Talking Family Law - The Resolution Podcast

Show notes 

For part 2 of our mini-series in enforcement, we are joined by Michael Allum (International Family Law Group), Andrew Campbell (QEB) and Lisette Dupré (Stewarts) to tell us all about enforcement of international orders. 

Lisette reminds us that ‘maintenance’ does not solely refer to periodical payments, and lump sums can also constitute maintenance: Van Den Boogaard v Laumen [1997] QB 759.  

Michael tells us that when we are looking at outgoing orders, we need to start by asking:  

-          What ~ What order is it you are trying to enforce?  If it is a periodical payments order, there is no question that is classed as maintenance. But a lump sum order to meet needs is also maintenance.

-          Where ~ Where has the order been made? Because that will determine which convention you can use and the means of enforcement.

-          When ~ When was the order made? Because that will determine which convention you can use. 

-          Why ~ Why are you taking steps to enforce in that country? Is the asset in the country and is it secure? 

Andy tells us that we must think about enforcing the order all the way through the case, including during the drafting.   Andy suggests that we should think about whether we need a declaration in the order that an award is maintenance more frequently: 

Declaration under the EU Maintenance Regulation / The Hague Convention

1. (applies to cases covered by the EU Maintenance Regulation – e.g. where Form A was issued prior to 11pm on 31 December 2020)
    The provisions under paragraphs [para numbers] of this order represent “maintenance” for the purposes of the Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 of 18 December 2008 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations.
2. (or, applies (where relevant) to cases not covered by the EU Maintenance Regulation but covered by the 2007 Hague Convention). The provisions under paragraphs [para numbers] of this order represent “maintenance” for the purposes of the Hague Convention of 23 November 2007 on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance.

Lisette tells us about EU Maintenance Regulation No 4/2009 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2009/4(1)/oj/eng, which applies if the divorce application was issued in an EU member state before 1st January 2021.

If there is an order made in one of the other member states in that time, it is directly enforceable here.  Note, you can, but do not have to, use a Central Authority certainly when enforcing child maintenance.   You need to weigh up the advantage of having a government body incurring the cost, against the disadvantage of additional delay and loss of control. 

Michael explains what to do when looking at whether an order can be enforced pursuant to the Hague Convention 2007.  In particular: 

1.      There is a list of countries that have signed up on the website; https://www.hcch.net/en/states/hcch-members.  But you must look at the specific Country, as each Country interprets maintenance differently. 

2.      The scope of the convention is in Article 2 – child maintenance and spousal maintenance. See https://assets.hcch.net/docs/14e71887-0090-47a3-9c49-d438eb601b47.pdf

3.      The connection between the Countries. For example, the Countries are both signed up to the 2007 Hague Convention, although that does not mean that they will automatically enforce orders from another signatory and you have to check the specific provisions between those countries. 

Andy tells us about enforcing incoming orders from countries that do not have a treaty with England.  There is still a possibility that the order can be enforced as a civil claim, but it must be:

1.      An order for a definite sum of money; and 

2.      The order must be final and conclusive ~ this can be a difficult hurdle with maintenance orders. 

The key question, whenever you are thinking about your case, should always be is there a way to avoid relying on international enforcement? For example, are there assets in this jurisdiction that can be used instead? Or can it be agreed that the assets are transferred to this Country before the deal is signed.  That way you avoid all of the issues discussed in the podcast. 

If you are wondering what the future of family law looks like, then look no further than this interview with the President of the Family Division, Sir Stephen Cobb. The short answer is that the future is going to focus on problem-solving. 

The President tells us about how he is going implement his priorities, which are the five ‘Rs’: relationships, resources, reforms, results and respects. You will be pleased to hear that this included working to strengthen relationships between NCDR and the court system in order to help families. 

The President endorsed the recent report of the Family Solutions Group: 

https://www.familysolutionsgroup.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/Putting-Children-First-the-evolving-role-of-the-family-law-professional.pdf

Finally, the President concluded with a very moving tribute to Sir James Munby.

The President also told us that he listens to the podcast, but unfortunately that was before we had switched on the recording, so you will have to take our word!

Wherever you are in the country, it is only a matter of time until child focussed courts are coming, so you need to know about them. We are joined by Angela Killa (JCP solicitors) and Elizabeth McGrath KC (3PB) to tell us about how to run a case in a child focussed case. 

Angela starts with giving a rundown of how child focused courts function: 

• Application
• Initial Gatekeeping (in the absence of the parties)
• Child Impact Report, plus potentially referrals to domestic abuse serves and DASH risk assessment
• Safeguarding Gatekeeping Appointment (in the absence of the parties) 
• Single decision hearing where possible, if not possible other directions (e.g. interim  hearing, fact-finding, s7 report, statements) leading to final hearing

Angela tells us that it is really important to frontload the work and have the evidence available before you issue proceedings, because there will be no time after proceedings are issued.  Be warned that in certain parts of the country, only 7 days is allowed for statements to be produced. 

Angela tells us how it is crucial that you add much more detail into the C100 than previously, given the limited opportunity to put evidence and your client’s case before the court.  Equally much more care needs to be given to the C1A getting allegations correct and ensuring it sets out comprehensively what evidence is available; consider asking for a direction to be allowed to file it.  If there are relevant witnesses consider documenting what evidence they can provide and why it is relevant in the application, as well as asking for a direction to file their evidence. 

Angela and Liz agree it is better to have Counsel involved before proceedings are issued to provide advice on the application, evidence and directions sought.  Ensure that you have a conference arranged for when the child impact report is filed because there is likely only going to be 7-days for Counsel to identify whether they need to cross-examine the Officer, what arguments they seek to run and for the C2 to be filed seeking the Officer’s attendance at the final hearing. If you are representing a respondent, consider filing a response to ensure your client’s case is available before the child impact report is filed. 

Liz tell us about how to manage high risk cases that may involve serious allegations of abuse.  She reminds us that whilst the aim of the model is to remove adversarial, contested hearings the arbiter of the facts remains the Judge, so advocates need to be alive to when the Cafcass Officer has usurped that role. Liz talks about the importance of written advocacy at decision hearings. 

Angela explains the importance of gathering evidence before the court process when dealing with applications for specific issues like changing schools or relocation cases.  Again you need to say in the application that you have those documents, and you would like to file them so that the Judge considers that at the Initial Gatekeeping hearing.  In respect of application for assessments, for example a psychological assessment, a C2 needs to be filed setting out why it is necessary to have expert assessment. Remind yourself of the case law:

Re Y (Experts and Alienating Behaviour: The Modern Approach) [2026] EWFC 38 

https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewfc/2026/38?query=o+Re+Y+%28Experts+Alienating+Behaviour%3A+The+Modern+Approach%29+%5B2026%5D+EWFC+38

Re H (Children: Expertise of Witness) [2026] EWCA Civ 249

https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewca/civ/2026/249?query=Re+H+%28Children%3A+Expertise+Witness%29+%5B2026%5D+EWCA+Civ+249

 
We then to go on to discuss the pros and cons for the system. Resolution has conducted a survey to gather early practitioner experiences can be found here. Both Liz and Angela agree that this is a brilliant system for straight forward cases where parents are unable to agree the precise division of care/ handovers/ holiday arrangements.  

The challenge is ensuring that the other cases, which do require fact-finding, or experts, receive appropriate case management to achieve a just outcome.

This is the start of a series into enforcing orders; this part focuses on enforcing financial remedy orders.

We are joined by Christopher Stirling (Field Court Chambers) and Kara Swift (Family Law in Partnership) who breathe life into this topic.

Chris starts with telling us that recitals that deal with the payment of money are enforceable: Austin v Haynes [2021] EWCA Civ 1919 per Moylan LJ. However, be careful about how you are drafting the recital to make sure that they are not conditional or incapable of definition.  

In respect of property adjustment orders, Chris reminds us that they take effect immediately in equity once DA/Final Order is made: Mountenay v Treharne [2003] Ch 135.  He also reminds us of the ability of the Court at the time of the final hearing to provide for deadlines for executing documents in default of which an application can be made ex parte to direct that a conveyancing solicitor or Judge should sign in the place of the defaulting party. 

Kara then reminds us that orders for sale pursuant to S.24A of the MCA allows for orders for sale to be made at any time on or after the making of a financial remedy order making it useful standalone relief.  She reminds us that a lump sum is a simple debt.  It doesn’t take priority over any other debt, unless it is supported by a default order for sale. 

Kara and Chris move on to discuss charging orders.  Note, there are no formal time limits for making charging order – see Lowsley v Forbes [1999] 1 AC 329 – though any interest claimed on sums charged is limited to 6 years – s.24(1) LA 1980 – nor is there need to seek any permission after 6 years like some other forms of execution: see Frankl-Rietti v Cheltenham & Gloucester plc [2011] EWCA Civ 524 per Rimer LJ @ [21] – and once obtained have an indefinite “shelf life” – CA refused to set aside charging order made 16 years previously in Yorkshire Bank Finance v Mulhall [2008] EWCA Civ 1156

They are made via a 2 stage process – interim and final order – interim order usually an ex parte process – though can be made immediately at time of judgment/order – see Mostyn J in Green v Adams [2017] 2 FLR 1413 (though if lump sum may be more practical to make default order for sale). 

Can get charging order where judgment debtor has some interest in charged asset and it is not necessary to establish the extent of that interest at stage of charging order -  Walton v Alman [2017] 1 FLR 927 . 

Kara tells us that 3rd party debt order – interim and final - is a mechanism to secure funds ahead of enforcing the direct payment of them to the applicant by the third party holding the funds. Note, A v Z (No 2) (Interim Third Party Debt Order), where an interim order was made against a party’s solicitors’ client account. 

Enforcing costs orders is like any other lump sum, but it must be liquidated to be enforceable i.e. you need to have agreed the amount or had it assessed after on detailed or summary basis. You do not have to wait for the final order of the divorce.  

Periodical payments order can be enforced by an attachment of earnings order.  They can be made as part of the original final order, if someone has been defaulting or diverting income. Generally, there is no provision for interest - TW v TM (Minors).

They then talk us through:

• Warrants of control – the bailiffs/ Enforcement Officers
• Judgment summons see Barclay v Barclay [2022] EWHC 2026 (Fam) in respect of the burden of proof;
• Receivers – as a last resort if there are no other methods and proportionate.   
• Blight v Brewster Orders – compelling a party to draw from a private pension;
• Thwaite jurisdiction – the power to vary executory orders where unjust not to do so 

Resolution’s National Conference in 2026 kicked off with our keynote session looking at the impact of AI in the justice system, including the benefits of being able to deliver justice more efficiency and the risk of it perpetuating bias that exists in the system.   We wanted to find a topic that would give our audience lots to were privileged to be joined by The Honourable Mr Justice McKendrick and Professor Rosemary Hunter King Counsel (Lead author of the Harm Panel 2020 report and co-author of the Everyday Business report 2025). 

Judge tells us that the Chancellor of the High Court, the Rt Hon Lord Justice Birss is the lead Judge for Artificial Intelligence, with an allocated senior for criminal, civil and family justice.  Mr Justice McKendrick is the lead judge for AI in family justice.  

The Judge makes the point that AI is transforming society, and justice needs to keep up with that development.  The judiciary already has access to its own confidential AI system, and guidance was issued to the judiciary in October 2025: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/Artificial-Intelligence-AI-Guidance-for-Judicial-Office-Holders-2.pdf

That system can summarise bundles, summarising judgments for litigants with special educational needs, AI to translate or transcript audio, as AI hallucination checker.  However, judicial decisions always remain the responsibility of the Judge. In the same way that the High Court judiciary already have access to a judicial assistant, but decisions are made by the Judge. 

Rosemary explains that there are deliberate biases in the system which we all think is a good thing, for example the child’s welfare being the paramount consideration is a form of bias.  The concern therefore only arises in respect of biases that give a party an unjustified disadvantage.  Rosemary gives example of the research in the Harm report about the ‘pro-contact culture’, which is a form of bias.  Rosemary makes the point that over-reliance on AI could lead to jurisprudential ossification i.e. continuing to use the determination that is already available rather than responding to adapting views. 

The Judge referred to a speech by The President of the King’s Bench division https://www.judiciary.uk/speech-by-the-president-of-the-kings-bench-division-the-mayflower-lecture-2025/

The difference between prediction and reasoning.  That lecture goes on to look at the fact that AI is predicting based on past outcomes, whereas Judges are reasoning.  Therefore, the Judge argues there is always a difference between the judicial outcome of reasoning to the outcome and AI predicting the likely outcome based on previous data. 

We went on to consider a number of judicial lectures including: 

• the Master of the Rolls speech on Artificial Intelligence where the Master of the Rolls opined that incivil justice routine judicial decision-making could be informed or directed by machines https://www.judiciary.uk/speech-by-the-master-of-the-rolls-artificial-intelligence-and-the-judiciary/
• Lord Briggs, Justice of the Supreme Court https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/speech_lord_briggs_20052026_de46afe657.pdf

Finally, we concluded with a discussion about the debate in the House of Lords about the future of financial remedy law. 

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/2025-11-10/debates/1492EA41-F82F-4148-A8AB-C0F8CB5B78B7/FinancialProvisionOnDivorce

We conclude with wondering whether AI is going to fuel litigation and driving litigants to issue, or whether it will help litigants to find consensual solutions and remove unrealistic expectations, as yet it is impossible to know. 

Are you up to date with how to apply for non-molestation orders?  Jenny Beck KC (Beck Fitzgerald), and Charlotte Baker (4PB) join us to bring us up-to-date, and discuss Family Law Act Remedies. 

Jenny was the Chair of the Family Justice Council that wrote the report providing Best Practice Guidance*.  She starts by telling us why the guidance was necessary: 

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/FJC-Best-Practice-Guidance-for-Practitioners-Making-an-Application-for-a-Protective-Injunction-under-the-FLA-1996-with-Annex-1.pdf

Charlotte then explains how the President’s guidance should change our practice: 

https://www.judiciary.uk/guidance-and-resources/the-pfds-guidance-2026-non-molestation-orders-under-the-family-law-act-1996-and-the-fjcs-best-practice-guidance-for-practitioners-on-making-an-application-for-a-protective-injuncti/

Charlotte and Jenny talk about the new draft orders.  The orders no longer have the standard terms ‘not to use or threaten violence’ and ‘not to harass, intimidate and pester’.  Jenny tells us they were removed because using and threatening violence is a criminal offence and not what these orders should be about, and it is hard to prove harassing, intimidating and pestering someone.  However, she makes clear that these terms can be added back into the draft order if required.  Jenny tells us that the respondent’s details should be included on the face of the order to make the order effective. 

Jenny tells us about the procedural change in the President’s guidance.  Namely, that the initial application should be heard on the papers, if that is not accepted it should be listed within a day for the applicant to make representations.  Charlotte tells us that when making an application for a non-molestation order that you need to be able to explain what is happening right now that justifies protection and why it is that an order is required. 

We discuss high acrimony cases and what to do when an application for a non-molestation order is made, and the respondent attends Court accusing the applicant of being just as bad. Both Charlotte and Jenny raise concerned about the times when Judges have tried to resolve matters by cross-undertakings. 

We finally discuss whether practitioners should be advising their client to go to the Police for a DAPO, why it is that clients may prefer not to the police and why it is this form of remedy needs to exist for victim-survivors who prefer not to make a complaint to the police. 

*Although Jenny joined us in her personal capacity today. 

Simon and Anita were privileged to be invited to speak at Resolution’s annual Financial Advisors conference. They were joined by Steve Hennessy (Beeswax Wealth Management) and Angela Lake-Carroll (ALC associates) to discuss how financial advisors see economic abuse in their day-to-day work with families. 

The full detail of the discussion is in The Review in an article by Shalini Kanap (Her Financial Planning): https://resolution.org.uk/the-review/current-issue/talking-family-law-live-podcast-recording/

We did take two Slidos in the room in the room which verified what we all expected that Financial Advisors frequently see one party restricting the other party’s access to information about the finances when they separate, and that they frequently see delaying/ avoidance tactics when it comes to implementing pension shares. 

We hope this podcast was part of the start of the Financial Advisors coming together to look at how they can protect their clients from on-going abuse.  

In this episode, Anita and Simon kindly passed the reigns to YRes members Abigail and Natalie to pick the brains of Alison Bull (Partner at Mills and Reeve) and Philip Barnsley (Partner and Head of Family at Higgs) regarding questions posed by other YRes members.   

Referred to by many as Resolution Royalty, Alison and Philip are both experts in their field, having hosted the finance update at Resolutions National conference for several years.

The episode starts by considering some of the signs to look for when domestic abuse is an issue in a case, including when the clients themselves don’t recognise it.  Alison highlights the importance of asking domestic abuse screening questions and shares the following resources: 

·       Domestic abuse screening information via Resolution website - Domestic Abuse Screening Information | Resolution

·       Family mediation council guidance - Mediation-Screening-and-Assessment-Resource-Final-Draft-for-Consultation-Updated.pdf

Phil then goes on to discuss conduct in financial remedy proceedings, whether we should plead it and the practical implications of doing so, as well as the different schools of thought currently developing through case law. 

Cases mentioned: 

·       N v J [2024] EWFC 184

·       Tsvetkov v Khayrova [2023] EWFC 130

·       LP v MP [2025] EWFC 473

·       Wei-Lyn Loh v Ardal Loh-Gronager [2025] EWFC 483

·       OG v AG (Financial Remedies: Conduct) [2020] EWFC 52 

Other resources mentioned: 

·       The Law and Disorder Podcast hosted by Nicholas Mostyn,  Helena Kennedy and Charlie Falconer 

·       Resolution Report “Domestic abuse in financial remedy proceedings” 

Alison and Phil also consider Form E preparation and the importance of case strategy generally, as well as pitching capital needs and income needs budgets. Alison notes, anecdotally, the difference in approach between contested proceedings and mediation and questions to what extent AI might change things. 

Cases mentioned: 

·       AH v BH [2024] EWFC 125

The episode concludes with discussion around spousal maintenance and the difficulties many face when advising clients given the uncertainty of the current law. 

On the 22nd October 2025, it was announced that the government is going to repeal the presumption of parental involvement in s1(2A) of the Children Act 1989.  Our hosts Simon Blain and Anita Mehta, ask Mary McKaskill (National Centre for Social Research), Natalie Sutherland (International Family Law Group LLP) and Sarah Williams (Forsters) about what the research to support that change shows and what it means in practice.

Natalie reminds us that the recommendation to review this section appeared in the Harm Report from June 2020. The MOJ announced that there would be a review in November 2020 and this is the report.

The review of the presumption of parental involvement involved three research projects commissioned by the MOJ. Mary was the Lead Researcher in the team that undertook the judgment analysis. They reviewed 245 judgments from eight courts including one in Wales. There was also a literature review of academic papers and grey literature by Alma Economics and qualitative research in the form of interviews with Black, Asian and Ethnic minorities by the Race Equality Foundation. The MOJ report Review of the Presumption of Parental Involvement: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/68f5f5c206e6515f7914c7e3/Review_of_the_Presumption_of_Parental_Involvement_Final_Report_.pdf

Mary was clear that the judgment analysis had to grapple with challenges such as variability of data, lack of accessibility, struggling to find records of the actual judgment, the detail of the specifics of the order or how a specific decision was reached.  There is also always a risk of bias or that certain experiences were not captured given this was a sample. Nevertheless, the report does find:

1. More times than not, some form of child arrangement is ordered.  The report found that the courts did follow a ‘no stone unturned’ approach to foster involvement with both parents even where there was found to be a risk of harm.
2. That it was not possible to understand from the study what weight the presumption had in decision making.
3. However, involvement was almost always ordered, even where there were risks, so the report expresses concern that this is in contradiction with the child’s welfare.

The report was unable to explore the long-term impact of the orders that are being made, which would require a longitudinal study.

Natalie and Sarah go on to discuss the impact of this report, together with the review of the first pathfinder pilot, ‘Understanding the Experience of Children and Families’ https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/695544d06a4ea67a402a839c/Private_Law_Pathfinder_Pilot.pdf

Natalie noted that in the review of Pathfinder, there were parents who appreciated the efficiency of Pathfinder, but others who felt they had not been heard.  Sarah was concerned that Pathfinder is dependent on support being provided from charitable partners and that is dependent on their availability.  Natalie considered whether the removal of review hearings has had an impact on outcomes, and whether this should have remained part of Pathfinder.

Mary concludes by telling us that the report found that the voice of the child is not heard in private law proceedings. The finding was that children’s voices were amplified when they agreed with the Court, i.e. wanting contact but diminished when they did not.

In/Fertility in the City – Natalie’s podcast with Somaya Ouzzani, can be accessed on their webpage: https://infertilityinthecity.com/.

Should misconduct be taken into account when an equitable division of assets is being attempted following a divorce?

This is an extra special episode where we joined forces with the well-known legal podcast, Law & Disorder, hosted by Charlie Falconer (Labour peer and former Lord Chancellor), Baroness Helena Kennedy, Sir Nicholas Mostyn.  Sadly, Charlie Falconer could not join us on the day of the recording.

Together they talk about financial remedy cases as it was, is and could possibly be, as our understanding of complex issues like domestic abuse and coercive control evolve.

Our listeners will be especially interested to hear Sir Nicholas Mostyn’s insights as he reflects on this complex issue.