FLINT logo
Families Link International
Tel:0781 886 1724
home | issues | policies | family groups | courts | court reporters | research | law | contacts | donations | Useful Quotes |

Courts - Scotland

No change in Scotland for family law.

Scotland proposes Family Faw Reform
by Leonard Mair, Morton Fraser

Earlier this month, the Scottish Executive unveiled radical plans to reform divorce law and parental rights. Leonard Mair, Head of Family Law at Morton Fraser, discusses the proposals.

There has been a tendency for politicians to be cautious about introducing dynamic reforms to family law – possibly because this is indisputably an area that affects us all – and where one does not need to be an "expert" in order to express a view. Votes count after all and there have been powerful conflicting lobbies that make this a political minefield.

Consider the record ... We have the key pillars of the Divorce (S) Act 1976 (which introduced non fault grounds of divorce); the Matrimonial Homes etc. (S) Act 1981 (providing a measure of protection to cohabitees); the Family Law (S) Act 1985 (providing for the first time a framework of principles for financial provision on divorce); and the Children (S) Act 1995 (which adopted in large measure the proposals of the European Convention on rights of the child and which was intended to radically alter our thinking on parental rights and responsibilities [PRRs]).These were all significant Acts that changed lives. There have been other reforms of course, but of a perhaps less fundamental nature, and where the outcome was easier to achieve in political terms.

Now, consider the social changes within the UK since the 1960s. They have been enormous, but, in general, the law has been slow to recognise the impact of both demographic and social change in this sector. There was a hope that the Scottish Executive would adopt a dynamic approach and that the needs of Scottish citizens, at least, would be addressed. We had a false start with the Consultation paper "Improving Scottish Family Law" in 1999 – and although parts of it did get the length of a White Paper in 2000 , it eventually disappeared into the abyss. A great many organisations (including my own firm's the Family Law Team at the author's firm) spent a considerable amount of time participating in the consultation process and the disappointment at the lack of a tangible outcome was palpable – both with clients and lawyers alike. This was followed by the government's much hailed "Year of the family" when nothing much happened at all (in legislative terms) that was of benefit to families. Surely a lost opportunity! Family lawyers in Scotland may be forgiven therefore for not holding their breath.

"Improving Family Law in Scotland"

Change is now needed. The Scottish Executive have issued a new Consultation Paper -"Improving Family Law in Scotland". It advises us that one third of marriages end in divorce typically after around thirteen years; cohabiting couples make up 7% of Scotland's households; and around 8% of households in the UK have stepchildren in them. Against that background, the hope must be that the Scottish Executive current proposals will be pursued to a sensible outcome and within an appropriate time scale. At least one of the proposed reforms goes back to the Thatcher era and has still not seen the light of day!

The Consultation Paper highlights seven key areas. However, Annex A to the paper also contains a collection of "technical amendments" which should not be overlooked. The seven key areas are divided into three subgroups – those in respect of which there are "firm proposals", those where a "settled view has not yet been reached" and those where "views are sought".

PRRs for unmarried fathers, separation as ground for divorce, and protection against domestic violence
The first sub group proposes three changes concerning PRRs for unmarried fathers, the reduction of non cohabitation periods required for divorce, and updates to domestic violence provisions.
PRRs for unmarried fathers
The proposal provides that "From the date at which legislation is commenced, joint registration of a child's birth by unmarried parents will confer PRRs on the mother and the father. (At present only mothers secure PRRs). For unmarried parents who have already registered a birth, the use of PRRs will be promoted".
Reducing the non cohabitation periods required for divorce
The proposal is to "Reduce the periods of separation constituting grounds for divorce from 5 years without consent to 2 years; and from 2 years with consent to 1 year. This should lessen the acrimony associated with fault-based divorces and enable couples who are determined to end their marriage to do so without unnecessary conflict and recrimination and allow parents and children to move on".
Updating matrimonial interdicts and exclusion orders
It is proposed to "Amend domestic abuse legislation to ensure that protection extends to cover the victim's everyday life and offers protection to vulnerable cohabitants as well as spouses".
These issues were all proposed previously and it would appear that the Scottish Executive are sufficiently satisfied with the weight of support previously given to make these firm proposals. The anecdotal evidence suggests that the legal profession in Scotland will support these changes.

Protection of cohabitants and Step-Parents PRRs Agreement
The second sub group proposes the following changes:-
Legal protection for cohabitants
The new rules would "create legal safeguards for cohabiting couples including fair division of household goods and money/property from housekeeping acquired during the period of cohabitation and the right to apply to the court in cases of financial hardship on the breakdown of a relationship and for a discretionary share of a deceased partner's estate in the event that one party dies".
Step-Parent PRRs Agreement (SPPRRs)
It is proposed that "where a married step-parent wishes to secure PRRs for their step-child and both birth parents are in agreement, as an alternative to applying to court, an "SPPRRA" can be completed and registered and that action will confer PRRs on the step-parent".
This sub group provides much food for thought. Cohabiting couples form a significant percentage of households in Scotland and that figure is likely to increase. Women who cohabit and who have children have historically been the group most likely to suffer financial prejudice on separation. That said, it is interesting to note that it is proposed this time round that limited rights should be extended not only to opposite-sex couples but to same-sex couples. Whatever the theory might be, there is a widespread perception that in practice the law does not currently provide appropriate and fair protection to such vulnerable groups. The majority of cohabiting couples probably have little or no appreciation of any legal rights or obligations that may exist between them. Potential remedies based on constructive trusts, recompense or indeed marriage by cohabitation with habit and repute tend to be avoided by lawyers and clients alike on the grounds of cost, demanding evidential requirements and uncertainty of outcome. There are few modern reported cases on these topics. There continues to be a widespread misunderstanding in Scotland that the term "common law wife/husband" has legal significance. Unnecessary law is probably undesirable, but experience in legal practice suggests that this is indeed an area that needs to be addressed, particularly since many couples seem to drift into cohabitation scenarios specifically to ease financial strains.

Important and necessary organisations such as Stepfamily Scotland have been able to provide valuable insight into the needs of families from information gleaned from their Helpline and outreach work. At the moment there is no express legal provision for step families, yet, the demographic predictions suggest that in just a few years time, the majority of families with children in Scotland will, in fact, be in step family relationships. A step-parent currently has no PRRs and cannot acquire same without going to court (even if the birth parent has no objection). This is a common sense, facilitative proposal that allows for practical parenting. It would enable step-parents in established family units to make day to day decisions in connection with the upbringing of their children with legal authority. Consider, for example, the step-father on holiday with his step-son who then suffers a serious injury. At the moment he has no legal authority to allow doctors to carry out medical procedures. Birth parents are not prejudiced by this proposal.

The third sub group considers the extension of contact rights to the wider family and related practical aspects.
Contact between children and the wider family
The Scottish Executive does not believe that contact rights should be extended to the wider family but is nonetheless interested in canvassing on the issue. "There has been pressure to introduce a right of contact for grandparents. The Executive does not consider this to be appropriate but is keen to canvass all views on how the difficult area of promoting contact with wider family can best be achieved where voluntary agreements cannot be reached".
Making the law work in practice
"Views are sought on coverage and dissemination of information on family law, on the support available to families with relationship difficulties or in transition, and on experience of using family law and ideas for improvement".
It is perhaps an indication of the relative failure of the traditional family unit in modern times that grandparents and other family members seem nowadays to be more litigious in the interests of children. Experience in legal practice and a number of reported cases suggests that this may be so. However, whether or not grandparents (or any other discreet family sub group) should be given a right of contact to children in the family is another matter. In the author's view, it is inappropriate. At the moment, anyone with "an interest" can apply to the court for PRRs. The court has the power and the discretion to look at all matters before making a decision in the best interests of the child.

The proposed reforms will generally be welcomed in Scotland by those who deal with families in transition, whether they be lawyers, Charities, Counselling Services, Faith Groups or otherwise. As always, the devil will be in the detail, but it will be a major step forward if the principles behind the reforms can be agreed shortly and a White Paper issued before the end of the year. The implementation of reform will fall in large measure on the legal profession, but our profession works in association with many other organisations who provide a key role in the infrastructure- often Charities, such as the Family Mediation Service, Couple Counselling and Stepfamily Scotland – several of whom are dependant upon funding from the Scottish Executive. Appropriate and guaranteed funding plans should be put in place to ensure the survival of such organisations without whose support there would be rather more in the way of defended litigation. This is an area where "joined up thinking" across the various service delivery organisations is paramount, and it is within the gift of the Scottish Executive to deliver this. This time, please, let's not be disappointed.

Leonard Mair is Head of Family Law at Morton Fraser.

As can be clearly seen from the above, Scotland will not have any real changes made to the current situation. PPR with agreement of both natural parents and the rights of stepparents to acquire it just line up more cases for dispute at the lawyers’ mercy.

What a shame the natural biological parents are not given better protection for the welfare of the child. Same games as usual for the family law system and a blatant unwillingness to address the issues.

The contents on these pages are provided as information only. No responsibility or liability is accepted by or on behalf of FLINT for any errors, omissions, or misleading statements on these pages, or any site to which these pages connect, whether provided by FLINT or by any organisation, company or individual. No mention of any organisation, company or individual, whether on these pages or on other sites to which these pages are linked, shall imply any approval or warranty as to the standing and capability of any such organisations, companies or individuals on the part of FLINT. All rights reserved.