Cohabitation reform proposals ignite heated debate
As we reported here in June, the Government has published a consultation on the reform of the law relating to financial remedies on divorce and financial provision for cohabitants on separation. The consultation period ended on the 14th of August.
The Government’s proposals on cohabitation reform, which would give cohabitants similar rights and protections on relationship breakdown to married couples unless they choose to opt-out, have ignited a heated debate between opponents and supporters of the scheme.
One of the most outspoken critics of the proposals is the crossbench peer Baroness Deech, who has long had an interest in family law reform.
In her response to the consultation the Baroness criticises the proposals for ‘automatically imposing marriage-like legal rights and obligations on cohabiting couples without their consent’, and suggests that couples should be able to opt-in to the scheme, rather than have to opt-out.
The Baroness also claimed that the Government has no clear public mandate for the reform, citing a poll which found that only 37% of respondents supported the reform.
And there has also been a concern raised about the effect of the reforms upon the case load of the courts. His Honour Judge Edward Hess, deputy national lead judge of the Financial Remedies Court (‘FRC’), which would deal with financial claims by cohabitants, has warned that the FRC could have to deal with up to an additional 14,300 cases each year, of which about 3,500 would be contested.
The Government has estimated that the reform could generate an increase of up to 5,000 applications, of which about 1,950 would be contested, but Judge Hess considers this to be ‘a significant underestimate’.
On the other side of the debate Resolution, the association of family lawyers, which has long called for reform of the law in this area, has strongly rebutted these criticisms.
As to Baroness Deech’s claim that the proposals would impose marriage-like legal rights and obligations on cohabiting couples without their consent, Jo Edwards, chair of Resolution’s Family Law Reform Committee, said that: ‘They simply establish a safety net for relationships which meet clearly defined criteria and rights that would fall far short of those for married couples’.
And she said that there was a ‘clear democratic mandate’ for cohabitation reform, pointing out that this was a Labour manifesto commitment.
And as to the effect of the reform upon the caseload of the courts, Ms Edwards suggested that Judge Hess’s prediction falls ‘wide of the mark’, pointing out that research has found that only 3% of couples needed a judge to determine their finances on divorce, with a further 2.5% having settled after court proceedings started.
The Government will now be considering these and all other responses to the consultation, and will thereafter indicate whether it intends to proceed with the reform.
You can find Baroness Deech’s response to the consultation here, an article setting out Judge Hess’s views here, and Resolution’s response to the consultation, here.
* * *
Family Law Cafe gives you the best strategy to achieve the right outcome for you and your family and keeps them informed and in control 24/7 through a unique and secure online portal. Family Law Cafe is your start-point for getting matters sorted with strategy, support and security.
Image: fizkes / Shutterstock.com
