No more legal aid for divorce and family cases

[Batteryhuman]

here

So that would be women who get it in the neck in the interests of saving money again

Am I the only one who had to self represent because I work and don't get legal aid up against exh with solicitor on legal aid because he won't work. Gave up work so he didn't have to pay csa arrears.

AND him trying to get weekend contact to fit around his cash in hand job and the court trying to get me to agree?

Whilst I work full time weekends and Oncall to make ends meet but that is ignored in court because I can't argue it properly because I can't afford a solicitor.

This is terrible news for solicitors they will have to deal with cases with one letter instead of 20.
I was entitled to legal aid to deal with my ex and trying to get maintenance out of him. The legal aid solicitor took over 18 months to get nowhere.
The new solicitor I instructed I informed I have £1k for you to this job if you get nowhere there is no more money.
He had it sorted for under £500.

I'm torn on this one.

One the one hand I feel pasionately that everone must be equal before the law.

On the other hand I have seen at first hand how much money is wasted on cases between couples argiung over crap because they can get public funding. If they had to pay, they wouldn't have dreamed of bothering.

I've also known solicitors who would take on any old case as long as it was funded. Very little responsibility taken as to how to best spend public funds.

I think so too Litchick. A lot is wasted. So if that is the case, why are they taking this approach?

This approach penalises women especially and they will not be equal before the law.

This is just a very lazy solution to a very serious problem.

The Legal aid budget like many others has ballooned recently and needs to be brought down. These proposals will do that, I'd also like the Government to look at the ways that the courts operate as I'm sure savings could be found there as well.

Ladyblah - I've often wondered if it might not be better to set up certain public bodies to undertake the work. Like a public defender.
Thosw would be salaried individuals who would be far less likely to just take on any case cos it paid well.

But I guess it would cost a hell of a lot to set up????

one way to cut costs would be to put a cap on solicitors fees.

Another way to save would be to reduce the pay given to judges. I'm always amazed at how much they earn just for sitting there and bringing down a gavel!

The really frightening thing about these proposals are the way they affect women. SAHMs will not be able to affort solicitors fees and will have no access to legal aid. It can't be fair that women should have poor outcomes from divorce because they can't afford to pay! Shocking and wrong.

they don't just affect women.
stopping legal aid for clinical negligence, will affect men too, and I assume men also need legal aid for divorces too.

very true 2shoes - exH still qualifies for legal aid for our divorce - even though he's now working, he's still on a low enough income with no assets to qualify.

Yes, I agree, both men and women will be affected by these proposals. It seems though that women may be disproportionately affected in divorce cases because they are more likely to have a lower income or even no income from working part-time or being a SAHM.

It will affect men too, but even in this day and age the majority of SAHP are women. Women, as a group, will therefore be adversely affected by the changes to legal aid for divorce.

There's something in the proposals to the effect that the judge will be able to order the high-earning party in the case to fund the low-earning party (at the latter's request), but surely that will just make things trickier.

I wonder how that would work? Do you have a link to that proposal?

There are already plenty of working people that don't qualify for legal aid, but could never afford solicitors fees for the things on that list.

If DH and I were to get divorced, even if he were to beat me up every day for the next year, I still wouldn't qualify for legal aid to get me away from him. Neither would I be able to pay for the divorce, let alone a solicitor to fight it for me.

The message coming out loud and clear is that women cannot stay at home and rely on either the state or a husband.
Maybe Xenia had it right all along, sisters will have to start doing it for themselves asap.

ashfordgirl, it's in the Green Paper at
www.justice.gov.uk/consultations/legal-aid-reform-151110.htm.

under Ancillary relief cases (where domestic violence is not present)

4.159 "...In some cases, there may be an
imbalance in the financial position of the parties during the proceedings which may disadvantage one party, particularly in the absence of publicly funded legal
assistance..

4.160 At present, lump sum orders in ancillary relief proceedings can only be made
after Decree Nisi. The current court rules state that ?the general rule in ancillary
relief proceedings is that the Court will not make an order requiring one party to
pay the costs of the other?, except in some circumstances relating to theconduct of a party in the proceedings. There is provision in legislation to allowthe Court to make an interim order for the payment of a lump sum but this remains unimplemented.

4.161 We propose to make changes to the courts? powers to enable the Court to redress the balance in cases where one party may be materially disadvantaged,by giving the judge the power to make interim lump sum orders against a party who has the means to fund the costs of representation for the other party. In doing so, the Court would also incentivise the contributing party to negotiate a settlement. The materially disadvantaged party could apply for an order at any stage of the proceedings, where they could demonstrate that they could not
reasonably procure legal advice by any other means (as is currently permissible under maintenance pending suit provisions). Any order made would include the payee?s undertaking to pay the sum to their legal representative to cover the costs of the proceedings. This would be credited against any ultimate liability that the payer might have to pay or part-pay towards the costs."

Re. insurance - I can't see people rushing to take out divorce insurance, as recommended by Jonathan Djanogly.

However, maybe legal aid insurance could be treated like National Insurance - effectively become part of it - so that it's paid in line with income etc. It's one solution (that would also address the issue of people on low incomes who don't qualify for legal aid at present anyway as curlymama said).

(or people on anything other than high incomes for that matter)

It was the last government that first proposed more mediation to attempt to reduce family court work. www.cypnow.co.uk/news/ByDiscipline/Social-Care/978642/Compulsory-mediation-proposed-separating-couples/

Compulsory mediation may well now come in apparently, and it would remain legally aided where applicable - but very doubtful in dv cases in my view.

Thanks for that link vesela. On paper, it looks like a good idea, but I can't imagine how it would work in practice.

What about legal aid for prisoners - thinking about the Ian Huntleys who get beaten up and Baby P killers.

One comfort for divorced women (found on the internet) is that at least now their maintenance payments can be protected without involving the ex or requiring legal aid.