Kingsley Napley - Page 2

15 result(s) found.

DIVORCE BY JOB DESCRIPTION OR LOVE ACTUALLY?

Divorce by Job Description or Love Actually?

Published on
Michael Rowlands
Michael Rowlands
Partner in Kingsley Napley LLP’s Family and Divorce Team

Recent Swedish research  (published by The Royal Society) has come up with some ideas about why their neighbours in Denmark divorce by mapping what people do for a living with the chances of divorce.

Why exactly they wanted to look at this relatively small sample is unclear, particularly when there was more interesting research closer to home.

According to previous Swedish national adoption research published in Psychological Science earlier this year, nature is more important than nurture when it comes to the possibility of divorce.

By looking at the divorce rate of 20,000 adopted Swedish children it  found that if their natural parents divorced, they were 20% more likely to divorce themselves….presumably also regardless of occupation.

Anyway the Swedish “divorce by job type” research tells us that it is actually what you do for a living that counts when it comes to divorce, finding that occupations which involve dealing with people create a higher divorce risk than solitary jobs. So headhunters and restaurant workers are more prone to divorce than farmers and librarians.

Restaurant workers are more prone to divorce?

They clearly hadn’t read the US research findings of Nathan Yau 2017 who put telesales, machine setters, massage therapists (how could you miss them) and flight attendants right up there in the “likely to divorce” stakes.

And what about those without work or who are working in the “zero hours” economy where irregular work hours apparently lead to the “opportunity and inclination” of infidelity?

Regardless of the stats – and I can offer countless examples to prove it – people don’t divorce by job description.

Each experience of marital breakdown is unique as is each reason why people fall in love – and the process of divorce is as excruciating for anyone involved, whether they are politicians or pot cleaners.

Taken at face value, what should people do with the Swedish research? Refuse to fall in love with the girl or guy behind the bar? Should Americans run out to find an actuary (because research says that they are the least likely to likely to divorce)….. no way (sorry actuaries but).

What would the statisticians have concluded of the possibility of a union between the Capulet and Montague families? Disaster of course, but also the loss of one of the greatest love stories ever told.

Perhaps it might be better to forget the statisticians and listen to Rumi instead and “Let the beauty of what you love be what you do”.

ABOUT MICHAEL ROWLANDS

The author is Michael Rowlands, a partner in Kingsley Napley LLP’s family and divorce team. He specialises in difficult divorce cases involving allegations of abuse, narcissistic personalities and issues relating to addiction. For more information see kingsleynapley.co.uk

 

Feature Photo by Spencer Pugh on Unsplash

In text Photo by Fraser Cottrell on Unsplash

You might be interested in

What is domestic abuse, controlling and coercive behaviour in an Intimate or Familial Relationship

Domestic Abuse, Controlling and Coercive Behaviour in an Intimate or Familial Relationship

Published on
Michael Rowlands
Michael Rowlands
Partner in Kingsley Napley LLP’s Family and Divorce Team

Each unhappy relationship is unhappy in its own way.

Sadly for some, emotional and physical abuse is an every-day reality.

A combination of fear, loyalty and coercion often prevents action, much to the disbelief of family and friends.

Words like these seem extraordinary in 2018. Surely no one need live like this?

The reality is that it is only in the very recent past that both criminal and family law have fully evolved to provide real recognition and protection for adults and children in abusive relationships.

Victims of domestic abuse don’t have much to be thankful for but it is good news that the law is finally on their side.

A new criminal offence of Controlling and Coercive Behaviour in an Intimate or Familial Relationship was created three years ago with The Serious Crime Act 2015, which was a game changer.

Punishable by up to five years in prison, 2018 sentencing guidelines for those convicted of this offence recognises that the crime is all the more serious for having been committed in a home, between people in a relationship.

Coercive behaviour is defined as “a range of acts designed to make a person subordinate and/or dependent by isolating them from sources of support, exploiting their resources and capacities for personal gain, depriving them of the means needed for independence, resistance and escape and regulating their everyday behaviour”.

Controlling behaviour is defined as “a continuing act or a pattern of acts of assault, threats, humiliation and intimidation or other abuse that is used to harm, punish, or frighten their victim.”

The Home Office recently published guidelines listing characteristics of behaviour that might constitute an offence and this really represents a departure from historic views of what constituted domestic abuse.

The guidelines include:

  • Isolating a person from their friends and family
  • Monitoring their time
  • Monitoring a person online or using spyware
  • Taking control over aspects of their everyday life, such as where they can go, who they can see, what to wear and when they can sleep
  • Depriving them of access to support services, such as specialist support or medical services
  • Repeatedly putting them down such as telling them they are worthless
  • Enforcing rules and activity which humiliate, degrade or dehumanise the victim
  • Forcing the victim to take part in criminal activity such as shoplifting, neglect or abuse of children to encourage self-blame and prevent disclosure to authorities
  • Financial abuse including control of finances, such as only allowing a person a punitive allowance
  • Threats to hurt or kill or threats to a child
  • Threats to reveal or publish private information (e.g. threatening to ‘out’ someone)
  • Assault;
  • Criminal damage (such as destruction of household goods);
  • Rape;
  • Preventing a person from having access to transport or from working.

In addition late last year (November 2017), the family Court system was also given directions about how to engage with abusive relationships in cases involving children, essentially adopting the same definitions of controlling and coercive behaviour that applies for criminal law enforcement agencies.

Recognition was given to the fact that “domestic abuse is harmful to children, and/or puts children at risk of harm, whether they are subjected to domestic abuse, or witness one of their parents being violent or abusive to the other parent, or live in a home in which domestic abuse is perpetrated (even if the child is too young to be conscious of the behaviour). Children may suffer direct physical, psychological and/or emotional harm from living with domestic abuse, and may also suffer harm indirectly where the domestic abuse impairs the parenting capacity of either or both of their parents.”

The result is that Family Courts judging an abusive parent may put restrictions on or, in extreme cases, eliminate their ability to spend time with their children.

So I believe we have come a long way in recent years. The old expression “domestic violence” has been superseded by the recognition that “domestic abuse” can be psychological, sexual, emotional and financial as well as violent.

Domestic abuse is now seen as more serious than abuse and violence in a non-domestic environment.

On top of all this we have a greater understanding as a society of this terrible behaviour which encourages friends and family to help victims.

There are two areas however where victims continue to be let down.

Whilst the police have received improved training, we still hear and see many instances where they lack the resources to tackle problem perpetrators effectively.

Everything depends on the interest and time of the investigating officer, meaning some victims may see real action and others the opposite.

Sadly in many ways the law has moved ahead of the limits of police resources to tackle the issue according to my criminal lawyer colleagues.

We are also not yet at the stage where divorce courts make awards to victims of abuse to compensate for the treatment they have suffered. This area remains unchanged.

The division of assets and income of a marriage are usually determined based on needs save in exceptional cases.  However it will be interesting to see over time if this evolves.

Some think family law should not be above trying to influence or condemn behaviour in relationships by making it clear that domestic abuse could hit the pocket of the perpetrator. It is likely that we will see an increase in the victims of abuse asking the Courts to take conduct into account when making awards on divorce.

About Michael Rowlands

The author is Michael Rowlands, a partner in Kingsley Napley LLP’s family and divorce team. He specialises in difficult divorce cases involving allegations of abuse, narcissistic personalities and issues relating to addiction. For more information see kingsleynapley.co.uk

You might be interested in

parental alienation example

Parental Alienation – The Example we Should all Learn from   

Published on
STACEY NEVIN
Stacey Nevin
Associate with
Kingsley Napley LLP

Occasionally, as a family solicitor, I come across a case that makes my heart sink.

That feeling overwhelmed me when I read the recent judgment of the case Q and R (Intractable Contact), which can only be described as an extreme example of the serious issue of parental alienation.

Parental alienation is a concept recognised by an increasing number of lawyers and psychologists. In simplest terms it arises when a parent manipulates the child to show unwarranted fear, disrespect or hostility towards the other parent.  Not only does it damage a child’s relationship with the other parent, it can have a detrimental to a child’s mental health in the longer term.

For an estranged parent undergoing separation or post-divorce, it might be tempting to seek to turn a child against their ex. The acrimony from a split can so easily spill into the parenting arena, over parenting styles, behaviour and influences.

The danger zone is reached when the criticism is so repeated and effective that the child starts to believe and take as their own the negative images of that parent and in turn becomes self-sabotaging of that relationship.

There are a number of reported cases that have dealt with complaints about parental alienation, where the alienated party seeks to restore their relationship with the child. 

Whilst most judgments recognise the importance of the child having a healthy relationship with both parents, there is no statutory principle that protects this.  Sometimes the damage has already been done, as was the case in Q and R.

Q and R had the unfortunate effect of vindicating the mother who, it seems clear, was the engineer of her children’s wrecked relationship with their father.

Historically there had been a violent attack on the mother by the father, and it is of course possible that this motivated some of her actions later on. 

Yet despite psychologists finding that the father had dealt with his anger issues and that the children would benefit from contact with him, the mother did not accept those experts’ views, even after contact had taken place successfully.

She flouted court contact orders repeatedly and influenced the children to such an extent that they no longer wished to see their father and actively feared him.

In the end the judge reluctantly made an order for indirect contact only, stating this was in the children’s best interests. She justified her decision as the better course than inflicting a further cycle of litigation on the family and because the children would have rejected anything else.

To have ordered contact between the children and their father would have caused them anxiety and distress, such was the false belief system imposed upon them by the mother. 

The judge described this as a “running into the road case”; where the children expressed such strong views that they did not wish to be with their father, they might put themselves in harm’s way if made to see him against their wishes.

We can only hope this is a one off and not a precedent setting case.  Certainly parents guilty of alienating should not take it condoning this behaviour – the judge was highly critical of the mother – or of establishing a new norm.  

The overriding lesson is that those parents who feel they are on the receiving end of sabotaging behaviour should act early to avoid things getting to an impossible stage.

Bold and drastic measures in the early stages of a contact dispute can feel unreasonable and disproportionate, however this case demonstrates that the longer circumstances to on, the more difficult it can be to get things back on track.

For parents who can’t help but criticise their ex in front of their children, this case is a stark reminder to do better. 

Both parents have one common denominator; a child or children stuck in the middle whose present and future welfare lies in the balance.

About Stacey Nevin

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

You might be interested in

1 2