Darren Francis represented a husband in divorce and related financial matters upon the breakdown of his marriage. The main assets of the marriage included the former matrimonial home in the UK and property in the West Indies, the latter of which the husband argued he owned in his sole name due to inheriting the property some 30 years prior to the marriage. Proceedings were particularly fractious, with the wife asserting that the property in the West Indies was used as a family holiday home during the marriage and therefore was a matrimonial asset. At the final hearing, the Court found in the husband’s favour and deemed that the property in the West Indies was indeed a non-matrimonial asset and the wife had no legal or equitable interest in it. The Court ordered immediate sale of the former matrimonial home and the proceeds split so as to rehouse the parties.

The matter was further complicated by the wife’s continued refusal to vacate the former matrimonial home to effect sale. The wife was informed of the husband’s intention to issue enforcement proceedings under rule 9.24 of the Family Procedure Rules 2010, to request the Court to order that she give up possession of the property so that the sale may proceed. In light of this, the wife decided to comply with the original Final Order and the sale is now proceeding, much to the husband’s relief.

If you need help or advice with divorce and associated financial matters, please contact us to see if we can assist you.

Re A v B [2015] EWHC 1562 (Fam)

Philcox Gray represented a father of a child on a successful Defence of an application under the Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985 or Article 11 of Counsel Regulation (EC) 2201/2003.

Pauffley LJ gave guidance on what she had described as “an extraordinary dispute”. The mother is a West African national, living in Germany, the father an English national living in London with his wife who is a West African national. Due to significant medical difficulties, the father and wife were unable to conceive a child of their own. The child was conceived in February 2013. The arrangements for this and where the child would live after birth, having lived for four months in Germany, together with the identity of the main carer for the four months following birth, were fiercely contested.

Both parents had rights of custody, the mother under the German Civil Code; the father as a result of the child’s registration of birth in November 2013. The facts between the parties were significantly disputed. The mother’s case was that she would naturally conceive a child with a father who he would see regularly. The father’s case was that there had been an agreement that the child would live with him and his wife in England, seeing the mother during holidays.

Pauffley LJ considered the principles set out by Lady Hale in the Supreme Court in A v A & Another (Children: Habitual Residence) [2013] UKSC 60 and in Mercredi v. Chaffe (Case C-497/10) [2012] Fam 22.

Pauffley LJ determined that the wife did not relinquish her habitual residence when staying in Germany for 4 months to care for the child after birth because habitual residence may exist in a State which is the home of the family unit of which the infant is part, and where he would be but for force majeure.”

The integration was therefore ruled as being with the father and his wife and the intervention of the Convention for swift return could not be applied.

To read the full judgment click here: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2015/1562.html

An interesting article regarding the case can be found on the The Times Online website (subscription required to read in full): http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/law/article4467869.ece and also on the Daily Mail: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3120189/Husband-got-wife-s-approval-child-African-woman-usual-way-2-000-wins-right-bring-boy-UK.html

At the hearing, the father was represented by Andrew Norton and Marlene Cayoun of 1 Garden Court, instructed by Natasha Slabas, Solicitor at Philcox Gray.

If you need help or advice with any family matter, please contact us to see if we can assist you.

Philcox Gray represented a father of a young child on a successful appeal against a Care Order and Placement Order for adoption.

McFarlane LJ gave guidance on the correct approach to be taken to the threshold criteria by local authorities. Aikens’ LJ view was that this case exhibited many of the shortcomings highlighted by the President of the Family Division in the recent case of Re A (a child) [2015] EWFC 11. Aikens LJ provided a clear summary of the fundamental principles underpinning care cases and in particular adoption cases, including:

• In an adoption case, it is for the local authority to prove the facts on which it relies and, if adoption is ordered, to demonstrate that “nothing else will do”, when having regard to the overriding requirements of the child’s welfare;
• If the local authority’s case on a factual issue is challenged, the local authority must adduce proper evidence to establish the fact it seeks to prove;
• In attempting to establish that the threshold criteria have been met, the distinction between a fact and evidence alleged to prove a fact is fundamental and must be recognised;
• The local authority must prove that there is the necessary link between the facts upon which it relies and its case on Threshold;
• The State must not remove children from their parents’ care simply because facts are established of the parents ‘failings’, be it criminality, alcohol and drug abuse, mental illness or disability. The local authority must demonstrate, in the first instance, that a child has suffered or is at risk of suffering significant harm by reason of one or more of those facts.

The case will now be re-heard.

To read the full judgment click here: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2015/222.html

An interesting article regarding the case can be found on the Family Law Week website: http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed144503   

At the hearing, the father was represented by Daisy Hughes of 1 Garden Court, instructed by Sheila Donn, Partner at Philcox Gray. Sheila Donn was assisted by Darren Francis and Poppy Bourke.

If you need help or advice with any family matter, please contact us to see if we can assist you.

Isabelle Le Gentil represented a young mother within care proceedings.  The mother, who was herself a minor, and her baby had been placed in two mother and baby foster placements pre-proceedings. The placements broke down due to a number of reasons.  The mother had asked the local authority to be moved from the placement.  Mother had explained to the local authority the reasons why the previous foster placements had broken down but the local authority did not seem to accept her reasons and decided to issue care proceedings. The local authority however agreed to move the mother and her baby to another mother and baby foster placement.

The local authority did not issue care proceedings until two months after the mother and her baby moved to the new mother and baby foster placement.   By then it was clear that mother had engaged very well in the current mother and baby foster placement and both mother and baby were settled there.  Mother was happy to remain at the mother and baby foster placement.  The local authority were seeking additional assessments of mother; these were however opposed by both the mother and the children’s guardian.  In light of this, the local authority decided to withdraw their application for a Care Order.

If you need help or advice within a family matter, please contact us to see if we can assist you.

LONDON SOUTH BANK UNIVERSITY in partnership with Philcox Gray, Wainwright & Cummins, Anthony Gold and Hanne & Co

Drastic cuts to legal aid mean there is an ever increasing demand for free high quality social welfare law advice. So the innovative London South Bank University Legal Advice Clinic (LAC) is a vital new resource for the residents of one of London’s most deprived boroughs. What is innovative about the project is that it’s a drop-in face-to-face service. That’s great for clients who can get the advice they need immediately, and it’s great for students who are plunged straight into the advice process – always under the close supervision of university-employed solicitors or shadowing local solicitors at specialist evening advice sessions. Philcox Gray, the first firm to offer our services at the specialist evening sessions, are proud that our support for the project has been fundamental to its success.

The LAC operates out of dedicated premises on campus and is open during the University term-time. The current term runs 23^rd September – 10^th December 2014, and the daytime drop in opening times are:

•  Tuesdays 10am – 12 noon
•  Wednesdays 10am – 12 noon and 3pm – 5pm
•  Access to the evening sessions is via initial assessment at the daytime drop-in sessions

Sessions can get busy and the LAC cannot guarantee to see everybody, so you should arrive early to avoid disappointment.

The LAC’s free drop in service provides basic information on any legal topic and generalist advice on social welfare law matters (except immigration). Clients are signposted and referred to local advice agencies and legal services. In appropriate cases clients are referred for specialist legal advice on family, housing and employment matters at specialist evening sessions. These specialist sessions are staffed by local solicitors who are shadowed by law student volunteers.

The Clinic has had impressive results for clients (over 1200 since it opened in September 2011) and is an inspirational learning experience. One law student described her involvement with enthusiasm:

“No other legal experience I have done has given me this level of responsibility and client contact. Working at the clinic has really boosted my confidence.”

Alan Russell Senior Lecturer, Solicitor and Director of the Legal Advice Clinic asks if such projects can plug the gap left by the attack on access to justice in his article at http://l2b.thelawyer.com/home/opinion/cut-the-gap/3003937.article

The answer? Well – such services can help, and Philcox Gray, along with other local solicitors, are committed to the project’s future.

Clients can contact the LAC at:

London South Bank University

Legal Advice Clinic

Caxton House, 13-16 Borough Road

Southwark SE1 0AA

T : 020 7815 5450

E: legaladvice@lsbu.ac.uk

W:www.lsbu.ac.uk/legaladviceclinic

(Please note the LAC does not give advice by phone or email)

A new report commissioned by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) reveals the extent of abuse suffered by women at home, work, in public and online. As well as demonstrating the wide prevalence of violence against adult women, the report also details incidents of physical and sexual violence experienced by women in childhood. The FRA says that the survey shows that policy makers need to recognise the extent of violence against women, and ensure that responses meet the needs and rights of all victims of violence against women.

Over 42,000 women across the European Union, aged between 18-74, were interviewed for the survey. Women were asked about their experiences of physical, sexual and psychological violence, including domestic violence. Questions were also asked about incidents of stalking, sexual harassment, and the role played by new technologies in women’s experiences of abuse.

Some of the key findings show that:

• 33% of women have experienced physical and/or sexual violence since the age of 15;
• 22% have experienced physical and/or sexual violence by a partner;
• 43% have experienced some form of psychological violence by either a current or a previous partner, such as public humiliation, forbidding a woman to leave the house or locking her up, forcing her to watch pornography, and threats of violence.

The survey on which the report is based makes clear that a wide variety of groups need to take action to combat violence against women, including employers, health professionals and internet service providers. It highlights that the police and other relevant services should be trained to recognise and understand the impact of psychological abuse on victims to ensure all forms of violence against women (and girls) in varied settings are recognised, recorded and acted on.

Should you be experiencing domestic abuse of any kind, please contact us to see if we can assist you, including taking measures to afford you protection from the family courts.