Three parent babies: IVF clinics told they can create children with two mothers

Sarah Knapton, science editor of The Telegraph writes today about three parent families.
The legal implications are, of course a minefield.
The fertility technique, which was developed by British scientists, allows doctors to replace an
egg’s defective mitochondrial DNA with healthy DNA from a female donor to prevent children
suffering debilitating conditions such as muscular dystrophy.

It is controversial because it would result in babies born with the DNA of three people -
and effectively, two mothers.

Yet despite concerns, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) today said the
procedure could go ahead when all other options, like screening, have proved futile.

IVF clinics can start applying for permission immediately and after gaining a licence, could
begin practising the new procedure early next year, with the first babies potentially being born
around Christmas 2017.

Newcastle University, which pioneered the technique said it would be submitting its application
for a licence within 24 hours. after lining up several women who already want the procedure. They
have also asked for healthy women under 35 years old to consider donating their eggs
for the treatment.

For the full article, click here

Public believe solicitors are still best option for wills

Solicitors have been backed as the best option to ensure that wishes written into wills are met, a recent article in the Law Society Gazette informs us.

In a survey by Will Aid, a partnership between the legal profession and top charities, 62% of respondents said they prefer to use a solicitor to manage their will.

Peter de Vena Franks, campaign director, said Will Aid was hoping to continue to work with solicitors to promote the profession ahead of a ‘do it yourself’ option.

‘Drawing up a will is a vital financial planning step but the lure of the cheaper alternatives to solicitors can mean the document is not properly written nor legally binding,’ he said.

Will Aid works with law firms across the country that pledge a portion of their time to write basic wills and waive their usual fees in exchange for a voluntary donation to charity. They suggest minimum donations are £95 for a single will and £150 for a pair of mirror wills.

The donations go to the nine charities involved.

Franks added: ‘While an off-the-shelf will might seem attractive to those who are watching the pennies, it could be money wasted rather than saved.’

According to Will Aid’s research, 62% of people who made a will last year used a solicitor and 12% a will-writer. A further 9% made a homemade will while others used DIY kits or banks or high street services.

The research also revealed that the public were generally unaware of the rules and regulations governing will-writers and that will-writers can practice without proper training, regulation or insurance.
For more information click here

Parenting after divorce: the art of not being ugly

Sadly we hear more and more about couples splitting up it's difficult to understand if you are
fortunate enough not to have expereinced divorce.
An article in The Guardian this weekend by Sasha Fere-Jones sugests that by building a new relationship with your ex can help maintain a healthy environment for your children.
Ten years ago, roughly nine months into our divorce, my ex and I started to build a relationship. The immediate aftermath of our split had been a sour blend of quiet and hurt. We tried to make politeness our default position, and it occasionally held. What kept us connected was our boys, then six and nine. They cut through whatever anger sat between us. We held to that one point of agreement: change the boys’ lives as little as possible. After children have seen their lives inverted, that all sounds a bit feeble, but it was a seed.

Their mother retained primary custody. The boys lived with her in the only house in New York they had known, a loft in lower Manhattan. Before moving back to my childhood neighborhood in Brooklyn, I spent two years in an apartment close to Ground Zero, then a generally inactive construction site. In 2006, it was just a way to live near the boys’ home and school. The ghosts were quiet and my kids liked the hotel restaurant next to my building.


'I was totally knocked sideways': readers share their stories of divorce

When a central home is maintained, and parents cycle through it while the kids stay put, it’s called “bird’s nest custody” or “nesting”. We were improvising, with the help of therapists, and didn’t know what nesting was, even if we mimicked it. We maintained two separate homes, so our arrangement didn’t qualify, though we kept the boys’ concerns central. Our interactions with each other in the first year were the least generous. But a second rule went into effect early: no badmouthing the other parent, whatever the topic. And we were lucky – we liked and respected each other, beneath the turbulence. That’s where we had started. So the irregular interactions led to a committed decision to not be ugly, even  when that seemed impossible. There was enough doubt and hurt for all four of us – anything to clean the air helped. It was a way of being both selfish and considerate.
When living together, decisions can be made by default, without negotiation. Sight lines become assumed statements: “There she goes with the morning drop-off. I guess she’s OK with it.” But when you live in two places, and children aren’t old enough to travel alone, every movement has to be discussed. Who will take whom where and when? Can you take Friday night, because Thursday I need to do something for work? Generosity encouraged reciprocity. The marriage cynic would say: “Well, sure. You had to get along because you can’t engage in the silent warfare of marriages.” But of course you can fight, if one parent doesn’t care about seeing the kids. That wasn’t the case, and a cold war never came. We had no choice but to talk.
For more information click here

Child Maintenance Service 'puts domestic abuse survivors at risk'

Untrained staff and flawed systems failing parents, warn Gingerbread and Women’s Aid

Domestic abuse survivors are being put at risk by the Child Maintenance Service, finds new evidence from Gingerbread and Women's Aid.

The Child Maintenance Service (CMS) is replacing the Child Support Agency (CSA), requiring parents who were using the CSA, or new applicants, to apply to the CMS if they need help to sort out child maintenance.

Domestic abuse survivors are expected to make up 50% of parents applying to the CMS, but Gingerbread and Women's Aid have found that staff working there have no specialist training on how to work with survivors or how to recognise financial coercion.

The CMS insists that all parents initially pay child maintenance directly to each other, requiring the parent with care of the children to supply their bank details to the other parent. The CMS will only step in to collect maintenance if payments are consistently missed.

Gingerbread and Women's Aid are concerned that the lack of specialist training for staff, combined with the expectation that parents interact over payments is leaving survivors open to financial and emotional abuse. They warn that some parents are dropping out of the system entirely because they feel unprotected.

The charities have heard from parents who are too frightened to go ahead with direct payments in case their abuser gets hold of their personal details. While the CMS advises survivors to set up non-geographic bank accounts, there is little clarity over how this will work or help protect those at risk: one survivor told Gingerbread that this would still reveal her new name and another found that her bank couldn't set one up.

Gingerbread Chief Executive Fiona Weir said:

"Child maintenance matters. It helps single parents to provide the essentials for their children, yet less than half of single parent families get any child maintenance at all. This makes the role of the CMS crucial. But it's clear that for the many survivors of domestic abuse who will be turning for the service for help, the CMS is not fit for purpose.

"The service as a whole has to get a better understanding of the support that domestic abuse survivors need. As it stands, children aren't getting the financial support they should and survivors are being put in a vulnerable position."

Gingerbread and Women's Aid have also raised concerns over the impact of charges in the new system. The CMS charges a £20 application fee to open a case. While this is waived for domestic abuse survivors, they have to declare a history of abuse and are not directly asked. The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) itself has acknowledged that this will mean many survivors end up paying the fee.

If the CMS does step in to collect unpaid maintenance it imposes charges on both parents. Not only do single parents lose out financially, but some have told Gingerbread that they won't move into the collection system for fear of upsetting the other parent. This leaves some trapped in arrangements where the paying parent gets away with paying what they decide, when they decide.

Polly Neate, Chief Executive of Women's Aid, said:

"Women's Aid calls for the Government to ensure women and children have safe child maintenance arrangements in place by fast-tracking domestic violence survivors to the statutory 'Collect & Pay' system, dropping charges for survivors to use the system and ensuring all staff receive specialist training on domestic abuse. The current system is simply not safe for survivors – change is urgently needed."

Gingerbread and Women's Aid are calling for the DWP to:

Roll out specialist training and clear guidance for CMS staff on how to recognise and work with domestic abuse survivors
Offer survivors the option to fast-track to using the CMS collection service
Drop the 4% collection charges for single parents in cases of domestic abuse and review the 20% charge for the paying parent.
Gingerbread is campaigning for significant improvements to the Child Maintenance Service
For more information click here

Wraparound childcare policy 'failing due to lack of funding'

A report in The Guardian this morning informs us extended school services are failing to meet
after-school and holiday childcare needs.
Government ambitions for schools to provide wraparound childcare before and after lessons,
as well as after-school clubs and holiday activities, are falling short due to inadequate
funding, according to new research seen exclusively by the Guardian.

A report by the Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) and the Family and Childcare Trust says
extended school services are popular with schools and families and can improve children’s
outcomes, but current provision is failing to meet parents’ demands for after-school and holiday
childcare.

Almost two fifths (39%) of schools surveyed for the report said parents wanted holiday provision,
but only 29% of schools were able to offer it. For after-school childcare, provided by just over
half of schools, the shortfall was 11 percentage points and was particularly acute in primary
schools.

The report, published on Wednesday, calls on the government to provide a clear vision to
encourage schools to extend their services and provide dedicated funding to pay for it. “Without
this, existing services risk withering on the vine, becoming increasingly reliant on parental
contributions and therefore inaccessible to the most deprived children,” it warns.


Do we need more childcare in schools
The term extended schools refers to services offered through a school to pupils and the wider
community, including sports, arts and homework clubs, as well as wraparound and holiday childcare.

The aim is to enable children – particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds – to broaden
their interests through extra-curricular activities and simultaneously free up their parents to
work, reducing the risk of child poverty.

The research found that children from deprived families use the out-of-school services as much
as their better off peers in the vast majority of schools, but in a small but significant minority
, poorer families use them less – possibly because they cannot afford the parental contributions
most schools require.

Of those surveyed, 84% of head teachers said their extended services were used by a mix of more
and less advantaged families, but 10% said their services were used disproportionately by
better-off families even though the services are usually part-funded by the pupil premium, which
is additional money for schools to raise attainment among disadvantaged pupils.

Three quarters of schools that took part in the survey said they would like to expand the numbers
using their extended services and the range of services offered and a third wanted to expand
their hours.

Two thirds of schools, however, said they could not expand because of a lack of funding,
47% were constrained by limited space and 54% had problems with staffing.
For more information click here

Why we need to talk to our children about sexting

An article by Judith Woods in The Telegraph yesterday reminds us of the
importance of talking to our children. She tells us

“Are you talking about sex offenders? I know a sex offender.”

The adults gathered at last weekend’s barbecue slowed up on their own conversations to listen
in to my friend’s 15-year-old daughter.

“You shouldn’t be eavesdropping,” chided her mother, waving a wine glass.

“If this is about your uncle Desmond, nothing was ever proved,” quipped her dad. “Just because a
man chooses to live in a caravan up a dirt track and reuses his teabags doesn’t make him a
pervert.”

“No, I mean an actual sex offender. On the register and everything. She’s in my class at school.”

Cue slack-jawed disbelief and spluttering all round as the chipolatas
cindered on the BBQ. How could it be? Who could it be?
All you parents out there, if you were taken aback by new revelations from the NSPCC that,
in the last three years, more than 2,000 children have been reported to the police over indecent
images, then I suggest you feel alarmed and outraged instead that children as young as 12 are
risking criminalisation.

My friends live in a commuter town, and their children attend the sort of mixed but robustly
successful state school where pupils are photographed in the local papers leaping into the air
on results day.

Their girl’s friends are the daughters of civil servants and dentists and graphic designers.
And yet one of her classmates – let’s call her Jade – has, at the age of 15, apparently been
questioned by police for the sharing of indecent images.

Jade’s “crime” was to circulate the topless photographs that her friend Lara had taken and sent
to her boyfriend.

Sending “topless nudes”, as they are known by teenagers, is regarded among girls as nasty and
cheap and an offence punishable by social exclusion.

Usually a girl will lose her friends immediately for “being a dirty ho”. On this occasion,
it went much further; Lara received the ultimate in “slut-shaming” when Jade forwarded the
photographs.
What she did was mean and vindictive and cruel. But was it a sex offence? Of course, if you
were Lara’s parents you would probably think it was, and I have every sympathy for them.

But could justice ever be served by branding stupid or malicious or hormonal teenage girls, or
indeed boys, sex offenders? Alongside rapists and abusers and manipulative monsters who groom –
poison – little children with their toxic brew of treats and terror?

To be honest, I’m not at all convinced Jade is on any sex offender’s register. Barbecue gossip
is just that and, curious though they are, I don’t think my friends will be bringing up the
subject with her parents at the proverbial school gates.

But her name is now mired in scandal (as indeed is Lara’s).

Now, from a pragmatic and terribly non-PC perspective, I suppose fears of police raids and
registers might give kids pause before making and
distributing intimate and explicit selfies.

But the real issue is young people’s exposure to violent hardcore on free internet sites,
and “personalised” porn on their handsets.

“Boys send intimate pictures all the time and nobody really cares, because you can’t identify
the person,” sighed my friend’s 15-year-old with a peculiarly disturbing world-weariness. Her
mates all nodded.

We looked at them, a naive bunch of 40+ innocents, with wide eyes and appalled expressions,
wanting to ask the obvious but afraid of the answer.

“Yes, of course, erect. Otherwise what’s the point?” she added with an air of impatience at
our complete hopelessness. “I think it’s revolting, but boys think it’s like porn only more…
personal.”

So there we have it: “personalised porn” for kids who aren’t old enough to have legal sex.

It’s nothing short of tragic that a generation of kids, inured to the selfie culture, is being
seduced or duped or egged on to take pictures of themselves that may well haunt them forever.

Child crime

• One in six people reported for indecent imagery are now aged under 18.
• There were 4,530 cases of indecent imagery in 2013, more than doubling in two years to 10,818 in 2015.
• During that period, 2,000 children were among those reported to police for indecent image offences.
• Police believe sexting has played a significant factor in the rise of child-related investigations.

Solutions?

• The NSPCC has suggested that urgent action needs to be taken, including:
• Internet companies developing technological solutions, including data sharing with the authorities and faster 
• response time to remove indecent images of children when they are found in the public domain.
• The process for removing nude images from internet sites should be streamlined.
• Greater access to support for children and teenagers who have fallen victim to indecent 
• images being shared online.
• Offenders who have been convicted should be offered treatment to reduce their future risk to children.

For more information click here

Guidance published on change of name on official documents

The Policy aims to deter name changes to commit crime

The Home Office has published new guidance on how applications are handled to change names on
official documents.

The guidance notes that the vast majority of people living in the UK change their names on
official documents issued by the Home Office for perfectly legitimate reasons, such as when they
get married. The policy is focussed on achieving two aims: first, helping the genuine applicant
to obtain documents in a change of name with the minimum but necessary level of supporting
information; and second, deterring, disrupting and detecting those who change their names in
order to commit crime or avoid detection.

The guidance applies to applications to changes of names and identities to the following
documents:

• British passports, including emergency travel documents and emergency passports Home Office 
• travel documents 
• biometric residence permits 
• visas 
• right of abode and certificates of entitlement 
• residence documents issued to EEA nationals and their family members, including derivative categories.

Where a person is seeking to change an identity on one of the Home Office documents listed
above the person is required to provide supporting evidence that they intend using that identity
for all purposes of their life. This may include a marriage certificate or a deed poll along
with other supporting documentary evidence that the new name is being used for all purposes
For more information click here

Shared Parental Leave

Introduced in April 2015, the new system allows working couples to share a year off work after
the birth of their child. Aside from the initial two weeks – which the mother must take in order
to recover – they can divide the rest between them.

But while it was hailed as a breakthrough for equality - giving both parents chance to bond with
their babies, and keep their careers on track - why has there been such a dismal take-up by dads?

For many couples contemplating SPL, it seems a simple question of cost: in two-parent families
in which both partners work, men are still the main breadwinners in four in five (78 per cent)
cases, meaning families will lose out financially by the father staying at home.

Whichever parent is on leave receives 90 per cent of their normal salary for the first
six weeks after the birth, which then drops to a statutory £140 a week for the next 33 weeks, and the last three months of a year are left unpaid. Even if couples earn similar amounts, many women receive maternity packages well above and beyond the statutory rate - meaning sharing paternal leave amounts to a financial penalty.
FAQ's
Shared Parental Leave
What is it?
Under laws which came into full effect from April 2015, couples living in mainland Britain are able to divide almost all the traditional maternity leave entitlement between them. It's also available to couples adopting.
How much time can parents take off?
Almost a year. Aside from the compulsory fortnight recovery period new mothers must take after childbirth, the remaining 50 weeks is available to divvy up between parents in any combination.
Does one person always need to be at work?
No, they can take time off together or separately. It's flexible, too, meaning parents could intersperse periods of work and leave, allowing them to return to work for up to 30 days to cover short stints or important projects, then take more time off.
How much does it pay?
Similar to statutory maternity pay: £139.58 a week, or 90% of an employee's average weekly earnings, whichever is lower. Though it is up to an employer if they want to offer more, of course. This is paid for 37 weeks. The other 13, if taken, goes without payment.
What if my boss says no?
If you're eligible, they can't. Unlike other flexible work arrangements, shared parental leave is an employee's right in the same way as maternity leave.
How can I claim it?
First you can check whether you're eligible on the government's website, then give notice to your
employer so that they aren't caught by surprise. It's then simply a case of downloading the
appropriate form to declare your intentions (which can be changed), and booking your blocks of
leave.

For more information click here

Arbitration scheme extends to parental responsibility disputes

Disputes about where children of separated parents should live or how much time they spend with
each parent could be resolved away from the daunting surroundings of a courtroom.

The Family Law Arbitration Scheme, which began in 2012 to deal with financial matters,
is to be extended to disputes concerning parental responsibility, as reported in the Law society
Gazette yesterday.
The scheme was set up by the Institute of Family Law Arbitrators (IFLA), a not-for-profit organisation created by the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, Family Law Bar Association and family lawyers’ group Resolution, in association with the Center for Child and Family Law Reform.

IFLA chair Lord Falconer of Thoroton, former shadow justice secretary, said the scheme would
enable couples to resolve disputes ‘more quickly, cheaply and in a more flexible, less formal
setting than a courtroom’.

The scheme will also guarantee confidentiality. ‘These are all important ingredients to
minimising conflict and supporting the best interests of children,’ Falconer said.

Family court judges have the power to adjourn court proceedings for the parties to resolve a
dispute through arbitration. With the court’s approval, the arbitration award can then be made
into an order in those proceedings.

At a time when the courts are under significant pressures, Falconer said the availability of
arbitration for children matters ‘builds on the long and proud tradition arbitration has in
other areas, and gives parents and practitioners another tool with which to resolve family
disputes’.
For more information click here

Unregulated online divorce providers service 10-13% of the market

New research suggests that unregulated online divorce providers service 10-13% of the market

Legal Services Board research reveals extent of unregulated providers' market shares

The Legal Services Board (LSB) has published the findings of its unregulated providers research
project which, it says, significantly advances understanding of unregulated provision of
legal services.

The LSB's 2016 individual legal needs survey indicated that the size of the unregulated sector is
 smaller than originally thought. This new research suggests consumers are using unregulated
providers for a number of reasons, including:

lower prices compared to regulated provider
higher levels of transparency in pricing and
higher levels of innovation and service differentiation.
The main risks for consumers were said to be:

not making informed choices
misleading advertising claims.
According to the research, consumer satisfaction with customer service is broadly comparable
across regulated and unregulated providers: 84% versus 81%.

The research examined, amongst other areas, divorce services. It found that 10-13% of market
share was serviced by unregulated providers, essentially online divorce providers and
fee-charging McKenzie Friends.

In that sector it the researchers identified five active unregulated providers operating 11
websites, serving 23-30,000 clients annually. The service was delivered online and was reliant
on search engine optimisation and adwords. Services range from DIY packages (average price of £36)
 to managed services (average price of £173).

Commenting the research, Law Society chief executive Catherine Dixon said:

"Many legal services can be provided by regulated and unregulated providers. If legal services
are purchased from a solicitor, buyers can rest assured that the service is fully regulated, that
 insurance is in place, and that in the event that something goes wrong they have the right to
redress.

"Unfortunately, however, it is not always clear to consumers whether they are buying from a
regulated provider. As the LSB research shows, there are a number of unregulated providers
supplying the same legal services as solicitors and many buyers simply will not know that they
won't get the same level of protection from an unregulated provider if something goes wrong.

"This can be exacerbated if the unregulated provider calls themselves a lawyer, which is not a
protected title. We think that you should only be able to call yourself a lawyer if you are a
qualified legal practitioner. We are concerned that many consumers may not know the difference,
which can leave them exposed.

"If it is the case that consumers need regulatory protection, such protection should be
consistent across the market. If not, this can lead to unfair competition and a lack of
regulatory protection for some buyers who genuinely believe they will have rights of redress and
are insured in case something goes wrong.

"The expertise of solicitors comes from rigorous training. They work to professional standards,
are regulated, have insurance, and their clients have access to redress if services do not meet
the required high standard.

'There are obvious benefits in improved, consistent price and service transparency in advertising
 across all suppliers of legal services, whether regulated or unregulated. Solicitors are also
bound by a code of conduct which ensures they are transparent about pricing with a client before
beginning work.

"Sometimes, fixed pricing for less complex issues may be the best pricing solution. For many of
the more complex services that solicitors provide, such as family services, clients have more
complex needs and so the price of the service they receive will be determined by their individual
 circumstances and the type of advice they require.

"The profession has a great track record of innovation and creativity in a changing market.
Solicitors embrace new technology to meet the needs of clients, reduce costs and maintain their
competitive edge. This ability to adapt ensures the vibrancy and long term success of the legal
sector in the UK."
Read more here

​The young mothers trapped in a cycle of having babies removed

The number of newborns taken away by family courts has increased 2.5 times in five years. 

Often cases involve the same vulnerable women, yet they get little help to break the pattern of 

repeated proceedings.

“August 2010. June 2011. June 2012. April 2014.” Chloe reels off the birthdays of her sons. All four babies were removed from her care by children’s services at birth or soon after.

Aged just 16 when she had her first child, Chloe*, now 22, had been in local authority care since she was 11. She cannot count how many times she was moved in foster placements. Her sons were all fathered by the same violent man; he tried to kill her on one occasion, and controlled her so effectively she found it impossible to envisage a life on her own. Distraught after her first child was removed at a few months old, Chloe went back to her boyfriend. 

The abuse restarted and she was trapped.

It’s a pattern repeated frequently. But the state is failing to acknowledge or help the vulnerable women who are repeatedly traumatised by the loss of a child, often at a very young age, says Prof Karen Broadhurst, of Lancaster University. Broadhurst has recently released the latest set of findings from her population profiling study, funded by the Nuffield Foundation, that reveals the scale of women’s repeat involvement in public law care proceedings in England.

Analysis of cases involving 43,541 birth mothers and 85,452 children revealed that in five years the number of newborns removed increased two and a half times, from 802 babies in 2008 to 2,018 in 2013. And, in new information released to the Guardian, it showed that only one in 10 of those babies ever returned to its birth mother. This compares with all children in care proceedings, where about four in 10 end up in the care of the state.

So if a woman loses her baby at birth, the odds of being reunited are slim. 

If a mother is aged between 16 and 19 when she is first involved in care proceedings, 

she has a one in three chance of the state applying to remove a subsequent baby if she comes

 before the family court again

for more information click here 

Government announces £80m plan to tackle domestic abuse and violence

It has recently been announced that the Government has set aside £80m over the next four years to tackle domestic violence including frontline work including refuges and rape crisis centres.

As reported in the Children & Young People Now publication - that "close to 200,000 initial child protection assessments during 2014/15 involved domestic violence as an identifiable factor…In total 1.35 million women experienced domestic abuse in 2014/15."

The plan will be designed to encourage new approaches to tackle domestic violence, support victims and prevent perpetrators from reoffending.

The Home Secretary Theresa May has said that "As the true scale of these crimes is revealed we need to strengthen our work to change attitudes, improve prevention and where possible rehabilitate offenders to stop reoffending….And to ensure all victims get the right support at the right time, we will drive a real transformation of service provision, providing support to local commissioners so that all areas rise to the level of the best."

To read the full article please click here.

One to one help sessions for violent domestic abusers

In a bid to alter their behaviours, men who pose a high risk of domestic violence are to be given one-to-one support to promote change.

Known as ‘Drive’ the new programme will be piloted in Essex, Sussex and South Wales.

Ms Williams - a previous victim of such crimes - supports the initiative saying - “We’ve got to try and change the mindset of the perpetrator and hold them accountable for their actions.”

Although another woman who experienced a “hellish five-year marriage to an abusive man” argues that the Drive scheme would not work and that the money would be better spent on support for the victims, saying “ The majority - although not all - of serial perpetrators of domestic violence do it out of choice, not because they have a drug, alcohol, social or financial problems”.

The chief executive of Refuge - Sandra Horley seemed to agree and commented that there was “no evidence - here or abroad - that therapy programmes for violent partners work….on the face of it, it seems like a worthy thing to do.  In an ideal world we would approach it from both sides.  But we don’t live in an ideal world.”

The Drive programme will give individuals bespoke one-to-one sessions and it is expected that 900 offenders will be asked to take part in the scheme over the next three years.

To read the full article on this story covered by BBC News please click here.

Legal challenge lost for heterosexual couple who wanted a civil partnership rather than marriage

On the 29th January 2016, the BBC reported that Rebecca Steinfeld and Charles Keidan have had their claim dismissed by Justice Andrews.

Amongst other arguments against their claim, the government fought the point that now that gay couples are able to marry, civil partnerships might well be abolished or phased out in the future. I would however note at this point that it was said at an earlier heading, that the future of civil partnerships had not been decided - with the government waiting to see ‘how extending marriage to same -sex couples impacts upon civil partnerships before reaching a decision on the future of civil partnerships’.

Justice Andrews also concluded in her ruling that: ”opposite-sex couples are not disadvantaged by the hiatus, because they can achieve exactly the same recognition of their relationship and the same rights, benefits and protections by getting married, as they always could,"

After the ruling, Ms Steinfeld said the government was "barring us, and many thousands of opposite-sex couples like us, from the choice of forming a civil partnership".  Mr Keidan said "the fight goes on" and there was still a chance "for this wrong to be righted in time".

The right to an opposite-sex civil partnership?

The interesting case of Rebecca Steinfield and Charles Keidan will be heard this week, where they await to see if a High Court judge will allow them to form a civil partnership - much like the thousands of same-sex couples who have this union.

Steinfield argues that the 2004 Civil Partnership Act is discriminative, as a civil partnership is not open to “anybody and everybody regardless of sex or sexual orientation.”

Their claim is against the government’s equalities office.

Steinfield also draws upon the fact that staying as a cohabiting couple, they would lack the legal protections afforded to married couples and  particularly legal protections for women - who she argues can often be left in a more vulnerable position.

The pending decision could affect around three million heterosexual couples who live together outside wedlock and lawyers estimate that more than half a million of them could opt for a civil partnership if given the chance.

An online petition in favour of civil partnerships for opposite-sex couples has so far obtained over 33,000 signatures.

To read the full story in The Independent here.

Government changes law to make coercive control a criminal offence

From December 29th 2015, coercive or controlling domestic abuse will lead to a potential five-year prison term as The Guardian reports: ‘’The new legislation will enable the CPS to bring charges where there is evidence of repeated, or continuous, controlling or coercive behaviour within an intimate or family relationship.’’

The CPS has said : “This type of abuse in an intimate or family relationship can include a pattern of threats, humiliation and intimidation, or behaviour such as stopping a partner socialising, controlling their social media accounts, surveillance through apps and dictating what they wear. Controlling or coercive behaviour causes someone either: to fear that violence will be used against them on at least two occasions; or serious alarm or distress which has a substantial effect on their usual day-to-day activities.’’

This behaviour can include:
- Stopping or changing the way someone socialises
- Limiting access to family, friends and finances
- Monitoring a person via online communication tools e.g. tracking apps on mobile phones
- Repeatedly putting them down such as telling them they are worthless
- Humiliating and embarrassing the victim

As well as the CPS legal guidance, prosecutors will receive specialist training on the new legislation. This will form part of the CPS' extensive work on wider domestic abuse, including a charging advice checklist for police and prosecutors and an evidence-gathering checklist for officers on the ground - both jointly published by the police and the CPS.  To read more please click here.

Polly Neate, Chief Executive of Women's Aid, said:
"Coercive control is at the heart of domestic abuse. Perpetrators will usually start abusing their victim by limiting her personal freedoms, monitoring her every move, and stripping away her control of her life; physical violence often comes later. Women's Aid and other organisations campaigned to have this recognised in law, and we are thrilled that this has now happened. It is a landmark moment in the UK's approach to domestic abuse, and must be accompanied by comprehensive professional training and awareness raising among the public."

Here at Hopkins Law our specialist team are very experienced with domestic abuse cases and provide expert, reassuring and friendly legal advice whatever your circumstances.  Should you wish to discuss anything relating to these new changes and speak confidentially to a member of our domestic violence team, please call us on: 029 2039 5888