Last updateTue, 24 Feb 2015 5pm

Family Law Journal: March 2015

Frank Prior considers whether Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 remains a relevant option

I suspect I will find you shivering with cold and peering out on a grey wintry landscape, so let me take you to the Spanish coastal town of Benidorm where we will meet the stars of our piece. The dramatis personae will need names so let’s call them, say, Mel and Madge.

Tracy Winstanley highlights how compulsory MIAMs are working in practice

Since 22 April 2014, as a consequence of s10, Children and Families Act 2014, if an applicant is considering making an application to court in relation to children or financial matters in relevant family proceedings, they firstly must attend a mediation information and assessment meeting (MIAM).

Alice Twaite looks at ‘hidden’ litigants in person and practical safeguards for parents facing removal of a child

Amid the cries of what to do about the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPOA 2012) created cohort of litigants in person in private family law proceedings, the decisions in Re DE [2014], Re D [2014] and Re D (No 2) [2015] have cast a spotlight on a group of more ‘hidden’ litigants in person in public children proceedings, whose position is if anything more pressing, with vulnerable parents facing removal of their child(ren), without automatic eligibility for legal aid, because their children have been living at home under a care order.

Camilla Thornton analyses recent decisions on maintenance and whether joint lives maintenance orders are facing extinction

There seems to have been a sea-change in recent years with the courts more reluctant to award joint lives orders in circumstances where historically they would have been granted. This is perhaps as a consequence of the economic difficulties since 2008 or because of the recommendation of the Law Commission in its paper ‘Matrimonial Property, Needs and Agreements’ (Law Com No 208) that (para 102):

Keystone Law

Zoe Bloom and Hed Amitai examine potential pitfalls for international families and protective measures including nuptial agreements

International mobility is now commonplace. The globalisation of business and common economic markets allows people from every income bracket to spend periods of their lives in several jurisdictions. This often results in families made up of individuals from different nationalities, with assets spread across the globe.

Withers LLP

Suzanne Kingston, Stacy Choong, Philippa Hewitt and Natalie O’Shea conclude their comparison of family law in England and Wales, Hong Kong and Singapore

The first part of this comparative article ('Same difference', FLJ143) considered the differences (and similarities) between England and Wales, Hong Kong and Singapore regarding financial provision and pre-nuptial agreements. This concluding part will look at cohabitation and approaches to children law, as well as setting out an overall comparison of the three jurisdictions in table form.