Laws of Love

I have yet to deal with a case where one party openly states sex addiction as a reason for divorce. This article however highlights the growing numbers being diagnosed and equally that it is far from being a male only condition. Perhaps the article is more interesting however for its comments regarding the self-esteem issues that lead to such addiction (and indeed are often the root cause of other like addictions).

It’s an intri guing and controversial issue. Have a look at sex addicts anonymous for more!  

The Times published today the story of Debbie Purdy, an MS sufferer who went to the High Court seeking clarification of what may happen to her husband if he were to assist her in travelling to Switzerland to commit suicide when her life became intolerable. Ms Purdy’s claim was against the DPP / CPS for not having issued detailed guidance as it has in the cases of domesic violence and football-related crimes.

Sadly the High Court ruled that the claim was not made out as though no specific guidance is available (and it certainly is not), the general guidance by way of the Act and normal prosecuting guidelines are such as to provide for Ms Purdy’s human rights (seemingly despite the fact there is no straight answer!). Leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal was granted so the case may not be over, however the Judges concluded by stating that it is for Parliament to act.

The difficulty with this is that controversial matters such as assisted suicide or cohabitation are very unlikely to ever receive proper parliamentary consideration. This issue is particularly pertinent to family lawyers as of course may ‘family law’ issues often fall within the politically sensitive arena. Cohabitation reform has been needed for many years and even when it was referred to the Law Commission they at first said it must be a matter for Parliament and no fresh legislation has yet emerged.

It does make you wish for an alternative method of legislating these areas where political hot potatoes are forever passed around and the law becomes massively outof date until judicial activism eventually fills the gap. Respecting Parliament is all well and good (and indeed proper), but Parliament must stop ducking issues and have the tough debates that are needed to update the statute book.

The BBC recently published this story about an action against God in the States being thrown out by the Judge.

The action was brought by the Nebraska State Governor for an injunction against God to prevent “death, destruction and terrorisation” by God. (I do know terrorisation isn’t a word but it’s an american case!). The concerning thing however has to be the ground that the case was thrown out by Judge Polk: “Given that there can never be service effectuated on the named defendant this action will be dismissed …”.

Surely the case ought to have been thrown out for reasons other than that God doesn’t have an address to serve the papers and besides, if he’s truly omnipresent surely he’d have known anyway!

My thanks to Pete Doughty in Chambers for bringing this one to my attention and for anyone interested in employment law he’s just started a new employment law blog.

Every so often I’m reminded that I practice in the provinces (a romanticised turn of phrase which actually means anywhere other than London!). Reading The Times Law Reports this morning was one of those occasions when I realised how far removed from London I truly am.

I have never had the delight of appearing before the House of Lords (the highest court in the land, soon to be known as the Supreme Court), except for sitting behind my pupilmaster when he conducted a case there. I was astonished to read however that the Law Lords have felt it necessary to issue a note to counsel reminding them that when they are instructed to appear before their Lordships they are expected to both ‘be present at and throughout the hearing’.

I, stupidly, hadn’t realised it was possible to conduct a case other than by being there for the whole thing, particularly before the Law Lords - I guess I’m just not destined for greater things!

The Times this morning (3rd June), had two very contrasting stories about parents, both of which deserve comment.

Firstly there is the government white paper concerning birth registration (as noted by The Times) which puts forward proposals whereby Mothers must confirm the father’s identity at the time of a new child’s birth registration and both parents must sign the certificate (under the current law a married father’s name is inserted automatically but it is up to Mothers to register unmarried fathers). This joint registration will be obligatory, the White Paper proposes, unless registering the Father would be, “impossible, impractical or unreasonable”.

The scheme has already been the subject of useful comment by Family Lore  and as ever I agree with his observations. That said, one point raised is that seemingly Mothers are to be interrogated as to Father’s identities, yet the courts have recognised that in fact if a Mother refuses to give a name, little can be done (see Re C from 23 November 2007).

Equally, in assessing whether it would be ‘unreasonable’ to enter a father’s name on the certificate it appears the registrar will need to undertake a judgment as to the nature of the objections - the White Paper talks of, eg. rape of Mother or Father being on the Sex Offenders Register as reasons for omitting father’s name - this will be tricky ground indeed for registrars who, I am sure, will not appreciate the extra burden.

One might ask the relevance of birth certificates but following changes introduced by the Adoption and Children Act 2o02, if the Father of a child born after 1 December 2003 is named on the birth certificate, they automatically acquire parental responsibility.

Given this automatic acquisition of PR I have to say the prospect of getting more fathers on birth certificates must be welcome. The problem is that I see the scheme itself being hideous in operation (Family Lore commented on the ease with which Mothers will avoid giving Fathers’ name and equally the difficulty for registrars in chasing Fathers to sign).

Also, it would be easier to believe in the proposals if you got the impression that they were truly intended to enforce the importance of absent fathers, rather than simply to increase the number of absent father’s liable to pay CSA (thereby relieving the state). I owe this rather cynical view to an interesting if controversial article in The Times written by Germaine Greer. I certainly do not agree with everything she says, but as to the government’s motives - I fear she is right!

At the other end of the spectrum the Times then has an article on a little publicised topic - absent mothers. In fact I don’t particularly like the article as it does appear to take a Greer’esque view, namely that Mothers without children are somehow worse off than non-resident Fathers. The reality is that absent parents of both sexes can often feel hurt by such detatchment and shut out by the system. The article is useful however, if only as it shows that courts do tend to be more concerned with who the primary carer has been and is, rather than with their gender.

Sad though it is, my girlfriend has indeed been subject to a rant about my inability to find things in our fridge (well, if she will pack it so full of stuff!!).

However, my thanks to The Times as it now emerges that in fact when I fail miserably to find the sprouts amongst the yoghurt, it is due to my disability by way of being a male; indeed the problem has even merited scientific research! The Canadian Medical Association Journal notes the ‘unremitting’ susceptibility of  men to the condition that is ‘refrigerator blindlness’ (or ’selective loss of visual acuity in association with a common foraging behaviour’).

This problem which afflicts so many men (and particularly pubescent boys), prevents them from seeing items within the fridge, even when under their noses. Perhaps more surprisingly the illness has nothing to do with men’s prediliction for fridges full of nothing but beer, rather it is a “genuine” scientific phenomenon which, it is hypothesised, may arise from electro-magnetic fields! The one positive is that the authors note the condition is less prevalent among married adult males, with a possible cure being ’spousal conditioning’.

However the key part of the research (which I shall quote to my girlfriend when she next berates me), was that:

“Attempts at patient empowerment through counselling — “Surely someone of your age can find the …” — rarely led to success, and diagnostic accusations such as “Are you blind?” appeared to aggravate the condition, possibly through subliminal trauma to the fragile male psyche.”

Hmm - I must admit I reckon I’ll still get it in the neck! However, next time a potential divorcee cites such matters in the divorce petition, plainly I shall need to put them right.

I thought I should just explain the signifiance of April Fools Day in law, given my decision to start blogging today.

In fact it was on 1 April 5 years ago that I first stood up in court and acted as a barrister. Training involves a 12 month pupillage (apprenticeship) where the first 6 months are spent following somebody more senior around and the second six is spent partially practicing for yourself and partially following around. 1st April is the common date for pupils to enter the 2nd six phase.

So, given that the last 5 years appear to have turned out ok, I thought today might as well be the day I started this blog - let’s hope I don’t prove too much of a fool!