Once more unto the breach, dear friends….

Although ancillary relief is not a passion of mine, there is little in family law that doesn’t fascinate me and nuptial agreements, especially as they’ve made a big splash in the last few weeks, are no exception. Whilst the contractual element of marriage seems to me to be misleading and part of an era gone by when women were indeed chattels and marriage more an act of convenience than love, it stands to reason that there should be no law in the land that prevents people from creating nuptial agreements if this is what they wish.

Yet, notwithstanding the obvious paradox the new precedent has set on pre-nups here in the UK, it seems to me to be a pointless exercise. Perhaps we should divide in law, those who marry for love and those who marry for lifestyle? This would be absurd too, as people should be free to marry for whatever reason they wish without being judged.

On an even more personal note and perhaps one rooted in philosophy, the contractual element of marriage raises two questions for someone like me: can you really love someone and ask them to sign on the dotted line and doesn’t a pre-nup in fact breach the elements of trust and confidence deemed present in a union of any kind, by virtue of having to legislate that trust?

Perhaps the reality is that anything can be used positively, if created sensitively and with compassion but under the circumstances, if we can’t discipline ourselves to be fair without a contract, what hope does a contract, often pre-meditated and fraught with protectionism, offer?

I say, live life dangerously and love the same way!

Here is an example of a contract prototype as released by the Ministry of Marriage:

Nuptial Agreement, by Frank Lee Pance

For the purposes of this covenant, the caravan shall herein be referred to as “The matrimonial Home”; any future children as “The offspring” and the marriage as “The Agreement”.

1.       Property

I.            The Matrimonial Home will be jointly held by both Frank Lee Pance (“the husband” and Esther Ennipoint (“the wife”) for the duration of the marriage

II.            Joint ownership can be severed at any time in light of the following:

a.       Wandering eyes: Should the wife allow her eyes to wander or gaze for a period of time exceeding fifteen seconds in the direction of any adult male

b.      Weight gain: should the wife gain six pounds or more

c.       Work: should the wife dedicate more man hours to her job than to her wifely duties

2.       Wifely  Duties

I.            Wifely duties shall include the following:

a.  Sexual Intercourse: The wife must engage in sexual intercourse at least seven times a week, wearing always, stockings, PVC brazier and bunny tail

b. Cooking: the wife must learn to cook the husband’s favourite meals and serve these meals with a pleasant demeanour

c. Cleaning: the wife must clean the matrimonial home and its contents, including clothing once a week.

II.            The Agreement can be terminated upon any of these duties not being carried out to full satisfaction.

III.             In light of the trendy new Sharia courts emerging in the UK, the husband reserves the right to terminate The Agreement, for any reason he so wishes, with the use of “Talaq”.

3.       The Offspring

I.            Any future offspring will be cared for jointly by the husband and the wife

II.            The husband reserves the right to play ‘Good Cop’. The wife must wear some sort of military uniform whilst playing ‘Bad Cop’.

III.            The husband will get first dibs on naming the first child. The wife may not name any female offspring after her mother (aka Mother In Law).

4.       Divorce

I.            Upon termination of this Agreement, whether by breach of its terms or the implementation of “Talaq”, the husband’s financial documentation shall be off limits to the wife.

II.            Should the wife attempt to peek at the husband’s financial materials, the husband may forthwith lodge a complaint in both civil and criminal courts for breach of confidence, breach of trust, breach of the peace, whales breaching and Human Rights breaches.

III.            The wife is put on notice that such actions are likely to diminish the pot and make any cross-petitions for ancillary relief futile. If this happens, it will be a co-incidence.

IV.            Once the husband and the wife are divorced, any offspring will be divided equally between them. The husband and the wife may negotiate on which halves they prefer.

Oh yeah. I love you.

Judge of the Week: Lord Justice Sedley

As the courts commendably move to try to put themselves in the place of the family members that come before it, Lord Justice Sedley does the extraordinary and highlights the significance of allowing the Voice of the Child its full clarity, in a  case last week.

Credit must also go to the savvy social worker who assessed the little chap and came to the same conclusion as Lord Justice Sedley.

For understanding the importance of listening to little people and using sound common sense to come to a solution, albeit a saddening one for both the mother and son in this case and one which places an emphasis on respecting young people’s feelings and the need to allow those feelings to be worked through without coercion, Researching Reform makes Lord Justice Sedley, Judge of the Week.

To read more about the case, click here.