To ask that people STOP giving incorrect Legal advice!!!

[PoisonMaple]

I see this time and time again.

Stop it. Especially in family matters.

I get it, some information is generic and helpful, but seriously, the details!!! Stop it. These are people who are struggling and looking for understanding, give it, but stop giving Legal advice unless you're qualified to do so.

No, you are not garaunteed spousal maintenance.

No, you cannot name the OM/OW in Proceedings.

No, you cannot delay your divorce to force the other side into financial disclosure.

No, you are not going to get to keep the house because you've been at home with children. Even if you do get the house, it'll be for a set period of time until the Courts deem that you need to sell or find an agreement which allows the other sides longterm housing needs to also be met.

No, you cannot just 'get his payslips,' get your 'ducks' in a row, screenshot the messages, and then assume that you'll get a better settlement with all this evidence. You won't.

'Custody' is not a thing. Your child(ren) will live with and spend time with.

No, you cannot ensure PR remains only yours. A Declaration of Parentage is simple and straightforward, as is the process to prove you're a parent and get PR, even abusers are entitled to that. It does not guarantee contact, but you can't stop PR by not adding to a birth certificate. Especially if the other side is persistent and wants that right.

I understand more than most how emotive a marriage/relationship breakdown is, both the human and legal aspect of it.

The bottom line is this, every matter is different. The process may start off the same, but the outcome is not the same each time and never garaunteed. A settlement that I can get for 1 client is absolutely not going to be the case for another client, even if their circumstances are the same.

And part of the fun of these forums is reading the crazy things that some people on here believe.

Actually op. Its good advice youre giving. All mn is is people giving opinions. I doubt any solicitor (except what you have just done) would give any advice for free.

If only a person said to be a solicitor and railing against people giving incorrect advice, didn't give out incorrect advice as to the practices of solicitors.

And didn't use incorrect spelling and grammar, and obscure abbreviations such as PR and FML instead of words.

And didn't bill clients for time she spent on what she says is a waste of time, instead of obtaining what she needs from the client in an efficient and time-saving manner.

A good site for legal matters. This is where I'd go, rather than mumsnet. Or to my solictor.

https://www.rightsofwomen.org.uk/

It's annoying, isn't it. A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing. The ones that get me are people declaring GDPR breaches.

"The receptionist shouldn't have said your name out loud. That's a GDPR breach!"

But how do we know it's correct 'advice' the OP is giving??

Isn't that what the thread title is about

A solicitor in my home town offers a free 15 minutes consultation. I accompanied an elderly neighbour a couple of months ago who wanted to change her will following the death of her husband.

The 15 minutes was used to clarify her intentions and to check a few issues. She then confirmed that she wanted him to draft a will which he did.

Obviously she paid for the will to be drafted (there was a fixed fee for a simple will) but the consultation gave her confidence that he understood what she wanted and I imagine made it easier for him to get it right first time.

I think that was the joke…. many many people on here seem to believe that common law marriages exist in England and Wales when they don’t.

I got it. With 3 solicitors.

Exactly as @Familylawso1icitor says. I've been qualified as a solicitor for nearly 25 years and I practice family law. Every firm I have worked for offers free time with a qualified lawyer. It's not necessarily a fixed time, and nowadays is mostly by telephone but it is with me.
It's like a beauty parade - a lot of clients will call a few potential lawyers so giving them short shrift isn't going to win the work.
There is no entitlement to a free half hour as such, it's whatever the lawyer is prepared to give. I tend to be over generous with my time and then end up working 14 hour days, so I'm being stricter.
Sometimes the call opens with a demand for free advice and the assertion that they're doing it themselves as can't afford/don't need a lawyer. Try and get those off the call quick. People who would not give their own time freely often expect it from lawyers.

Presumably you are in a job as a lawyer.... because people don't come on MN per say for that. They do however go on to say EX DH was knocking off with Sally down the road and then like any topic it veers off...

Definitely not unheard of for legal professionals to make typos and pretend it's no big deal. I had one that was "x has not agreed to..." when what was intended was "x has now agreed to...."

This too. See also “you’re entitled to reasonable adjustments for your pregnancy”.

No you aren’t - RAs only apply to disability cases!

'No, you cannot name the OM/OW in Proceedings'.

Incorrect - you can, and I did name OW as co-respondent in court proceedings.

HR Top Dog Here from FTSE 100 Company.

Well maybe not, but I do work in HR and most of the advice here that is about employment law is bollocks too.

People substitute what they think is fair, for what is legal and they are two different things.

Also, don't log things with HR. We don't keep a log. I have never had a log. Actually, I have a mental list of colleagues who don't do stuff properly and take up a lot of my time. But, this is definitely not written down.

Not anymore you can't.

@Notcms you can't name a co-respondent now. England and Wales have had no fault divorce since April 2022. OP isn't wrong.
Your divorce must pre-date that.

I did think with the 2022 rules that a respondent could now delay a divorce due to finances, which is what the OP said they couldn't do?

Yes. as someone whose father did play silly buggers, I would also recommend this.

Much more difficult in the days of online bank accounts though. It was easier to get bank account details when people had statements and building society books.

Disagree, surely in a household you can go through any drawer you want.

Different if he's already moved out and you break into his new home!

I actually don't think a court would disregard evidence of bank accounts if a bloke was saying he was broke and you'd shown evidence he had a few hundred grand in the bank. Apart from anything else, he'd be perjuring himself. Sounds like this needs to go the Supreme Court.

Eh…I’m a lawyer and while I’d never give legal advice here because I live on the US, I’ve corrected people on other forums when they’ve been blatantly wrong about something in American law. (Usually, it’s when they claim they’re someone’s “common-law wife” even though they live in a state that doesn’t recognize common-law marriage. Or when they think they can have their daughter’s boyfriend charged with statutory rape even though they live in a state where she’s the age of consent.) Lawyers can hang around in online forums too. 🙂

But, yes, Mumsnet and other forums are not trustworthy for legal advice.

I agree with others that I wouldn’t give specific advice on an internet forum because you aren’t insured and you don’t have all the facts. I see people posting about wills or trusts and wince. These are horribly complex areas with unintended consequences if you get it wrong. My area is financial services and people post interesting “advice” about that too. I did point out to one “expert” that one of the reasons I knew they were wrong was because I’d written my LLM dissertation on that topic. I discovered it is possible to type and roll your eyes at the same time.

I disagree on the “getting your ducks in a row” comment being glib. If someone is leaving an abusive partner they potentially could be in danger if their partner realises they are planning to leave. In that situation it may be better for the individual to quietly get organised so they can leave quickly and safely with documentation and access to money.

Correct, you could before too but it was a stricter test to demonstrate hardship. Less requirements now! I'm not sure what OP was trying to say there.

People only want to believe what they choose to believe

👏 Brilliant.