Will court fee increase in family courts negatively impact access to justice?

Posted on 7th February 20247th February 2024 by McAlister Family Law

Will court fee increase in family courts negatively impact access to justice?

When a relationship ends, those that are married or in a civil partnership have no option but to issue a divorce application if they want to legally formalise their separation. Along with the divorce application, separating couples may also need to pay for a financial order application and a parental order application. Here, Fiona Wood looks at the recent announcement that there will be an increase to all court fees in 2024, and raises the concern that low income households may find themselves unable to make necessary family applications.

If a couple do decide to divorce, as well as issuing a divorce applicaition, they also need to obtain a financial settlement which needs to be approved by a judge if it is to be binding and enforceable. Even if the separation is amicable, a court fee is payable when a divorce application is made and a court fee is payable when a financial agreement is submitted to court for a judge’s approval.

A court fee is also payable by separated parents if they are unable to agree arrangements for their children and need to make an application to court (known as a Parental Order application) to ask a judge to assist them with this issue.

If there are ongoing proceedings regarding finances or children, there can be additional smaller court fees that have to be paid within the court process.

You may be exempt from these fees if you have limited or no income and little or no savings. However, many of those making family court applications have to pay these fees.

The court fees were last increased in September 2021. It has recently been announced that there will be an increase of 10% in all court fees in 2024, including those in family cases. The date for the fee increase has not yet been announced. The main court fees in family proceedings are as follows:

Divorce application – current fee £593 – new fee £652
Financial Order application (if finances not agreed) – current fee £275 – new fee £303
Financial Order application (if agreed) – current fee £53 – new fee £58
Parental order application – current fee £232 – new fee £255

The rationale for the increase is that the court fees are needed to help fund the court system. We are told that in 2022/2023 cost £2.3 billion to fund the court system and £727 million of this was funded from court fees. As the cost of running the court system increases the fees are increased to assist with this cost.

Whilst it is understandable that money needs to be raised to fund that court system, there is a concern that increasing the court fees will prevent many on low incomes from making necessary family court applications.

Legal fees for those who have separated and who need to make an application asking court regarding finances or arrangements for their children, are a struggle for many who have limited income or savings. Legal Aid is only available in very limited circumstances to deal with the legal issues that can arise when a relationship ends. To qualify for Legal Aid not only must you have very limited income and capital, but there must also have been recent domestic violence.

For those of limited means who do not qualify for Legal Aid, many have no option but to represent themselves within the court process. The number of case where both spouses/cohabitees represent themselves within family court proceedings has increased by 25% between 2013 and 2022, which shows how many are struggling with funding the court process. Increasing the court fees will only make this more difficult for them and could leave some unable to afford access to the family court.

If you or someone you know is affected by the issues raised in this blog post, we can provide you with expert legal advice. For more information, please get in touch with our specialist team at hello@mcalisterfamilylaw.co.uk

Will Britney Spears be protected by prenup in third divorce?

Posted on 17th August 2023 by McAlister Family Law

I’m getting divorced, do I have to go to Court?

News of Britney Spears’ pending divorce from her third husband, Sam Asghari, has been widely reported in the press. Sadly, only a year after their wedding, their marriage appears to be over, with Sam filing for divorce in Los Angeles. Here, McAlister Family Law’s Divorce and Finance Partner, Fiona Wood, looks at the divorce application and questions if Britney’s prenup will protect her.

It is understood that Sam has asked the court to provide him with “spousal support”, which is maintenance from Britney to meet Sam’s income needs whilst they sort out their divorce, and for her to provide him with money to pay his legal fees.

These applications made by Sam to the US court are the equivalent of making an application for interim maintenance and for a Legal Services Payment Order in England. If one spouse cannot meet their reasonable income needs during the divorce and the other spouse can afford to fund these, a judge can order the wealthier spouse to pay interim maintenance to the other spouse until a financial settlement is reached in their divorce.

It is also possible in England to make an application to court that your spouse provide you with money to fund your ongoing legal fees – known as a Legal Services Payment Order. To make this application successfully you have to show that you cannot afford to fund your own legal fees, you cannot obtain a commercial loan from two lenders to fund your legal fees and that your spouse can afford to pay them.

It is reported that Britney and Sam signed a prenuptial agreement before their wedding, to protect the wealth that Britney accumulated before they married. Under Californian Law the prenuptial agreement is thought to be “ironclad”. However, there is speculation that Sam will try to renegotiate the terms of the prenuptial agreement by threatening to release embarrassing information about Britney.

The law in England regarding prenuptial agreements is different to that in other countries, but they are still an important way of protecting assets if you divorce. Here a prenuptial agreement is not automatically binding if a couple divorce. It is an important factor that the court will take into account when consider a fair financial settlement. The reported cases show that as long as both spouse’s needs can be met, the divorce court is likely to uphold the terms of their prenuptial agreement or if it does not fully uphold it, the presence of the prenuptial agreement will reduce the settlement received by one spouse from what they would have received if no prenuptial agreement had been signed.

I’m getting divorced, do I have to go to Court?

Posted on 3rd August 2023 by McAlister Family Law

I’m getting divorced, do I have to go to Court?

Separating from your spouse and getting divorced can be a very difficult and stressful experience for many reasons. You will probably have many questions. Here, Weronika Husejko takes a closer look at one of our most frequently asked questions by those about to go through the divorce process – do I have to go to Court?

In terms of the divorce itself, it is very rare that you will have to attend Court. The new ‘no fault’ divorce procedure does not allow for your spouse to dispute the divorce generally, unless they do not agree that the Court has jurisdiction or that the marriage was valid. This was not the case previously.

Prior to the no fault divorce procedure, the spouse applying for the divorce could apply for a Costs Order against the other spouse, effectively asking the Court that an Order is made that they pay all of their divorce costs. This was another reason for dispute in the past. However, the Court will now only make Costs Orders in divorce proceedings in very rare circumstances. As a result, there are now fewer opportunities for dispute in divorce proceedings, which significantly reduces the chance of any Court attendance.

When you are going through a divorce, the financial element is usually dealt with separately. Many couples are able to negotiate and reach a financial settlement outside of the Court arena e.g. via solicitors, mediation or between themselves. This would usually mean that you do not have to attend Court, unless you are already in Court proceedings at the time that you reach the agreement. When a financial settlement is reached in this way, a Consent Order reflecting your agreement can be submitted to the Court alongside a form which summarises your respective financial positions. The Court will usually consider this type of application on paper in the couple’s absence. They may request that the couple attend Court in rare circumstances, for example, if they have serious concerns regarding the proposed division of the assets.

If one spouse makes an application to the Court for a financial remedy order, (this is an application asking the court to deal with the financial aspects of their divorce), this may result in both spouses having to attend Court. This is the most common reason for Court attendance generally within a divorce. This is because when financial remedy Court proceedings are issued, the case will automatically be listed for a ‘First Appointment’. This is an administrative hearing. However, more frequently these days, the need for this type of hearing is circumvented by the spouses agreeing the ‘directions’ which are needed to move the case forward e.g. the instruction of a surveyor to value a property.

The second hearing is the ‘Financial Dispute Resolution Appointment’. This is a negotiation hearing whereby both spouses will usually attend Court with their legal representatives. If the spouses do not reach an agreement at this hearing, the case will be listed for a ‘Final Hearing’, whereby they will have to attend Court to give evidence. However, this is less common as most cases settle at the negotiation hearing.

The short answer is that you do not necessarily have to attend Court in order to get a divorce. Whilst it is not always possible to avoid Court proceedings, divorcing couples are generally encouraged to try to reach an agreement outside of the Court arena. The best outcome in a divorce is arguably a financial settlement which the couple have agreed, as opposed to a decision which has been imposed upon them by a Judge.

Should we open a joint account?

Posted on 22nd June 2023 by McAlister Family Law

Should we open a joint account?

There are lots of decisions to make during a relationship and perhaps even more so when parties begin cohabiting. One of the questions which sometimes comes up is whether or not you should have a joint bank account with your partner? Here, Lisa Brown looks at what a joint account means from the perspective of couples, the bank, and family law.

This is obviously a personal decision and can vary between couples. It can be helpful from a practical point of view if you have a lot of joint expenditure, but it would be sensible to agree some ground rules about usage and how much each party is expected to contribute from the outset.

From the bank’s perspective, for example, if one party were to run up a large overdraft on a joint account, they would still generally consider that to a joint liability. Similarly, from a family law point of view if a cohabiting couple are separating the starting point would be that assets are divided as they are held legally so any savings in a joint account should be shared equally, and any joint borrowing should be borne equally.

To have some clarity between you, it might be sensible to have a cohabitation agreement which can deal with how any assets would be divided on separation (including any joint accounts) and also, if you wish, how outgoings will be met during the relationship.

These agreements are not currently 100% binding, but they are very useful and are becoming more and more popular.

What about if you are married?

Lots of married couples have joint accounts but it is not a pre-requisite, and some choose not to.

Back in February Chloe Madeley hit the headlines when she revealed that she went back to work 8 weeks after giving birth citing the fact that she doesn’t have a joint account with her husband, James Haskell (and presumably that in effect they both financially support themselves).

Whilst obviously it is for every individual couple to decide on their own financial arrangements during their relationship this statement does give the impression that simply because there is no joint account there is no financial links or accountability between Chloe and James.

This is not the case for married couples or those in civil partnerships. The legal starting point is quite different to couples who simply live together. When you enter into a marriage or civil partnership you immediately gain the ability to make a wide range of financial claims against your partner (and likewise they have those claims against you).

If your marriage or civil partnership were to come to an end and you cannot agree how assets should be divided, then the court has the power to divide them between you in line with the factors set out in Section 25 Matrimonial Causes Act. These factors include (amongst other things) the assets and income of each party, length of the relationship and the contributions you have each made.

The court is not bound to consider monies in a joint account joint nor monies in one person’s sole name as money to be retained solely by them.

There can, however, be circumstances where it is relevant where monies have been held. For example, if one party had received an inheritance the court may be more minded to exclude that from any settlement if it had always been kept separate in a sole account.

If you or somebody you know wants to understand their legal position better whether they are cohabiting, thinking about cohabiting, engaged or married they should contact one of our specialist family lawyers today.

If you need advice on this topic, or any other matters concerning forced marriage, please get in touch with our team at hello@mcalisterfamilylaw.co.uk

Do people go into marriage with their eyes wide open?

Posted on 9th March 2023 by McAlister Family Law

Do people go into marriage with their eyes wide open?

When people get married, it’s a whirlwind of romance, excitement and planning the big day. The average modern wedding takes about 11 months to plan, over 528 hours (22 whole days). But how much do the to-be-weds understand about the legal and financial implications of marriage? Here, Frances Bentley looks at how couples can go into marriage with their eyes wide open.

Being in the process of planning my own wedding, I can certainly believe the amount of time that goes into it. It is hard not to get swept up in planning the actual wedding day, and sometimes there is a much lesser focus on what marriage actually means after the big day.

As a divorce lawyer, when clients come to me, they say that they did not understand or appreciate the legal and financial implications of marriage when going into it. It begs the question as to whether there should be more education about it before people get married.

It might seem obvious that marriage means a sharing of each other’s lives, hopefully forever, so maybe it isn’t needed. However, if things don’t work out, a lot of people don’t often understand what would actually happen to their finances on divorce. Maybe it isn’t the most romantic thing to think or talk about before you get married, but actually understanding and knowing the implications might mean that people are going into marriage with their eyes open.

I think it is really healthy to have that conversation and so people know where they stand. In my view, it doesn’t undermine the fact that the plan is to stay together forever, and of course that is what the aim is. I actually think it is a bit of a red flag if your future spouse reacts badly to that conversation.

So how can you protect yourself financially if you are getting married?

One way that couples that are to be married can protect their financial position in the event of a future separation is to enter into a pre-nuptial agreement (or a post nuptial agreement if they are already married).

Nuptial agreements can detail what is going to happen with finances in the event of future divorce and whether, for example, one person’s inheritance, or assets brought into the marriage are to be “ringfenced” from any future division of assets on divorce. It allows both people entering into the marriage with knowledge of the other’s financial position and some clarity.

Whilst nuptial agreements are not technically legally binding in England and Wales, they are being upheld much more by the courts and are persuasive, as long as they have been entered into procedurally correctly, both parties have taken legal advice, and are considered to be “fair” to both parties. They can also be reviewed throughout the marriage to take into account any changes in circumstances and ensure that they remain to be “fair”.

On a divorce, the starting point legally or finances is a 50/50 division of all assets. The court would then look at whether or not that is fair, and whether there should be a departure from that starting point, taking into account a number of factors. The factors include what the parties or any children “need” financially, what contributions have been made prior to, during and after the marriage, the standard of living enjoyed amongst other factors, one being whether there has been any pre-nuptial agreement entered into and whether that should be upheld.

The court will look at what is fair and reasonable, in all of the circumstances of the case, and if, the pre-nuptial agreement remains to be fair and reasonable, it is very likely to be upheld and assets brought into the marriage are likely to be protected. It does therefore offer protection and clarity and an understanding of the other person’s financial position before the marriage.

If you need advice on this topic, or any other matters concerning divorce or family law, please get in touch with our team at McAlister Family Law.

Maya Jama receives legal letter demanding £800,000 ring back

Posted on 26th January 2023 by McAlister Family Law

Maya Jama receives legal letter demanding £800,000 ring back

Maya Jama receives legal letter demanding the return of £800,000 engagement ring to ex-fiancé Ben Simmons. Here, Lisa Brown looks at what happens to the ring if an engagement is called off.

The new Love Island host and basketball player ended their relationship last summer after Ben’s proposal to Maya over the Christmas period. This week, Maya reportedly received a letter demanding the return of Ben’s engagement ring, but if one half of an engaged couple calls off the wedding, what happens to the engagement ring?

Not every engagement leads to a wedding, and even for those who do get married, there may be a divorce down the line. As divorce lawyers, it’s not unusual for the soon-to-be-ex-couple to argue about who keeps the engagement ring, particularly if the ring was expensive.

One half of the couple will put forward the argument that they bought it, so they own it. The other half of the couple, naturally, will advance the argument that the ring was given to them as a gift, so they can claim rightful ownership.

What does the law say about engagement rings?

The Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1970 states:

“The gift of an engagement ring shall be presumed to be an absolute gift; this presumption may be rebutted by proving that the ring was given on the condition, express or implied, that it should be returned if the marriage did not take place for any reason.”

This means that unless there was an agreement to return the engagement ring if the wedding was cancelled, then the recipient is under no obligation to return the ring.

What if the engagement ring is a family heirloom?

If the engagement ring is a family heirloom, perhaps passed down through the family for many generations – and the recipient was made aware of this at the time – then it may be easier to succeed in an argument that the ring should be returned if the wedding is called off. However, no matter how sentimental the ring may be, if there has been no agreement made that the ring must be returned to the proposer, the Act still stands.

How do you ensure that you keep the ring if things don’t work out?

Many couples now enter into a prenuptial or postnuptial agreement. If the parties feel really strongly about it, provision for the fate of the engagement ring can be included in the agreement as a specific term should the couple divorce. Otherwise, the same general rule applies: the engagement ring is an absolute gift (and therefore not returnable) unless there was a condition made about the ring being returned when it was given.

So, if you are planning to ask your loved one to marry you this Valentine’s Day, maybe consider the future of the ring. We know that thoughts of break-ups and divorces should be the last thing on your mind, but if the ring has a lot of sentimental value, it might be worth protecting it in some way.

If you need advice on this topic, or any other matters concerning divorce or family law, please get in touch with our team at McAlister Family Law.

School admissions season – what happens if we disagree?

Posted on 19th January 2023 by McAlister Family Law

School admissions season – What happens if we disagree?

January is never an easy month. It is one of the few times in the year where two 31-day months follow one after the other, spring feels like a lifetime away and pay day even further. On top of that, it’s school administration season. Here, Michael Compston looks at what happens if parents cannot agree on a school and how the choice can be made both inside and outside the court.

The local authority deadlines vary from authority to authority, but generally primary school deadlines are in place for the middle of January. Miss that deadline and your child runs the risk of not being accepted into their first-choice school and the application being considered as a late application.

Secondary school applications tend to run on a slightly different timetable, with deadlines being earlier in the academic year. However, we find that secondary school applications follow a more structured process as children/parents tend to be guided through this by the primary school during the child’s final year.

Children getting ready for primary school do not always have that information or guidance readily available, so this blog aims to consider how to resolve any issues arising out of primary school admissions.

Most if not all Local Authorities now process these applications online. The process is fairly straightforward; you go to the prospective schools, decide which ones you like or do not like, then select those schools in preferential order.

But what happens if you and the child’s other parent disagree? If you both have parental responsibility for a child, then it is incumbent on you both to come to a decision together. One of you may favour the school with strong academics or greater extra-curricular provision, whereas the other favours the school with more green space or a better pupil to teacher ratio. If you cannot agree on the preference order, how do you resolve matters?

Outside of court

The first solution is a simple one. Talk to each other. It might sound simple but actually discussing your preferences and why you think one school is better than the other can open up topics for discussion that you might not have considered.

If you are not able to reach a decision by discussing the matter between yourselves, then another option is to attend mediation. Mediators are trained to facilitate discussion between parents across a broad range of matters, not just limited to discussions around child contact. They can offer a neutral perspective and encourage back and forth discussion between the two of you.

Court proceedings

Should mediation not work, then the last recourse is to ask the court to make a decision by making a Specific Issue Order to decide that specific point. Alternatively, if the other parent is refusing to allow you access to the application and is preparing to submit the application themselves, it could be an application for a Prohibited Steps Order to prevent them submitting the application. Either way, both applications would be considering the same thing – what is in the best interests of the child.

This can be a costly exercise and a time-consuming exercise too. You are essentially asking the court to make a decision that, ultimately, is about what is best for the child. The court has not met your child, the court does not have the knowledge of the schools that the parents have, so you must think carefully before asking the court to intervene and make a decision that will have a long-lasting effect on your child’s education; if the child remains in their school, they will be in primary for seven years or secondary for five, so it is an important decision.

If you do end up in court proceedings, the court must consider what is in the child’s best interests. The court would almost certainly say initially that this is a decision that the parents should come to themselves; after all, the parents know the child better than the court. You would most likely both need to prepare witness statements on why you consider that your order of schools is the most suitable and then be prepared to argue your case in front of a judge.

Whilst this is very much a last resort, it is important to remember that this is the last recourse for the court. If you cannot agree, the court will likely want order you both to give evidence. It is far, far better if you can resolve matters between yourselves, with or without the help of a mediator, rather than reverting to the court process.

One Final Thought

Throughout all of these avenues for resolving any dispute on school choices, it is important to remember that the ultimate decision on where a child goes to school is down to the Local Authority in terms of state schools. The order of preferences is still important, as it will help to inform the decision of the Local Authority, but the decision is ultimately one for them.

If you need advice on this topic, or any other matters concerning divorce or family law, please get in touch with our team at McAlister Family Law.

Love is blind… but what if it’s short?

Posted on 16th November 202224th January 2023 by McAlister Family Law

Love is blind… but what if it’s short?

With both Nick Thompson & Danielle Ruhl (Love is Blind season 2) and Mackenzie Scott & Dan Jewett (the ex-wife of Jeff Bezos and her new husband) set to divorce, the topic of short marriages is one that is bound to be on their minds. Both couples married in 2021 and are in the process of bringing their marriages to a legal end. Here, Heather Lucy looks at how the length of a marriage may affect how assets are split upon divorce.

Both of the couples named above are based in the US but those thinking of divorce in England and Wales may be wondering whether the length of their marriage might impact their potential financial settlements on divorce.

There are no hard and fast rules, or formulas, that state how assets should be divided on divorce. The starting point for the court is that the assets should be divided equally, but they will then consider if there are reasons for moving away from an equal split, for example if assets are considered to be non-matrimonial, such as inherited assets or potentially assets acquired before the marriage. The court will also look at whether each person’s needs would be met by an even split. In making their decision, the court looks at the factors in Section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 which is a checklist of what they should consider. The primary consideration will be the welfare of any children of the marriage and other factors include the couple’s ages and the standard of living during the marriage. The latter would likely bode well for Mr Jewett if he were divorcing in England and Wales considering Ms Scott’s circa $34 billion net worth.

One of the factors to be considered under the Section 25 checklist is the length of the marriage. For the purposes of divorce, any time spent living together immediately prior to the marriage is added to the length of time since ‘I do’ to work out the length of the relationship. There are no set definitions of ‘long marriages’ or ‘short marriages’. Marriages of 10 + years may be seen to be in the ‘long marriage’ territory and one lasting 5 years or less is generally seen to fit the description of a short marriage.

Spouses in a long marriage are seen to have more financial interconnectedness and their assets are more likely to be considered ‘mingled’. This means that the court is more likely to be persuaded that an equal division of the assets is the right approach.

If spouses in a short marriage have no children and are both earning, the court may decide that it is fair to move away from splitting their assets down the middle and instead try return each person to the financial position they were in prior to the marriage. This is made even more likely if the couple had kept their finances separate during the marriage. It is also more likely that divorcing spouses will be able to ‘ring-fence’ assets/property they have brought to the marriage which means that they are kept out of the ‘pot’ being divided. The court will also heavily favour a ‘clean break’ if the marriage was short, if there are no young children, as they will want to cut financial ties between the divorcing couple. This means that it is unlikely that regular payments from one person to the other (maintenance) would be ordered, though it is not impossible.

It is important to remember that the court will look at what each person needs. You might have a short marriage and have no children but, if a move away from equality would mean the other person cannot meet this housing and income needs, the court are unlikely to be persuaded that an equal division of the assets is not the right course of action.

Married at First Sight UK – Are they really married and does it matter?

Posted on 3rd November 202224th January 2023 by McAlister Family Law

Married at First Sight UK – Are they really married and does it matter?

Married at First Sight first hit TV screens in 2015 and for the first 5 series the couples were legally married. However, after adopting the Australian (more entertaining) format last year the couples no longer get legally married. Here, Lisa Brown looks at the implications involved with marrying a stranger and what the law requires of legally married couples.

Nevertheless, much has been made in the recent series (7) about the fact that the parties are “married”. It all starts with the individuals dropping the bombshell on their loved ones that they are getting “married to a stranger” and when Whitney and Matt coupled up the criticism came thick and fast based on the fact that they were “married” to other people.

For the purposes of the show perhaps it doesn’t matter because the point is that they buy into the principle but legally it makes a very big difference.

Being married is a change to your legal status and if things don’t work out you have to apply to the court to either have that marriage annulled or get divorced.

Further, when couples get married, they gain the ability to make a financial claim against the other person under Matrimonial Causes Act 1973.

One of the peculiarities of the law as it stands is that a couple could live together for 25 years but not be able to make a financial claim against each other (save in limited circumstances) but somebody can get legally married at first sight, never live together and divorce as soon as they can and they would be able to make a claim. That claim could include property being transferred to them, a share of the other’s pension, a lump sum of money being paid and /or monthly sums being paid (spousal maintenance).

In “Married At First Sight” circumstances the reality is that it is unlikely that such a claim would be particularly fruitful and generally the expectation would be that they would exit the marriage with what they brought in but the ability to do it remains.

The Matrimonial Causes Act sets out at section 25 a checklist of factors which are taken into account when deciding the outcome of a financial claim. One of those factors is the duration of the marriage but there are a number of others and the family court has a wide discretion.

Whilst not relevant to the Married At First Sight couples it is also worth knowing that the court will generally “run in” periods of seamless cohabitation prior to the marriage when considering the length. So, if, as in the above example, you lived together for 25 years and then you got married it is likely that the court would consider it to be a long marriage even if you separated just weeks after the actual marriage. This scenario could make a huge difference to the financial outcome of a case.

Arguably, most couples getting married are largely ignorant of the changes they are entering into from a legal perspective and Married At First Sight doesn’t assist with this (not least because no matter what they say the couples aren’t actually married). Some people may also think they have rights they do not because they have lived together for a certain period of time, but no such rights exist and “common law marriage” is a myth.

Whilst not the most romantic thought people should consider their legal status in their relationship and the impact that this can have to ensure that they are properly protected and have a full understanding.

Back to school – choosing a school between separated parents

Posted on 4th October 202224th January 2023 by McAlister Family Law

Back to school – choosing a school between separated parents

This time of year, Instagram is full to the brim of ‘first day of school’ pictures, whether it’s a brand-new school or little ones progressing to the next year. But choosing which school a child attends, especially between separated parents, can be an exceptionally difficult process. Here, Ruth Hetherington looks at what the Court may decide if separated parents can’t see eye to eye.

A child’s first day of school is no doubt a big day, whether it’s their first experience of school or going back after the holidays. It is the start of something new for both parents and for the child, a new chapter, either the start of their life in education or progression onto the next phase

The decision of which school a child shall attend is of fundamental importance. It will hopefully provide stability and security for the child during their childhood, and it will

no doubt shapes the child so as to inform their own decision making as an adult. Lifelong friendships will also be formed and therefore how your child progresses through their informative years of education can be a difficult and stressful decision for parents, particularly if there are separated and have different views on how their child should be educated.

Despite the importance that surrounds the decision of which school a child shall attend, sadly it is all too common for one parent to unilaterally make that decision which can be wholly wrong and at times unlawful. If both parents share parental responsibility, they then have a right to have a say in the decision-making process of how and where their child should be educated. This can often be an arduous task for parents, especially if one parent attempts to enrol a child into a school where the consent of the other parent has now been sought or secured.

If you share Parental Responsibility with the other parent , you should consult each other in respect of big decisions that relate to the wellbeing of your child. The decision of which educational placement a child shall attend is a decision where both parents’ views should be ascertained with careful consideration being given to both sides.

If you cannot agree which school your child is to attend, then you should make an application for a Specific Issue Order. This means that the Court is being asked to make the decision for the parents. If one parent tries to make the decision unilaterally, then you could be faced making an application to the Court for a Prohibited Steps Order, preventing the enrolment of your child in the chosen school of the other parent..

If the decision relating to a child’s school are put before the Court, the matter then becomes a question of what is best for the child and not what is best for the parents. The Court’s primary consideration will be the needs of the child having regard to the Welfare Checklist (s.1 (3) Children Act 1989) when reaching their decisions. A change of school will undoubtedly bring disruption and upheaval to a child’s life. Their support network and friendships may be broken especially if any change requires either party to relocate. Relocation brings another added complexity to these decisions, as they may also affect the time that one parent spends with their child. These decisions should not be taken lightly and wherever possible an agreed approach between the parents is preferable to a Court making the decision. However sadly we see this scenario on a regular basis and detailed and clear legal advice is also crucial.

The above issues identified are simply the ‘tip of the iceberg’ and of course there are other factors to consider including the ascertainable wishes and feelings of the child, dependant of the age of the child. But they demonstrate why big decisions need and require careful deliberation with the views of both parents being respected and considered.