100% satisfaction guarantee Immediately available after payment Both online and in PDF No strings attached
logo-home
Previously searched by you
Previously searched by you
logo
First class Family Law Notes £20.48
Add to cart
Quickly navigate to
Preview
  2.  
  3. Cambridge University (CAM)
  4.  
  5. Law
  6.  
  7. Family Law

Study guide

First class Family Law Notes

2 reviews
 11 purchases

First class Family Law notes, last updated for Law exams at the University of Cambridge in 2018. These notes are concise & colourful. I have distilled the key principles for the main cases to make revision easier, especially for problem questions. The notes also cover key academic commentary in e...

[Show more]

Preview 5 out of 74  pages

Document information

  • April 7, 2020
  • 74
  • 2017/2018
  • Study guide

Subjects

Written for

All documents for this subject (1)

2  reviews

review-writer-avatar

By: merielcoldwell • 3 year ago

Great

review-writer-avatar

By: elmo4 • 4 year ago

Seller

avatar-seller
firstclassnotes2020

Reviews received

Content preview

FAMILY NOTES




FA M I LY
OTES
L AW N



TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRO, MARRIAGE & NULLITY : P.2

DIVORCE & DISSOLUTION : P.13

FINANCIAL REMEDIES ON DIVORCE : P.20

FINANCIAL PROVISION FOR CHILDREN/SEPARATED COHABITEES: P.29

PARENTHOOD & PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY : P.46

CHILDREN’S RIGHTS & AUTONOMY : P.56

PRIVATE DISPUTES OVER CHILDREN: P.61

CHILD PROTECTION: PUBLIC LAW P.66




PAGE ! 1 OF ! 74

,FAMILY NOTES
INTRO, MARRIAGE & NULLITY

• If relationships don’t attract family law protection, they must rely on general law- not well-suited to resolving
family disputes and therefore is important to identify ‘family’
• traditional approach seen in Gammans v Ekins 1950- no marriage, no family!
• functional approach Fitzpatrick v Sterling Housing Association 2001: long-term cohabiting couple
considered family under Rent Act 1977 (same sex)
• Lord Slynn: hallmarks of familial relationship are mutual interdependence, sharing of lives, caring & loving,
commitment & support: not transient or superficial
• but Lord Clyde said need sexual relationship!
• Note: Probert don’t assume functional equivalence of relationships too quickly- need to consider evidence
• some legislation requires people to be living in same household, sharing household (not j living together):
Kotke v Saffarini 05
• Under ECHR, Vallianatos v Greece 13 in ‘family life’= same & opposite sex couples with/without kids

• Despite this, much legislation explicitly for M/CP but not co-habitants… yet compare
• Vervoeke v Smith married couple but with no social/functional relationship: cohabitants living akin to M/CP
may have closer relationship yet prove more to get protection
• Clive has argued for an entirely functional model- ‘de facto’ approach
• Glennon argues CP/gay M have re-emphasised the formal conception of family- ironic given that M at all
time low
• Consider things like children- does/should it matter if parents married/unmarried? Is family about more than
just a marriage certificate?
• family is an ever-evolving concept- shouldn’t try to define it
• For many faiths, M= basis of family life- should this influence law?
• English law increasingly recognises relationships not formalised but focus is still on couples- could ask if go
beyond this- e.g 2 sisters? Asexual relationships? What should be determinant- blood, love, sex, cohabitation?

• Legal recognition important for: rights of intestacy, welfare benefits, domestic violence remedies, remedies on
separation- financial & property, tax exemptions etc
• Focus of law is on status-based relationships (as opposed to function-based)- marriage & civil partnership-
formalised relationships recognised by virtue of completing state-prescribed formalities
• Status based relationships have roots in past-doctrine of unity etc
• but these have gradually fallen away & of no application to opposite or same-sex couples
• Sheffield CC v E 04 Muby J ‘Today both spouses are the joint, co-equal heads of the family’
• given that status is now less distinctive/important, can question if it is the appropriate foundation!
MARRIAGE & CIVIL PARTNERSHIP

• 2001, 51% adult population married- by 2011, down to 47% (continuation of trend since 70s)
• 2014, 47% children born to unmarried parents
• 2009 marriage rate at lowest since records began
• but Probert observes most couples are still married & stay married!
• stats also don’t include marriages abroad- as many as 10% happen abroad
• Civil Partnerships-more popular than expected- registrable since 2005

MARRIAGE

• Religious institution, contract between parties & legal status
• questionable whether should continue to be shaped by Christian doctrine in multi-cultural, multi-faith society:
moved further away from religious roots
• Definition in Hyde v Hyde 1866 ‘marriage, as understood in Christendom, may for this purpose be defined as
voluntary union for life of 1 man and 1 woman to the exclusion of all others’
• every element of this is now out of date but we use it anyway!
• In Bellinger v Bellinger 01 viewed M as matter of status by Butler-Sloss whereas Thorpe LJ viewed it as a
contract which impacts upon status
• Contrast s.1 CPA 04 ‘civil partnership is a relationship between two people of the same sex… which is
formed when they register as civil partners of each other’
• introduced as the functional equivalent of marriage- aimed to end discrimination of same-sex couples &
express society’s approval of same-sex relationships- generally get same protections
• Hale (extra judicially)- ‘civil partnerships is marriage in almost all but name’- echoes by Potter P in Wilkinson
v Kitzinger 06
PAGE 2! OF 74
!

,FAMILY NOTES



• BUT Act reinforced that it was distinct from M- those married abroad wouldn’t be recognised as spouses here
• Wilkinson v Kitzinger 06 argues differential treatment is discrimination: failed- held that the differential
treatment justified because of the symbolic meaning of marriage- ‘they are indeed different’
• suggests there is something special about marriage
• Was recognised similarly in Kopf v Austria 10: M has ‘deep-rooted social and cultural connotations’- BUT
also said doesn’t mean obligation for same-sex M- how?
• now that we have same-sex M, there is no justification for CP only being for same-sex couples- see Steinfeld
& Keidan v SS for Education 16
• at 1st instance judge seemed truncate Art 8/14- said didn't fall under Art 8 because didn’t relate to serious
enough detriment- Fenton-Glynn says incorrect as matter of ECHR jurisprudence & illogical!
• CA said did fall within Art 8 BUT decision to ‘wait & see’ justified- for legislature to make change. Arden LJ
in dissent said would become increasingly difficult to justify this ongoing ‘wait and see’ approach

• Gov have struggled to explain why no sexual relationship necessary for CP (see divorce notes)
• and yet blood relatives are within prohibited degrees
• Therefore CoE have asked- is it about safeguarding those who wish to share their lives together or gay rights?
Should non-sexual/romantic couples be able to get CP- or straights?
• Note: Goffey-Rhys argues that denying mixed-sex couples right to form CP amounts to breach of Art 8 &
Art 14
• idea that married couples can’t call themselves partners etc
• Marriage is seen as the ‘gold standard’- some might argue CP undermines institution of M- could argue it
reinforces it though

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE

• Sexual orientation actually irrelevant!
• Harrogate BC v Simpson 1985 CA held lesbian couple couldn’t be deemed living together as husband and
wife- ECtHR said no violation of Art8 & 14- legit for state to protect concept of family- margin of
appreciation
• Fitzpatrick v Sterling HA 2001 HL still not prepared to accept same-sex couple’s relationship as akin to
husband and wife- but did accept family- Lord Nicholls seemed to place sex as being important- interesting
• Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza 2004 HL said exclusion of same-sex couples from tenancy succession legislation
(Rent Act) incompatible with ECHR-HRA- Art.8/14 violated
• Hale said homosexual relationships have same qualities of intimacy/stability/interdependency as heteros
• said marriage-like homosexual relationships analogous to marriage-like hetero relationships
• CPA 2004 came off back of this
• Only requirement under ECHR following Schalk & Kopf v Austria 2010 is that state don’t treat same-sex
couples differently without strong justification- on basis that is necessary (& proportionate) to pursue a
legitimate aim
• said no requirement for same-sex M- left open to states- given that M has ‘deep-rooted social & cultural
conniptions which may vary etc’

• Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 13 allowed same-sex M from 2014
• s.1(1) Marriage of same sex couples is lawful
• Main arguments for- 53% of consultation agree- homosexuals should be allowed to express love/happiness
same as other couples
• CP seen as second class therefore equality
• good for society as whole- reflects modern views
• Disagreements: legal definition of M is between man/woman
• COE concerned it changed definition as outlined in Christian teachings
• Some thought bad for society
• Strasser said wouldn’t threaten traditional institution of M- there is no single purpose of M
• Note: although some see M as icon of equal rights, others view it as a patriarchal monolith to be avoided in
favour of more diverse/egalitarian ways of living, or see it as irrelevant
• but study found 81% of those considering legal commitment to same-sex relationships would prefer M
• only 6% favour CP
• Lind says gay M goes further in creating demarcations e.g non-monogamous relationships etc
• but said goes some way to addressing patriarchal nature of family regulation


PAGE 3! OF 74
!

,FAMILY NOTES

• Note: Eng/Wal & Scot are only jurisdictions on planet where same-sex couples are privileged over opposite
sex- coz they have M & CP! But one report showed 20% of straights would prefer CP!
• 2013-2014 number of Cps formed down 82%
GENDER

• Human rights arguments have been used to extend legal conception of family
• GRA 04 now provides for trans people to have their preferred gender recognised for all purposes
• in early unsuccessful challenges pre GRA, Martens J dissent in Cossey v UK 93 M about more than sex &
procreation- societal bond- traditionally marriage void if not man/woman: Corbett v Corbett 71
• Note: w.o certificate of gender recognition, gender determined in biological sense. Chromosomes, genitals,
ignore any operationsCorbett v Corbett 71

COHABITATION

• General trend= M down, Cohabitation up (esp. among younger people)
• 2001, 2mil cohabiting couple families -> 2.9 mil 2013
• often as prelude to M but more and more not marrying at all
• data suggests cohabitants’ relationships less stable (2000)-95% of mothers married at birth of child still with
father 3 years later, only 85% for cohabitants
• Note: 2009 study showed 51% people still wrongly believe there is such thing as common law marriage which
gives cohabitants some rights as married couples

• We still have no special legal regime for co-habitants- very behind rest of world- use general law!
• Scotland have specific regime
• It is often children that suffer in event of separation etc- German Consti Court says this is indirect
discrimination of children and so law had to change
• e.g Burns v Burns 84 couple lived together 20 years- 2 kids but house in man’s name- split up- all she got was
washer-dryer she had bought (despite having cared for kids etc)

• Many statutes refer to couples who ‘live together as if husband/wife/CP’
• test in Crake v Supplementary Benefits Commission 82 factors like same household, stability, financial
support, sex, children, public acknowledgement
• Nutting v Southern Housing Group 04 ‘lifetime commitment to permanence’
• but concerning that people continue to organise their lives oblivious to legal implications
• some think educating people about law is best policy- have been attempts but not very successful
• ECHR jurisprudence has endorsed UK’s separation of M & Co- habits- justified to protect traditional concept
of family

• BUT ‘restaurant of life analogy’- ‘just because don’t want champagne (M) doesn’t mean you don’t want rest of
meal (other legal rights/responsibilities)
• Marriage Resource & Evangelical Alliance against reform- think will undermine institution of M- but
evidence suggests law will have little effect on what people choose (e.g current situation!)
• LC in favour of reform & statutory remedies for co-habitants- need to react to factual reality
• LC says particularly need reform in relation to children
• could have opt-in or opt-out schemes- LC favour opt-out
• better because opt-in means dominant person in relationship could control- if opt-out people will just accept
• BUT may put pressure on couples?
• Probert says M/CP already opt-in= demand for alternative quite low- can normally cover yourself with
contracts etc
• BUT it is ignorance which is problem- hence opt-out would help
• Burden and Burden v UK 07: sisters living together- challenged Eng tax law under Art 8/14
• argued discrimination because can’t formalise their relationship- argued loving, committed, stable, long-term,
shared household- sex shouldn’t matter because unnecessary for CP/gay M
• BUT failed- took v formalistic view- not M/CP therefore shouldn’t be treated as such
• identified traditional reason for M= pro-creation & M being best to raise kids- v out of date
• other reason: mutual support- applies to cohabitants too

• Few laws have been interpreted as applying to platonic/non-conjugal family
• domestic violence legislation does apply; ‘associated persons’ FLA 96
• BUT seems sex is at centre… makes them cohabitants
• Diduck says should take purely functional approach
PAGE 4! OF 74
!

, FAMILY NOTES

• In Belgium can enter CP with anyone- is asexual- just gives tax benefits and certain care allowances: need
incentives for caring etc- ageing population!
• Slippery slope to polyamory? BUT why not? if people want live their lives like that shouldn’t we at least
regulate it?
• NSW Aus have legislation for ‘domestic relationships’ since 1999!
• All sorts of different living arrangements these days…. e.g 10% of British adults ‘live together apart’- Kotke v
Saffarini said this does not equal cohabitation

STATS

• Average age of M= 36.7 years men & 34.3 years women (2013)
• Re-marriages down- only 15% of Ms
• First-time M’s up from 58% to 67%
• Factors affecting= easier immigration, econ downturn 2008-2009, marriages abroad etc

A RIGHT TO MARRY?

• Right to marry in art 12 ECHR
• Johnston v Ireland 86: said no right to divorce
• F v Switzerland 87: ‘any restrictions on access to M must not restrict/reduce the right in such a way or to
such an extent that the very essence of the rights is impaired’- said bar on re-marriage violated ECHR
• Note: recent cases have considered what is effectively right not to marry- e.g capacity issues
RIGHTS-BASED APPROACH
• Family law switches between rights-based and welfare-based approaches- tension between rules-based system
& discretion-based system
• Originally dominated by rights (mainly of husbands and fathers) then in 20th century move towards welfare,
now rights-based model doing battle with welfare approach

• ECHR & HRA mean rights-based focus now inevitable
• Art 2 right to life & Art 3 (torture/inhuman/degrading treatment)- relevant to child protection
• Art 6 obviously for disputes
• Art 8 respect for private and family life, home & correspondence
• only respect for existing fam relationships, not prospective ones: Fretté v France
• qualified i) in accordance with law ii) pursue legitimate aim in 8/2 iii) be necessary in democratic society
(proportionality)
• Art 12 right to marry and found family
• Art 14 non-discrimination (only with regard to other convention rights)
• Hale has described as ‘essential to democracy’

• return to rights-based approach gives previously excluded groups a more promising position from which to
argue for change- BUT not unanimous support
• some conservative groups think will undermine traditional family unit/values- coz focusing on individual
family members
• some think individualistic focus inappropriate when dealing with family e.g Fartin concerned that children’s
interests will be marginalised at expense of parents
• but Dewar argues rights-based will lead to more principled outcomes
• ECHR is a floor-minimum standards - national law cannot go below
• R(Ullah) v Special Adjudicator 04 ‘duty of national courts to keep pace with the Strasbourg jurisprudence
as it evolves over time: no more, but certainly no less’

STRUCTURE FOR ART 8
• Is an Art 8(1) right interfered with?
• interference in accordance with law? (if not, breach)
• does interference pursue legit aim listed? (if not, breach)
• is interference necessary in a democratic society? (if not, breach)
• Pressing social need? Relevant/sufficient reasons? Proportionate?

STRUCTURE FOR ART 14
• Does case fall within scope of at least 1 Convention right?
• difference in treatment between C & others in comparable situation?
PAGE 5! OF 74
!

The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:

Guaranteed quality through customer reviews

Guaranteed quality through customer reviews

Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.

Quick and easy check-out

Quick and easy check-out

You can quickly pay through credit card for the summaries. There is no membership needed.

Focus on what matters

Focus on what matters

Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!

Frequently asked questions

What do I get when I buy this document?

You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.

Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?

Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.

Who am I buying these notes from?

Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller firstclassnotes2020. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.

Will I be stuck with a subscription?

No, you only buy these notes for £20.48. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.

Can Stuvia be trusted?

4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)

69988 documents were sold in the last 30 days

Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy revision notes and other study material for 15 years now

Start selling
£20.48  11x  sold
  • (2)
Add to cart
Added