moving on
Posted on | November 19, 2008 | No Comments
Just a thought about how often in intractable contact cases it is very difficult for parents to move on – not only because of the issues in the case themselves but because of the need to retain eligibility for legal aid – often a parent (typically a father) is unable to go out and look for work to occupy his mind and time because in doing so he will lose his legal aid. It leaves people in a frustrating limbo where they cannot go out and fulfill themselves in other ways and have nothing to focus on but the destructive litigation. There shouldn’t really have to be a choice between gainful employment and being able to pursue a relationship with your child. And in the intractable type of case I’m thinking of I would not be suggesting a parent should be expected to act as a litigant in person.
Comments
No Responses to “moving on”
Leave a Reply
Advertisements
About
A blog in which I ricochet from too serious to too flippant, and alternate between a bit clever, a bit interesting and a bit ranty: Pink Tape neatly functions as both a blog about family law and a therapeutic escape valve for me. >>more
IMPORTANT: Family Justice Review
Search
Pink Tape Suggests
Case Decisions
Latest Case Decisions from BAILII
- Dibble v Urs Bernhard Pfluger [2010] EWCA Civ 1005 (03 September 2010)
- Raggett v Society of Jesus Trust of 1929 for Roman Catholic Purposes & Anor [2010] EWCA Civ 1002 (27 August 2010)
- Oracle America Inc v M-Tech Data Ltd & Anor [2010] EWCA Civ 997 (24 August 2010)
- Chubb Fire Ltd v The Vicar of Spalding & the Churchwardens and Church Council of the Church of St Mary and St Nicholas, Spalding [2010] EWCA Civ 981 (20 August 2010)
- Sebastian Holdings Inc v Deutsche Bank AG [2010] EWCA Civ 998 (20 August 2010)
- Southern Insulation (Medway) Ltd v How Engineering Services Ltd & Ors [2010] EWCA Civ 999 (20 August 2010)
November 20th, 2008 @ 8:40 am
[...] Pink Tape: Moving on “Just a thought about how often in intractable contact cases it is very difficult for parents to move on – not only because of the issues in the case themselves but because of the need to retain eligibility for legal aid – often a parent (typically a father) is unable to go out and look for work to occupy his mind and time because in doing so he will lose his legal aid.” [...]
November 20th, 2008 @ 6:37 pm
Pinky, interesting stuff.
In my experience, and I will be the first to admit it is limited and tends to be just fathers, but in 99% of those it is the father that works and its the mother on Lucoziad.
The father can’t afford to work, pay CSA, pay the mortgage and a solicitor, so they go LIP, against the missus.
For most men, going LIP tends to be their downfall, but they are sort of stuffed really.
Presumably, if I looked beyond the hordes of dads desperate for assistance (for free if possible) I would see a bigger picture.
Looks like I should get out more!
Swizz
September 1st, 2009 @ 1:41 pm
What does LIP stand for?
September 6th, 2009 @ 8:17 pm
Litigant in Person – someone representing themselves in a court case, without a lawyer.