- This topic has 9 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 8 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I don’t know but…
In NSW you can’t get divorced until you have been separated for at least 12 months, I think you can start the process prior to that but not much. Maybe something like that operates in the UK.
With respect to the step-parent agreement, my understanding from the learned advise of Ms Midcity, is that Rob essentially has the same right/responsibilities as if he were the natural or adopted father so the divorce would be irrelevant. Tell me if I am wrong Ms Midcity.
I find this very surprising too. You would think that the step-parent agreement would be slightly less, in some way, than an adoption otherwise, why have all the hoops for an adoption and none for a step-parent agreement? But that appears to be the way it is.
You’ve got it, Ms Bubbles!
Alison, a step parental responsibility order ends when the child is 18 (an adult), when the child (or step parent parent) dies, or there’s a court order to that effect (which requires a separate application) – not on divorce.
(And since someone with a step parental responsibility order is in the same position as a biological or adopted parent, a parent’s parental responsibility “trumps” grandparents legal position because grandparents have no parental responsibility.)
As you say, Ms Bubbles, to me it’s a way of getting around the stringent requirements for adoption. Someone like Rob wouldn’t like the scrutiny of the adoption process. But in The Archers, the adoption fairy would have made adoption incredibly easy and then afterwards the script writers would have invented all kinds of complications, risks and “red flags” that should have revealed real risks to the child’s safety.
Can the biological parent or the parent who gave permission for the responsibility order in the first place, not revoke their permission? And can you not apply for dissolution of marriage to get the ball rolling even if you need a period of consideration? Or annulment even as they married less then a year ago?
Claire Astbury – they got married in August last year.
Can the biological parent or the parent who gave permission for the responsibility order in the first place, not revoke their permission? And can you not apply for dissolution of marriage to get the ball rolling even if you need a period of consideration? Or annulment even as they married less than a year ago?
Claire Astbury – they got married in August last year.
My understanding is that the parent who gave permission cannot simply withdraw that permission. It appears to be a fault in the law which Tichy-Nob has exploited fully.
To Ibn Battuta: Ms Bubbles is right – a step parental responsibility order cannot be ended by one party withdrawing permission. It’s an order of the court – not a contract! It’s going to take another court order to undo it. As I said, a step parental responsibility order ends when the child is 18 (an adult), when the child (or step parent parent) dies, or there’s a court order to that effect (which requires a separate application) – not on divorce.
As for the divorce, I don’t see any point in rushing into it now. Helen’s on trial in September. They might as well wait for the outcome. If she’s found guilty, then I’d expect Rob to petition for divorce. If she’s acquitted and completely exonerated, then she might want to be the one to petition for divorce (there’s a chance that he’ll end up implicated in an offence (coercive control, assault or rape) leading to the police investigating him).
It’s correct that if you’ve not been married for a year, you can’t have a divorce – only an annulment. You can have an annulment at any time after a marriage. However, the conditions for an annulment aren’t present in the Rob/Helen marriage (you have to show the marriage wasn’t valid to start with or there was a legal “defect”).
And once again, Rob’s marriage has ended or will end without a financial settlement. I’m a bit surprised that Rob has no assets to speak of which would be divided on divorce. Jess didn’t go after him for any kind of settlement after a reasonably long marriage. And after this short marriage to Helen during which he has had an interesting work history (working for Berrow Farm presumably with a good salary, then working in a family business, then out of work due to an injury), no assets (they got a lump sum from Peggy which he started to spend but they don’t have a home or any other joint savings), the only financial issue will be maintenance for Henry and Jack. Both weird and interesting.
Having brought her to mind, I wonder what device will be used to bring Jess back into the story … ? I can’t believe we’ve heard the last of her.
Miss Mid City – thank you! I really appreciate getting a professional legal explanation on the situation in the Archers. It’s great to get some actual facts to help you keep sane through this (I might need some therapy too Alison Johnson) and to learn more about the justice system.
Miss Mid City, if you have the time and the energy, could you explain briefly about why Helen can’t have any contact with Henry? He was interviewed on camera right after stabnight, a recording which will presumably be used as evidence in court. Surely they are not bringing Henry into the court room to testify at the trial? So he has already given evidence and should therefore be allowed to have contact with Helen and even if they are not allowed to see each other in person could she not record messages for him or send him letters or photos etc.? It can’t be deemed in the best interest of the child to have all contact with his mother cut off? The last time he saw her was her being taken away screaming by the police.
Ibn Battuta, Henry is a witness to the stabbing incident. The police have interviewed him according to the guidelines on “Achieving Best Evidence” for young and vulnerable witnesses and he is going to be called as a prosecution witness. Prosecution and defence witnesses should not associate with each other. A child witness like Henry would give evidence via live video link at trial.
Here’s the bit I find contradictory: Rob is the victim/complainant and hence the prosecution star witness and in my mind, there’s a risk of collusion between prosecution witnesses who are familiar with each other. On that basis, I don’t think Henry and Rob should be allowed to live together during this pre-trial period because of the risk of Henry’s evidence being “contaminated”. But in reality, witnesses do not “belong” to the prosecution or the defence. The witness’s sole role is to assist the court in coming to a decision about the facts of a case. They may be called by one side or the other but in giving their evidence they promise to tell “the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth”.
I think your suggestion that Helen and Henry be allowed to remain in contact with each other by recorded messages is a perfectly reasonable and creative one. The idea that a mother and young child could be separated in this way seems incredibly harsh to me but I’m aware that it happens. I don’t see why letters and recorded messages can’t be exchanged just to maintain contact especially since material coming in and going out of prisons is monitored. I don’t have professional experience of this situation but it strikes me that it is not in Henry’s best interests to be separated from his primary carer and denied any contact with her at all.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.