2 questions on Family Law (ish!)

[C0XIE]

Hi there folks,


2 questions that I am seeking answers for. Hopefully I will get definitive answers here


Questions.


A: I am subject to a non molestation order (what wonderful weapons these can be!). One of the conditions of the NMO is that I can only contact my ex through their solicitor. If I send an email or letter to my ex via their solicitor, is the solicitor duty bound to forward it to their client? (It was sent in an "open" format so that the solicitor could comfort themselves that it was in no way negative, harmful, abusive etc etc)


B: For the application of the NMO, the ex ticked No.13: "You are having, or have had an intimate personal relationship which is or was of significant duration" In the eyes of the law, is there a lower limit for "significant duration"? i.e 1 month, 6 months, a year?


Thanks in advance

[Kati]

Re: 2 questions on Family Law (ish!)

Hi C0XIE, and welcome to LB.

Questions.


A: I am subject to a non molestation order (what wonderful weapons these can be!). One of the conditions of the NMO is that I can only contact my ex through their solicitor. If I send an email or letter to my ex via their solicitor, is the solicitor duty bound to forward it to their client? (It was sent in an "open" format so that the solicitor could comfort themselves that it was in no way negative, harmful, abusive etc etc)


B: For the application of the NMO, the ex ticked No.13: "You are having, or have had an intimate personal relationship which is or was of significant duration" In the eyes of the law, is there a lower limit for "significant duration"? i.e 1 month, 6 months, a year?

A; I'm not sure, but if you are allowed to correspond with your ex via their solicitor, then I cannot see why they wouldn't pass on a letter (so long as it wouldn't breach the NMO) - it might be an idea to forward any correspondence through your own solicitor to make sure it's ok first tho'. One thing I do not understand, is WHY you would want to possibly breach the NMO by contacting your ex (even through a solicitor)?
B; again, I am not 100%, IMO a 'significant duration' would tend to mean a long-standing relationship. I do not believe there is any case law to back this up at the minute, so it is possible that it is being decided on a case by case basis. How long were you with your ex? Do you think it was a significant duration?

[C0XIE]

Re: 2 questions on Family Law (ish!)

Hi C0XIE, and welcome to LB.

A; I'm not sure, but if you are allowed to correspond with your ex via their solicitor, then I cannot see why they wouldn't pass on a letter (so long as it wouldn't breach the NMO) - it might be an idea to forward any correspondence through your own solicitor to make sure it's ok first tho'. One thing I do not understand, is WHY you would want to possibly breach the NMO by contacting your ex (even through a solicitor)?
B; again, I am not 100%, IMO a 'significant duration' would tend to mean a long-standing relationship. I do not believe there is any case law to back this up at the minute, so it is possible that it is being decided on a case by case basis. How long were you with your ex? Do you think it was a significant duration?

Hi Kati, thanks for getting back to me.

A: On the front page of the NMO, the District Judge listed contact through their solicitor as my only means of contact that wouldn't attract a sanction. To this end, I have used it (twice) to contact my ex, but have had no feedback from any quarter, hence my question. Just to put my mind at rest I guess: Either they have been received and disregarded, or their solicitor has not forwarded them. I hope for the latter, but fear it's the former. I did not instruct a solicitor in this mater, as it was dealt ex-parte, and I had a 5 day window for the hearing, including 2 days of a weekend. Any submissions had to be before the court no less than 48 hours prior to the hearing. Which would have meant that I would have had to have had them there on a Thursday morning, having been served on a Tuesday evening. I felt it was not enough time to put forward anything of merit.

As to why: Without putting too much dirty laundry on display. Ex followed me to my property after numerous phone calls. We argued, Ex struck me first (admitted in statement to Police and in the NMO petition), foolishly, I struck her back and pinned her to the ground until all had calmed. I accepted that I had gone beyond the "reasonable force" test required for a self defence and entered a guilty plea at first opportunity in Magistrates Court. I aim to make my apologies personally and try to make amends. And whilst being aware that I acted "inappropriately", I would like to investigate the possibility of the two of us working through our issues and beginning again.

B: Ex and I had lived in the same appt building for approximately a year before we became romantically attached, prior to the attachment, it was merely neighbourly. Our "romantic" period was perhaps some 10 weeks. Do I think it was significant? I have no idea, not in the great scheme of things, but maybe in the courts eyes? This is what I am seeking to clarify. If I can "show" that 10 weeks is not significant, I can then perhaps revisit the court and get the NMO overturned, without having to challenge some of the more spurious claims of ex, and embarrass her and further harm the chances of a civil conversation.

phew...thanks for reading if you got this far!

[Kati]

Re: 2 questions on Family Law (ish!)

So ... are you still living in the same building (albeit in different apartments)? Or has one of you relocated?
I cannot understand a solicitor withholding correspondence from a client (although I've had no dealings with this area of law). Are you certain the solicitor received them (did you send them recorded/signed for)? Did you request they were forwarded (add a covering letter etc...)?

Personally, I wouldn't think 10 weeks was 'significant' relationship, but were you co-habiting for that time? Your ex may have believed it was serious enough to tick the box (meaning the courts could just accept her decision)

[C0XIE]

Re: 2 questions on Family Law (ish!)

My home address is in the same building still. However, I am currently staying with friends to keep out of the way.
I sent the letters via email, and got received notifications...so pretty confident that the solicitor received them, and they were sent with a request to forward.

We weren't co-habiting at all. I retained my appt and she hers. Perhaps twice a week I stayed there, once a week she stayed with me. However, we ate together every night, and saw each other every day. It was certainly a very "intense" relationship, but I don't really think that qualifies as "significant" if one just considers the duration.

I'm aware I'm "reaching" a bit here, but thank you for taking the time to answer. I find it difficult to understand why there is no lower limit set for "significant duration"...seems open to abuse to me (but I am not totally objective!)

[Kati]

Re: 2 questions on Family Law (ish!)

My home address is in the same building still. However, I am currently staying with friends to keep out of the way. Good idea!
I sent the letters via email, and got received notifications...so pretty confident that the solicitor received them, and they were sent with a request to forward.

We weren't co-habiting at all. I retained my appt and she hers. Perhaps twice a week I stayed there, once a week she stayed with me. However, we ate together every night, and saw each other every day. It was certainly a very "intense" relationship, but I don't really think that qualifies as "significant" if one just considers the duration. It is possible that your ex felt it was 'significant' due to the intense nature of your relationship ...

I'm aware I'm "reaching" a bit here, but thank you for taking the time to answer. no problem I find it difficult to understand why there is no lower limit set for "significant duration"...seems open to abuse to me (but I am not totally objective!) If there has been no appeals, then there can be no precedent - each case must be tried on its own merit

Answers in red

[des8]

Re: 2 questions on Family Law (ish!)

HI
It is for the courts to decide what constitutes a significant duration.

"In addition section 4 of the DVCVA amended the definition in section 62(3) Family Law Act 1996 ('FLA') of 'associated person'. This provision permits a person who has not cohabitated with another but who has had "an intimate personal relationship... which is or was of significant duration" to apply for a non-molestation order. This means that if the order is subsequently breached, an offence under section 1of the DVCVA 2004 may have been committed. It is a matter for the court to decide whether the relationship has been of 'significant duration'. " cps.gov.uk