, you will be able to apply for your decree nisi.

Making the right choice of ground is crucial. Behaviour as a ground is the best option if you have not been separated for long and you know that your ex is going to be difficult.

Click Here for More Legal Articles by Vanessa Fox

About Vanessa

Keebles partner, Vanessa Fox, has been head of the firm’s family law department since 1991.

The latest edition of the Legal 500 Guide praises Vanessa for her ‘broad knowledge of finance and childcare, and for her passion for collaboration; she is efficient, caring and robust’.

Collaboratively trained and a qualified mediator, Vanessa is a former chair of South Yorkshire Resolution and a member of the Law Society’s Family Law Panel and the Children Panel.

She can be contacted on 0114 290 6232 or at www.keebles.com.

A recent article and new TV series focussed on Britain’s top female lawyers dealing with the lives of the superrich.

Perhaps too much was said about such lawyers’ astronomical hourly charges and killer heels, but this made me think about the real life personal and emotional cost of divorce.

The article made some assumptions that divorce is sometimes taken lightly and that couples these lawyers represented dispose of their relationships like changing their phone.

No one divorces lightly – not even millionaires or billionaires. The trauma of relationship breakdown is always massive.

I have never yet represented a relatively poor or wealthy client who did not bitterly regret the breakdown of their relationship – even if they hid it well.

Among the many things I dispute in the article is the claim that men regret divorce more than women. In my extensive experience, men often seem to me to be more upset and the long- term effect can be greater.

I don’t agree that it is always a mistake to sign a post nuptial agreement. This is often a good way of keeping the relationship going. Expert legal advice on the agreement, however, is crucial.

On the issue of power dressing in court, it does not matter what you wear, or what handbag you take to court – though it is probably sensible to leave Chanel or Mulberry bags at home and take a cheaper handbag.

However, I did once take a photo of a husband’s Bentley (with personalised plate) outside court and showed it to the Judge when the husband claimed he was living in poverty!

On the plus side, I agree that an hour with a lawyer to discuss what you might be giving up is crucial – and that it is expensive to use a lawyer as a therapist. I always advocate a holistic approach and advise all my clients that support from a counsellor is crucial.

I also agree that children should not be used as pawns. In reality, clients try to avoid this anyway.

I also agree that focus on what is important and on the deal itself is helpful – but it is the lawyer’s job to help their client focus and explain what is important and what can be let go.

The most important thing to hang onto is that separation and divorce is tragic and painful, but it will pass and you will move on to something else – a better life perhaps – with help from lawyers, financial advisors and counsellors.

It is the combined expert advice and support from a group that will help you – and not just your lawyer.

Click here for more articles by Vanessa Fox

About Vanessa

hlw Keeble Hawson partner, Vanessa Fox, has been head of the firm’s family law department since 1991.

The latest edition of the Legal 500 Guide praises Vanessa for her ‘broad knowledge of finance and childcare, and for her passion for collaboration; she is efficient, caring and robust’.

Collaboratively trained and a qualified mediator, Vanessa is a former chair of South Yorkshire Resolution and a member of the Law Society’s Family Law Panel and the Children Panel.

She can be contacted on 0114 290 6232 or at vanessafox@hlwkeeblehawson.co.uk.