The Smart Divorce Podcast

The new rules to keep your divorce out of court

• Tamsin Caine • Season 9

Share episode

Send us a text

In this episode, Tamsin discusses with Karin Walker the new Family Procedure Rules, from 29th April 2024, being implemented to keep more couples out of court and using the wide range of non-court dispute resolution options to agree their financial settlement. Karin is not only a family solicitor but also a mediator, collaborative lawyer and arbitrator.

Karin Walker

Karin Walker is a family lawyer, based in Woking, Surrey.  She is a solicitor, mediator, collaborative practitioner, neutral evaluator, and arbitrator.  

Having previously been a partner in a large Surrey based firm, she set up the award-winning firm, KGW Family Law, in January 2012. All of the firm’s solicitors are trained in mediation and both Karin and her colleague Simon Clark are arbitrators. The ethos of the firm is to encourage clients to consider out of court dispute resolution options, thereby minimising both acrimony and cost.

Karin regularly speaks on all issues relating to family law locally, nationally and, on occasion, internationally.  She is also a trainer of family law professionals.

Karin is a co-author (with Dr Supriya McKenna) of  “Narcissism and Family Law – A Practitioner’s Guide” and “Divorcing a Narcissist – The lure, the loss and the law”, both of which are published by Bath Publishing.  

Tamsin Caine

Tamsin is a Chartered Financial Planner with over 20 years experience. She works with couples and individuals who are at the end of a relationship and want agree how to divide their assets FAIRLY without a fight.

You can contact Tamsin at tamsin@smartdivorce.co.uk or arrange a free initial meeting using https://bit.ly/SmDiv15min. She is also part of the team running Facebook group Separation, Divorce and Dissolution UK

Tamsin Caine MSc., FPFS
Chartered Financial Planner
Smart Divorce Ltd
https://smartdivorce.co.uk

P.S. I am the co-author of “My Divorce Handbook – It’s What You Do Next That Counts”, written by divorce specialists and lawyers writing about their area of expertise to help walk you through the divorce process. You can buy it here https://yourdivorcehandbook.co.uk/buy-the-book/

To learn more about our podcast sponsor Ampla Finance – access their product guide here: https://bit.ly/3Ieqmuc
Or complete enquiry form https://bit.ly/3W4J7pz and one of the team will be in touch.


Support the show

Tamsin Caine:

Hello and welcome to the Smart Divorce Podcast. This is series nine and in this series we're going to explore what makes up the working week of various different professionals who work in the divorce world. You'll start to understand what they do, both during the time that you see them, how they prepare for meetings, and what work goes into the work of a divorce professional outside of the time that you spend with them. I'm really looking forward to some amazing clients in this series. We talked to a barrister, family solicitor, financial planner, divorce coach and really hoping that you're going to enjoy it and get a lot from it as well.

Tamsin Caine:

Hello and welcome to the Smart Divorce Podcast. Very special episode today.

Tamsin Caine:

I'm delighted to welcome Karin Walker to the podcast. Karin is an expert in non-court dispute resolution and also on working with clients who are either divorcing a narcissist or a narcissist themselves. She is so good at this stuff she's even got a best-selling book in the area area. I'm going to let her introduce herself properly in a second. We're going to talk today about some changes in the rules around going to court to arrange your divorce. So first of all, karen, welcome. Thank you for joining me.

Karin Walker:

Would you introduce yourself properly, rather than the garbled version that I've just done

Karin Walker:

oh, thank you first of all, so much for inviting me to speak on this topic. So I'm a family lawyer, mediator, collaborative practitioner and arbitrator, and I'm based at my firm KGW Family Law in Woking. I was chair of resolutions Dispute Resolution Committee from 2014 to 2017. And out of court dispute resolution has been something very close to my heart for a very long time. I think that it's incumbent on family law practitioners to encourage people to settle their disputes out of court where possible, and these new rule changes are very much a step in that direction. So very, very welcomed, I think.

Tamsin Caine:

Excellent. So the changes I think I understand came in towards the end of April. Can you explain to us what they are and how we expect them to work?

Karin Walker:

Sure. So the Family Procedure Amendment no 2 rules for 2023 were effective for Monday, the 29th of April of this year, and the rules really are trying to focus on the opportunities for resolution away from the court, to strengthen the court's duty to encourage and facilitate non-court-based dispute resolution, really giving more strength and teeth to part three of the family procedure rules, which has been in place for a long time. The judiciary have always had the opportunity to use part three to refer cases out of the court system or to encourage people to look at different options, but actually it's been used very infrequently to date, which in some ways, was disappointing and in other ways, I think once people had engaged in the court process, there was some expectation that that's where they would continue. But I think the court system is so overstretched now. There are so many applications in court and it's a system really that is quite broken now. It can't cope with that sort of volume and also it can't and shouldn't cope with people who just shouldn't be in that arena, that who can resolve their issues in a much more cost-efficient, time efficient and family focused way. Um, and people really should be addressing that and seeing the court system as a last resort if there really is no alternative, rather than court being the first port of call and then looking at something different. So that really is what the rules were intended to achieve.

Karin Walker:

And then, in terms of what professionals need to know, the definition of non-court dispute resolution has been widened. So that's at Procedure Rule 2.31b, and it's not limited to mediation and arbitration but also evaluation by a third party. So private financial dispute resolution and also collaborative practice. So it's really widening it right out to say, well, you can't just now say we're not suitable for mediation. If that's not the right one, then look at the other range of out-of-court options and see which one might be suitable. Out-of-court options and see which one might be suitable. The number of mediation, information and assessment meeting exemptions has been reduced. So unless you really do fall into one of the quite narrow exemptions which are really around the domestic violence side, then it's no longer just a tick box exercise. You've really got to think about is there something which you could consider? And also there are going to be cost consequences with all of this, so that if you don't look at options that might suit a particular couple and if you just blanket say oh, it's not suitable and leave it at that, that may have consequences.

Karin Walker:

Further down the line there's a new court form, an FM5, which seeks views on non-court dispute resolution. So if the court requires you to do so, the parties may have to file and serve this new form which sets out what steps they've taken and what they've considered, so that the court can have regard for that. And then you've got the increased use of stays and adjournments which I think we're already seeing in the space of probably five, six weeks since these rules came into place. So court will of its own volition adjourn a court process. So it's no longer necessary for the parties to agree to that. That adjournment can be imposed. And so again it's 3.41a, but the rule there is to stop the court process and actively encourage the parties to go and do something else. And I've already had two or three referrals via that route where people are in court and they're being sent out. And then I think the final point which perhaps practitioners really need to sit up and take notice over, is at procedural 28.3, you've now got the cost consequences. So when assessing costs the court must have regard to a failure by a party without good reason to either attend a Maya or attend some form of non-court dispute-based resolution, and that's a real step up to say that if you're not doing this, this could translate into costs and I think we might see more and more cost orders of that nature where people have been belligerent and just refused to consider this.

Karin Walker:

So I think I really welcome the changes. I think they're a hugely positive step. I personally think making out-of-court dispute resolution absolutely compulsory is a bit of a step too far, because I think you have to consider what is right for the couple, and there is a whole range, and so it's. I think it's not beyond the wit of most family practitioners to find something that would be suitable, or at least to try and see if it works. I think that it's important to explain to clients that the court isn't the provider of justice and retribution. It's a very clunky, delay-ridden, inadequate last resort, which will become a lot better if it's not full of people that don't need to be there. So there's a win-win. If it's allowed to work properly, it's an excellent system. It's just it's too full of people that don't need its services. So if these new rules can be followed, all those people that don't need to be there can be somewhere else, then the system, which we're not overstretched, is very efficient, can work as it was intended to do so better all around absolutely, totally agree.

Tamsin Caine:

I have a mound of questions from everything you've just said, so I'm going to take you right back to the beginning and ask if you would very kindly explain about the going to court thing, because I have lots of clients who are very confused between the difference between sending your financial consent order to the court to be sealed and going through the court process to to have your divorce. Could you possibly start very basically, just explain that bit to us?

Karin Walker:

yeah, of course. So, um, I think, going right back to basics and the start, um, the divorce process is two sets of proceedings, or three if you have child related issues that run on parallel lines. So the divorce itself now, um, no fault divorce, all done online via the government website just deals with bringing your marriage to an end. So it's pure process. You don't really need a lawyer anymore to fill out all the forms. You pay your court fee currently £593, and that's it. Then you've got the financial side. So the you have the standard court form for disclosure, which is a form E, and most people will use that, whether they're dealing with voluntary disclosure or court-based disclosure. If we look at the voluntary side first, so let's say you have no proceedings issued at all, but you know you need to sort things out. So you say to the other side let's both do a form E, because the job that you're doing is what is there. And then how do we divide it? It's as straightforward as that. So to find out what there is, use a standard form. Everybody knows what it is. It makes sure that nothing is missed out. Exchange those, hopefully via some method of dispute resolution, which we'll talk about in a minute you reach an outcome that everybody can live with. I won't say be happy with, necessary, but everybody can live with.

Karin Walker:

But that then needs to be ratified by the court because in order for it to be binding and enforceable and bring claims to an end so if you're looking at terminating an entitlement to maintenance, you need to have that brought to an end by a court order. And so once you've got to the point of having an agreement, you draft an order by consent and that's then submitted to the court with a form D81, which sets out in a very broad basis what the financial circumstances of the couple are. The purpose of that form is to show pre-agreement these are the financial resources of the couple. Then the agreement is implemented and then let's look at where they will stand after implementation. So that's the purpose of Form D81. And the consent order goes into the judge. The judge looks at the D81 to make sure that everything is fair, will then ratify the order court fee of £58 at the moment and everything comes back done. So that's the consensual, no need for any court application way of dealing with things If somebody won't provide a form E or won't provide any disclosure or just won't deal with anything at all is ignoring everything.

Karin Walker:

Then, as an absolute last resort, you might issue your form A, so that's your standard court application for financial remedy proceedings, and then you're into the court timetable. So you will have a date for your first appointment. You will have a date 35 days prior to that for exchange of formacy on a formal court-based basis, your opportunity to ask questions which would be dealt with at your first appointment. Then you'll have your FDR appointment, so financial distribution appointment with a judge, and if you really can't sort things out there, then a final hearing.

Karin Walker:

But going back to the use of stays pursuant to Rule 3.4, at any point in that process the court now, without the agreement of the parties, can take people off the tramline of the court system and move them into something else. One of the things I would hopefully like to demonstrate in this podcast is that you don't have to see an application to court as the only alternative if somebody just won't play ball. People don't play ball for all kinds of reasons, sometimes emotional, sometimes awkwardness, sometimes a mixture of the two. But there are different ways of breaking that impasse and I think, sadly, all too frequently you hit an impasse and someone will just send an application into the court and say to their client oh, we're not getting anywhere, so we have to do this, and actually that's not right. But if it happens it's not the end of the world, because you can still come off that trajectory and move to something different that perhaps could have been considered at an earlier stage and wasn't. Does that explain those two?

Tamsin Caine:

absolutely, that's absolutely perfect. My next question is that is one that I know I know you're going to be able to explain very well to me can you go through? So we've talked about out of court dispute resolution and we've said there are lots of options, and I know that they're quite complex and we've spoken to people on the podcast before. But just really briefly, could you run through the options that we, that clients, might want to look at or might be able to look at, and so that they're not filing and going through this long-winded court process?

Karin Walker:

Sure. So I think the one that everybody knows the best is mediation, because that's what the MIAM Mediation Information and Assessment meeting was first all about, and that involves the couple sitting down, either remotely or in person, with a trained facilitator. Their role is to help them reach their agreement. They can't give them advice, but they can provide lots of information and they'll work with the couple to create an outcome that they can both live with, and so that's, I think, the most traditional form. Historically, it's been suggested that mediation is unsuitable in all kinds of cases where the couple find it hard to sit down together. And whilst one can understand that and I'm not going to underestimate how difficult mediation can be it's a big deal to sit down with someone and do that, but I think it's important to think about what the alternatives are. It's quite a big deal to go into a court building and sit in a very inadequate waiting area and be in the same place. So I think classic mediation, which is the best known, is sometimes shied away from because it's perceived as being a need to sit down together and work something out. I was quite interested to see. I'm going to hold back my hand to one of my guilty pleasures. I watch Coronation Street avidly, and I have done for many years, but I'm pleased to see that there's a dispute between the guy who owns the funeral parlor and his sister and that's going to be mediated. So I'll be very interested to see how they deal with that. So mediation is the most obvious one.

Karin Walker:

There are different forms of mediation, so hybrid mediation is an opportunity for the mediator to hold confidences. That's the only difference between classic and hybrid mediation. But hybrid mediators are specifically trained to deal with high conflict situation. So I feel quite strongly that if you're thinking about going to court using the hybrid model so you've got a highly trained mediator you're probably going to keep the couple in separate breakout rooms, so that's going to take away all that need to be face-to-face. You might want to bring the lawyers with them into the process so that they feel supported and advised, which can make the mediation itself much more focused and fast-moving. And so in many ways it mirrors the court system, but rather than having a judge who will make a decision which nobody might like, you've got a neutral facilitator, instructed by both, who's starting very non-positional, and I want this and you want that, because to move away from that always feels like you're giving in. Come along with an idea of your direction of travel, what's important to you, what are you prepared to compromise over. Don't be fixed to anything specific and let that outcome grow through the benefit of the neutral facilitator providing information and a steer and discussing steer and discussing options and the lawyers providing advice. So I think that hybrid model is very, very useful For people who don't want to do that.

Karin Walker:

I think neutral evaluation is a very underused out-of-court tool and is very inexpensive, can be brought into any kind of process, is very inexpensive, can be brought into any kind of process mediation, hybrid mediation, collaborative practice but you're going to bring in a third party who would probably be an arbitrator or a private FDR judge, somebody with that kind of level of qualification, who is going to look at the issues and give their view as to what a judge might do at the issues. And give their view as to what a judge might do. Nobody has to be bound by it. We work in a very, very discretionary jurisdiction, so there's no right or wrong answer. But in cases where there is a real impasse over points which can readily be argued one way or another examples being pre-acquired pension resources. So pension that's built up a long time before anybody laid eyes on anybody else. Are they going to be ignored or are they going to be taken into account? That's a really obvious example when a neutral valuation could just sort that out. And I think if it's used early on, before everybody gets entrenched and has spent loads of money, it can break that impasse at a very early stage. Inherited wealth is another obvious example Trust assets, so all the things where they can so easily be argued either way and before you've got into the realms of everybody taking up positions which they're never going to move away from unless somebody forces them to bring somebody in at an early stage to talk about it. You're probably looking at 1500 pounds to 3000 pounds in cost between the couple, depending on who you use, um, but money really, really well spent. It's probably the cost of a conference with, with good counsel, um, but, but together, um, and and telling the couple that you've got some arguments for this, you've got some arguments for that, but. But this is what I think is likely to happen.

Karin Walker:

The private fdr has become very much the trendy form of out-of-court dispute resolution. I think that's slightly down to lawyers, because it's what we know and we're used to, so it just mirrors the court system. For me, I think that the private FDR works very, very well for some people, but the private FDR judge is going to give an indication, so they're not going to work towards an outcome. Fdr judge is going to give an indication, so they're not going to work towards an outcome. They're just going to give a view and you may or may not accept that. Personally, I slightly prefer hybrid mediation over the private FDR, because it's not so positional and because the mediator can really roll their sleeves up and try and help and look at all sorts of different alternatives, not just one indication, but it depends on the couple.

Karin Walker:

And then, finally, you've got arbitration. If you need a decision, people thought initially that it was expensive. I think in the very early days of arbitration, the sort of 2012,. It was billed as being for the rich and famous because it was private. It's actually not. It works very, very well for what I'd call the 99%ers, the normal people who are in the obvious usual income bracket, and although you have to pay the arbitrator, that cost pales into insignificance for the reduction in overall legal costs of a full blown out court situation, not least because it can be resolved in about two to three months as opposed to 18 months.

Karin Walker:

So, and you're going to have someone who has read the papers, and also arbitrators want repeat work, so they're going to be very keen to be seen as diligent and fair. They're not likely to be pro-wife, pro-husband, pro either one side or the other, and they don't want the solicitors who've instructed them to go away thinking, well, they didn't read all of that or they swayed towards. You know they want to be as fair and diligent as possible. So not that I'm saying judges aren't, but arbitrators just have more time. You have your hearing on a date that you want, in a nice environment with coffee and sandwiches and proper facilities.

Karin Walker:

So you know what's not to like really. Those are the principal forms of out of court. And then, of course, the collaborative practice, which has slightly fallen away, I think, because of this idea that if it doesn't work you have to instruct some new solicitors puts people off, but you can arbitrate without instructing new solicitors. And then you've got the certainty project, which I was very involved in, which is the fusion of mediation and arbitration. So mediate first. If that doesn't work, your arbitrator, who's appointed at the outset, will make a decision for you.

Tamsin Caine:

And then there's assent, which is the fusion of the private FDR, and arbitration, which is a very new way of way of dealing with things, which um zoe, um bloom put together in the first instance, um, but um is out there and hopefully will be well received, um, so that's a quick canter through a lot to take in, but um, but thank you for that because it was very clear and covered kind of a lot of different options that are available to people and I think, aside from thinking about the the monetary cost of going to court against some of these other options, you know you've got to also think of the emotional cost of the delays of the court process. As you said, you know you could be looking at 18 months, whereas actually in if you use one of these non-court options, you could be done and dusted in a matter of months and and that as an emotional cost can be absolutely huge on couples, can't it?

Karin Walker:

The expectation is that out-of-court dispute resolution will slot into the 20-week period between the issue of an accusation and pronouncement of conditional order, so it should package up really neatly.

Karin Walker:

I think also, when you talk, tamsin, about emotional costs, it's really important not to forget the impact on the family, particularly the children, and, if they know, are engaged in court proceedings for many, many, many months. I think it's important to say to couples what memories do they want their children to have with their childhood? Um, do they want it to be okay, mom and dad separated, but they work together positively to sort this out and it was done quite quickly and then we all got on with our lives? Or do they want to have the memory of of, you know, constant to-ing and fro-ing of correspondence and and a number of court hearings and everybody getting very stressed ahead of them and it hanging over the family like a dark cloud for more than a year, which is an inevitability, and I think the impact upon children is very, very real and sometimes something that their parents forget about. So I think that's quite important. Um, you wanted me to look turns in it of what to do if one of the couple won't play ball with these out of court.

Tamsin Caine:

I do because this is common, this is, you know, this is the. This is the situation I I'm dealing with every day and I'm sure you're dealing with every day. You know where one person is happy to give disclosure, or one person is happy to consider mediation or one of the other options that's out there, and the other party's absolutely determined that either they're going to do nothing, as you mentioned before, or they want their day in court and they want a judge to decide, and that's the be all and end all, and I just think that leaves the other person who's happy to engage and try and work things through in a really almost impossible situation situation and I think the new rules give opportunities to encourage the person who wants their day in court to look at something different.

Karin Walker:

If you've got somebody who is, let's say, narcissistic on the other side, appealing to their sense of specialness and saying you know, these are very innovative new ways of dealing with things. This is what every educated, sensible person would do, like you. So you know, why don't you engage in something that can appeal to that sense of specialness that they have? So it's not out of the question to nudge them in that direction. But there are people, unfortunately, who just will do nothing and be as awkward and difficult as possible. But I think that the increased use of stay is from the court so that the opportunity for the judiciary to say no enough, we're not going down this road, you are going to try something else. I think also from the cost perspective and the new FM5 form, if you want to mediate or you want to arbitrate I know this can sometimes be a hard sell to the client who's keen to do it. But to say to them offer to pay the other person's costs, offer to pay for the arbitrator in full, offer to pay for the mediator in full, because if they still say no, what on earth is the reason for not doing? And if you then go into court, you have the obligation now to provide correspondence dealing with out-of-court options and you have to respond to an invitation to engage in non-court dispute resolution in a considered and timely fashion. So if you offer first of all, let's mediate, they come back and say no. They might say I can't afford it or I'm not going to pay for the courts free, I'm not going to pay for an arbitrator. You go back and say okay, we'll pay. So now what's the problem? Although it feels a bit unfair, why should one person be paying for that? But actually, point one, life's not fair. And point two, the costs that you're going to incur are going to far outweigh paying for the arbitrator in the fullness of time if you go down the court route. So why not put the other person under pressure and also have the possibility of getting a cost order because you've been the one that's been super sensible? Um, because you're taking away all the reasons to say no.

Karin Walker:

If you're dealing with somebody difficult, always let them pick the arbitrator. All arbitrators are good and mediators I think they're all properly trained, professional people. And if your solicitor has put together a list of, let's say, three, five, three, five, six, however many. Let the person pick one. Um, if they've chosen them, they're much more likely to buy into it. As a process, much more difficult for them to not like the outcome. Um, and again, it makes them feel in control and superior. So nothing wrong with that.

Karin Walker:

Life's also about picking battles, and if you don't need to have a fight over something, just let the other side do it.

Karin Walker:

As I say, it feels hard from the point of view of the person who is paying, because they will think why should I be doing that?

Karin Walker:

Why am I picking up all of the bill? But actually, in the long run it will be less expensive and it does enable you, in this new world of the new rules, to say that I'm the sensible one, I'm the one who's offering all of these opportunities and they are the people who are saying no. And if that then has an impact on time or outcome or overall cost, so that you can say, let's say, you get to the end of a final hearing, if you end up with no choice, with a huge bill, and you can say I offered to pay for the arbitrator 10 months ago and the cost could have been. This was my cost estimate for doing that and they would have been the cost if we'd stopped there. So I think it's a really powerful tool and I would commend practitioners not to be afraid to say to clients pick up the bill in the early stage if that's the only way you're going to get the other person into that arena, because it will be cheaper in the long run.

Tamsin Caine:

The thought in my head on that one is that quite often the one who's willing to be open to all these other things actually is the one who doesn't have access to finances, or not access to very much in terms of finances. And like where do they go?

Karin Walker:

Well, either get a loan, um you, you can make an application for a um, lspo, so legal services, payment order um. Some of the providers of that will lend if you're out of court, when they won't lend if you're in court, so it. It's an experience with level for lending where it's arbitration, and so that's always an option if there's no other route. But fees have to be paid from somewhere, and so relatives are often a reasonable port of call or a bank loan or an interest-free credit card, but that feeling of I can't pay this. But the trouble is, what are your options? If you're in the court process? You either self-represent, which a lot of people do, hence why the courts are so bog jammed with litigants in person as well or you have to find the money for something which is a much more lengthy overall, much more expensive process.

Karin Walker:

So there's no difference really, and I think, sadly, things come at a price. Holidays come at a price, bars come at a price, and legal services come at a price too, and it's about evaluating what you want to achieve. So you know, I do get it that people just don't have resources, but the sort of costs that are involved are not insurmountable, the sort of costs that are involved are not insurmountable. And I think certainly my experience has been that the cost of an arbitration overall is less than half the cost of a contract, significantly less than half and time-wise probably a quarter of the time. So it really does make a big difference.

Karin Walker:

And so if you can't meet it and let's say if you can't afford the cost of an arbitration, which is probably the biggest front-end cost, then look at mediating, say that you'll pay for two or three sessions and see how it goes. Or say that you'll pay for a neutral evaluator to give you a view, and then hopefully everybody will listen to that. And of course you can't make people listen. You've got some narcissistic people who will let you spend all sorts of money doing all sorts of things and not buy into it. But of course there, strategically, you might want to run the court process alongside so that time is running and do something else alongside it. And again, rule 3.4 very much favours that, with the court's opportunity to adjourn out to something else. So that might be the best way of mixing the two so that if you really can't sort it by an out-of-court method, you've got your backstop court date as an absolute last resort, um, and I think that also can work quite well that sounds very good advice.

Tamsin Caine:

Very good advice. Um, we're coming to the end of our time together. Is there anything that I've not asked you, that you feel we should have covered?

Karin Walker:

No, I don't think so, tamsin. I think that what I would say to people listening who are involved in this process is don't assume the court is the be all and end all. I think as a mindset we have this idea that the court is this bastion of the English legal system and justice and so on, and I would really stress that it is not. These out-of-court models were initially described as alternative, which made them sound a bit wacky and a bit odd and a bit different and, nine times out of 10, unsuitable the outset, and I'd like really to see court as being the last resort and these forms of non-court-based dispute resolution really becoming the norm. And I think what we would find is that people who are currently litigants in person would be more encouraged to take proper professional advice, knowing that it's got an affordable price tag to it and that they can have a proper cost estimate right at the outset and it's not going to run away with itself.

Karin Walker:

But the court merry-go-round in terms of costs.

Karin Walker:

You get kind of sucked into a process that becomes increasingly more expensive and before you know it you've hemorrhaged tens of thousands of pounds which would have been better put to houses, school fees and everything else that are into pension or all sorts of other things, and it really is dead money, and I think that I'm hoping that these changes and the definite groundswell of change that we're experiencing at the moment will encourage the public to realise that you don't go to court when you separate. You can if you have to, but it really is the last option and there are so many ways of dealing with things differently and so many very competent professionals out there who can help you through that in a manner which suits your budget and will achieve an outcome which is going to be livable with, hopefully fair, but most importantly, you'll understand why you got to where you did and it won't be just imposed on you and then have to be worked through. Whether you like it or not. You will have a participating role in constructing your own future, which is so important, I think.

Tamsin Caine:

Yeah, absolutely agree, and that was beautifully put, and I mean in complete agreement. I think, the more divorces, that we can get the finances settled quickly and by the couple who are going to be the ones responsible for putting it into practice afterwards is so important, and the impact on the family hopefully considerably less if they can work together for a solution, because then co-parenting becomes that much more straightforward as well if you've not had this huge battle and the kids' inheritance on going through the court process. So, karen, thank you so much for joining me today. That was a really brilliant conversation and I'm sure it'll help many of our listeners who are going through this process at the moment.

Karin Walker:

Oh, thank you, Tamsin. Thank you so much for inviting me.

Tamsin Caine:

Hi, and I hope you enjoyed that episode of the Smart Divorce Podcast. If you would like to get in touch, please have a look in the show notes for our details or go onto the website, wwwsmartdivorcecouk. Also, if you are listening on Apple Podcasts or on Spotify and you wouldn't mind leaving us a lovely five-star review, that would be fantastic. I know that lots of our listeners are finding this is incredibly helpful in their journey through separation, divorce and dissolving a civil partnership. Also, if you would like some further support, we do have a Facebook group now. It's called Separation, divorce and Dissolution UK Divorce and Dissolution UK. Please do go on to Facebook, search up the group and we'd be delighted to have you join us. The one thing I would say is do please answer their membership questions. Okay, have a great day and take care.

People on this episode

Head Shot

Tamsin Caine

Host