“As Home Secretary, I was proud to sponsor the legislation that created equal marriage. Now, by extending civil partnerships, we are making sure that all couples, be they same-sex or opposite-sex, are given the same choices in life.”

So said Prime Minister Theresa May on Twitter, announcing that heterosexual couples are to be given the option of entering into civil partnerships. The government said that the move will give mixed-sex couples and their families the option of greater security, and it will address the “imbalance” that allows same-sex couples to choose, but not mixed-sex couples.

The government also said that there were “a number of legal issues to consider, across pension and family law” and that ministers would now consult on the technical detail. However, Equalities Minister Penny Mordaunt promised that the change in the law would happen “as swiftly as possible”.

The announcement comes just four months after the Supreme Court held that the current law, which only gives the option of civil partnership to same-sex couples, was incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. The couple involved in that case, Rebecca Steinfeld and Charles Keidan, said that the announcement was a “major step” forward. but that they would only celebrate “when legislation is agreed”.

Responding to Theresa May’s announcement, Graeme Fraser, Chair of Resolution’s Cohabitation Committee said:

“Today’s announcement is surely a victory for equality, with the extension of civil partnerships to all allowing those who do not wish to get married and their children access to the benefits of a formalised relationship. It is also a step in the right direction as it helps to bring family law in line with modern values.”

Family Law Cafe also welcomes the announcement. Whilst marriage will no doubt remain the preferred choice for the vast majority of heterosexual couples wishing to enter into a legal relationship, extending civil partnership will provide an option for those who do not wish to get married.

*          *          *

Family Law Cafe surrounds and supports the customer with both legal and pastoral care, end to end, from top barristers to case workers to therapists and mediators, to help the customer get the best possible result with the minimum stress.

Image of Theresa May by HM Government [OGL 3], via Wikimedia Commons.

A couple who believe that civil partnerships should be available to different-sex couples have won their case in the Supreme Court.

Rebecca Steinfeld and Charles Keidan wish to formalise their relationship but have deep-rooted and genuine ideological objections to marriage, based upon what they consider to be its historically patriarchal nature. They therefore wish to enter into a civil partnership, but are unable to do so, as civil partnerships are only available to same-sex couples.

They challenged this rule in the High Court, claiming that it was discriminatory. The High Court dismissed the case, and they appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, and they appealed again, to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court today held that the rule is discriminatory. Giving the unanimous judgment of the court Lord Kerr said that the government should have eliminated the inequality of treatment of different-sex and same-sex couples immediately when the law was changed in 2014 to allow same-sex couples to marry. This could have been done either by abolishing civil partnerships or by instantaneously extending them to different-sex couples. Instead the government, knowing that the rule would bring about an inequality of treatment between same-sex partners and those of different sexes, decided that further investigations were required before a decision was made whether to abolish or extend civil partnerships. However, said Lord Kerr, taking time to evaluate whether to abolish or extend could never amount to a legitimate reason to justify the continuance of the discrimination.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and made a declaration that the rule was incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.

It should be noted that, as Lord Kerr pointed out, the declaration of incompatibility does not oblige the government or Parliament to do anything. It is for Parliament to decide what to do about the incompatibility, and it can even decide to do nothing.

You can read the full judgment of the Supreme Court here.

  • *          *          *

Family Law Cafe provides a genuinely tailored technology-based service, allowing customers to be as involved or as removed as they wish, and to benefit from as much or as little support as they require.

Image: UK Supreme Court, by David Holt, licensed under CC BY 2.0.

The Ministry of Justice has launched a consultation on proposed amendments to the rules governing financial remedy claims arising from divorce or dissolution of civil partnerships.

There are essentially two proposed amendments. The first relates to the ‘de-linking’ of divorce/dissolution proceedings and financial remedy applications, and the second is the introduction of a “fast-track” procedure for certain types of financial claims.

As to de-linking, the main proposal is to remove the possibility of making a financial remedies application within the divorce petition/application for civil partnership dissolution. Until now, for example, it has been possible for someone issuing divorce proceedings to include such an application within their divorce petition, even if they do not intend to proceed with the application at that time. This can act as a ‘protection’ so that they can proceed with the application at a later date, even if they have remarried (a person who has remarried cannot make a financial remedies application in relation to an earlier marriage). The idea behind de-linking is to make the divorce application and financial remedies applications entirely separate, now that they are dealt with separately (the divorce in one of the eleven regional divorce centres and the financial remedies application in the parties’ local family court).

As to the fast-track procedure, this is actually the re-naming of an existing procedure used for less complex family financial claims not related to divorce/dissolution proceedings, such as applications for financial provision for children under Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989. However, it is also proposed that certain claims made in relation to divorce/dissolution proceedings that are likely to be less complex should also use the fast track procedure, such as maintenance claims and lump sum claims not exceeding £25,000.

Family Law Cafe is generally in favour of the de-linking proposal, so long as those involved in divorce/dissolution proceedings are made fully aware of the need to protect themselves where necessary by making an application. As to the fast-track proposal, Family Law Cafe is also in favour, although with some reservations about making matters more complicated by having two separate procedures, and also about having a lump sum limit, when parties will often not be able to quantify lump sum claims until after proceedings have been instituted.

Family Law Cafe will monitor the outcome to this consultation and will keep you up to date with changes. We provide strategy and mentoring advice to make sure you get the best outcome in your family matter. You can call us on 020 3904 0506 or email us at info@flc.chcdigital.com.

If you are interested, you can see the consultation paper here, and the proposed rule changes here.

Image: Financial Key, by GotCredit, licensed under CC BY 2.0.

The Court of Appeal has ruled against a heterosexual couple who wish to enter into a civil partnership, rather than get married.

Rebecca Steinfeld and Charles Keidan challenged a ruling that said they did not meet the legal requirement for civil partnerships of being the same sex. They argued that the law discriminated against heterosexual couples.

The three judges in the Court of Appeal accepted that the law was discriminatory. However, two of the judges said that the discrimination was justified because the Government was looking into changing the law, and needed more time to consider the matter. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

The Government aims to undertake a proper assessment of the law and the best way forward, in the light of the demand by couples (whether same-sex or different-sex) for civil partnerships as well as marriage.

The couple have indicated that they intend to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Responding to the decision, Nigel Shepherd, chair of Resolution, the association of family lawyers, said: “It is understandable that some couples are attracted to a form of registered partnership that is not marriage, but which will give them similar protection to marriage. That said, from a purely legal perspective, it makes little sense to retain civil partnership. But, if the option of civil partnerships for same sex couples is to continue to be retained, then civil partnerships must also be available to opposite sex couples in order to avoid discrimination. We agree that there is a pressing need for the government to address this issue.”

You can read the full judgment here.

Image: Royal Courts, by Ken Mist, licensed under CC BY 2.0.

If a same-sex couple wish to formalise their relationship then they have two options: to enter into a civil partnership, or to get married.

A civil partnership gives legal recognition to same-sex relationships, putting the civil partners in a similar legal position to married couples.

A civil partnership is formed by having the partnership registered. The formalities and procedure are not dissimilar to those for marriage.

Civil partnerships may be dissolved in the same way as marriages, save that the term ‘dissolution order’ is used instead of ‘divorce’. The grounds for a dissolution order are the same as for divorce, save that a civil partner may not rely upon adultery to prove that the civil partnership has broken down irretrievably. The procedure is similar to that for divorce.

As with marriage, civil partnerships can be annulled. It is also possible to obtain a ‘separation order’, which is the equivalent of judicial separation between spouses.

When a civil partnership is terminated, the court can make the same financial orders as it can when a marriage is terminated. The factors that the court takes into account when deciding what orders to make are similar, and the procedure is much the same.

Since March 2014 it has also been possible for same-sex couples to get married.

A same-sex marriage can be dissolved in the same way as an opposite-sex marriage. However, it should be noted that only conduct between the respondent to the divorce and a person of the opposite sex may constitute adultery for the purposes of divorce. Accordingly, if the respondent had sex with someone of the same sex that would not be adultery, although it would be unreasonable behaviour.

The court can make the same financial orders on the dissolution of a same-sex marriage as it can on the dissolution of an opposite-sex marriage.

For further advice contact Family Law Café by clicking the Contact link above and filling in the form, or by calling us on 020 3904 0506.

Image: Wedding Celebration, by Hotlanta Voyeur, licensed under CC BY 2.0.