Repeal. Custody of Children. Divorce.

Repeal women's un-Lawful legal right to custody of children, and all un-Lawful legal divorce.

A woman bears children "for" the husband. Lawfully children are under the rule of the man.

3:16 Unto the woman He (God) said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow
and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy
desire [shall be subject] to thy husband, and HE (thy husband) SHALL
RULE OVER THEE. – Genesis.

Each case of divorce should be viewed individually and placement of children determined.

11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ;
and the head of the woman [is] the man; and the head of Christ [is]
God. – 1 Corinthians.

The only Lawful reason to divorce is fornication. Clearly stated in the Bible. Matthew 5:32.

5:32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife,
saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery:
and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery. –
Matthew.

HMG and Gov't world-wide claim to be based under God, yet reality proves this to be false.
Followers of Christ, who want to follow all The Law in The Torah, are not being allowed. At this time, there is not a place for judicial recourse for us, and we want a single court room.

Why is this idea important?

Repeal women's un-Lawful legal right to custody of children, and all un-Lawful legal divorce.

A woman bears children "for" the husband. Lawfully children are under the rule of the man.

3:16 Unto the woman He (God) said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow
and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy
desire [shall be subject] to thy husband, and HE (thy husband) SHALL
RULE OVER THEE. – Genesis.

Each case of divorce should be viewed individually and placement of children determined.

11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ;
and the head of the woman [is] the man; and the head of Christ [is]
God. – 1 Corinthians.

The only Lawful reason to divorce is fornication. Clearly stated in the Bible. Matthew 5:32.

5:32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife,
saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery:
and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery. –
Matthew.

HMG and Gov't world-wide claim to be based under God, yet reality proves this to be false.
Followers of Christ, who want to follow all The Law in The Torah, are not being allowed. At this time, there is not a place for judicial recourse for us, and we want a single court room.

review or repeal law on harrassment

i would like to see the law on harrassment repealed, or at least rviewed.I was convicted of this so called crime in 2006. The way this law stands at present, anybody can make an accusation,with little or no proof, and it is a virtual conviction. In my own case,Ihad protested to a neighbour about her 14 year old daughter, assaulting my 9 year old daughter,and I threatened to call the  Police. Several days later I was arrested and charged, with no evidence whatsoever,except for thier allegation against me.At the trial,again no evidence or witnesses were called against me , except for the mother and daughter, and their allegations. Ihave since spoken to another man,who was also convicted under similar circumstances.It seems ridiculous, that in this day and age,anybody can be forced into a criminal on the say so of another person with no proof whatsoever.  I would like to see the law at least changed so that the burden of proof is placed on the police and prosecution to prove a crime has been committed,and not just some petty act of revenge by some person who feels slighted, or an easy conviction for the police. Also the whole system of C.R.B. checks should be reviewed. It is my understanding that C.R.B. checks were originally brought in to stop sex offenders working with children,and not for someone working in a factory or warehouse.                        

 

Why is this idea important?

i would like to see the law on harrassment repealed, or at least rviewed.I was convicted of this so called crime in 2006. The way this law stands at present, anybody can make an accusation,with little or no proof, and it is a virtual conviction. In my own case,Ihad protested to a neighbour about her 14 year old daughter, assaulting my 9 year old daughter,and I threatened to call the  Police. Several days later I was arrested and charged, with no evidence whatsoever,except for thier allegation against me.At the trial,again no evidence or witnesses were called against me , except for the mother and daughter, and their allegations. Ihave since spoken to another man,who was also convicted under similar circumstances.It seems ridiculous, that in this day and age,anybody can be forced into a criminal on the say so of another person with no proof whatsoever.  I would like to see the law at least changed so that the burden of proof is placed on the police and prosecution to prove a crime has been committed,and not just some petty act of revenge by some person who feels slighted, or an easy conviction for the police. Also the whole system of C.R.B. checks should be reviewed. It is my understanding that C.R.B. checks were originally brought in to stop sex offenders working with children,and not for someone working in a factory or warehouse.                        

 

Family Law: reform needed for divorcing partners

Dear Nick

Having gone through a divorce lasting almost three years, which ended up with a Final Hearing, I think the time has come for a complete overhaul of the law in England and Wales.  The process is not only exceedingly expensive, in part as there is a conflict of interest, in as much as solicitors seem to have little interest in wrapping things up early, hence draining hard earned family resources (money as well as the time and anxiety of one or both parties), but also it lacks any sort of clarity.  For instance, and what stood out in particular for me, was that the law in E&W does not clarify what is and isn't counted as family assets.  Secondly, that after going to court the first time, and having agreed verbally with the judge on certain things, my opposite number changed her mind a week later, resulting in considerable delay and additional expense.  And thirdly, it seems that although it may be fair for the courts to make sure that the welfare and interests of children are given priority, it seems to me that this consideration comes only at the end of the process, after both sides have spent a small fortune on legal fees (money which is no longer available for the family), and the children, despite both sides trying their best to shield them from the process, bearing witness to both parents being put under huge amounts of stress and anxiety as things are dragged on.  I cannot help but contrast our laws in E&W with many other countries in Europe, and even just to look across the border to Scotland, where things are dealt with far more efficiently, and where the law makes it much clearer how divorcing parties should handle their affairs.  In Sweden (just one example), the family assets are split 50:50 in virtually all cases.  Such clarity makes the process both short and cost-eefective.  There is minimal loss of family resources and the strain on parents is minimised.  Changes in the Family Law in E&W are desperately needed but will meet huge resistance from the legal profession as they still see it as a significant part of their work and a big money spinner.  It is too late for me to benefit any changes in this law, but I appeal here for changes to be made as I am sure that it will be in the interests of many many families in the future.  I am also quite certain that it is also in the best interests of children to change family law so the process of divorce is less complicated, provides clarity of process, and so that divorce (in particular the process of splitting assets) is done with minimal of fuss and on a time scale that should take no longer than six months in all but the most complicated (or high value) of cases.

Why is this idea important?

Dear Nick

Having gone through a divorce lasting almost three years, which ended up with a Final Hearing, I think the time has come for a complete overhaul of the law in England and Wales.  The process is not only exceedingly expensive, in part as there is a conflict of interest, in as much as solicitors seem to have little interest in wrapping things up early, hence draining hard earned family resources (money as well as the time and anxiety of one or both parties), but also it lacks any sort of clarity.  For instance, and what stood out in particular for me, was that the law in E&W does not clarify what is and isn't counted as family assets.  Secondly, that after going to court the first time, and having agreed verbally with the judge on certain things, my opposite number changed her mind a week later, resulting in considerable delay and additional expense.  And thirdly, it seems that although it may be fair for the courts to make sure that the welfare and interests of children are given priority, it seems to me that this consideration comes only at the end of the process, after both sides have spent a small fortune on legal fees (money which is no longer available for the family), and the children, despite both sides trying their best to shield them from the process, bearing witness to both parents being put under huge amounts of stress and anxiety as things are dragged on.  I cannot help but contrast our laws in E&W with many other countries in Europe, and even just to look across the border to Scotland, where things are dealt with far more efficiently, and where the law makes it much clearer how divorcing parties should handle their affairs.  In Sweden (just one example), the family assets are split 50:50 in virtually all cases.  Such clarity makes the process both short and cost-eefective.  There is minimal loss of family resources and the strain on parents is minimised.  Changes in the Family Law in E&W are desperately needed but will meet huge resistance from the legal profession as they still see it as a significant part of their work and a big money spinner.  It is too late for me to benefit any changes in this law, but I appeal here for changes to be made as I am sure that it will be in the interests of many many families in the future.  I am also quite certain that it is also in the best interests of children to change family law so the process of divorce is less complicated, provides clarity of process, and so that divorce (in particular the process of splitting assets) is done with minimal of fuss and on a time scale that should take no longer than six months in all but the most complicated (or high value) of cases.

Repeal of Sections 11-17 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Services Act 2000 and Section 7 of the Childrens Act 1989: abolition of CAFCASS.

 

"I can hardly read the literature on Family Law without simultaneous feelings of an awful sadness and profound rage. Sadness at what has been done to our children and their families and deep rage for our Family Courts and the inadequate practitioners that work within it."
Sir Bob Geldhof, Forward to the Custody Minefield Report Report,  "Relocation and Leave to Remove", December 2009.
 
Many of these inadequate practitioners work for The Children and Family Court Advisory and Supervisory Service (CAFCASS). CAFCASS was established under Sections 11-17 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Services Act 2000. In private law they mainly provide reports under Section 7 of the Children's Act 1989, the welfare report. CAFCASS also took over the role of the Official Solicitor in representing children party to proceedings, as Legal Guardians, in mainly public and in some private law cases.
 
In private law, it is time to give up on Section 7 of the Children’s Act 1989 and abolish CAFCASS along with it. In private law proceedings, if there are matters raised which are sufficiently serious to warrant a welfare investigation, the case should be moved to public law with the local authority to carry out the investigation. The welfare investigation should then be made to the timescales and standards of a S.47 and Core Assessment (35 days). As an alternative, independent experts could be jointly instructed and paid for by parties or, when appropriate, through Legal Aid. It is a measure of the inadequacy of CAFCASS that in the vast majority of cases it would work out cheaper to pay £2,000 for a reliable report in four weeks than wait six to nine months for CAFCASS to produce an inadequate one. 
 
In public law, children would be better represented by people who know and understand them and can express their views, preferably drawn from their wider family or community and if necessary from the voluntary sector. It does not require the inadequate practitioners from a state service.  
 
There is no need for CAFCASS at all. 

Why is this idea important?

 

"I can hardly read the literature on Family Law without simultaneous feelings of an awful sadness and profound rage. Sadness at what has been done to our children and their families and deep rage for our Family Courts and the inadequate practitioners that work within it."
Sir Bob Geldhof, Forward to the Custody Minefield Report Report,  "Relocation and Leave to Remove", December 2009.
 
Many of these inadequate practitioners work for The Children and Family Court Advisory and Supervisory Service (CAFCASS). CAFCASS was established under Sections 11-17 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Services Act 2000. In private law they mainly provide reports under Section 7 of the Children's Act 1989, the welfare report. CAFCASS also took over the role of the Official Solicitor in representing children party to proceedings, as Legal Guardians, in mainly public and in some private law cases.
 
In private law, it is time to give up on Section 7 of the Children’s Act 1989 and abolish CAFCASS along with it. In private law proceedings, if there are matters raised which are sufficiently serious to warrant a welfare investigation, the case should be moved to public law with the local authority to carry out the investigation. The welfare investigation should then be made to the timescales and standards of a S.47 and Core Assessment (35 days). As an alternative, independent experts could be jointly instructed and paid for by parties or, when appropriate, through Legal Aid. It is a measure of the inadequacy of CAFCASS that in the vast majority of cases it would work out cheaper to pay £2,000 for a reliable report in four weeks than wait six to nine months for CAFCASS to produce an inadequate one. 
 
In public law, children would be better represented by people who know and understand them and can express their views, preferably drawn from their wider family or community and if necessary from the voluntary sector. It does not require the inadequate practitioners from a state service.  
 
There is no need for CAFCASS at all. 

Family Values, Children and Government Expenditure

There are laws all over the place that easily rip apart families – husband & wife, and/or children and their parents. These laws have pointedly taken away proper childhood from most children in the UK. The consequences of improper childhood, single parenthood and broken homes are very obvious in the society. A disoriented child may become a liability to the general society in terms of crime potentials. Tax payers' money go into fighting these crimes and still provide support for such individuals in form of benefits. Single parenthood is becoming a thriving enterprise in the economy because the govenments (both local and central) fund it!

All legislations that encourage single parenthood and/or easy disolution of marriages sholud be abolished in the interest of proper childhood. Government should stop financing single parents in the name of benefits. Restore family values and make fathers and mothers responsible for the up-keep of their household! UK was built on positive human values that are now getting eroded by legislation. 

Why is this idea important?

There are laws all over the place that easily rip apart families – husband & wife, and/or children and their parents. These laws have pointedly taken away proper childhood from most children in the UK. The consequences of improper childhood, single parenthood and broken homes are very obvious in the society. A disoriented child may become a liability to the general society in terms of crime potentials. Tax payers' money go into fighting these crimes and still provide support for such individuals in form of benefits. Single parenthood is becoming a thriving enterprise in the economy because the govenments (both local and central) fund it!

All legislations that encourage single parenthood and/or easy disolution of marriages sholud be abolished in the interest of proper childhood. Government should stop financing single parents in the name of benefits. Restore family values and make fathers and mothers responsible for the up-keep of their household! UK was built on positive human values that are now getting eroded by legislation. 

replace unfair dismissal laws with an automatic severance entitlement

Divorce is no fault. So should employment terminations be. The statutorily 'fair' reasons for dismissal are invariably excuses to justify the breakdown in a relationship with a measure of fault on both sides but more importantly a recogniition that it has become impossible for whatever reason for two people to carry on working together.

At the very least, employees should be entitled to contract out of their statutory employment rights more easily where they instread contract in to a generous severance scheme.

Why is this idea important?

Divorce is no fault. So should employment terminations be. The statutorily 'fair' reasons for dismissal are invariably excuses to justify the breakdown in a relationship with a measure of fault on both sides but more importantly a recogniition that it has become impossible for whatever reason for two people to carry on working together.

At the very least, employees should be entitled to contract out of their statutory employment rights more easily where they instread contract in to a generous severance scheme.

Financial Help for Victims of Proven Domestic Violence

People in violent relationships tend to financially penalised if they secure a conviction against the violent partner – this strategy aims to counteract that.

The Social Invention:
Most instances of domestic violence are those where the male is violent towards the female. It is also the case that where the male is the main financial contributor then removing him from the scene can leave the woman and her children (if there are any) financially vulnerable and in many cases, in dire straights.

There should be a requirement in cases of domestic violence that the court is given the full details of the financial circumstances of the family. The objective should be that where a conviction is secured the victim of the abuse is in no worse situation financially.
This may mean seizing assets or paying the victims out of the public purse – money that would have to be refunded by the abuser.  Legal Aid should also be an automatic right for the Victim in matters of divorce and ancillary arrangements – particularly when the Offender is in receipt of full legal aid for the same matter!! 

Why is this idea important?

People in violent relationships tend to financially penalised if they secure a conviction against the violent partner – this strategy aims to counteract that.

The Social Invention:
Most instances of domestic violence are those where the male is violent towards the female. It is also the case that where the male is the main financial contributor then removing him from the scene can leave the woman and her children (if there are any) financially vulnerable and in many cases, in dire straights.

There should be a requirement in cases of domestic violence that the court is given the full details of the financial circumstances of the family. The objective should be that where a conviction is secured the victim of the abuse is in no worse situation financially.
This may mean seizing assets or paying the victims out of the public purse – money that would have to be refunded by the abuser.  Legal Aid should also be an automatic right for the Victim in matters of divorce and ancillary arrangements – particularly when the Offender is in receipt of full legal aid for the same matter!! 

Scrap the two years required for divorce by consent

Section 1(2)(d) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 traps honest people in dead marriages. 

When the Matrimonial Causes Act was passed in 1973 it was hoped most divorces would happen  because "the parties to the marriage have lived apart for a continuous period of at least two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition (hereafter in this Act referred to as “two years’ separation”) and the respondent consents to a decree being granted".  This is called a Section 1(2)(d) petition.

In practice this has not been the case.  Most divorces come about for other reasons, such as adultery.  With a very few exceptions these divorces are a lot quicker than those conducted under the two years consent procedure.  

After 37 years the time has come to amend that provision in a way that will increase one of the most basic civil rights.  Section 1(2)(d) by removing "at least" and inserting at the same place "no more than".  Consequently the petitioners could argue after a shorter period that it was time to grant their petition.  A Family Division judge could deny this if issues such as the fate of the property and children had not been properly established.  But for many childless and couples in particular it would give them the freedom to move on.

 

Why is this idea important?

Section 1(2)(d) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 traps honest people in dead marriages. 

When the Matrimonial Causes Act was passed in 1973 it was hoped most divorces would happen  because "the parties to the marriage have lived apart for a continuous period of at least two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition (hereafter in this Act referred to as “two years’ separation”) and the respondent consents to a decree being granted".  This is called a Section 1(2)(d) petition.

In practice this has not been the case.  Most divorces come about for other reasons, such as adultery.  With a very few exceptions these divorces are a lot quicker than those conducted under the two years consent procedure.  

After 37 years the time has come to amend that provision in a way that will increase one of the most basic civil rights.  Section 1(2)(d) by removing "at least" and inserting at the same place "no more than".  Consequently the petitioners could argue after a shorter period that it was time to grant their petition.  A Family Division judge could deny this if issues such as the fate of the property and children had not been properly established.  But for many childless and couples in particular it would give them the freedom to move on.

 

Family Court and Divorce

Limit the number of appeals forced by an aggressive spouse.  Limit the costs that Solicitors can receive, private funding too, to a maximum of £ 15,000.

Stop innumerable Directions hearings that merely postpone rather than achieve a result but all cost up to £1,000 each to the paying party, costs to the Court Service too are incurred.

Revise and simplify the Court Service for Divorce, make most of it a paper exercise with impartial, separate interview of each party followed by adjudication. If one party fails to provide the details in a timely fashion they should be penalised.  Make Tax / Benefit  and bank  information  available to the Court directly from the Tax/ Benefit office and banks.

Currently if  parties are supposed to provide information before a hearing, and they fail to do so,  they should not  be heard.  Judges just allow the rules to be flouted and the law abiding suffer.

Why is this idea important?

Limit the number of appeals forced by an aggressive spouse.  Limit the costs that Solicitors can receive, private funding too, to a maximum of £ 15,000.

Stop innumerable Directions hearings that merely postpone rather than achieve a result but all cost up to £1,000 each to the paying party, costs to the Court Service too are incurred.

Revise and simplify the Court Service for Divorce, make most of it a paper exercise with impartial, separate interview of each party followed by adjudication. If one party fails to provide the details in a timely fashion they should be penalised.  Make Tax / Benefit  and bank  information  available to the Court directly from the Tax/ Benefit office and banks.

Currently if  parties are supposed to provide information before a hearing, and they fail to do so,  they should not  be heard.  Judges just allow the rules to be flouted and the law abiding suffer.

Simple Marriage Reform Act

Civil marriage as it is currently, is too rigid, too prescriptive and too Christian. In its place we should introduce a far more flexible structure which allows easier divorce with less emotional, legal and financial pain and allows any agreeable financial arangement between a man and a woman that works for them.

The essential value of a marriage contract is that it is an explicit, witnessed agreement by a woman to have sexual relations only with one man. In this way any resulting children and financial obligations which go along with them are clearly the responsibility of that man and not another.

If marriage is defined legally in this way, then divorce can be made similarly easy. This commitment by a woman can be made in exchange for a consideration in the form of a financial commitment or payment by the man which is entirely negotiable. As such this is a simple exchange – quid pro quo.

If either party wants to end the marriage they must at most free the other party from their commitment. In the case of the man, that is simply to let the woman be free to find another man. In the case of the woman wanting to break the marriage at most she must simply release the man from his financial commitment by perhaps returning the money he originally paid.

A divorce should take the form of notice being given and then only coming into effect after 3 months, to give the parties enough time to see if the woman is pregnant and be sure who the father is and also enough time to reconsider their course of action.

Last but not least once marriage can be made this flexible and easy to enter and leave, the rules on what constitutes "mutual consent" can be improved.

Instead of the law requiring that a woman has to prove her lack of consent to have sex when she is raped, the mere fact that she has not entered into a simple marriage contract could be used to show she did not consent to have sex. The burden of proof in such cases would then shift to the man to prove that the woman had indeed consented.

Mutual consent to sexual relations is therefore by default missing unless proven otherwise by for example producing a written and witnessed consent agreement (i.e.a simple marraige contract).

This will provide a great protection to vulnerable people who feel pressured and unable to resist sexually aggressive people.

Why is this idea important?

Civil marriage as it is currently, is too rigid, too prescriptive and too Christian. In its place we should introduce a far more flexible structure which allows easier divorce with less emotional, legal and financial pain and allows any agreeable financial arangement between a man and a woman that works for them.

The essential value of a marriage contract is that it is an explicit, witnessed agreement by a woman to have sexual relations only with one man. In this way any resulting children and financial obligations which go along with them are clearly the responsibility of that man and not another.

If marriage is defined legally in this way, then divorce can be made similarly easy. This commitment by a woman can be made in exchange for a consideration in the form of a financial commitment or payment by the man which is entirely negotiable. As such this is a simple exchange – quid pro quo.

If either party wants to end the marriage they must at most free the other party from their commitment. In the case of the man, that is simply to let the woman be free to find another man. In the case of the woman wanting to break the marriage at most she must simply release the man from his financial commitment by perhaps returning the money he originally paid.

A divorce should take the form of notice being given and then only coming into effect after 3 months, to give the parties enough time to see if the woman is pregnant and be sure who the father is and also enough time to reconsider their course of action.

Last but not least once marriage can be made this flexible and easy to enter and leave, the rules on what constitutes "mutual consent" can be improved.

Instead of the law requiring that a woman has to prove her lack of consent to have sex when she is raped, the mere fact that she has not entered into a simple marriage contract could be used to show she did not consent to have sex. The burden of proof in such cases would then shift to the man to prove that the woman had indeed consented.

Mutual consent to sexual relations is therefore by default missing unless proven otherwise by for example producing a written and witnessed consent agreement (i.e.a simple marraige contract).

This will provide a great protection to vulnerable people who feel pressured and unable to resist sexually aggressive people.

Child Maintenance

As someone who has been through divorce, with a young child involved, I was dismayed that solicitors adopt an approach that assumes that the mother is the child's first choice for residency. Unless you wish (as the father) to go through a lengthly and costly court process the father generally ends up having the child every weekend and one night during the week (3 nights out of seven). The mother will not allow the child to stay at the father's home more than three nights as it will give up her right to receive child maintenance money.

Why is this idea important?

As someone who has been through divorce, with a young child involved, I was dismayed that solicitors adopt an approach that assumes that the mother is the child's first choice for residency. Unless you wish (as the father) to go through a lengthly and costly court process the father generally ends up having the child every weekend and one night during the week (3 nights out of seven). The mother will not allow the child to stay at the father's home more than three nights as it will give up her right to receive child maintenance money.

replace the adversarial Family Court process

Adversarial combat is an inappropriate methodology for deciding the fate of children who are the victims of family break-up. Get rid of the Family Courts and the supporting infrastructure. Replace it with a system that asserts equality between the parents and endeavours to find a win-win-win solution for the parents and the children.

Why is this idea important?

Adversarial combat is an inappropriate methodology for deciding the fate of children who are the victims of family break-up. Get rid of the Family Courts and the supporting infrastructure. Replace it with a system that asserts equality between the parents and endeavours to find a win-win-win solution for the parents and the children.

Change the law on partners rights on pension after divorce

My proposal is to change the law on when couples get divorced they are entitled to half the pension of their partner. I find this law very unfair. Is it not enough that property and other assets are divided. The pensions should be left alone. Nowadays there are alot of divorces and people do not take their vows seriously. The pension is a security for old age, please Nick Clegg I know you are a fare person, please do change this law. Thank you.

Why is this idea important?

My proposal is to change the law on when couples get divorced they are entitled to half the pension of their partner. I find this law very unfair. Is it not enough that property and other assets are divided. The pensions should be left alone. Nowadays there are alot of divorces and people do not take their vows seriously. The pension is a security for old age, please Nick Clegg I know you are a fare person, please do change this law. Thank you.

Simplify divorce and family law

Take the uncertainty out of divorce and family law by introducing simple rules for the division of property upon divorce.

At present a handful of judges make up the law 'on the hoof' to fit in with their own prejudices.  Amongst other things this means that the law under which you get married may not be the law under which you get divorced.  This is against all natural justice.  Allow couples to enter binding pre-nuptual agreements or to accept simple rules for the division of property on divorce and stop the madness of the family courts.

Have clear and irrefutable laws that give children the right to an equal relationship with both parents as a starting point, upon the breakup of a marriage.

Why is this idea important?

Take the uncertainty out of divorce and family law by introducing simple rules for the division of property upon divorce.

At present a handful of judges make up the law 'on the hoof' to fit in with their own prejudices.  Amongst other things this means that the law under which you get married may not be the law under which you get divorced.  This is against all natural justice.  Allow couples to enter binding pre-nuptual agreements or to accept simple rules for the division of property on divorce and stop the madness of the family courts.

Have clear and irrefutable laws that give children the right to an equal relationship with both parents as a starting point, upon the breakup of a marriage.

right of married partners to support each other.

It appears that the Equalities Act removed the duty  of a husband to financillay support his wife in law.  I am not a lawyer but I am in a relationship where this has been verbally and practically used against me.

I do not wish to divorce as I love my husband and want to keep the children together.  The law however will provide for divorcing partners to have their reasonable needs met as the resources allow but it appears that wiithin a marriage however there is no protection for the parties now if one wishes to exploit the other i.e. sell or give away assets,  refuse to meet health needs of non working partner., refuse to meet educational needs of children ….. 

If the government is serious about supporting marriage then they should look at how they can ensure that people within this institution are treated as fairly as people outside it. 

 

 

Why is this idea important?

It appears that the Equalities Act removed the duty  of a husband to financillay support his wife in law.  I am not a lawyer but I am in a relationship where this has been verbally and practically used against me.

I do not wish to divorce as I love my husband and want to keep the children together.  The law however will provide for divorcing partners to have their reasonable needs met as the resources allow but it appears that wiithin a marriage however there is no protection for the parties now if one wishes to exploit the other i.e. sell or give away assets,  refuse to meet health needs of non working partner., refuse to meet educational needs of children ….. 

If the government is serious about supporting marriage then they should look at how they can ensure that people within this institution are treated as fairly as people outside it. 

 

 

Remove the financial incentive for breaking up families

In our secular society there is no expectation on women to make the relationship with the father of her children work.

On the other hand there are huge financial incentives for a woman to break up her family.

  1. Unless there are singular circumstances, women get custody of the children. For each child of a different father this brings 15% of each of the father's net salary. If the woman has two or more children by a man, then she is entitled to 25% of the father's net salary.
  2. The woman may encourge the attention of another man, because she will gain financially from the money from the father of her children,but also the money from her new man.(This is likely to make the father of her children angry and support her aspirations for more money.)

The woman additionallly received child benefit and usually tax credits. Being a mother is a nice litle earner!!

These are huge financial incentives to break up a family and these benefits are spelt out by the Citizens' Advice Bureau and Relate.

The justification is that "the child's needs must come first", but these arrangements are purely for the benefit of the mother. I have seen my children put into the hands of selfish men who have not a care for my children.

Recommendations

  1. There should be a presumtion that children will spend half their time with their father and their mother and there must be a very strong reason why this is not the outcome.
  2. Women should only receive funding from the father when the mother has been granted more than half of the care of the child.
  3. If a mother co-habits with another man then the woman should not be entitled to payments from the father(s)

The outcome of these recommendations would be as follows.

Women would think carefully before they put their personal wants before the needs of their children.

It would mean that orgasnisations, like Relate would begin to focus on repairing relationships, rather than offering the woman the financial incentives of breaking up their families.

The needs of children would actually be put first and the financial aspirations of selfish women would be the secondary consideration.

Why is this idea important?

In our secular society there is no expectation on women to make the relationship with the father of her children work.

On the other hand there are huge financial incentives for a woman to break up her family.

  1. Unless there are singular circumstances, women get custody of the children. For each child of a different father this brings 15% of each of the father's net salary. If the woman has two or more children by a man, then she is entitled to 25% of the father's net salary.
  2. The woman may encourge the attention of another man, because she will gain financially from the money from the father of her children,but also the money from her new man.(This is likely to make the father of her children angry and support her aspirations for more money.)

The woman additionallly received child benefit and usually tax credits. Being a mother is a nice litle earner!!

These are huge financial incentives to break up a family and these benefits are spelt out by the Citizens' Advice Bureau and Relate.

The justification is that "the child's needs must come first", but these arrangements are purely for the benefit of the mother. I have seen my children put into the hands of selfish men who have not a care for my children.

Recommendations

  1. There should be a presumtion that children will spend half their time with their father and their mother and there must be a very strong reason why this is not the outcome.
  2. Women should only receive funding from the father when the mother has been granted more than half of the care of the child.
  3. If a mother co-habits with another man then the woman should not be entitled to payments from the father(s)

The outcome of these recommendations would be as follows.

Women would think carefully before they put their personal wants before the needs of their children.

It would mean that orgasnisations, like Relate would begin to focus on repairing relationships, rather than offering the woman the financial incentives of breaking up their families.

The needs of children would actually be put first and the financial aspirations of selfish women would be the secondary consideration.

Racing to the wrong divorce courts in Europe: Brussels II

The Brussels II regulation had the aim of helping couples from different parts of Europe cope with divorce. Unfortunately the way it was drafted meant that instead of finding the most appropriate forum for divorce, where the couple lived, owned property, raised children, the partner who got to a court in Europe first could hold the other to ransom by dragging them through inappropriate court proceedings at great expense in foreign courts.

This regulation has caused considerable hardship for couples. The weaker, poorer partner, usually the wife, is put under great strain before she can get proper relief in a court which is best suited to hear the case.

The regulation must be revised or the UK should withdraw from its regime.

Why is this idea important?

The Brussels II regulation had the aim of helping couples from different parts of Europe cope with divorce. Unfortunately the way it was drafted meant that instead of finding the most appropriate forum for divorce, where the couple lived, owned property, raised children, the partner who got to a court in Europe first could hold the other to ransom by dragging them through inappropriate court proceedings at great expense in foreign courts.

This regulation has caused considerable hardship for couples. The weaker, poorer partner, usually the wife, is put under great strain before she can get proper relief in a court which is best suited to hear the case.

The regulation must be revised or the UK should withdraw from its regime.

equal parenting

The law which allows a woman to leave the marital home for no good reason, taking the child or children with her and refusing the father contact should be abolished.

It is an anti-social law and grossly unfair contributing to broken families. Children deprived of their loving father lose a valuable contribution to their lives, do not usually do so well at school and grow up with an unbalanced view of life. Responsibility of a child's upbringing should be shared equally as is the law in other countries.

Put this right now !.

Why is this idea important?

The law which allows a woman to leave the marital home for no good reason, taking the child or children with her and refusing the father contact should be abolished.

It is an anti-social law and grossly unfair contributing to broken families. Children deprived of their loving father lose a valuable contribution to their lives, do not usually do so well at school and grow up with an unbalanced view of life. Responsibility of a child's upbringing should be shared equally as is the law in other countries.

Put this right now !.

Revoke Sarah’s Law, The Children’s Act (2004) et al

Much of the rhetoric governing all things child abuse evolves from roots borne out of the Feminist movement of the 1960's.  As a result, it is almost impossible to effectively challenge any degree of thinking that contradicts or conflicts with what is stated as a given today.  For example, in the climate of fear which now exists if a child is murdered, the instant national hysteria that erupts is fuelled not by a media clamouring for something newsworthy but largely by those who claim to be 'campaigners' for children's rights/issues.

The list includes the NSPCC, Barnado's, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (most notably Professor Sir Roy Meadow and Professor David Southall), and the children's charity set up by Michele Elliott, Kidscape, as well as several other individuals – including Esther Rantzen and Sara Payne.  Together, we are informed by them that child abuse or child death is akin to a nightmare being visited upon us all and one from which there is no escape.  Collectively, we shirk back in fear, because the words come from credible sources.  So we dare not challenge them.

Over the past 20-30 years, these once respected organisations, along with some of the newer ones, have been in receipt of ever-growing state funding, (actual amounts to be found  in accounts submitted to the Charities Commission on an annual basis) and this is overlooked on the basis that children are being protected.  But what are children being protected from?  And why are they being protected?  What is this danger that now exists?  What happened a generation ago that seemingly eradicated common-sense and replaced it with a mindset that now wishes to submit Society to evermore stringent requirements, so much so that no-one can be seen to be innocent, without first be able to prove it?  Of equal importance, is that as state funding increases, these organisations and individuals have become evermore duplicitious given that any independence they once enjoyed has been so compromised.

Child abuse is real.  For those of us who know what it feels like, there is no doubt that it influences our lives.  But so what?  There are many, many people, children included, who have experienced far worse, such as the death of a parent, or no parents, yet scant if any attention is afforded them.  Instead, we substitute reason with an alarmist modus operandi bordering on vigilantiism at times – for the sake of 50 – 200 children a year who die at the hands of adults, depending on the accuracy of figures used.

It is this lack of perspective that gives rise to laws that never should have come into being; such as the Children's Act of 1989, given Royal Assent in 2004, and later, Sarah's Law, indirectly as a result of the death of Sarah Payne.  What is not acknowledged is that there is no law which ever could prevent all child deaths, any more than murder can be prevented, or rape can be, or that drug addiction can be fully eradicated.  Yet we allow ourselves to be collectively misled by those who suggest that 'if only' we adopted 'this law' or 'that criminal check', then such pain could be avoided.  It cannot – and it is dangerous to suggest otherwise.  The best any of us can hope to achieve is to perhaps ameliorate the level of child abuse but we cannot and never will eradicate it, and nor should we seek to do so as it is this wrongful degree of emphasis that gives rise to the fear of paedophilia that we see today.  There should be a level of acceptance that at some point that acknowledges our limits and abilities, and it is because we do not have such limits that we then have expectations that cannot be fulfilled.

What if many of the laws and checks now in place actually contribute to a rise in children being harmed?  What if, in their constant competition to win public support, bodies such as the NSPCC and Barnado's have gone too far with 'raising people's awareness'?  That instead of gently letting the population know they are there should people require their support, they realised that they were being left behind when a more aggressive stance was adopted by some, such as Esther Rantzen and Michele Elliott?  Who, between them have succeeded in raising people's awareness so acutely that most adults are terrified, lest they step out of line by doing something as innocuous as taking a photograph of their children in a park for example.  This is not raising awareness, it may have been once, twenty-five years ago but it has morphed into a zealousness bordering on obsession. 

We are encouraged to teach our children that we – that they must not discriminate.  We do this in part, because of the growing numbers of immigrants within our population and we do not want to be seen to be intolerant of them.  Yet those who teach such rhetoric fail on two counts.  They first do not understand what the original problem is, if any and secondly, make pronouncements based upon biased thinking.  Long before it became 'illegal' to discriminate, we all got along pretty nicely.  The English hated the Irish and the Scots and the Welsh for one reason or another and the Irish, Scots and Welsh all hated the English.  It worked quite well for hundreds of years, until we are told, that it is a criminal offence to say that we hated one or the other.

The result is that children are now not taught how to discriminate because it is seen as a 'dirty' word.  One consequence is that children are now collectively so immature that their age of maturity has been reduced by two years in the past 20 years.  This does little to prepare them for the world.  It may also give some insight as to why so many children seem to lose sight of all reason when on the internet – that because they do not discriminate, they no longer know how to in order to retain a basic level of safety.

Yet human survival is based upon an ability to distinguish between friend and foe.

To all the child abuse agencies and 'do-gooders' who want to 'help' – if the intent is genuine, it can best be achieved by leaving 'us' alone and instead focussing on that which hurts children most, for it is not child abuse, it is children's parents marriages breaking up or not having parents (i.e. mother and father) at all – this is far more devastating than any abuse and has far greater repercussions in later life.  Although it is widely known, this cultural shift over the last 30 years is rarely focussed on, for there are many more people who would then be 'guilty' of harming their children in this way than abuse by a paedophile ever could be.

An abuser may sometimes victimise children but it is the agencies and charities who ensure that children remain as victims.  Nasty things sometimes happen to some people, but victims do have a choice.  We can acknowledge (if not fully accept) what happens or we can fight it.  If we accept it, this leads to understanding and insight, sometimes forgiveness – but what is not forgiveable is those who tell us that it is acceptable to remain as victims. 

Even a paedophile does not leave this kind of stigma on those who have been abused.

Why is this idea important?

Much of the rhetoric governing all things child abuse evolves from roots borne out of the Feminist movement of the 1960's.  As a result, it is almost impossible to effectively challenge any degree of thinking that contradicts or conflicts with what is stated as a given today.  For example, in the climate of fear which now exists if a child is murdered, the instant national hysteria that erupts is fuelled not by a media clamouring for something newsworthy but largely by those who claim to be 'campaigners' for children's rights/issues.

The list includes the NSPCC, Barnado's, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (most notably Professor Sir Roy Meadow and Professor David Southall), and the children's charity set up by Michele Elliott, Kidscape, as well as several other individuals – including Esther Rantzen and Sara Payne.  Together, we are informed by them that child abuse or child death is akin to a nightmare being visited upon us all and one from which there is no escape.  Collectively, we shirk back in fear, because the words come from credible sources.  So we dare not challenge them.

Over the past 20-30 years, these once respected organisations, along with some of the newer ones, have been in receipt of ever-growing state funding, (actual amounts to be found  in accounts submitted to the Charities Commission on an annual basis) and this is overlooked on the basis that children are being protected.  But what are children being protected from?  And why are they being protected?  What is this danger that now exists?  What happened a generation ago that seemingly eradicated common-sense and replaced it with a mindset that now wishes to submit Society to evermore stringent requirements, so much so that no-one can be seen to be innocent, without first be able to prove it?  Of equal importance, is that as state funding increases, these organisations and individuals have become evermore duplicitious given that any independence they once enjoyed has been so compromised.

Child abuse is real.  For those of us who know what it feels like, there is no doubt that it influences our lives.  But so what?  There are many, many people, children included, who have experienced far worse, such as the death of a parent, or no parents, yet scant if any attention is afforded them.  Instead, we substitute reason with an alarmist modus operandi bordering on vigilantiism at times – for the sake of 50 – 200 children a year who die at the hands of adults, depending on the accuracy of figures used.

It is this lack of perspective that gives rise to laws that never should have come into being; such as the Children's Act of 1989, given Royal Assent in 2004, and later, Sarah's Law, indirectly as a result of the death of Sarah Payne.  What is not acknowledged is that there is no law which ever could prevent all child deaths, any more than murder can be prevented, or rape can be, or that drug addiction can be fully eradicated.  Yet we allow ourselves to be collectively misled by those who suggest that 'if only' we adopted 'this law' or 'that criminal check', then such pain could be avoided.  It cannot – and it is dangerous to suggest otherwise.  The best any of us can hope to achieve is to perhaps ameliorate the level of child abuse but we cannot and never will eradicate it, and nor should we seek to do so as it is this wrongful degree of emphasis that gives rise to the fear of paedophilia that we see today.  There should be a level of acceptance that at some point that acknowledges our limits and abilities, and it is because we do not have such limits that we then have expectations that cannot be fulfilled.

What if many of the laws and checks now in place actually contribute to a rise in children being harmed?  What if, in their constant competition to win public support, bodies such as the NSPCC and Barnado's have gone too far with 'raising people's awareness'?  That instead of gently letting the population know they are there should people require their support, they realised that they were being left behind when a more aggressive stance was adopted by some, such as Esther Rantzen and Michele Elliott?  Who, between them have succeeded in raising people's awareness so acutely that most adults are terrified, lest they step out of line by doing something as innocuous as taking a photograph of their children in a park for example.  This is not raising awareness, it may have been once, twenty-five years ago but it has morphed into a zealousness bordering on obsession. 

We are encouraged to teach our children that we – that they must not discriminate.  We do this in part, because of the growing numbers of immigrants within our population and we do not want to be seen to be intolerant of them.  Yet those who teach such rhetoric fail on two counts.  They first do not understand what the original problem is, if any and secondly, make pronouncements based upon biased thinking.  Long before it became 'illegal' to discriminate, we all got along pretty nicely.  The English hated the Irish and the Scots and the Welsh for one reason or another and the Irish, Scots and Welsh all hated the English.  It worked quite well for hundreds of years, until we are told, that it is a criminal offence to say that we hated one or the other.

The result is that children are now not taught how to discriminate because it is seen as a 'dirty' word.  One consequence is that children are now collectively so immature that their age of maturity has been reduced by two years in the past 20 years.  This does little to prepare them for the world.  It may also give some insight as to why so many children seem to lose sight of all reason when on the internet – that because they do not discriminate, they no longer know how to in order to retain a basic level of safety.

Yet human survival is based upon an ability to distinguish between friend and foe.

To all the child abuse agencies and 'do-gooders' who want to 'help' – if the intent is genuine, it can best be achieved by leaving 'us' alone and instead focussing on that which hurts children most, for it is not child abuse, it is children's parents marriages breaking up or not having parents (i.e. mother and father) at all – this is far more devastating than any abuse and has far greater repercussions in later life.  Although it is widely known, this cultural shift over the last 30 years is rarely focussed on, for there are many more people who would then be 'guilty' of harming their children in this way than abuse by a paedophile ever could be.

An abuser may sometimes victimise children but it is the agencies and charities who ensure that children remain as victims.  Nasty things sometimes happen to some people, but victims do have a choice.  We can acknowledge (if not fully accept) what happens or we can fight it.  If we accept it, this leads to understanding and insight, sometimes forgiveness – but what is not forgiveable is those who tell us that it is acceptable to remain as victims. 

Even a paedophile does not leave this kind of stigma on those who have been abused.

Full Gender Recognition – Matrimonial Causes Act 1973

To repeal the clause Section 12(g) of, or paragraph 11(1)(e) of Schedule 1 to, the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 referred to in the Gender Recognition Act 2004 which requires transgendered people in a loving and stable marriage to divorce or annul thier marriage before the granting of the full Gender Recognition certificate,

Why is this idea important?

To repeal the clause Section 12(g) of, or paragraph 11(1)(e) of Schedule 1 to, the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 referred to in the Gender Recognition Act 2004 which requires transgendered people in a loving and stable marriage to divorce or annul thier marriage before the granting of the full Gender Recognition certificate,

Update the Marital Causes Act 1973

The law was written before the equality laws in 1974. Its now nearly 50 years later and society has changed immensely in that time. But I believe that this act now predominately allows women to benefit from divorce and treats them as less capable of supporting themselves than children.  

Why is this idea important?

The law was written before the equality laws in 1974. Its now nearly 50 years later and society has changed immensely in that time. But I believe that this act now predominately allows women to benefit from divorce and treats them as less capable of supporting themselves than children.  

Stop Mothers divorcing their children from Fathers and Grandparents.

It is now well known in the Western world that most custodial parents of divorced children cause these children to have Parental Alienation Syndrome.  It is so well known that books have been written about it you can buy on Amazon.  It is well known that 50% of children lose touch with their absent parent after divorce.  What is not realised is why these children become divorced.  Their mothers use various tactics which, even when the Courts recognise it, nothing is done about this child abuse.  Judges will threaten the mother with jail when they redefine access for the umpteenth time but they will never carry out their threat as it would show up the Court's bad custody decision.  Make it mandatory on Judges that, if they see this child abuse, often shown by having the absent parent applying to redefine access which is breaking down frequently, then the Judges must jail the Mother (who it usually is) and turn over custody to the Father, with no judicial leeway whatsoever.

Read about it from the report by Stan Hayward at www.coeffic.demon.co.uk/pas.htm

Parrental Alienation Syndrome IS child abuse!

It is written in the Children Act 1989 that the claim of the Father is equal to the claim of the mother.  Since the OPEC countries hiked up the price of fuel; and therefore energy in general, in the late 1970's, most people know that you can no longer run a family on one parent as the wage earner.  Most families need both parents to work.  This is reflected in the 1989 Children Act.  However the Courts still, decades later, think that it is still the 1960's and award residence orders on the basis that it is the Father's role to be the breadwinner.  In the 21st century this is not true, with many wives earning more than the husband.  Yet still residence orders 91% are given to the mother.  It has moved towards reality by only a few percentage points – from 97% in the 1980's.

Clearly the Family Courts are blatently flouting the Statutory Law that the claim of the Father is equal to that of the Mother.

Once a child is off the breast there is nothing that a Mother can give that child that the Father cannot do better,  I make this claim on the basis that a Father's parenting is more CONSISTENT from day to day than most mothers' parenting, possibly because they are women whose oestrus cycle makes them feel different each day.

Most problems with young people and adults, whether in education or prison or probation services, are caused by inconsistent parenting.  I am a secondary teacher and see it every day.

I was a Registered Childminder for twelve years and none of the 250 children I brought up for other people ended up in the criminal justice system.  I taught parenting to dysfunctional families for Social Services during that time.  I was head hunted as a consultant to Suffolk Social Services to encourage men into primary care.  I was headhunted by the Probation Service too.

Forcing Judges in the Family Courts to obey Statutory Law as outlined above would have far reaching effects to the benefit of our society, see below.  This could possibly be done by sacking them if their results for residence orders are not within a few percentage points of 50%.  Full accountability!

Only then would our children recieve their statutory right to be brought up by the better parent.

Why is this idea important?

It is now well known in the Western world that most custodial parents of divorced children cause these children to have Parental Alienation Syndrome.  It is so well known that books have been written about it you can buy on Amazon.  It is well known that 50% of children lose touch with their absent parent after divorce.  What is not realised is why these children become divorced.  Their mothers use various tactics which, even when the Courts recognise it, nothing is done about this child abuse.  Judges will threaten the mother with jail when they redefine access for the umpteenth time but they will never carry out their threat as it would show up the Court's bad custody decision.  Make it mandatory on Judges that, if they see this child abuse, often shown by having the absent parent applying to redefine access which is breaking down frequently, then the Judges must jail the Mother (who it usually is) and turn over custody to the Father, with no judicial leeway whatsoever.

Read about it from the report by Stan Hayward at www.coeffic.demon.co.uk/pas.htm

Parrental Alienation Syndrome IS child abuse!

It is written in the Children Act 1989 that the claim of the Father is equal to the claim of the mother.  Since the OPEC countries hiked up the price of fuel; and therefore energy in general, in the late 1970's, most people know that you can no longer run a family on one parent as the wage earner.  Most families need both parents to work.  This is reflected in the 1989 Children Act.  However the Courts still, decades later, think that it is still the 1960's and award residence orders on the basis that it is the Father's role to be the breadwinner.  In the 21st century this is not true, with many wives earning more than the husband.  Yet still residence orders 91% are given to the mother.  It has moved towards reality by only a few percentage points – from 97% in the 1980's.

Clearly the Family Courts are blatently flouting the Statutory Law that the claim of the Father is equal to that of the Mother.

Once a child is off the breast there is nothing that a Mother can give that child that the Father cannot do better,  I make this claim on the basis that a Father's parenting is more CONSISTENT from day to day than most mothers' parenting, possibly because they are women whose oestrus cycle makes them feel different each day.

Most problems with young people and adults, whether in education or prison or probation services, are caused by inconsistent parenting.  I am a secondary teacher and see it every day.

I was a Registered Childminder for twelve years and none of the 250 children I brought up for other people ended up in the criminal justice system.  I taught parenting to dysfunctional families for Social Services during that time.  I was head hunted as a consultant to Suffolk Social Services to encourage men into primary care.  I was headhunted by the Probation Service too.

Forcing Judges in the Family Courts to obey Statutory Law as outlined above would have far reaching effects to the benefit of our society, see below.  This could possibly be done by sacking them if their results for residence orders are not within a few percentage points of 50%.  Full accountability!

Only then would our children recieve their statutory right to be brought up by the better parent.

Racing to the wrong divorce courts in Europe: Brussels II

The Brussels II regulation had the aim of helping couples from different parts of Europe cope with divorce. Unfortunately the way it was drafted meant that instead of finding the most appropriate forum for divorce, where the couple lived, owned property, raised children, the partner who got to a court in Europe first could hold the other to ransom by dragging them through inappropriate court proceedings at great expense in foreign courts.

This regulation has caused considerable hardship for couples. The weaker, poorer partner, usually the wife, is put under great strain before she can get proper relief in a court which is best suited to hear the case.

The regulation must be revised or the UK should withdraw from its regime.

Why is this idea important?

The Brussels II regulation had the aim of helping couples from different parts of Europe cope with divorce. Unfortunately the way it was drafted meant that instead of finding the most appropriate forum for divorce, where the couple lived, owned property, raised children, the partner who got to a court in Europe first could hold the other to ransom by dragging them through inappropriate court proceedings at great expense in foreign courts.

This regulation has caused considerable hardship for couples. The weaker, poorer partner, usually the wife, is put under great strain before she can get proper relief in a court which is best suited to hear the case.

The regulation must be revised or the UK should withdraw from its regime.

Racing to the wrong divorce courts in Europe: Brussels II

The Brussels II regulation had the aim of helping couples from different parts of Europe cope with divorce. Unfortunately the way it was drafted meant that instead of finding the most appropriate forum for divorce, where the couple lived, owned property, raised children, the partner who got to a court in Europe first could hold the other to ransom by dragging them through inappropriate court proceedings at great expense in foreign courts.

This regulation has caused considerable hardship for couples. The weaker, poorer partner, usually the wife, is put under great strain before she can get proper relief in a court which is best suited to hear the case.

The regulation must be revised or the UK should withdraw from its regime.

Why is this idea important?

The Brussels II regulation had the aim of helping couples from different parts of Europe cope with divorce. Unfortunately the way it was drafted meant that instead of finding the most appropriate forum for divorce, where the couple lived, owned property, raised children, the partner who got to a court in Europe first could hold the other to ransom by dragging them through inappropriate court proceedings at great expense in foreign courts.

This regulation has caused considerable hardship for couples. The weaker, poorer partner, usually the wife, is put under great strain before she can get proper relief in a court which is best suited to hear the case.

The regulation must be revised or the UK should withdraw from its regime.