Positive developments

Here we are able to read about some positive developments. It may be significant that articles such as these appear without particular comments, from the newspaper themselves, about the situation they are reporting.

We'll add to these reports as they come in. We invite you to tell us if you hear of any significant developments.

The Daily Telegraph, 29 July 2003

Judges urge change to divorce cost rules, by Joshua Rozenberg, Legal Editor

Radical reforms are needed to costs orders in family cases, three appeal judges said yesterday.

They had been told that the "level of venom" between former spouses following divorce proceedings was so high that it would normally be best if they both paid their own legal fees in future instead of one of them claiming costs from the other.

Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, sitting in the Court of Appeal with Lords Justices Thorpe and Mantell, referred with approval to recent comments by the Senior Costs Judge, Master Hurst.

Unlike the position in other civil claims, he had said, animosity in matrimonial proceedings frequently continued after the substantive dispute was over.

"The successful spouse on one side vows to bleed the other dry of any penny if at all possible, while the paying spouse goes out of his way to deny the other the possibility of any recovery," Master Hurst added.

He said that solicitors had a "vested interest in maximising the costs recoverable from a paying party".

As a result, costs proceedings were very hard fought and "the underlying family proceedings may be pursued with unnecessary vigour to ensure an adequate return for the legal representatives".

Dame Elizabeth said Master Hurst's comments reinforced her belief that the present approach of the courts in financial family matters needed reconsideration. Radical changes were needed to court rules.

The Court of Appeal was ruling on two "big money" cases in which millionaire husbands were ordered to pay at least four fifths of their former wives' costs.

It dismissed appeals by Alan Norris, 44, a financier, who was ordered to pay 80 per cent of the costs incurred by his ex-wife, Penelope, 43, after she was awarded a lump sum of �360,000.

Warren Haskins, 51, who owned garden centres, also lost an appeal against an order that he should pay 85 per cent of the legal costs that were run up by his former wife, Lesley, 48.

The claimants based their arguments on a ruling on another case by Nicholas Mostyn, QC, sitting in the Family Division as a part-time judge. Mr Mostyn held that there should be no order as to costs in cases where both parties were left with enough money for their needs.

This was a "cavalier" approach by the Deputy Judge, Dame Elizabeth said. It was not for judges to deem that an Act of Parliament was incomprehensible or unworkable.

Even so, Mr Mostyn's approach required careful thought, and Dame Elizabeth agreed "with the overall direction of his judgment for the future". Under the present rules, the judge deciding the case is not told the amount of any offer to settle the proceedings.

If the judge then makes a ruling more advantageous than the offer, the party that made the offer usually ends up paying the costs.

Mr Mostyn concluded that these procedures discriminated against husbands.

It also forced parties to engage in a form of "spread betting" by requiring them to guess the outcome of the case and take a position accordingly.

Comment : at least some recognition of some issue, and 'radical change' mentioned.

The Washington Post Company 29 March 2001, Page A21

Women's Outreach Office Closed

http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8599-2001Mar28.html

Women's Outreach Office Closed Feminist Leaders Decry Bush's Shuttering of Clinton Creation By Amy Goldstein and Mike Allen, Staff Writers

Callers to the White House Office for Women's Initiatives and Outreach listen to the telephone ring six times before a recording begins. "As of January 19, 2001, this office no longer exists, and we will not be able to retrieve your calls," a pleasant, female voice says. "We apologize for the inconvenience."

Aides to President Bush had given no clue they had disbanded the small office created by the Clinton administration as a conduit for women's political concerns. So the leaders of feminist organizations - already disheartened by Bush's appointments and his views on abortion and affirmative action - reacted with outrage yesterday as word began to circulate of the office's demise.

"If [Bush] doesn't want there to be polarization, wants to get out of gridlock and head-knocking, this is a strange way to go about it," said Patricia Ireland, president of the National Organization for Women.

Even yesterday, the White House was reluctant to discuss the matter. Asked at a morning press briefing about the accuracy of a report in yesterday's Boston Globe that the office had closed, press secretary Ari Fleischer replied: "I don't have a final answer on that yet. ... I haven't gotten to the bottom of it yet."

Later in the day, White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan said, "We are committed to strong relations with women's groups." She said that members of the White House public liaison office are designated to interact with such groups, as had been the case during Clinton's tenure. "We are still working on how best to structure that," she said.

Another White House source, however, confirmed that there were no plans to reopen the office for women's initiatives.

Created in mid-1995, the office never had more than a few staffers, but it was considered symbolically - and strategically - important among the many women's groups that had urged Clinton to open it. Its staff reviewed legislation and administration proposals to gauge their impact on women, and they arranged briefings. They also created a symbiotic relationship with women's groups, alerting them to forthcoming issues, in exchange for early feedback on how those groups would respond.

At various points, leaders of women's groups recalled yesterday, the office had arranged meetings with senior administration officials - including Clinton, at times - on issues that included domestic violence, equal pay, bankruptcy, abortion, the participation of women in clinical trials and Social Security reforms.

Not all women's activists oppose the action. Wendy Wright, communications director of Concerned Women for America, said she was "thrilled" that the office had closed. "That office was really just to promote a radical feminist agenda," she said. "There are other views that are finally getting a hearing in the White House."

Joyce Ladner, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, compared Bush's move to close the office to his suspension of Clinton's initiative on race. "I don't see women as a group or people of color as being on his radar in the way President Clinton identified them as special interest groups," she said. "I expect to see just a lot of dismantling."

Comment : at least closing these places will help.

Acknowledgement : from The Daily Telegraph, Tuesday 27 February 2001

Women's minister backs men

The Austrian women's affairs minister, a man, has been accused of insulting women after establishing a men's department.

Herbert Haupt, a veterinary surgeon by profession and a member of the far-Right Freedom Party, said he was motivated by the fact that men were being exposed to more and more unfair discrimination.

Madeleine Petrovic, a Green party MP, said Mr Haupt's "chauvinistic whingeing" had "absolutely nothing to do with reality" given that women were paid about a third less than men.

The new department set up by Mr Haupt in his Social Affairs Ministry will work with organisations and advice centres for men and will produce studies on issues concerning them.

Comment : why is there no minister for men ?

17 January 2001

Family Law Act 1996 not to be implemented

News arrived that the Family Law Act 1996, incorporating 'no-fault' divorce, will not be implemented. This is possibly the single most significant item of news in the last 10 years. To understand this, study our publications. Our press release on this gives further information.

Comment : no need to comment if you understand the issues.