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.
What is the difference between a ‘QLR’ and a QLR?
It's Friday. I've been staring at a screen all day and my eyes have gone funny from scrolling through spreadsheets. I...
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
What does LIP stand for?
Litigant in Person – someone representing themselves in a court case, without a lawyer.