The jurisdictional requirements for divorce are set out in Section 5 of the Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973.  The Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain divorce proceedings if on the date of the application:

1. The spouses are habitually resident in England and Wales;
2. The spouses were last habitually resident in England and Wales and one of them continues to reside there;
3. The respondent is habitually resident in England and Wales;
4. In a joint application only either of the parties to the marriage is habitually resident in England and Wales;
5. The applicant is habitually resident in England and Wales and has resided there for at least one year immediately before the application was made;
6. The applicant is domiciled and habitually resident in England and Wales and has resided there for at least six months immediately before the application was made;
7. Both spouses are domiciled in England and Wales; or
8. Either spouse is domiciled in England and Wales.

Where there are existing or previous divorce proceedings in England, there will be jurisdiction to make a “financial remedy application” (which includes issues of property division) in the English Court. Either the financial application is made within the divorce proceedings or by way of application subsequent to the divorce.  However, a remarriage trap occurs so that if the application has not been made before a party remarries, that party will not be entitled to apply for financial remedy.

If there are competing proceedings in another jurisdiction, the English Court will consider which jurisdiction is the most convenient/appropriate forum. A stay may be granted if it appears on the balance of fairness that it is appropriate for the other proceedings to be dealt with first.   Consideration will be given to the parties’ connections to each jurisdiction, including where the parties’ assets are situated, whether the Court can make Orders that will be effective in relation to those assets (e.g. England will not recognise foreign-made Orders sharing pensions) and the ease of litigation in the other jurisdiction.

The English Court will only apply English law. However, where the parties have signed up to a foreign matrimonial property regime at the time of their marriage, the Court may take that fact (and the substance of the provisions) into account in determining the award, provided that the outcome dictated by the regime would meet both parties’ needs.  This is dependent upon factors relating to the consideration of nuptial contracts set out in the case of Granatino v Radmacher [2010] UKSC 42 and subsequent case law (see question 14).

Since the introduction of no-fault divorce in 2022 there is a single ground for divorce, namely that the marriage has “broken down irretrievably”.  The application for divorce must be accompanied by a statement to that effect by the applicant or applicants, which will be taken as conclusive evidence.  A joint application for divorce can be made by the parties together or a sole application can be made by one party.  A sole application does not require the other party’s consent or agreement to divorce.

The rules for service of the divorce application are set out in Part 6 of the Family Procedure Rules 2010.  An application for divorce must be served before midnight on the day 28 days after the application is issued by the court (although it is possible to apply for an extension of time).  Within the jurisdiction, it will be served by the court by email and followed up by notice in the post, unless solicitor/personal service is specifically requested.  Personal service can be actioned by a number of methods, including by a process server.  An application must not be served personally by the applicant themself.

The court will not serve a divorce application out of the jurisdiction. If this is required, the applicant must take steps to serve by the method permitted by the law of the relevant country. Where the respondent is in a country which is a party to the Hague Service Convention¹, service may take place via the Foreign Process Service (located at the Royal Courts of Justice), which will organise service through the equivalent authority in the receiving country. Service can also take place through foreign governments, judicial authorities and British Consular authorities.

Footnote(s):

¹ HCCH Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil and Commercial Matters 1965

The English Court will recognise a foreign marriage provided the formalities complied with the laws of the place of the marriage i.e. if an Indian marriage is validly celebrated in India, in accordance with Indian law, it will be recognised in England. The law of essential validity may also be relevant.  This takes into account the pre-marital domicile of the parties, the law governing capacity to marry in each party’s place of domicile and the law of the place where the couple intend to make their marital home.

A declaration of status under s.55(1) of the FLA 1986 is available to determine the status of the marriage.

The 1970 Hague Convention² governs the recognition of divorces that take place in contracting states and the primary consideration will be the habitual residence or nationality of the parties.

Otherwise, the Family Law Act 1986 applies, and consideration will be given to whether the divorce was conducted through ‘proceedings’ or ‘other than through proceedings’.  It will be relevant to consider if the divorce is valid under the law of the country in which it was obtained and if either party to the marriage was habitually resident, domiciled or a national of that country.

Footnote(s):

² Hague Convention on the Recognition of Divorces and Legal Separations 1970

Same-sex marriage was introduced in England and Wales in 2014, although it is not currently possible for a same-sex couple to have a legal marriage which takes place in a church.

Same-sex and opposite-sex couples can alternatively choose to enter a civil partnership (governed by the Civil Partnership Act 2004).  The rights arising on dissolution of a civil partnership mirror those that apply to marriage.

The English Court will recognise same-sex marriages that have taken place in another jurisdiction provided that the marriage complied with the laws of that jurisdiction.

Schedule 20 of the CPA 2004 sets out a list of (same-sex and opposite-sex) overseas relationships which are recognised in England and Wales.

The court in England and Wales can make substantive orders in relation to division of assets on divorce for:

• the payment of lump sums,
• the transfer or sale of property,
• the creation of a settlement of property,
• the variation of a pre or post-nuptial settlement,
• the sharing of a pension or making of a pension attachment order,
• the payment of maintenance,
• secured maintenance and lump sum provision, and
• the payment of maintenance, lump sums and property settlement in favour of a child of the marriage (also secured if appropriate).

The court usually adopts a two-stage process of computation and distribution.

The guiding principle is to achieve fairness. In determining the outcome, the court will look at all the circumstances of the case and must give first consideration to the welfare of any children under the age of 18 years.   Statutory factors set out in s.25 Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 require specific consideration. These include the parties’ financial resources both now and in the future, their needs, standard of living, their age, the duration of marriage, the contributions they have made and their conduct (if it would be unjust to disregard said conduct).  There is also a ‘statutory steer’ to a ‘clean break’ in s.25A.

In the pursuit of fairness, it is acknowledged that there can be no discrimination between the husband and wife and their respective roles.  Three principles apply which are:

• the needs of the parties, and if these can be met, then
• compensation for any financial disadvantage generated by the relationship (albeit rarely seen in case law) and
• sharing the fruits of the matrimonial partnership.

Most cases will start and end with needs.  Outside of this, reasons for a departure from equality include in the circumstances of a short marriage; where there is non-matrimonial property such as inherited wealth; where wealth has been generated prior to the marriage; or where there has been a special contribution, which is wholly exceptional, by one of the parties to the marriage.  Another situation where equality might not be possible is where there are modest assets and resources need to be first applied to house the children, for example.

Courts in England and Wales are considered to be amongst the most generous in the world in ordering maintenance payments and it is possible, although increasingly rare, for spousal maintenance to be ordered for joint lives (terminating on death or remarriage). More common is spousal maintenance that is for a fixed term, which is then tied to other circumstances such as the ages of the children or retirement (when a pension might come into payment).  The approach here is an order to be made in such amount and for such a period as to avoid the applicant suffering undue hardship.  Ultimately the aim is to enable the recipient to transition to independence. It is important to note that a party’s needs are assessed by reference to the standard of living during the marriage. For example, in cases of substantial wealth, a party’s capital needs may extend to needing a holiday home. The standard of living will be particularly important in long marriages.

The court in England and Wales can make two types of order in relation to pensions.  A pension sharing order under s.24B Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 and a pension attachment order under ss25B and 25B.

The guiding principle is to achieve fairness between the parties, and this applies to the treatment of all the assets including pensions.

The way that a pension is shared will depend on the type and value of the pension, the other assets and income the parties have, and the needs of each spouse.

The Cash Equivalent Value produced by the pension provider is used for the purposes of divorce.  However, splitting the CEV equally is unlikely to give rise to an equal income for each spouse on retirement.  This might be due to the underlying calculation or an age difference.  The performance of the scheme that receives the pension share will also make a difference.  It is therefore common and often necessary to instruct a pension expert to advise.

As an alternative, it is possible for the court to make a pension attachment order. This is an order that once the pension comes into payment, a percentage is paid directly to the ex-spouse.  A percentage of any tax-free lump sum can also be paid to the ex-spouse.  However, complications mean the pension will not be paid until the spouse starts receiving their pension.  Also, if that person dies, or the ex-spouse receiving the pension payments re-marries, then the payments end.

Once divorce proceedings have been issued, the court has the power to order interim maintenance at a level that the court ‘thinks reasonable’. In this circumstance, the court takes a broad-brush approach focusing on the applicant’s immediate needs and the respondent’s (readily identifiable) income and resources.

The court can also order provision for legal costs, if it believes the applicant would not reasonably be able to obtain appropriate legal services without it.  This takes the form of a legal services payments order. When considering whether such an order should be granted, the court will work through the factors in s22ZA Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, which focus on the relative resources and needs of the parties, the subject matter of the proceedings and what is at stake, whether the paying party is legally represented and the applicant’s own conduct in the proceedings.

Financial claims can be made after a foreign divorce if the foreign marriage and divorce are recognised under English law and the jurisdictional requirements under s.15 Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 are met. The English court will have jurisdiction if one of the parties:

• is domiciled in England and Wales on the date of the application, or
• is habitually resident for a period of one-year leading up to the application; or
• has an interest in a dwelling house in England and Wales which was at some time during the marriage used as the matrimonial home.

There are two stages to the application.  First to obtain permission by meeting the threshold that there is a ‘substantial’ ground for bringing a claim and then for the court to consider the substantive application for financial relief, which provides the same remedies as set out in question 8.

There is an exception where the jurisdiction is based on the presence of a dwelling house in England and Wales, and then the court’s role is limited to making lump sum orders in favour of one of the parties or a child of the family, or a property adjustment order in relation to that asset.

The process will depend on the type of financial order and the foreign jurisdiction where the order was made.

The UK has ratified the Hague Maintenance Convention 2007³ which governs the enforcement of maintenance (spousal maintenance and maintenance relating to a child under the age of 21) between contacting states.

In England and Wales, the Reciprocal Enforcement of Maintenance Orders Unit (REMO) handles operational duties for the transmitting and receiving of cases under the Hague Maintenance Convention 2007 and other international REMO agreements.

The Maintenance Orders Act 1950 applies to Scotland and Northern Ireland.

The Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1972 Part I applies to some Commonwealth countries and the USA.  Part I applies to periodical payments orders and lump sum orders and involves a process of registration through REMO to the English court (if satisfied that the debtor resides or has assets in the area).

For countries that are not signatories to these conventions, there is also the Maintenance Orders (Facilities for Enforcement) Act 1920, the Administration of Justice Act 1920 and the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act.

Where there is no reciprocal arrangement, the creditor is able to bring a civil claim on the basis of the debt due under the foreign financial order.

Where there is a foreign order in relation to a pension situated in England and Wales, the English court may be able to make an order, as long as there’s jurisdiction under Part III MFPA 1984.  It is not longer possible to rely on the forum of necessity jurisdiction in the EU Maintenance Regulation following Brexit.

Footnote(s):

³ Hague Convention on International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance 2007

Under English law, there is no system of matrimonial property regimes i.e. a couple do not elect a regime prior to getting married.  Where a couple have signed up to a foreign property regime prior to marriage, the English Court may take that fact (and the substance of the provisions) into account in determining the award provided that the outcome dictated by the regime would meet both parties’ needs and subject to the considerations set out in the case of Granatino v Radmacher [2010] UKSC 42 and subsequent case law as regards the validity of nuptial agreements (see question 14).

In a landmark case in 2010 called Radmacher v Granatino, the Supreme Court held that “a Pre-Nuptial Agreement should be upheld if it is freely entered into by each party with a full appreciation of its implications unless in the circumstances prevailing it would not be fair to hold the parties to their agreement”.  Following Radmacher, the court will look to see if safeguards are met:

• There must be no duress or undue influence;
• Each party must have all the information material to their decision to enter into the PNA;
• Each party should intend that the agreement should govern the financial consequences of the marriage coming to an end;
• Each party should have independent legal advice;
• The agreement must not prejudice the interests of the children; and
• The provision made for the financially weaker party must meet their needs.

As a result the English Courts have been increasingly upholding Pre-Nuptial Agreements since 2010.  Many practitioners take the view that it is good practice to ensure that the Pre-Nuptial Agreement is signed not less than 28 days before the legal marriage.  This goes to the question of duress or undue influence. The Court will apply the same test to Pre and Post-Nuptial Agreements entered into in other jurisdictions. However, where the parties are foreign nationals of a state where Pre-Nuptial Agreements are common and binding, that will increase the weight to be given to the Pre-Nuptial Agreement.

For children under the age of 16, the Child Support Act 1991 requires a non-resident parent to pay child maintenance to the parent where the child lives more of the time.  The rate is determined by the application of a statutory formula and managed by the Child Maintenance Service (CMS).  This only applies to income below £3000 per week.  When a parent’s income exceeds the maximum applicable amount the court has power to make a ‘top up order’ (see below).

There are also other circumstances when the court can make an order:

• To vary the written agreement of the parents (for a period of 12 months at which time the CMS will have jurisdiction)
• If either parent or the child is habitually resident outside England and Wales
• Where a school fees order is sought or payment is required to meet expenses incurred with training or education
• Where payment is sought to meet expenses in connection with a child’s disability
• Where a child reaches age 19 and is still in education or training or there are ‘special circumstances’ such as the child’s disability. There are technical issues with this application – which can be extended by a parent before the child reaches age 18 or applied for by the child themselves after 18 (but only if there has been no order in their favour before 16).

Family Law in Partnership has developed an online tool in conjunction with the core text, Family Court Practice 2024 (the Red Book) for calculating the amount payable: https://www.flip.co.uk/calculator-redbook-cm/

Yes, one parent can bring a claim for financial provision for the child’s benefit against the other legal parent and it may also be possible for a child over 18 to apply if in full time education (as above).  Claims are made under Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989

Under Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989, the court can make the following financial orders for the benefit of children:

• Settlement of (and very occasionally) outright transfer of property for the child during their dependency (which is usually 18 but will extend beyond a child’s 18th birthday if the child is in education or training).
• Lump sum orders including, but not limited to, lump sums to cover liabilities or expenses incurred in maintaining the child/children. This can include a car.

And as above:

• Costs relating to disability
• Education costs during primary and secondary education and perhaps tutoring
• Financial support during university years.

Where the parties are habitually resident in England & Wales, maintenance is primarily payable through the Child Maintenance Service.

Schedule 1 claims are usually made in circumstances where there is a significant disparity in wealth between the applicant parent (usually the primary carer) and the other parent. The court is concerned to ensure that the standard of living the child enjoys with the primary carer is not ‘out of kilter’ with the standard of living enjoyed with the other parent.

No. There is no particular regime which governs the rights of unmarried couples, regardless of whether they cohabit or not, or the duration or permanence of their relationship. It is worth noting that in England and Wales, there is no such things as ‘common law marriage’. The term civil partnership refers to a legal relationship which is an alternative to marriage (ref question 7).

Unmarried couples do not have specific financial claims against one another in the event that they separate.  Any claims that they do have will arise from English property law and concepts of ownership.

If the couple’s home has been owned by one party throughout the relationship, it will remain in their ownership.  If the property has been in joint names, it will continue to be owned jointly.  In the absence of an agreement to sell, either party could apply to Court to seek a sale of the property.  As a starting point, the couple’s respective interests in the property will be governed by any Declaration of Trust entered into at the time of the property purchase.  It is possible to argue that the ownership of the property is not as recorded in a Declaration of Trust (i.e. that the beneficial interest in the property does not follow the legal interest) but a party would have to rely on ordinary trust and property principles.  It may be that if, for example, a party has made a financial contribution to the initial payment or mortgage of a property in the other party’s sole name, they may be able to argue that there is a resulting trust in their favour to the extent of their contribution.  Alternatively, they may be able to argue that there is a common intention constructive trust. Effectively, that the parties shared a common intention that they would share the beneficial interest in the property jointly and in certain proportions.  This is generally evidenced by way of financial contribution to the property and/or a reliance upon said agreement by the other party.

When the court considers an application by a parent concerning their child, (whether it’s in relation to where they will live, with whom they will spend time or concerning the school they may attend), it does not make a difference if they were married to the other parent or not.

Parental Responsibility (PR) which is ‘all the rights and duties, powers, responsibilities and authority which by law a parent…has in relation to the child and his property’, is also not dependent on the marital status of the parents and endures if parents separate.  The birth mother has PR automatically, as will the father if he is married to or in civil partnership with the mother.  Other fathers can acquire PR by registration on the birth certificate, or by agreement or an order of the court and it can be obtained by a second female parent if married to the mother or the agreed female parenthood HFEA conditions apply.

Anyone with PR has equal status to another person with PR. PR cannot be surrendered or transferred but may be delegated.  In rare cases it can be removed by court order.

Under s2(1) Family Law 1986, the courts of England and Wales cannot make an order under s.8 (for an order relating to child arrangements) Children Act 1989 unless:

• There is jurisdiction under the 1996 Hague Convention⁴ or
• Where the 1996 Hague does not apply there is
  • Continuing proceedings between the child’s parents in England and Wales for divorce (or dissolution of civil partnership) or
  • The child is habitually resident in England and Wales or physically present in England and Wales and not habitually resident in any other part of the UK or a specified dependent territory.

Footnote(s):

⁴ Convention on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Co-operation in respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children 1996

The court in England and Wales can make orders under section 8 Children Act 1989 for:

• child arrangements orders (CAOs),
• prohibited steps orders (PSOs); and
• specific issue orders (SIOs).

A CAO is an order setting out the arrangements for a child concerning with whom the child ‘lives with’, ‘spends time with’ or otherwise has contact with which could include indirect contact via letters or online and supervised or supported contact.  A ‘spends time with’ order cannot be made without first determining with whom a child will live.

It is not uncommon for there to be a joint ‘lives with’ order even when the time is not divided equally. This is in recognition that it may be important for both parents to be on equal footing, neutralising the impact of the additional rights that come with a lives with order – e.g. to take a child out of the jurisdiction for a period of up to 1 month.

A PSO is made to prevent a parent with PR from taking a step without the consent of the court.  It can be made to prevent, for example, the removal of a child from the jurisdiction, a parent changing the child’s schooling or their name. It is not used to regulate child arrangements.

An SIO is made to give directions about a specific question that has arisen about a child with, for example, religious upbringing, medical treatment or a child’s name.  It can also be used to impose a decision about schooling.

Paramount consideration must be given to the child’s welfare and the welfare checklist at s.1 Children Act 1989, requires the court to have regard to the ascertainable wishes and feelings of the child.  Article 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child provides that a child who is capable of forming their own views should be afforded the opportunity to express those views and for those to be given due weight.

Increasingly it has been recognised that the Voice of the Child is of central importance in disputes between parents about their children. Child inclusive mediation has developed to provide a mechanism for the child’s views to be heard by the mediator and fed back into the overall mediation process and the pilot Pathfinder Courts have introduced a new approach that requires the child’s views to be considered as the first step in the proceedings with these being set out in a report called the Child Impact Report.

The court must not make a section 8 order in respect of a child who has reached the age of 16 unless the circumstances of the case are exceptional.

It is a criminal offence under the Child Abduction Act 1984 to permanently remove a child under the age of 16 from the jurisdiction without the consent of all those with parental responsibility.

A parent seeking to relocate a child internationally requires the written consent of anyone with parental responsibility or the permission of the court.

In deciding whether to grant permission, the child’s welfare is the court’s paramount consideration, and the court will apply the welfare checklist in s.1(1) Children Act 1989 in a holistic way to the proposals put forward by each parent.  Unless the contrary is shown, the court must presume that involvement of each parent in the life of the child will further the child’s welfare (s.1(2A) Children Act 1989) and therefore an assessment of with the non-moving parent is often a significant issue.  The court also needs to ensure that the decision is compatible with the Article 8 ECHR, the child’s and parents respective rights to family life.

A person who is named in a child arrangements order as the person with whom the child lives does not require permission to move within the UK.  However, if the other parent does not agree with the move, they can apply for a prohibited steps order.  Alternatively, the parent who wishes to move can apply for a specific issue order to permit relocation and allowing for the change of school.

Although the statutory basis is different, the approach of the court to considering the relocation of the child is the same whether it is an external or internal relocation. In both cases, the paramountcy of the child’s welfare remains the guiding principle.

Between the legal jurisdictions of the UK, recognition and enforcement of orders concerning children under age 16 is governed by the Family Law Act 1986.  Whilst recognition is automatic, there is a procedure for enforcement that requires the person on whom rights are conferred to apply to the originating court for a certified copy of the order to be sent to the enforcing court, which is then registered on receipt.

The 1996 Hague Convention is the means by which orders concerning parental responsibility and ‘protective measures’ of children under 18 are recognised and enforced in another contracting State.  There is no standard procedure for recognition which is to be by ‘operation of law’, and therefore without the need for further court orders.  As a practical point, it can help to include a recital on the face of the original order that it is intended to be recognised in another 1996 Hague state.

Under Article 24 of the 1996 Hague Convention there is scope for ‘advance recognition’ of orders. This can be particularly helpful in relocation cases because another contacting state can confirm it will accept an order before the child is habitually resident in the jurisdiction.

Where the 1996 Hague Convention does not apply, the Luxembourg Convention 1980 may be relevant.  This covers child arrangement issues such as where a child will live and with whom they spend time, when they are under the age of 16.

Beyond these conventions there is no clear means of recognising or enforcing foreign orders in this jurisdiction.  It is possible to apply for a mirror order under common law, but the procedure for this has not been settled by case law.

Surrogacy is legal in England and Wales and is governed by the Surrogacy Arrangements Act 1985 and certain provisions of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act (HFEA) 2008.However, surrogacy agreements are not enforceable, and surrogates are not permitted to receive more than their “reasonable expenses”.  Commercial surrogacy agreements are not permitted, and it is an offence to advertise surrogacy services.

At birth the surrogate (and her spouse or civil partner) will be the legal parents of the child.  It is possible for an intended parent to use certain provisions of the HFEA 2008 to become a second parent and in some circumstances a male intended parent whose sperm has been used to conceive the child may be recognised as the legal father, usually when the surrogate is not married.

In the 2023 report ‘Building Families Through Surrogacy: A New Law⁵’, the Law Commission identified that at the time of birth often neither or at most only one of the intended parents will be the legal parents of a child born following a surrogacy agreement as an issue with the way the law currently operates.  The Law Commission put forward a number of proposals for reform which included enabling intended parents to be recognised as the legal parents from birth (as long as that remains the wish of the surrogate).

As the law currently stands, the intended parent or parents have six months from the birth of the child to apply for a parental order, although the court has made parental orders outside this timeframe.  The court will check that relevant consents of the surrogate mother and any other deemed legal parent have been provided.  In the interests of the child, the court has retrospectively approved additional costs incurred.

Footnote(s):

⁵ https://lawcom.gov.uk/project/surrogacy/

Subject to certain exemptions (e.g. Domestic Abuse) applicants must attend a Mediation Information and Assessment Meeting (a short meeting that provides information about mediation and other forms of non-court dispute resolution (NCDR), as options for resolving disputes) before they can issue proceedings.  Since April 2024, the family court has power to adjourn the proceedings at any time and encourage the parties as it considers appropriate to (i) obtain information and advice about and consider using NCDR and (ii) undertake NCDR.  The amendments to the rules also introduced an expectation that parties will update the court with their views on NCDR.  There may be costs consequences for non-compliance.

The main forms of NCDR are as follows:

• Mediation: This is where an impartial third party (trained mediator) facilitates constructive communication between the separating couple and supports them in making progress towards consensus and an agreed outcome.
• Arbitration: This is effectively a privatised Court process.  The parties appoint a senior barrister or retired judge to act as their “judge” and to make a decision on their case.  Given the delays in the court system, arbitration can offer a way to get a binding decision more quickly.  It is also confidential.  The arbitration award will then be turned into an Order of the Court and will be binding upon the parties in the same way.
• Evaluation by a neutral third party (such as a private Financial Dispute Resolution Hearing (FDR)): The second stage of Court proceedings for a final remedy order involves an FDR hearing.  This is a judge-led settlement hearing where the judge gives the parties a non-binding indication of how they would decide the case at a final hearing.  This indication is intended to promote settlement discussions between the parties.  As a result of pressures on the court and delays, there is a growing practice in England (particularly London) of privatising that process.  The parties are able to step out of the Court process and appoint a barrister or retired judge to act as their “judge” in order to hear submissions from their barrister and give an indication in the same way as a Court judge would.  If the private FDR fails, the parties can then step back into the Court process and seek a final hearing.
• Collaborative Law: This involves a ‘participation agreement’ entered into by the separating couple and their lawyers where they agree to work constructively in a four-way approach to create a bespoke solution for the family.  Each commit not to seek partisan advice but instead to operate in a constructive way.