Over the course of history women have been given custody of children after a divorce more often than men. This used to be seen almost as an automatic right. This has changed slightly in recent times though, with Fathers given significantly more rights when it comes to looking after children post-divorce. This applies to both custody and visitation rights if their ex-wife has been given custody. A Fathers role in the development of children is taken much more seriously than in previous times. Family Law states that Fathers have equal rights to Mothers and each decision should be made on its specific merits.
Statistics show that women get custody more than men though. What is the reason for this? It could be that there is still some bias towards women by judges, who assume that Mothers make better parents. On the other hand it could just be that Mothers tend to more often be in the position where the children living with them would be more appropriate.
After a divorce there are many factors that are taken into consideration when deciding which parent should get custody of the children. Each parents employment status can be a very important factor. If one parent works full-time and the other doesnt work at all, it may be deemed best that the children live with the parent who does not work. This is because (s)he has more time to be able to devote towards the children. This may be one reason why women gain custody more often than men; it is more common for women to be stay-at-home parents than men, although this is not as common as it once was. A decision is most likely to be based on this reason if the situation was the same when the couple were married, and this parent has spent more time with their children as a consequence. The decision can in some cases be made the other way round, with the parent who does work being deemed to be in a more financially stable situation. This is not always the case because this parent will usually be required to make maintenance payments to help the other parent bring up their children.
The situation each parent finds themselves in and the stability of this situation is also important. This can depends on employment as well as other factors, such as lifestyle. If one parent has medical or psychological problems, then they may not be deemed the best parent to bring up the children. If one parent has re-married it could work either way. It may be seen as a negative to have someone else playing a part in their upbringing so soon after their parents have separated, but it could also be decided that this is a better family environment to bring children up in. A criticism of the system is that too much of the decision comes down to the opinions of a particular judge, and no matter how much Family Law stipulates what should happen, everyone has certain biases.
Andrew Marshall (c)
Justice Secretary Ken Clarke has been laying out proposals for changes in legal aid that will limit the types of cases where legal aid is available, therefore savings significant costs. Currently over 2 billion a year is spent on legal aid in the UK, an amount that is more than ten times that of France. Areas where legal aid will no longer be available will include claims against hospitals, doctors and schools, immigration, benefit and employment disputes and family law cases. Also in the proposals is that fees for legal aid solicitors will be cut by 10%. It is being seen by supporters as removing legal aid where it is being wasted but keeping it where it is really seen as necessary, while critics say that it will mean the poorest members of society will in some cases be unable to get justice.
So, what will be the impact of these changes should they go ahead?
One area of law that has significantly increased over the last decade is no-win no-fee suits. Currently the costs, and therefore solicitors fees, are recovered from the losing side. This is something that will no longer be possible.
In most cases legal aid will no longer be available in cases against public institutions such as doctors, hospitals and schools. Cases that will be affected will include those seeking legal action after medical mistakes. With regard to schools it is likely to limit the number of accident claims and appeals against school entrance. Some would argue that not being able to take legal action for genuine accidents is a good thing while other say it means that institutions will no longer be held responsible for a lack of care.
Family Law is seen as an area that will be impacted most by these proposed changes. Half of the total money saved will happen in the area of family law alone. Legal aid will still be available in cases that involve domestic violence, forced marriage and child abduction, but in a relatively straight forward case it will not be the case.
In general it is expected that the number of so called minor legal disputes will be less commonplace. This is something supporters see as a major plus points, on top of the obvious fact that it will save public money. The changes may put to an end (to an extent anyway) the increasing culture of looking for blame to profit from unfortunate situations, such as minor accidents. Some see certain cases as people taking advantage of legal aid where they would not pursue the case if they had to pay for it themselves, even if they could afford to. This will therefore reduce unnecessary legal action.
There are, of course, potential problems. Some are worried that the less well off will suffer unfairly, that there will be situations where people will not get justice where someone better off, and able to afford legal advice themselves, will be able to carry a case forward. It could also lead to irresponsibility with businesses, organisations and individuals held less responsible for their actions.
Andrew Marshall (c)