Laws of Love

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.

Further to my earlier post I gather from the BBC that MP’s have voted to scrap the need for a Father when considering couples’ eligibility for IVF treatment. Apparently the government see ’supportive parenting’ as being what is required for children to be raised in a proper and caring manner and, horror of horrors, I actually agree!

I haven’t ever been involved in a case where in-vitro fertilisation was an issue, but the current debate regarding the regulation of this area of science does have interesting cross-overs with what we more usually regard as family law.

In The Times today it is noted that human-animal embryos will now be allowed, however seemingly this success for the government has been at the expense of reforming section 13(5) of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990.

The current legislation contains the follwoing provision which the government wished to scrap:

(5) A woman shall not be provided with treatment services unless account has been taken of the welfare of any child who may be born as a result of the treatment (including the need of that child for a father)… (emphasis added)

In the real world the number of one-parent families (usually mother only), has of course risen greatly since even 1990 and fathers have re-acted to what they perceive as a devaluing of the paternal role (see eg Families need Fathers). I have no doubt that where two parents exist, spearated or otherwise, it is almost invariably more beneficial to a child to have a good relationship with both parents.

The issue in the Act however is different to that facing fathers seeking contact. The Act’s current attempt at near-prohibition works to the disadvantage of gay and lesbian couples and single women who wish to have a child. One must contrast the Act’s seeming discrimination against such family forms (fertility clinics must look at them differently to heterosexual couples where there will be a father), to how the law approaches carers of children who are already in existence.

In fact Local Authorities, with the courts’ approval, regularly place children with single foster carers or adoptive parents and the Court has happily placed children within the care of gay or lesbian parents (for a relatively recent example see Re B (Leave to Remove) where a father assisted his lesbian sister and her partner to have a child and his sister’s partner then applied to move with the child to the USA. In that case the court ruled it was right for the sister’s lesbian partner to move with the child to the States.)

It does appear that as a result of simple politics the opportunity will be missed to once and for all make clear that the welfare of the child is not influenced purely by ‘having a father’; but rather by a child having a good quality carer or carers who are open to a child having full access to their heritage and relatives. Such arrangements highlight that where fathers exist they should be given rights but where they do not (I’m thinking in terms of anonymous sperm donation), a child is perfectly able to turn out well if it is brought up in a loving environment.

This reality has long been recognised by the courts (as noted above) and it is about time that parliament also stopped appeasing the far right and valued loving parents of all varieties. Contrary to MP’s seeming fears, such a statement is perfectly in line with recognising father’s rights and in fact likely to lead to just as cohesive a society (if not moreso as the more loving and attention-giving parents of all hues, the better).

I hesitate to write this post as I obviously have a certain degree of self-interest! That said, I do feel that public perceptions and reality on this topic are somewhat far apart and the whole point of blogging is of course to express views - so here goes!

 I’m prompted by an article by Frances Gibb in The Times today regarding what will, in all likelihood, be the latest development in the ongoing war surrounding fees for family work. Family Law Week have already commented on this and Jacqui Gilliatt makes some interesting points but there are many others.

 As was recently pointed out in Pink Tape, life at the family bar is not always as portrayed in the press and has certain pressures. I commented on the post by Pink Tape that Family Barristers are not poor and that is certainly true, however nor are we millionaires (or at least I’m not - am I doing something wrong?!).

The Times article quotes Legal Services Commission stats that the average annual earnings by members of the Family Bar from legal aid are c.£140,000. The first point to make is that I am a regional barrister on the South Coast and relatively junior, but those ’average’ fees certainly do not reflect earnings of my close local collegaues!

Secondly, the public should remember that the fees cited are ‘gross’. Even if those fees were received then a proportion would get paid to Chambers (this varies but anywhere from 10-20% is common). There are then business expenses (a lexis nexis online subscription alone is £1,000+ per year), and that’s before NI and tax are paid.

As I say, the legally-aided family Bar are not poorly paid, but nor are the attitudes of the press a fair reflection of what we do. No real data exists but certainly for my part it is rare that in fact if I divide my gross fee by the hours worked then my hourly rate is much above £60. This represents a greater wage than much of the population can hope to earn in a day but one must look at comparisons with other professions and even branches of law.  

Partners in law firms in this country charge in all areas of law well in excess of £100 per hour (£160 is probably the average) and the reality is that in most areas of law other than crime, the bar and solicitors would expect to bill at least £100 per hour. I don’t argue for huge increases in family fees, I am realistic, that will simply not happen. But the government must understand the effects of its drive to bring down family fees yet further.

I know colleages who now actively market themselves in employment, contract or big-money divorce finance, simply to avoid legal-aid rates. These collegaues were good family lawyers who cared for their clients, but the simple fact is their first priority must be their own families and monthly mortgage payments. The government is driving good lawyers from publicly funded family law (as well as discouarging new entrants - why would you choose an area where you earn less and must cope with huge emotional pressures?!). Can it be right that lawyers who represent parents at risk of losing their children forever (as in most care cases) earn less that those arguing over the fairness of the loss of a job? The government appears to think so but my morals strongly disagree and ultimately their policies will lead to a reduction in the quality of legal advice in legally-aided family cases.

Is it true that better expertise are required in privately funded cases? I would have to say no. I carry out both private and publicly-funded work (as does most of the bar), but whilst all clients receive my full attention it is often in fact the case that stretching money that simply doesn’t exist (as in most legally-aided cases), is far harder than divvying up a pot where both parties will at least be able to purchase a property at the end of the process. 

Having said all of the above, I should however add a note of caution. Part of the stated thinking behind the current drop in fees for the family bar is to bring about an equality in terms of payment with solicitor advocates. I am firmly in agreement that those doing the same job should earn the same wage and I hope solicitors will not read any of the above as justifying privileges for the Bar.

It must be realised that government policy is currently to reduce payment for both branches of the profession and both sides are fighting as best they can for survival. In terms of legal aid family solicitors there are now parts of the country where finding a solicitor is nigh on impossible and the attack on solicitors is just as reprehensible as that on the Bar. I just hope that one day a government (of whichever colour), will begin to value the work family solicitors and barristers do in creating and supporting the ’society’ that politicians so love to bemoan as being in a state of decay. 

Apologies as I have recently been snowed under and therefore not posted for a while. All that should change come Monday. A further apology however is for the number of spam comments that arived on the site. Hopefully I’ve now got this sorted and I’ll keep a close eye going forward.