Navigating the Legal Landscape: Barristers vs. Solicitors - Who Does What?

In KV v KV (No 2) [2024] EWFC 359 , Sir Jonathan Cohen considered where divorce proceedings should take place when an ultra-high-net-worth couple live across multiple jurisdictions. The wife (W) applied for divorce in England, while the husband (H) filed rival proceedings in another country (referred to as Country E). Background The couple enjoyed a luxury lifestyle with properties in England, Switzerland, France, the Caribbean, and Country E. They moved tax residence away from Country E to Switzerland following a non-domicile election. W and their children relocated to England, establishing a permanent home and schooling there. H remained primarily in Switzerland, spending limited time in England within non-dom tax limits. Their marriage ended in 2021; W filed for divorce and initiated financial proceedings in England in early 2024. Shortly afterwards, H issued divorce proceedings in Country E, citing his habitual residence there, while arguing W remained habitually resident in Country E. Key Legal Issues Habitual Residence The central question was whether W was habitually resident in England when she applied for divorce. Habitual residence requires a stable and established centre of life over the previous year—not just a certain number of days spent in the country. The court noted that time spent in itself was less important than where family life, schooling, social ties, and pets were based. Although there was no single residence, W’s lifestyle, schooling for the children, and her active life in England pointed to habitual residence there. Forum Non Conveniens Even with jurisdiction established, the court had to decide whether it was the appropriate forum or if proceedings should be stayed in favour of Country E. Considerations included: Asset location (including substantial property in England and France) Potential difficulties with enforcement of financial orders in Country E H’s attempts to move assets into trusts abroad W’s limited ability to pursue claims outside England Court’s Decision Jurisdiction confirmed – W was habitually resident in England; jurisdiction under domestic law was satisfied. England deemed the most suitable forum – Given practical ability to enforce financial orders and W’s inability to pursue claims effectively in Country E, England offered the better path. Sir Jonathan Cohen therefore allowed W to proceed with her divorce and financial claims in England, dismissing H’s rival proceedings. Practical Implications Duty to File Financial Disclosure Even amid jurisdictional disputes, the law requires at least a basic outline of each party’s finances under rules governing interim maintenance and legal fees. Tax Residence and Habitual Residence Tax planning and non-dom elections do not override legal analysis of habitual residence. Personal and family life location, educational ties, and intention play a crucial role. Choice of Forum For couples with assets across borders, where a spouse has stronger workplace, personal, and financial ties will often determine the optimal legal venue. Courts analyse both jurisdiction and practical enforceability of future orders. Tips for Couples in Similar Situations Assess habitual residence carefully Consider schooling, family life, home ties, and intentions—not just days spent in a country Prepare clear financial disclosure Even during a jurisdiction dispute, interim orders may depend on transparency Consider future enforcement Choose a forum where assets can be effectively divided and enforced Seek early legal advice Especially when couples live internationally with significant wealth Final Thoughts KV v KV (No 2) [2024] EWFC 359 serves as a reminder that English courts take a holistic view of habitual residence and forum suitability for divorce and financial claims. The case underlines that: Tax residence does not dictate legal jurisdiction Courts conduct qualitative analysis when determining habitual residence England can be the forum of choice if enforcement and fairness favour it For couples with multi-jurisdictional ties, understanding where and how to bring divorce proceedings is vital. Legal guidance at an early stage can help clarify which court is best placed to consider financial and family matters. Seek specialist advice if you're a cohabiting or married couple with ties to multiple countries—doing so early can make the process smoother and outcomes fairer. Contact Stephanie Heijdra family lawyer via sheijdra@winvolvedlegal.co.uk

In Re v RL [2025] EWHC 1176 (Fam) (15 May 2025), the High Court in England and Wales considered a summary return application under the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. The applicant, a father based in Italy, sought the immediate return of his child (identified as R) from England. 🔍 Case Summary The father applied for the child’s prompt return under Article 12 of the Hague Convention, relying on a summary procedure intended to determine jurisdiction quickly. The mother defended the application by invoking a grave risk objection under Article 13(b), asserting that returning R to Italy would place the child in psychological or physical danger. Legal Tests & Court’s Framework Summary Nature : The court reviewed only whether jurisdiction existed, leaving ultimate welfare considerations for later proceedings unless a grave risk had already been demonstrated. Burden and Threshold : Under Article 13(b), the respondent must establish that return "would expose the child to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation." Key Findings The judge found the mother's evidence — concerning a risk to her emotional wellbeing — did not meet the required grave risk threshold. Reports indicated that the mother’s health and mental state, while fragile, did not confirm a risk substantial enough to refuse return under the Convention. No evidence suggested that Polish social services would act detrimentally once R returned, nullifying concerns of immediate administrative interference or domestic harm. Outcome The court granted summary return : R was ordered to be returned to Italy, enabling the father to initiate further legal proceedings in the child’s habitual residence. The decision underscores the High Court's rigorous standard for rejecting Hague return requests, emphasising that emotional or mental health concerns must be supported by compelling evidence. ⚖️ Implications for Hague Return Applications 1. High Bar for Grave Risk Article 13(b) objections require more than general anxiety or distress. Courts will only refuse a summary return where there is substantial risk to a child’s safety or well‑being. 2. Importance of Habitual Residence Article 12’s criteria are strict: once a child is habitually resident in one jurisdiction, the court must order return unless a grave risk is clearly demonstrated. 3. Limited Scope of Summary Proceedings These hear early jurisdictional disputes. Welfare issues are reserved for full hearings unless immediate harm is proven. 4. Need for Solid Evidence Cases referencing previous mental health issues or speculative harm are unlikely to succeed. Robust factual evidence—medical, psychological, or social protection—is essential. ✅ Practical Advice for Parents If seeking return, apply promptly under Article 12. If opposing return on grave risk grounds, present strong evidence: independent medical reports, expert testimony, or documented past incidents. Understand summary return is just the start—welfare hearings can follow in the child's habitual residence. Final Thoughts Re v RL [2025] EWHC 1176 (Fam) highlights the strict application of the Hague Convention’s summary return process in proceedings in England and Wales. It clarifies that to prevent a child’s return, objections must rise above general emotional difficulties and meet the high legal threshold of “grave risk.” Without this threshold being met, courts are likely to order return, after which detailed welfare proceedings may proceed abroad. For parents involved in cross-border disputes, this decision emphasises the urgency of seeking prompt legal advice and securing persuasive, evidence-based arguments—particularly when the child’s safety or emotional welfare is at stake. For family law advice and family court representation, please contact Stephanie Heijdra family law barrister via sheijdra@winvolvedlegal.co.uk and 02071014682

Here’s a clear breakdown of the key points in M v A (No 2: Application to Set Aside Return Order) [2025] EWHC 1344 (Fam) , a High Court case under the Hague Convention framework: Background & Context The mother (M) had previously lost a summary return hearing, where a court ordered the children (aged 9 and 6) to be returned to Poland under the 1980 Hague Convention, enforced by the Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985. She applied to set aside that return order, claiming her fragile mental health and suicidal ideation created a grave risk if she were separated from the children. Legal Issues Considered Article 13(b): Whether evidence of the mother’s mental health issues amounted to a grave risk of psychological harm justifying non-return. Change in Circumstances: Whether new developments (mental health decline and refusal to return) met the legal threshold to unsettle the prior return decision. Procedural History On 26 November 2024, the initial return order was made; crucially, the mother was not required to give oral evidence. By late December 2024, her GP diagnosed significant mental health concerns, including suicidal ideation, prompting the court to stay the return order. Court's Findings Oral Evidence: The court confirmed it was entitled to make the original decision without requiring oral testimony from the mother. Mental Health: While her condition worsened post-order, it didn’t automatically meet the high bar for “grave risk.” Nevertheless, it was a key factor. Risk Analysis: The greater risk stemmed from the emotional harm to the children if relocated without their mother—not necessarily from the move itself. Domestic Abuse: Allegations of domestic abuse were serious and relevant, given the potential involvement of Polish social services if the children returned. Outcome The judge found that the Article 13(b) defence succeeded—the combination of the mother’s mental state and the risk to the children (psychological and emotional) justified non-return. Application granted: The return order was set aside; the father’s enforcement application was dismissed. Significance The judgment reaffirms the high legal bar for overturning Hague return orders—“fundamental change” must be convincingly shown. It highlights the courts’ balanced approach : mental health and emotional welfare now form a critical lens in child abduction law. However, profound evidence is required to satisfy that threshold.  In summary M v A (No 2) underscores the rigorous test for setting aside Hague return orders under Article 13(b). New evidence—especially impacting mental health and grave risk—can justify non-return, but only if it clearly shows serious emotional or psychological harm to the children and is supported by substantial evidence.

More couples are choosing to live together without getting married or entering into a civil partnership. However, many don’t realise that cohabiting couples do not have the same legal rights as married couples—regardless of how long they’ve been together or whether they have children. One of the most common misconceptions in family law is the idea of a “common law marriage”—a term often used but with no legal status in England and Wales. This blog explains the legal rights of cohabiting couples in England and Wales, what happens if the relationship ends, and how you can protect yourself and your assets. Cohabitation vs Marriage: Understanding the Difference Cohabiting couples live together as if they are married, but without any legal formalities. Unlike marriage or civil partnerships, cohabitation offers no automatic rights or responsibilities. When a married couple divorces, each spouse has legal entitlements regarding property, pensions, maintenance, and inheritance. Cohabiting couples do not. Unless you take clear legal steps to protect your interests, you may be left vulnerable if your relationship breaks down or your partner passes away. Property Rights Property ownership is one of the main legal issues for cohabiting couples. If the family home is solely in your partner’s name, you do not have an automatic right to stay in or benefit from the property—regardless of how long you’ve lived there or contributed financially. If the home is jointly owned, your share will generally reflect what’s recorded on the title deeds or any declaration of trust . If there’s no agreement or evidence, disputes may need to be resolved through the courts. To protect your interest in a shared home, you should consider: Making sure both names are on the title deeds Creating a cohabitation agreement Drawing up a declaration of trust setting out the equity split Finances and Debts Cohabiting partners do not have a legal duty to support each other financially. There is no right to maintenance for yourself if the relationship ends, unlike with marriage. You are also not responsible for each other’s debts unless they are in joint names. If you share financial commitments such as a joint mortgage, bank account, or loan, you may be jointly and severally liable—meaning either person can be held responsible for the full amount. It’s sensible to: Keep a clear record of financial contributions Be cautious with joint credit agreements Create a written agreement to manage joint expenses Children and Parental Responsibility The law treats all children equally, whether their parents are married or not. Mothers automatically have parental responsibility . Fathers also have it if they: Were married to the mother at the time of birth Are named on the birth certificate (for children born after 1 December 2003) If a father does not meet either condition, he can obtain parental responsibility through an agreement with the mother or by applying to the court. Both parents are legally required to support their children financially. The Child Maintenance Service (CMS) may be used to arrange ongoing child support from the non-resident parent. Inheritance and Wills One of the most significant legal risks for cohabiting couples is inheritance . If your partner dies without a will (intestate), you are not automatically entitled to inherit anything unless: You jointly own property You are named in a valid will You make a successful claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 This can result in serious hardship or even homelessness for surviving partners. To avoid this, both partners should: Write a valid will Consider taking out life insurance Nominate each other for pensions or death-in-service benefits Cohabitation Agreements: A Key Protection A cohabitation agreement is a legally binding document that outlines what will happen if the relationship ends. It can include: Ownership of property Financial responsibilities Childcare arrangements Division of personal items While it doesn't offer all the protections of marriage, a cohabitation agreement can provide clarity and reduce the risk of disputes. Separation: What Happens When Cohabiting Couples Split? There is no formal legal process for separating if you are not married. However, disputes—particularly around property or children—can still arise and may need to be resolved by the courts. Legal claims can be made under: The Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 (TOLATA) for property issues Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989 for financial provision relating to children The Child Maintenance Service (CMS) for ongoing child support Where possible, separating couples should consider mediation to resolve matters constructively before turning to litigation. Key Points to Remember Cohabiting couples in England and Wales do not have the same legal rights as married couples There is no such thing as a “common law marriage” under the law To protect your interests, consider a cohabitation agreement , ensure your name is on the property title, and create wills Parental responsibility and financial support for children are legal obligations, regardless of marital status Seek legal advice when buying property together, having children, or ending a cohabiting relationship Final Thoughts Cohabitation may suit many modern relationships, but it comes with limited legal protection unless proper planning is in place. Without the legal safety net that marriage provides, cohabiting partners must be proactive in safeguarding their assets and arrangements—especially when children or property are involved. If you are living with a partner or planning to do so, it’s wise to consult a family lawyer. A small investment in legal planning now can offer peace of mind and prevent costly legal battles in the future. For family court representation and family law advice contact Stephanie Heijdra via sheijdra@winvolvedlegal.co.uk or 02071014682

My Ex-Partner Wants to Move Away with Our Children – What Are My Rights? When a relationship ends and children are involved, things can become more complicated—especially if one parent wants to move away. If your ex-partner is planning to relocate with your children, either within the UK or abroad, it’s important to understand your rights and what steps you can take under family law in England and Wales. Do They Need My Permission? Yes. If you have parental responsibility, your ex must have your consent before taking the children to live elsewhere—particularly if the move is overseas. Even moves within the UK, such as to another part of England or Wales, should be agreed upon by both parents if it significantly disrupts contact arrangements or the child’s schooling and support network. If you don’t agree, your ex must apply to the Family Court for a Specific Issue Order allowing the move. You can, in turn, apply for a Prohibited Steps Order to prevent the move until the court decides what’s in the best interest of the child. How Does the Court Decide? The court’s main priority is the welfare of the child. Factors considered include: The reason for the move How the move will affect the child emotionally, socially, and educationally The impact on the child’s relationship with the non-moving parent The practicality and frequency of maintaining contact The court will not prevent a move simply to appease one parent—there must be strong evidence that it would negatively affect the child’s wellbeing. Can I Stop the Move? You cannot legally stop your ex from moving away unless you obtain a court order. However, if your child’s welfare could be harmed by the move, you can challenge it. It’s advisable to act quickly and seek legal advice. If you are concerned your ex may move without your consent, you can apply for a Prohibited Steps Order to prevent any changes until the court considers the matter. What About My Contact with the Children? If the move is permitted, the court will usually put in place a Child Arrangements Order detailing how and when you’ll maintain contact. This might include: Extended holiday contact Regular video calls Weekend visits (if distance allows) The court aims to ensure the child continues to have a meaningful relationship with both parents, where safe and appropriate. Final Thoughts If your ex is considering moving away with your children, open communication and mediation are the first steps. If that fails, don’t delay in seeking legal advice. The courts do not automatically side with one parent—the focus is always on what is best for the child. Moving disputes can be emotional and complex, but with the right support, you can ensure your child’s best interests—and your rights as a parent—are protected. For family court representation and family law advice contact Stephanie Heijdra family barrister via sheijdra@winvolvedlegal.co.uk and 02071014682

Parental responsibility in England and Wales refers to the legal rights, duties, powers, and responsibilities a person has for a child. It includes making decisions about the child’s education, medical care, religion, and general welfare. Who automatically has parental responsibility? Mothers always have parental responsibility from birth. Fathers have it if they were married to the mother at the time of birth or are listed on the birth certificate (for births registered after 1 December 2003). Same-sex partners can also have parental responsibility, depending on their legal status and the circumstances of conception or adoption. How can others acquire parental responsibility? A person can gain parental responsibility through: A Parental Responsibility Agreement with the mother A court order Being appointed as a guardian Adoption Parental responsibility does not automatically give the right to contact with a child, nor does it mean a parent can make decisions alone—especially where there's a dispute. In cases of separation or divorce, both parents usually retain parental responsibility unless the court decides otherwise. For personalised family law advice and guidance, contact Stephanie Heijdra Family law Barrister, especially when co-parenting arrangements are unclear or contested. sheijdra@winvolvedlegal.co.uk and 02071014682

In divorce proceedings in England and Wales, the family court distinguishes between hard loans, soft loans, and gifts—each of which can significantly affect how assets are divided. Hard loans are formal, legally enforceable debts, often documented with written agreements, repayment terms, or evidence of payments. The court is more likely to include hard loans as genuine liabilities when calculating the net assets of the parties. Soft loans , by contrast, are informal financial arrangements—often between family members or friends—without clear repayment expectations. Courts frequently treat these as non-enforceable or gifts, especially if there’s no documented intention or expectation of repayment. Gifts , whether monetary or non-monetary, are typically seen as non-returnable and are rarely factored in as liabilities. Understanding these distinctions is vital in financial remedy proceedings. A party claiming that they owe money to a family member must prove it is a hard loan to have it deducted from the marital pot. The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. If you’re facing divorce, it’s essential to seek legal advice to clarify what qualifies as a liability and how it could impact your financial settlement. Early advice can make a significant difference. For family law advice regarding child arrangements matters, divorce and matrimonial finance, and family court representation, contact Stephanie Heijdra direct access family barrister via shejidra@winvolvedlegal.co.uk or 02071014682

A Look at X (Father) v Y (Mother) [2025] EWFC 62 (B) In X (Father) v Y (Mother) [2025] EWFC 62 (B), the Family Court confronted the delicate balance between a child's welfare and parental rights amidst serious allegations of abuse. Background The case centred on a five-year-old girl, referred to as A, whose parents were embroiled in a contentious dispute over child arrangements. The father, acting without legal representation, sought a shared care order, proposing that A live with him on alternating weeks. Conversely, the mother aimed to change A's surname and restrict the father's contact, citing a history of abuse. Findings of Fact A pivotal aspect of the proceedings was a fact-finding hearing to assess the veracity of the mother's allegations. The court found that: The father had subjected the mother to multiple instances of sexual abuse between 2015 and 2017. The mother's claims of financial abuse and gaslighting were unsubstantiated. These findings significantly influenced the court's decisions regarding contact and parental responsibility. Court's Decision Given the substantiated abuse, the court determined that overnight contact between A and her father would be unsafe. Instead, alternative contact arrangements were ordered, with further assessments to be conducted in subsequent hearings. Additionally, the court considered the mother's request to change A's surname and her application for a Section 91(14) order to prevent the father from making further applications without court permission. Implications This case highlights the court's commitment to prioritizing a child's safety and well-being, especially when serious allegations of abuse are substantiated. It also illustrates the court's cautious approach in balancing parental rights with the need to protect vulnerable parties. Note: This summary is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance, consult a qualified family law solicitor. For family law advice and family court representation, please contact Stephanie Heijdra Public Access Family Barrister via sheijdra@winvolvedlegal.co.uk and 02071014682

Cross-Border Child Abduction and the Hague Convention – Insights from FC v MS [2025] EWHC 1030 (Fam)  In the recent High Court decision of FC v MS [2025] EWHC 1030 (Fam), the court addressed the complexities of international child abduction under the 1980 Hague Convention. The case involved a father's application for the summary return of his 7-year-old son, DC, to the Republic of Ireland, following the child's removal to England by his mother, MS. Background DC was born and raised in Ireland, where both parents resided. In June 2024, MS relocated to England with DC and another child, citing concerns over the father's alleged abusive behaviour, substance misuse, and criminal history. The father, FC, contested the removal and sought DC's return under the Hague Convention, asserting that the child was wrongfully removed from his habitual residence. Legal Framework The 1980 Hague Convention aims to protect children from international abduction by providing a mechanism for their prompt return to their country of habitual residence. Under Article 13(b) of the Convention, a court may refuse to order the return of a child if it is established that returning the child would expose them to a grave risk of physical or psychological harm. Court's Analysis The court examined the mother's defenses under Article 13(b), focusing on the alleged risks posed by the father's behaviour and the potential impact on DC's well-being. Evidence presented included: Testimony from Dr. Ratnam, assessing MS's mental health and the potential consequences of returning to Ireland. Reports from social worker Ms. Demery, indicating that DC expressed a desire to return to Ireland and that no immediate risk to him was identified. The court concluded that while concerns existed regarding both parents' past behaviours, the evidence did not meet the threshold of "grave risk" required under Article 13(b). Protective measures available in Ireland were deemed sufficient to mitigate potential risks. Outcome The court ordered the return of DC to the Republic of Ireland, emphasizing the importance of upholding international agreements to deter child abduction. Arrangements were made for DC's re-enrolment in school and for maintaining contact with his mother through appropriate means. Implications This case underscores the challenges courts face in balancing the objectives of the Hague Convention with the individual circumstances of each case. It highlights the necessity for substantial evidence when invoking exceptions to the Convention's mandate for the prompt return of abducted children. For family law advice and family court representation contact Stephanie Heijdra Family Barrister via sheijdra@winvolvedlegal.co.uk or 02071014682