February 21, 2025 • 48 mins
Facing a divorce with a partner exhibiting narcissistic traits? Tamsin and Rachel Ward walk through the challenging legal landscape and emphasise the necessity of a competent legal and emotional support team. Rachel and I share insights into the high thresholds required to establish conduct cases and discuss the emotional and financial burdens these impose on victims.
This episode is a follow-up to last week's blog "Surviving Divorce from a narcissist"
Rachel Ward
Rachel is a solicitor based in Hill Dickinson Solicitors Manchester Office but represents clients globally, many in Dubai, Geneva and London. Rachel has a wide range of experience in all areas of family law spanning over 10 years exclusively practising in family law. Rachel has a specialism in managing and resolving financial and child arrangement disputes for clients who are separating from partners with narcissism or narcissistic personality traits.
Rachel is also passionate about demonstrating that there are amicable ways to achieve a favourable settlement, allowing her clients to navigate litigation with dignity and composure. Her primary goal is to enable both parties to co parent effectively after the separation, always prioritising the best interests of the child.
Her comprehensive understanding of family law, combined with her compassionate approach has made Rachel a trusted advisor and advocate for countless individuals ranging from people in the music industry, influencers, solicitors and business owners. Rachel has been listed as one of the best 28 best divorce lawyers in Manchester by Wiselaw.
https://www.hilldickinson.com
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
Smart Divorce
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.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Tamsin Caine (00:06):
Welcome to series 10 of the Smart Divorce Podcast.
During this series, we're goingto be speaking about the
difficult subject of domesticabuse.
Unfortunately, during my work,I come across people who are
victim survivors of domesticabuse on a far too regular basis
.
So we're going to be talking tothose who have survived
(00:30):
themselves, to professionalsworking in this area, to
solicitors, to hopefully helpyou to find the right support if
you're in that situation.
This is an issue that's notgoing away, so so if you're
going through this or you knowanybody who is, I really hope
this series helped you.
Thanks for listening.
(00:53):
Hello and welcome to the SmartDivorce Podcast.
I'm very pleased to be joinedtoday by the lovely Rachel Ward
from Hill Dickinson Solicitors.
I was saying to Rachel earliershe always looks incredibly
glamorous whenever I see her,but she says she doesn't that
way.
But it's lovely for her to joinme.
(01:15):
I'm going to get her tointroduce herself properly in
just a couple of minutes, buttoday's episode we're going to
be talking about a blog that wasreleased by ourselves earlier
on this week, written by Rachel,and Rachel is a survivor of
divorce from a narcissist andshe's written a blog talking
(01:37):
about her journey.
We're going to talk to Racheltoday a bit about some of the
things that Rachel went through,but also talking about some
other options that it's worthconsidering if you're in the
same position or a similarposition that Rachel was in.
So this is not the same Rachelas the Rachel who wrote the blog
(01:59):
.
I should clarify.
Rachel, thank you for comingalong today.
Can you tell us a bit about you, what you do and your
experience of working withpeople leaving abusive
relationships?
Rachel Ward (02:13):
So morning.
Hello everyone, thank you forgiving me the opportunity to
come and speak on your podcasttoday.
I'm Rachel Ward.
I'm a family solicitor, as yousaid, working at Hill
Dickinson's.
I am in the Manchester office,but we have offices in Liverpool
, leeds, birmingham, london andalso offices abroad, so I have
(02:41):
clients all over the country.
I started my career in legal aidso that gave me a lot of
exposure to victims of domesticabuse and even though I've now
moved into private practice, Ihave I still sort of have a lot
of clients that have or areseparating from relationships
where there has been some sortof domestic abuse.
(03:03):
So I have spent a lot of timetalking about this to people
like you.
I recently attended aconference in London.
I know that a lot of employersnow are keen to learn a little
bit more about victims ofdomestic abuse and people
separating from relationshipswhere there's been an element of
(03:23):
domestic abuse and peopleseparating from relationships
when there's where there's beenan element of domestic abuse.
I work with individuals whohave experienced all forms of
abuse, so I know that peopleoften think domestic abuse it's
physical abuse, emotional, um,financial sexual abuse, um,
(03:49):
obviously, each of these formsof abuse have lasting scars on
people and I hope, now that Ihave learned enough, to have the
empathy and knowledge tonavigate people through this
system.
So I've had a little look atthis blog that this lady, who's
(04:11):
also called Rachel, has prepared, and I can see that she felt
that she was in a bit of abroken system, that she found
herself in a position where shedidn't know where to turn, and I
suppose this is really for meand you to show people that
there are places to go for themto find a way of of leaving
(04:35):
these sort of abusiverelationships.
So I've briefly looked at theblog and she does say, first of
all, that she has found itdifficult, first of all, just
making the decision to leave andwhere to go.
And I learned recently that thatthe big banks, like Lloyds and
TSB, have started this newpolicy where you can go and
(04:59):
speak to specialist trainedindividuals to for them to
assist you in leaving now, and Ithink that that's a big change
and I think it's definitelysomething that people should be
exploring a little bit more,knowing that they have that
support from their bank andthings like that they will give
them specialist um likenon-disclosurable sort codes so
(05:25):
that perpetrator doesn't knowwhere they are.
They'll help them set up withnew pins, new bank accounts etc.
Um, and I think that's oneplace that people should start
looking straight away.
Obviously it's finding asolicitor who's used to high
conflict um separations, so itisn't always going to be someone
(05:46):
like me, you know.
It isn't someone who might notcompletely understand what is
narcissistic personalitydisorder, but there are people
who have a lot of experiencewith high conflict cases and
it's just gathering your teamaround you and getting things
(06:06):
together practically.
So it's speaking to people likeyou, getting a financial
advisor, understanding yourfinances, because I think a lot
of people come to someone likeme and think, oh, you can help
me emotionally, financially,legally and we're not a one-stop
shop, you know there are otherprofessionals that are there to
(06:27):
as sist as well
yeah, absolutely.
I think.
I think it's that definitelystarting with your bank and
getting and that that supportthere.
I think you need a plan beforeyou leave.
You need to make sure that you,you are, you've got everything,
all your ducks in a row, youknow before you leave what your
(06:48):
plan is, where you're going togo.
You need to get your paperworkcopied and out of the house yeah
, safe and secure.
You need to have all your plancompletely in order and one of
the places to start with withdoing that, the Domestic Abuse
Helpline.
Or a charity.
There's a charity that's calledHestia.
That's like a group aftercrisis, so there's quite a lot
(07:15):
of charities like that and, likeyou said, the Domestic Abuse
Helpline.
They can help you withnon-holestation applications,
occupation orders, but and alsojust understanding your finances
.
I always say to people becausepeople will often speak to me
before they're separated and Isay to them do you have any idea
what you can borrow?
You know if you're looking at,you know purchasing again, you
(07:36):
know you need to just go andspeak to people like that as
well and and know if you can buythem out of the house or
whether or not you are going tohave to move, because and that's
the one question I always askat the beginning as well,
because some people aredesperate to leave the family
home, but people some peoplethink that that's you know that
that's their one sort of aim isto keep the family home for the
children and that stability.
(07:58):
So I think it's you alsosetting out your store, because
everyone's different, so youneed to guide your solicitor and
your team as to what you wantyour future to look like as well
.
Yeah, absolutely.
I think if you are looking forsomeone working as a financial
advisor, make sure it's it'ssomebody who's not only got
(08:21):
experience in working withpeople going through divorce,
but preferably specializes inthat area and also has
experience of working withpeople living in an abusive
relationship, because noteverybody has.
And you need somebody whounderstands your situation and
is going to yeah, is going tounderstand what you're going
(08:41):
through and the difficultiesthat arise from what you're
going through and thedifficulties that arise from
from.
Just you know, I think it's 95percent of abusive relationships
have some form of financial oreconomic abuse.
That's if that's such a hugeproportion.
So you're probably going to bein a situation where if you're
divorcing an narcissist, theythey will have, or you know, or
(09:03):
any abusive relationship.
There will be some form offinancial abuse and you need
somebody who understands thatand who understands that that
means you're not going to haveaccess to money in the same way
that other people do.
It's fantastic that the banksare stepping up and and about it
, and there's, there are also um, there's and I can't remember
(09:24):
the name of the website, butI'll make sure we put it in the
show notes um, there's, thereare also there's and I can't
remember the name of the website, but I'll make sure we put it
in the show notes there's awebsite where you can go and you
can get train tickets or bustickets if you need to get away
urgently.
Now, obviously, that situationis you're, you know you're
physically in in danger, danger,um, and then you can.
(09:48):
You can go to that and and atleast get away.
If it's going to family, ifit's going to friends that are
at some distance away, there isthat option for you if you don't
have access to money.
So there are some desperatesituations where you can at
least you can at least accessmoney.
And I guess the other thing isemotional support.
I know you said before you'renot going to go to your
solicitor for emotional support.
Well, they do, but it's very expensive they do?
Tamsin Caine (10:10):
Yeah, exactly and same thing.
You know, don't come to yourfinancial planner or your
financial advisor for emotionalsupport, because, whilst we'll
do our absolute best to give it,we're not trained in providing
emotional support.
We're not therapists.
Providing emotional supportwe're not.
We're not therapists.
There are divorce coaches outthere who can, who can help you
through the process at a lowercost than you'll be paying to
(10:33):
myself or to a solicitor.
There are therapists out thereand many of our clients need
both the divorce coach and thetherapist to get them through
emotionally, to give them thatemotional support, to give them
that counseling, because divorceis a really, really tricky
thing to go through.
It's one of the top moststressful things that anybody
(10:56):
will go through, and if you'regoing through that and dealing
with abuse as well and it and itoften continues post-separation
you need, you're likely to needthat emotional support almost
more than you need either of thetwo of us, don't you?
Rachel Ward (11:11):
Yeah, I've started even saying in some of my
initial letters like signpostingthem to even self-help books
and things like that, becausenot everyone can afford, you
know, to go off and have atherapist and a divorce coach
and a lawyer and a financialadvisor.
And so I do sometimes say, youknow, there are books now online
, or you know audible, or foryou to go and purchase at
Waterstones or you know at thebookshops and just signpost them
(11:35):
to them, because there are, youknow, support from other places
now and there are.
You know.
I recently went to anotherconference and there's a lady
who has written books just onseparating from a narcissist, dr
Supriya McKenna, and her booksare excellent and you can get
them on Audible and they justhelp you understand also what
(11:57):
you're going through and whatsort of traits to be looking for
, because I think that's thehardest thing is trying to
explain to someone who doesn'tunderstand narcissistic
personality disorder.
Yeah, what, how they could comeacross and how they have
manipulated the situation,because they're often charming
and really well liked and ingood positions, you know, in a
(12:19):
good job, um, you know well likeby the family and things like
that and but behind closed doorsare, you know, very
manipulative and have made theperson feel really inadequate at
home.
So, like you said, that's goingto then manifest in them
probably having a poorly paidjob, if really inadequate at
home.
So, like you said, that's goingto then manifest in them
probably having a poorly paidjob, if a job at all.
Tamsin Caine (12:37):
So that's where there is that, you know,
economic abuse, which we touchedon earlier, and it's just
really hard and it's one of thefirst things that rachel says in
her blog is is that she was ina system that didn't seem to
believe her.
And that's the biggest thing,because you're up against
(12:58):
somebody who, as you say, comesacross as very charming, very
likeable within society, willprobably be well thought of.
So for the person who's been ina relationship with them,
they're probably in a positionwhere people are going no way.
That's definitely not them.
They wouldn't behave like that.
That doesn't sound like them.
So it's massively importantthey find professionals who
(13:22):
believe them, who believe theirstory, who who aren't going to
question what they're sayingbecause, as you say, it's it's
manipulation, it's coercivecontrol, it's them having their
own way in this.
As you say, it's manipulation,it's coercive control, it's them
having their own way.
And, as you say, supriya'sbook's very clearly defined and
as soon as anybody who's been ina relationship with someone
(13:42):
with narcissistic personalitydisorder will pick it up and
recognise the very, the playbookI think Supriya calls it.
It's very defined behavioursthat work in a systematic
pattern.
Every time Supriya just as aside note has been on this
podcast and there is an episodethat you can go back and listen
(14:04):
to where Supriya talks aboutthis situation.
So I think you're absolutelyright.
Get your team around you, and Iknow not everybody can afford
to have all of the all of theteam.
That would be ideal, butsometimes it's actually lower
cost to have all of the peopledoing the right jobs than it is
(14:25):
to go to the wrong people forthem to support you in it.
You know, like you say, goingto your solicitor for emotional
support isn't, isn't, that's notgoing to be the best use of
your money.
So sometimes, although itsounds a lot for people, it's
actually low, comes out to be alower cost because you're
getting the right people doingthe right jobs in the right way,
so that that is worth bearingin mind.
Rachel Ward (14:48):
I completely agree and I think that comes from
getting the right legal supportas well, because quite often
people will try and keep peopleaway from litigation.
So people will say, oh, youknow we should be going off to
mediation or we could.
You know we should be sendingletters, we should be
negotiating.
But it's really difficult tonegotiate with someone who has
(15:11):
an autistic personality disorderand they they don't have any
interest in reaching a fairsettlement, they just want to
win in their eyes.
So they'll delay.
They'll be so I've experiencedso many of them.
You know delaying tactics andnot providing disclosure, asking
for disclosure and you providereally detailed disclosure and
(15:34):
then you get disclosure back andit just says TBC, tbc, tbc on
theirs.
And it's so difficult then.
And then when you go to court alot of people want me to say oh
, you know, you've got to sayhe's got narcissistic
personality disorder.
I'm not a professional, I can'tdiagnose someone.
I can recognize their traits,but I don't.
I don't know what thestatistics are.
(15:55):
I imagine there's not that manypeople who are formally
diagnosed with narcissisticpersonality disorder because
they've got to take themselvesfor diagnosis and they are never
going to do that and the courtsdon't like labels.
So I always have to steer theclients into a way of being able
(16:16):
to provide the evidence withoutthe labels, and I think that's
the best way.
And going to court, it's reallysometimes the only way, because
they are trapped within, youknow, having time constraints.
There's, you know, they'reordered to provide evidence.
There's punish, you know somesort of sort of you know not
punishment, that's not the rightword, but there should be, you
know, some sort of what's theword?
(16:38):
Repercussions?
Yes, that's the right word, youknow, for failure to provide
disclosure.
And it's a place where we canput the facts to them and to the
court for them to sort of andnot be able to sort of, squirm
out of it and be able.
And once you put the facts tothem and to the court, for them
to sort of and not be able tosort of, squirm out of it and be
able, and, and once they putyou put the facts in front of
them, you do see a verydifferent side to them, and it
(17:01):
is often at that point that weare able to then show the judge
that this, this behavior, hashad some sort of um, so it is.
It is something that should beconsidered as a factor that,
when considering the the fairsort of settlement
Tamsin Caine (17:18):
Absolutely when, in your experience, when you've
been to court with um clientswho who are in this position,
who are divorcing somebody theybelieve to be a narcissist, have
you ever, has it always gone tofinal, final, um the yeah,
final hearing can't speak today.
(17:41):
Has it ever been a positionwhere you've been able to reach
an agreement earlier than that?
Because my experience has beenthat, generally, because there's
this I need to win situation,negotiating is incredibly
difficult and even even at FDR,which is the middle hearing,
(18:03):
they're not willing to giveanything at all.
There's no, there's nonegotiating because there's no,
there's no giving.
It's like I'm not going to giveyou anything.
Rachel Ward (18:14):
Yeah, I think a lot of them do, but not no, I don't
think.
I do think that we have quiteoften been able to negotiate
assessment at FDR, and I thinkthat the reason for that is they
know that they're going to becross-examined, so they know
that we, you know, if we've, ifwe've got enough evidence that
we'll run a case of conduct.
So they know that we, you know,if we've, if we've got enough
evidence that we'll run a caseof conduct.
So they know, at that pointthey'll probably become unstuck,
(18:37):
and more often than not,they've probably got someone
like a barrister representingthem at that point, as well as a
solicitor, and because of theirpersonality, they want to look
as if they are being reasonableto people who they see as
equally as powerful or, you know, is equally as respectful as
them.
So quite often, though, that wewill be able to reach a
(19:01):
settlement at FDR not always,like you said, and and and
sometimes victims also want thatopportunity to be in court as
well, because it's reallydifficult to establish a conduct
case, and I was thinking aboutthis earlier that I have to
prepare whether or not someone'sgoing to say that that they
(19:22):
want, you know, someone'sbehavior to be taken into
account very early on inproceedings.
So I have to outline that inthe first document and for me,
and then a court has to make adecision really at the first
appointment as to whether or notthey think that it will reach
in a high threshold.
And that's only a 35, 40 minutecourt hearing where really it's
(19:44):
used for directions.
We have no idea really the fullfinancial picture at that point
.
So for us to raise that sort ofargument at that point is
really difficult.
And I think that that'sprobably where Rachel in her
blog has found it difficult,where she sort of said that you
know it's a broken system.
People weren't listening to meat certain points of the you
(20:05):
know of proceedings and it isdifficult in that sense.
And I do think there are somechanges that need to be made and
I do think there are changesthat are currently being made
for us to have as practitionersas well, for us to have a
greater understanding of how torun a case of conduct and where
that is really important whenthere's been an economic abuse.
(20:28):
Um, so sometimes, back to yourquestion the victims sometimes
want to go to a final hearing aswell.
It isn't always that they'repushed along, but it is a really
costly exercise and that's thedifficulty.
But if I don't sometimes makean application straight away
(20:49):
because people will want to tryand exhaust, you know a more
amicable approach, they'll endup spending double because they
keep trying and then the otherperson just isn't engaging.
So at the moment I do thinkthat that is the best way half
the time, and obviously there'sprivate FDRs and things like
that now, so we don't alwayshave to wait for us, you know,
(21:13):
for the, for a court hearing inthe normal sort of procedure.
But I do think that you needsomeone, a third party.
I don't think two solicitorswith the best interest of both
their clients is enough insituations like this yeah, not
likely to get there.
Tamsin Caine (21:30):
I've got a couple couple of questions from what
you've just said.
So you talked about running aconduct case.
Yeah, just explain what runninga conduct case means.
Rachel Ward (21:41):
Yeah, so we have legislation that we follow, so
it's the Matrimonial Causes Actand we look at factors under
Section 25 and in particularSection 25G, which says that we
can look at the conduct of aparty when looking at the
financial settlement and we cancomplete within the financial
(22:11):
information form, the form A, aparagraph to say that we yeah,
we can obviously sort of go intoit a lot more and we do, but if
(22:35):
someone's picking it up, a usedto litigant in person, there
isn't much time on where we canwrite down reasons why we think
that the court should payparticular attention to the
conduct of one party.
But there is a threshold and thethreshold is that it's
inequitable to disregard andthat it's gross and obvious.
And that it's gross and obviouswhich is really difficult to
define and, like I said, and Ithink that a lot of
(23:01):
practitioners even don't realise, don't fully understand the
sort of that concept, and it isjust case law that that's sort
of balanced upon.
So we obviously we have theoption of running a conduct case
and we can include things like,you know, economic abuse,
(23:21):
financial abuse, anything wherewe think that that's had an
impact on that other party'sability to look after themselves
financially, that people needto realise, though, that there
(23:41):
it isn't.
It isn't for us to make them,it isn't for the financial
courts to look at them and findthem guilty.
Yeah, that behavior.
It's just for them to look atwhether or not it's something to
be considered when we'rereaching an agreement on
finances, and I think that's thefine balance of the victims
understanding that, and also thepractitioners also
understanding, though, that,even though, yes, they're not
there to to find whether or notthat person is guilty, if it is
(24:04):
something that's important andis going to have a bearing on
how that other person has beenable to financially look after
themselves and contribute andwill be able to look after
themselves in the future, thenit's something that must be
included.
Um, and it isn't just that weshould just be batting them out
and saying, oh well, you shouldbe going to the police about
that or you should be going toget a normal station order about
(24:27):
that, because I think thatquite often, you know that we
can be guilty to sort of saythis isn't the right forum for
it.
Finances but it is
Tamsin Caine (24:37):
Sometimes it is and sometimes should be on.
Should be on that form 100%.
I'm gonna just ask you anotherquestion.
Uh, non-molestation order.
You mentioned that a second ago.
So there are some orders.
So I know um rachel talks inher blog about the broken legal
(24:58):
system and about how she didn'tfeel in a position to fight her
ex on an even keel because shedidn't have access to money and
so on.
What, what's a normalizationorder?
What?
Or because there are otherthings that can be done and put
(25:20):
into place before we get to thefda fdr final hearing, what are
those things that we should beconsidering or that victim
survivors could consider withtheir legal team putting into
place at kind of in quite anearly stage?
Rachel Ward (25:38):
so, first of all, there is a non-molestation order
which you can apply for.
There's no court fee.
You can do it as well onlinethrough the national centre of
domestic abuse uh, victimsupport abuse group.
Uh, they have special legalprofessionals who will take you
to court.
There will will be no fee.
So if you're eligible to dothat, then that's the way that
(25:59):
you should approach it.
Obviously, there's solicitorsas well, like me, who can assist
and who've had a lot ofexperience of making those
applications.
So they are immediate orderswhere the court will grant it
without any notice to the otherparty to say that they can't
come into contact with them,they can't intimidate them,
can't damage property.
Then, alongside that, there's aconsideration as to whether or
(26:21):
not they could come within acertain distance of them, and
sometimes that lends its hand tous making applications for
occupation orders.
So they are more difficult toobtain and can be seen as quite
draconian because we aresomewhat ousting them from the
property.
But if there's a need to dothat, then that's something else
that we're there and can assistwith.
(26:45):
I don't know how much thesecharities do with the help with
occupation orders.
I know that they do with thenormal station orders, but I'm
not sure whether or not theyhave as much experience with
occupation orders.
But then after that, the otherapplications that I wanted to
(27:07):
discuss was things like themaintenance pen and suit
application.
So, like we said and I thinkRachel says it that she didn't
have the financial support, shedidn't have all the financial
resources to be able to pay forlegal support.
So her husband was a highearner.
(27:27):
He'd spent £200,000, I thinkshe said, on his legal fees,
whereas she was dripping hersolicitor £25 here and just to
get some, some sort of help anddoing a lot on her own.
But we can make applicationsbefore, during, obviously, the
the financial dispute, duringthe separation, before any final
(27:48):
orders are made for financialsupport.
And we can.
What we do is we complete aschedule of outgoings and
compare that to their income andany shortfall we would be
saying should be met by thefinancially stronger party.
So we always explore that.
The other thing is legalservices payment orders.
(28:15):
So quite often we apply tocourt to ask that they pay the
weaker financial parties legalfees and more often than not, if
the financial resources arethere, then those applications
are successful, as long asyou've exhausted the methods of
payment.
Litigation loans, support fromfamily.
Litigation loans, you know,support from family.
(28:36):
If there's nothing like thatthat's available, which quite
often there isn't, because theymight not be named on the family
home or you know it might bethat it's a business that's got
all the money in, but you knowthey're in rented or there isn't
much equity in the property.
So sometimes it's quitedifficult for people to get
litigation loans.
There is that option for us tobe able to apply for those, and
(28:56):
so there is financial supportand we will explore all those
options with our clients to makesure that they aren't the
weaker party once they separatethat.
They might have been the weakerparty during the marriage or
during the relationship, butwe'll put them on an equal
footing and make sure that theyhave just as strong of a legal
team and advisors and everyoneelse around them to be able to
(29:21):
make informed decisions that'sbrilliant, because I think
that's really important.
Tamsin Caine (29:26):
I think a lot of people feel that they need to
represent themselves and thatthey, as you say, as a litigant
in person, so that they're nothaving the the legal, same legal
support and they're up againstsomebody who's got the best
lawyers, the best well, notnecessarily the best, but the
most expensive lawyers.
(29:46):
Yeah, you know the the big kindof London guys who you see on
the telly and you know and Ithink it's intimidating.
Rachel Ward (29:56):
It is, isn't it?
Yeah, absolutely.
And it's really difficultbecause the people who've left
these relationships are, youknow, their confidence is
probably at their lowest and tocome across like you know,
against someone like that, thenthey are just going to accept
unfair settlements because theyhaven't got the financial
resources to value things either.
(30:18):
And it is costly.
We can't get away from the factthat it's it's it's emotionally
exhausting, it's costly, andbut you, if you've got the right
team around you, we can just wecan make it easier and we can,
we can resolve it faster.
I think
Absolutely definitely um.
(30:41):
In the blog, Rachel talks aboutum, the preparation of her first
barrister, who she didn't feelwas was fully up to speed.
Um, and she talks about the FDR.
Um, for those people who arelistening, who have never been
through the court process, canyou just talk a little bit about
(31:02):
what the FDR is and why it's soimportant that the barristers
are up to speed and how they canmake sure that their barristers
are up to speed?
What should be happening toensure that their barrister is
as fully informed as possible inpreparation for the FDR?
Yes, of course that's a lot of questions, sorry
(31:23):
, I can cope, I think.
So there is normally threecourt hearings.
There's a first appointment,which I just discussed before,
which is more directions.
So you go to court, you say,right, OK, well, we've looked at
the financial disclosure and wewant to raise a questionnaire.
We want to.
We don't agree on the value ofthe family home.
(31:44):
We want someone to come in andso that you know to give a
valuation that we both agree on.
We've got business.
We need to get, you know, anaccountant to come in and value
that business.
So that's that appointment.
When you get to FDR you shouldhave all that information and
it's it's used as an opportunityto put forward all the evidence
without any sort of examinationor cross-examination, um for
(32:07):
the court to give some sort ofindication as to what they think
a fair settlement would be.
So they will look at the valueof everything.
They will look at, you know,potentially things that people
have included in there for me,the questionnaire and they will
say, right, OK, well, we'velooked at discuss the fact that
she says that she found itreally difficult that they
(32:40):
hadn't prepared, that they youknow that they didn't have the
right paperwork and things likethat, and that she then, I think
, used the final hearing for theopportunity to be able to
prepare more thoroughly.
Now I would hope, if you had adecent solicitor and that
solicitor had fully, you know,briefed council that they should
(33:00):
have had all the paperworkready for you to be able to use
the FDR like a final hearing.
So it's quite unusual andsurprising that she found
herself Well, I don't know ifit's unusual, but in my cases I
don't know obviously, across youknow, across the sort of when
other solicitors have beenacting that you should be able
(33:20):
to use that opportunity properlyto be able to negotiate a
settlement without then havingthe cost of having a final
hearing, Because a final hearingwill most likely be two or
three days with a barristerwho's probably costing two or
three thousand pounds a day, youknow.
And so if you can use the FDR asa final hearing, then that's
(33:43):
what it's, that's what it'sthere for
yeah, so the the responsibilityof ensuring that the barrister
is fully prepped?
does that lie with the solicitor?
Are they?
Are they supposed to make surethat the barrister has all the
paperwork and is also also fullyup to speed on on the case and
(34:05):
and any issues that have beenarising in the case?
Yeah, and I think that's why it's sometimes
important to get a barristerearly, even if your solicitor is
going to potentially attend thefirst appointment or, you know,
is generally running the case.
I think if you can get yourteam early so they can fully
understand all the facts, ratherthan your barrister picking up
the papers two or three daysbefore having a case that's
(34:29):
quite similar the day beforethat, you know, I think that
that's a benefit for everyone toget your legal team early
around you to fully understand,especially when you're dealing
with someone who's leaving,someone with narcissistic
personality disorder, andexplaining to the barrister and
there's a lot of barristers nowwho who are fully equipped to be
(34:51):
able to deal with cases likethis up and down the country.
You know I've got barristersthat I'll refer to in London,
birmingham and in Manchester whofully understand how to
approach people like this.
But they have to know and andquite often if your solicitor
isn't understanding you anddoesn't think that you've got
enough of a, you know a case torun condo, then it isn't going
(35:14):
to be referred to in the papers,it is going to be very basic
papers.
This, you know.
Property is worth x, thisbusiness is worth y.
They've been married for 20years and they've got two
children and no mention, yeah,of anything to do with why the
relationship broke down and youknow, and potentially the abuse
that's continued post separation
(35:36):
so is it as a victim survivor?
you need to.
If you don't feel that yoursolicitor is briefing your
barrister fully, is thereanything you can you can do
about that, or
I think, arrange a conferencebefore you're hearing you.
We can do.
We often do them remotely now,so it doesn't have to be, you
(35:58):
know, at great expense.
Um, I think it's important tohave that confidence in your
legal team and you're only goingto get that by meeting them and
discussing things with them andyou know and being able to
explain how you feel and whatyou think is important,
Tamsin Caine (36:14):
Brilliant love it.
Um, and we talked earlier andand I know this is a this is
something that that rachel'stalked about is the the belief
in the system.
Now, you mentioned earlierpeople that sometimes people
want to try and get everythingdone through mediation.
They want to try and just usesolicitors.
(36:35):
They don't want to apply to thecourts because we know that
that's a costly process and Iknow you talked about sometimes
it's necessary.
If you feel that you're in thissituation where the other
person's messing about to applyto the court to get that, to get
things moving, how would youever try other alternatives up
(36:59):
front and how do you know how,how do you get the sense very
early on that actually thisneeds, this just needs to go to
the courts because the otherperson is not going to play ball
.
Rachel Ward (37:12):
I think that I normally can assess it from a
response, from a first letter.
So it doesn't mean that when Isay we're automatically applying
to court, that I meet theclient and I fill out the
paperwork on the first day and Ihave to go the following day,
you know I'll meet the client,I'll understand obviously what
the client and I fill out thepaperwork on the first day and I
have to call the following day.
You know I'll meet the client,I'll understand obviously what
they want and I always followdown the streets.
I always say to them I work foryou.
(37:33):
Because they come to me andthey're so intimidated and they
think that I'm going to bereally bullish and you know,
tell them how that they need torun their cases.
But, like I said to you,everyone wants different things.
So I always say to them youknow I'll work for you and I'll
send them the first letter.
I always send to them to checkbecause they know whether or not
you know that sentence is goingto aggravate that person, you
know, or that my tone's too niceor my tone's too aggressive,
(37:57):
and then we'll work together onthe initial letter and so quite
often it'll be, you know, acouple of drafts before it's
initially sent out.
But the response is indicativeas to how then I'll run the case
.
If I have a letter back from asolicitor or from the person and
they are just, you know,mudslinging and not really
(38:18):
getting anywhere, then I'll thensort of look to alternatives.
Mediation isn't appropriateanyway when there's been
domestic abuse, so we quiteoften can bypass that anyway.
But we'll decide whether or notthere's any point in entering
into voluntary disclosure, andsometimes there is.
(38:39):
But more often than not if Ienter into voluntary disclosure
then I get a four me, me back,even though they've asked for
financial disclosure, saying TBC, tbc, tbc.
So it is just a delaying tactic.
So at that point for definite,if I get something then and
they've wanted to push it tothat point I make the
(38:59):
application, because then I'monly updating the disclosure.
I'm not having to do for me allover again.
I have got the 12 months and itis going to be that we're
making the application.
So we've only got to top it upby another three months or
whatever before we have thatdirection from the court.
So I'm always just conscious ofpeople's costs and I always say
(39:19):
to people when they say oh, howmuch is it going to cost?
It's really difficult because Ihave to say, well, it depends
how the other party engages andit depends on how far we get
through the process and what youcan agree on and what you can't
agree on.
But I also say, it's the timethat I spend, so you can also be
quite savvy.
You know you only send me oneemail.
(39:40):
You know, don't send me 15which you could copy and paste
into one, because it is justtime half the time, and I will
always update you.
You know if there's somethingcoming in and things like that.
So it is also you just havingthat element of trust and and
solicitors, you know, not justcollating loads of documents
(40:00):
that are completely unnecessaryas well.
You know, I do need tounderstand a little bit, so I
might ask for a few.
You know whatsapp messages oremails, but I don't need a
year's worth because, again, I'mjust I'm wasting your time.
Yeah absolutely.
Tamsin Caine (40:15):
You mentioned that you don't feel that mediation
is appropriate for, um, forvictims, survivors of abuse, um,
and it's.
Does that count for anymediation?
So you wouldn't even engage insomething like hybrid mediation.
Rachel Ward (40:29):
So I was going to say that I did think hybrid
mediation, but that's a very newconcept and it is only
something that we have only beensort of exploring more recently
.
Uh, we have had one recently athill dickinson and it was
really successful, um, becausethe mediator can hold privileges
(40:50):
.
So that's the difference, um,and and it's worked and we've
reached a settlement usinghybrid mediation.
So I do think that that when Isaid, yeah, it's not a blanket,
not, it's not appropriate, thereare, there are options, um, to
explore that I would obviouslycanvas with any clients at the
beginning.
Tamsin Caine (41:09):
Yeah, absolutely no.
That's.
That's great, and earlier on,when we were talking, you
mentioned um private FDRs andand I think, potentially
arbitration is also aconsideration that you that you
might bring into these cases topotentially bring them to our
close earlier on.
Obviously, the post-separationabuse and the emotional drain on
(41:34):
anybody going through theseprocesses is horrific and if
there's the finances to enablethem to do it, would you say
that something like a privateFDR and arbitration are
appropriate and, if so, couldyou just tell us briefly a
little bit more about both thoseoptions?
Rachel Ward (41:53):
Yeah, so a private FDR is an alternative to the
traditional court route in thecontext of divorce and financial
proceedings.
What we'll do is it will besimilar to the way that I'd
explained previously an FDR,except that we would have
instructed a private judge.
So quite often it's a barristerand they will sit as a private
(42:17):
judge and will be able to attendeither a chambers or clients
will often come and meet in ouroffices and the other party and
will conduct a court hearing ina more private setting and they
will provide what's called aneutral evaluation and again
(42:43):
advise what they think would bea it was if it was being held in
a proper um court environment.
So the benefits of that isobviously the flexibility.
We can sort of instruct someonequite quickly, um, and at the
moment we can be waiting for afinal hearing for sort of six,
seven, eight months.
(43:03):
So it does allow people to bebe able to get to this process a
lot quicker.
And, but it is obviously it canbe expensive.
We're having to pay for a judge, but it does.
There's less maybe sort ofletters going to and fro you
know to and fro and in between,so it can be quite there's cost
(43:26):
considerations, you know, to andfro and in between, so it can
be quite it.
There's cost considerations,you know, and benefits to to
doing it both ways, but ifpeople can afford to do it that
way, then it definitely reducesthe stress.
Um, and because obviously thelonger it goes on, I think it's
like anyone it's always theunknown that's scary, isn't it?
(43:46):
And I think once you've gotthat knowledge, then you can
then make decisions as towhether or not to put forward
offers at that point as well andto potentially reach a
settlement.
So, like court, it'snon-bindinginding the outcome of
(44:06):
a private FDR, so you can stillgo off to final hearing, but I
think it's an effective andefficient way of dealing with
things,
Tamsin Caine (44:16):
And arbitration is similar to a private FDR, isn't
it?
But equivalent to a finalhearing, but that does give a
binding.
Rachel Ward (44:27):
Yeah, it does.
that's the difference betweenarbitration
Tamsin Caine (44:31):
so, again, those things are worth considering if
you want, if you, if thefinances are available and you
want to speed things up again,it's yeah, so it's just a
neutral third party who ischosen, you know, by the
disputing parties to be able toto guide them into reaching a
settlement.
Rachel Ward (44:50):
But, like you said, arbitration, the the difference
is is that it can be binding.
Yeah, brilliant.
Tamsin Caine (44:57):
We're coming to the end of our time together,
Rachel.
That feels like it's absolutelyflown.
I think we said before westarted recording that we we
think we could probably havetalked all day about all the
issues that were brought up inthe um in the blog by Rachel.
But yes, to be um focusing onon some of the things that we
(45:18):
think could be done differently,to give people a bit of
positive news, that that thereare other options available to
you and it doesn't have to go inthe way that unfortunately it
did for Rachel, if you get theright team together.
Is there anything you want toadd before we finish up?
Rachel Ward (45:37):
No, not really.
I just think that the firststep is obviously the bravest.
I think once you've made thatdecision to leave that party,
then you know that you've takena step to a brighter future.
And it isn't easy, but thereare people obviously around to
support you through this who'vespent a lot of time sort of
(46:00):
honing their skills tounderstand and to be able to
guide you through this you know,as best as we can.
Tamsin Caine (46:08):
Yeah, well said, absolutely right.
And if you do want to get intouch with Rachel, if you are in
this position and you need somelegal support in leaving or in
going through the divorceprocess, please do get in touch
with her.
All Rachel's details of how tocontact her will be in the show
notes below, so please look themup and get in touch with Rachel
(46:29):
.
If you do need some excellentsupport and if you have found
this episode useful, please dolike, subscribe, share, give us
a lovely five-star review,because it does help us to get
the podcast out to more peopleand helps us to help more people
.
So thank you for listening andwe'll see you next time, hi, and
(46:53):
I hope you enjoyed that episodeof the Smart Divorce Podcast.
If you would like to get intouch, please have a look in the
show notes for our details orgo onto the website
wwwsmartdivorcecouk.
Also, if you are listening onApple Podcasts or on Spotify and
you wouldn't mind leaving us alovely five-star review, that
(47:15):
would be fantastic.
I know that lots of ourlisteners are finding this is
incredibly helpful in theirjourney through separation,
divorce and dissolving a civilpartnership.
Also, if you would like somefurther support, we do have a
Facebook group now it's calledSeparation, divorce and
(47:36):
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 doplease answer their membership
questions.
Okay, have a great day and takecare.
Welcome to series 10 of the Smart Divorce Podcast.
During this series, we're goingto be speaking about the
difficult subject of domesticabuse.
Unfortunately, during my work,I come across people who are
victim survivors of domesticabuse on a far too regular basis
.
So we're going to be talking tothose who have survived
(00:30):
themselves, to professionalsworking in this area, to
solicitors, to hopefully helpyou to find the right support if
you're in that situation.
This is an issue that's notgoing away, so so if you're
going through this or you knowanybody who is, I really hope
this series helped you.
Thanks for listening.
(00:53):
Hello and welcome to the SmartDivorce Podcast.
I'm very pleased to be joinedtoday by the lovely Rachel Ward
from Hill Dickinson Solicitors.
I was saying to Rachel earliershe always looks incredibly
glamorous whenever I see her,but she says she doesn't that
way.
But it's lovely for her to joinme.
(01:15):
I'm going to get her tointroduce herself properly in
just a couple of minutes, buttoday's episode we're going to
be talking about a blog that wasreleased by ourselves earlier
on this week, written by Rachel,and Rachel is a survivor of
divorce from a narcissist andshe's written a blog talking
(01:37):
about her journey.
We're going to talk to Racheltoday a bit about some of the
things that Rachel went through,but also talking about some
other options that it's worthconsidering if you're in the
same position or a similarposition that Rachel was in.
So this is not the same Rachelas the Rachel who wrote the blog
(01:59):
.
I should clarify.
Rachel, thank you for comingalong today.
Can you tell us a bit about you, what you do and your
experience of working withpeople leaving abusive
relationships?
Rachel Ward (02:13):
So morning.
Hello everyone, thank you forgiving me the opportunity to
come and speak on your podcasttoday.
I'm Rachel Ward.
I'm a family solicitor, as yousaid, working at Hill
Dickinson's.
I am in the Manchester office,but we have offices in Liverpool
, leeds, birmingham, london andalso offices abroad, so I have
(02:41):
clients all over the country.
I started my career in legal aidso that gave me a lot of
exposure to victims of domesticabuse and even though I've now
moved into private practice, Ihave I still sort of have a lot
of clients that have or areseparating from relationships
where there has been some sortof domestic abuse.
(03:03):
So I have spent a lot of timetalking about this to people
like you.
I recently attended aconference in London.
I know that a lot of employersnow are keen to learn a little
bit more about victims ofdomestic abuse and people
separating from relationshipswhere there's been an element of
(03:23):
domestic abuse and peopleseparating from relationships
when there's where there's beenan element of domestic abuse.
I work with individuals whohave experienced all forms of
abuse, so I know that peopleoften think domestic abuse it's
physical abuse, emotional, um,financial sexual abuse, um,
(03:49):
obviously, each of these formsof abuse have lasting scars on
people and I hope, now that Ihave learned enough, to have the
empathy and knowledge tonavigate people through this
system.
So I've had a little look atthis blog that this lady, who's
(04:11):
also called Rachel, has prepared, and I can see that she felt
that she was in a bit of abroken system, that she found
herself in a position where shedidn't know where to turn, and I
suppose this is really for meand you to show people that
there are places to go for themto find a way of of leaving
(04:35):
these sort of abusiverelationships.
So I've briefly looked at theblog and she does say, first of
all, that she has found itdifficult, first of all, just
making the decision to leave andwhere to go.
And I learned recently that thatthe big banks, like Lloyds and
TSB, have started this newpolicy where you can go and
(04:59):
speak to specialist trainedindividuals to for them to
assist you in leaving now, and Ithink that that's a big change
and I think it's definitelysomething that people should be
exploring a little bit more,knowing that they have that
support from their bank andthings like that they will give
them specialist um likenon-disclosurable sort codes so
(05:25):
that perpetrator doesn't knowwhere they are.
They'll help them set up withnew pins, new bank accounts etc.
Um, and I think that's oneplace that people should start
looking straight away.
Obviously it's finding asolicitor who's used to high
conflict um separations, so itisn't always going to be someone
(05:46):
like me, you know.
It isn't someone who might notcompletely understand what is
narcissistic personalitydisorder, but there are people
who have a lot of experiencewith high conflict cases and
it's just gathering your teamaround you and getting things
(06:06):
together practically.
So it's speaking to people likeyou, getting a financial
advisor, understanding yourfinances, because I think a lot
of people come to someone likeme and think, oh, you can help
me emotionally, financially,legally and we're not a one-stop
shop, you know there are otherprofessionals that are there to
(06:27):
as sist as well
yeah, absolutely.
I think.
I think it's that definitelystarting with your bank and
getting and that that supportthere.
I think you need a plan beforeyou leave.
You need to make sure that you,you are, you've got everything,
all your ducks in a row, youknow before you leave what your
(06:48):
plan is, where you're going togo.
You need to get your paperworkcopied and out of the house yeah
, safe and secure.
You need to have all your plancompletely in order and one of
the places to start with withdoing that, the Domestic Abuse
Helpline.
Or a charity.
There's a charity that's calledHestia.
That's like a group aftercrisis, so there's quite a lot
(07:15):
of charities like that and, likeyou said, the Domestic Abuse
Helpline.
They can help you withnon-holestation applications,
occupation orders, but and alsojust understanding your finances
.
I always say to people becausepeople will often speak to me
before they're separated and Isay to them do you have any idea
what you can borrow?
You know if you're looking at,you know purchasing again, you
(07:36):
know you need to just go andspeak to people like that as
well and and know if you can buythem out of the house or
whether or not you are going tohave to move, because and that's
the one question I always askat the beginning as well,
because some people aredesperate to leave the family
home, but people some peoplethink that that's you know that
that's their one sort of aim isto keep the family home for the
children and that stability.
(07:58):
So I think it's you alsosetting out your store, because
everyone's different, so youneed to guide your solicitor and
your team as to what you wantyour future to look like as well
.
Yeah, absolutely.
I think if you are looking forsomeone working as a financial
advisor, make sure it's it'ssomebody who's not only got
(08:21):
experience in working withpeople going through divorce,
but preferably specializes inthat area and also has
experience of working withpeople living in an abusive
relationship, because noteverybody has.
And you need somebody whounderstands your situation and
is going to yeah, is going tounderstand what you're going
(08:41):
through and the difficultiesthat arise from what you're
going through and thedifficulties that arise from
from.
Just you know, I think it's 95percent of abusive relationships
have some form of financial oreconomic abuse.
That's if that's such a hugeproportion.
So you're probably going to bein a situation where if you're
divorcing an narcissist, theythey will have, or you know, or
(09:03):
any abusive relationship.
There will be some form offinancial abuse and you need
somebody who understands thatand who understands that that
means you're not going to haveaccess to money in the same way
that other people do.
It's fantastic that the banksare stepping up and and about it
, and there's, there are also um, there's and I can't remember
(09:24):
the name of the website, butI'll make sure we put it in the
show notes um, there's, thereare also there's and I can't
remember the name of the website, but I'll make sure we put it
in the show notes there's awebsite where you can go and you
can get train tickets or bustickets if you need to get away
urgently.
Now, obviously, that situationis you're, you know you're
physically in in danger, danger,um, and then you can.
(09:48):
You can go to that and and atleast get away.
If it's going to family, ifit's going to friends that are
at some distance away, there isthat option for you if you don't
have access to money.
So there are some desperatesituations where you can at
least you can at least accessmoney.
And I guess the other thing isemotional support.
I know you said before you'renot going to go to your
solicitor for emotional support.
Well, they do, but it's very expensive they do?
Tamsin Caine (10:10):
Yeah, exactly and same thing.
You know, don't come to yourfinancial planner or your
financial advisor for emotionalsupport, because, whilst we'll
do our absolute best to give it,we're not trained in providing
emotional support.
We're not therapists.
Providing emotional supportwe're not.
We're not therapists.
There are divorce coaches outthere who can, who can help you
through the process at a lowercost than you'll be paying to
(10:33):
myself or to a solicitor.
There are therapists out thereand many of our clients need
both the divorce coach and thetherapist to get them through
emotionally, to give them thatemotional support, to give them
that counseling, because divorceis a really, really tricky
thing to go through.
It's one of the top moststressful things that anybody
(10:56):
will go through, and if you'regoing through that and dealing
with abuse as well and it and itoften continues post-separation
you need, you're likely to needthat emotional support almost
more than you need either of thetwo of us, don't you?
Rachel Ward (11:11):
Yeah, I've started even saying in some of my
initial letters like signpostingthem to even self-help books
and things like that, becausenot everyone can afford, you
know, to go off and have atherapist and a divorce coach
and a lawyer and a financialadvisor.
And so I do sometimes say, youknow, there are books now online
, or you know audible, or foryou to go and purchase at
Waterstones or you know at thebookshops and just signpost them
(11:35):
to them, because there are, youknow, support from other places
now and there are.
You know.
I recently went to anotherconference and there's a lady
who has written books just onseparating from a narcissist, dr
Supriya McKenna, and her booksare excellent and you can get
them on Audible and they justhelp you understand also what
(11:57):
you're going through and whatsort of traits to be looking for
, because I think that's thehardest thing is trying to
explain to someone who doesn'tunderstand narcissistic
personality disorder.
Yeah, what, how they could comeacross and how they have
manipulated the situation,because they're often charming
and really well liked and ingood positions, you know, in a
(12:19):
good job, um, you know well likeby the family and things like
that and but behind closed doorsare, you know, very
manipulative and have made theperson feel really inadequate at
home.
So, like you said, that's goingto then manifest in them
probably having a poorly paidjob, if really inadequate at
home.
So, like you said, that's goingto then manifest in them
probably having a poorly paidjob, if a job at all.
Tamsin Caine (12:37):
So that's where there is that, you know,
economic abuse, which we touchedon earlier, and it's just
really hard and it's one of thefirst things that rachel says in
her blog is is that she was ina system that didn't seem to
believe her.
And that's the biggest thing,because you're up against
(12:58):
somebody who, as you say, comesacross as very charming, very
likeable within society, willprobably be well thought of.
So for the person who's been ina relationship with them,
they're probably in a positionwhere people are going no way.
That's definitely not them.
They wouldn't behave like that.
That doesn't sound like them.
So it's massively importantthey find professionals who
(13:22):
believe them, who believe theirstory, who who aren't going to
question what they're sayingbecause, as you say, it's it's
manipulation, it's coercivecontrol, it's them having their
own way in this.
As you say, it's manipulation,it's coercive control, it's them
having their own way.
And, as you say, supriya'sbook's very clearly defined and
as soon as anybody who's been ina relationship with someone
(13:42):
with narcissistic personalitydisorder will pick it up and
recognise the very, the playbookI think Supriya calls it.
It's very defined behavioursthat work in a systematic
pattern.
Every time Supriya just as aside note has been on this
podcast and there is an episodethat you can go back and listen
(14:04):
to where Supriya talks aboutthis situation.
So I think you're absolutelyright.
Get your team around you, and Iknow not everybody can afford
to have all of the all of theteam.
That would be ideal, butsometimes it's actually lower
cost to have all of the peopledoing the right jobs than it is
(14:25):
to go to the wrong people forthem to support you in it.
You know, like you say, goingto your solicitor for emotional
support isn't, isn't, that's notgoing to be the best use of
your money.
So sometimes, although itsounds a lot for people, it's
actually low, comes out to be alower cost because you're
getting the right people doingthe right jobs in the right way,
so that that is worth bearingin mind.
Rachel Ward (14:48):
I completely agree and I think that comes from
getting the right legal supportas well, because quite often
people will try and keep peopleaway from litigation.
So people will say, oh, youknow we should be going off to
mediation or we could.
You know we should be sendingletters, we should be
negotiating.
But it's really difficult tonegotiate with someone who has
(15:11):
an autistic personality disorderand they they don't have any
interest in reaching a fairsettlement, they just want to
win in their eyes.
So they'll delay.
They'll be so I've experiencedso many of them.
You know delaying tactics andnot providing disclosure, asking
for disclosure and you providereally detailed disclosure and
(15:34):
then you get disclosure back andit just says TBC, tbc, tbc on
theirs.
And it's so difficult then.
And then when you go to court alot of people want me to say oh
, you know, you've got to sayhe's got narcissistic
personality disorder.
I'm not a professional, I can'tdiagnose someone.
I can recognize their traits,but I don't.
I don't know what thestatistics are.
(15:55):
I imagine there's not that manypeople who are formally
diagnosed with narcissisticpersonality disorder because
they've got to take themselvesfor diagnosis and they are never
going to do that and the courtsdon't like labels.
So I always have to steer theclients into a way of being able
(16:16):
to provide the evidence withoutthe labels, and I think that's
the best way.
And going to court, it's reallysometimes the only way, because
they are trapped within, youknow, having time constraints.
There's, you know, they'reordered to provide evidence.
There's punish, you know somesort of sort of you know not
punishment, that's not the rightword, but there should be, you
know, some sort of what's theword?
(16:38):
Repercussions?
Yes, that's the right word, youknow, for failure to provide
disclosure.
And it's a place where we canput the facts to them and to the
court for them to sort of andnot be able to sort of, squirm
out of it and be able.
And once you put the facts tothem and to the court, for them
to sort of and not be able tosort of, squirm out of it and be
able, and, and once they putyou put the facts in front of
them, you do see a verydifferent side to them, and it
(17:01):
is often at that point that weare able to then show the judge
that this, this behavior, hashad some sort of um, so it is.
It is something that should beconsidered as a factor that,
when considering the the fairsort of settlement
Tamsin Caine (17:18):
Absolutely when, in your experience, when you've
been to court with um clientswho who are in this position,
who are divorcing somebody theybelieve to be a narcissist, have
you ever, has it always gone tofinal, final, um the yeah,
final hearing can't speak today.
(17:41):
Has it ever been a positionwhere you've been able to reach
an agreement earlier than that?
Because my experience has beenthat, generally, because there's
this I need to win situation,negotiating is incredibly
difficult and even even at FDR,which is the middle hearing,
(18:03):
they're not willing to giveanything at all.
There's no, there's nonegotiating because there's no,
there's no giving.
It's like I'm not going to giveyou anything.
Rachel Ward (18:14):
Yeah, I think a lot of them do, but not no, I don't
think.
I do think that we have quiteoften been able to negotiate
assessment at FDR, and I thinkthat the reason for that is they
know that they're going to becross-examined, so they know
that we, you know, if we've, ifwe've got enough evidence that
we'll run a case of conduct.
So they know that we, you know,if we've, if we've got enough
evidence that we'll run a caseof conduct.
So they know, at that pointthey'll probably become unstuck,
(18:37):
and more often than not,they've probably got someone
like a barrister representingthem at that point, as well as a
solicitor, and because of theirpersonality, they want to look
as if they are being reasonableto people who they see as
equally as powerful or, you know, is equally as respectful as
them.
So quite often, though, that wewill be able to reach a
(19:01):
settlement at FDR not always,like you said, and and and
sometimes victims also want thatopportunity to be in court as
well, because it's reallydifficult to establish a conduct
case, and I was thinking aboutthis earlier that I have to
prepare whether or not someone'sgoing to say that that they
(19:22):
want, you know, someone'sbehavior to be taken into
account very early on inproceedings.
So I have to outline that inthe first document and for me,
and then a court has to make adecision really at the first
appointment as to whether or notthey think that it will reach
in a high threshold.
And that's only a 35, 40 minutecourt hearing where really it's
(19:44):
used for directions.
We have no idea really the fullfinancial picture at that point
.
So for us to raise that sort ofargument at that point is
really difficult.
And I think that that'sprobably where Rachel in her
blog has found it difficult,where she sort of said that you
know it's a broken system.
People weren't listening to meat certain points of the you
(20:05):
know of proceedings and it isdifficult in that sense.
And I do think there are somechanges that need to be made and
I do think there are changesthat are currently being made
for us to have as practitionersas well, for us to have a
greater understanding of how torun a case of conduct and where
that is really important whenthere's been an economic abuse.
(20:28):
Um, so sometimes, back to yourquestion the victims sometimes
want to go to a final hearing aswell.
It isn't always that they'repushed along, but it is a really
costly exercise and that's thedifficulty.
But if I don't sometimes makean application straight away
(20:49):
because people will want to tryand exhaust, you know a more
amicable approach, they'll endup spending double because they
keep trying and then the otherperson just isn't engaging.
So at the moment I do thinkthat that is the best way half
the time, and obviously there'sprivate FDRs and things like
that now, so we don't alwayshave to wait for us, you know,
(21:13):
for the, for a court hearing inthe normal sort of procedure.
But I do think that you needsomeone, a third party.
I don't think two solicitorswith the best interest of both
their clients is enough insituations like this yeah, not
likely to get there.
Tamsin Caine (21:30):
I've got a couple couple of questions from what
you've just said.
So you talked about running aconduct case.
Yeah, just explain what runninga conduct case means.
Rachel Ward (21:41):
Yeah, so we have legislation that we follow, so
it's the Matrimonial Causes Actand we look at factors under
Section 25 and in particularSection 25G, which says that we
can look at the conduct of aparty when looking at the
financial settlement and we cancomplete within the financial
(22:11):
information form, the form A, aparagraph to say that we yeah,
we can obviously sort of go intoit a lot more and we do, but if
(22:35):
someone's picking it up, a usedto litigant in person, there
isn't much time on where we canwrite down reasons why we think
that the court should payparticular attention to the
conduct of one party.
But there is a threshold and thethreshold is that it's
inequitable to disregard andthat it's gross and obvious.
And that it's gross and obviouswhich is really difficult to
define and, like I said, and Ithink that a lot of
(23:01):
practitioners even don't realise, don't fully understand the
sort of that concept, and it isjust case law that that's sort
of balanced upon.
So we obviously we have theoption of running a conduct case
and we can include things like,you know, economic abuse,
(23:21):
financial abuse, anything wherewe think that that's had an
impact on that other party'sability to look after themselves
financially, that people needto realise, though, that there
(23:41):
it isn't.
It isn't for us to make them,it isn't for the financial
courts to look at them and findthem guilty.
Yeah, that behavior.
It's just for them to look atwhether or not it's something to
be considered when we'rereaching an agreement on
finances, and I think that's thefine balance of the victims
understanding that, and also thepractitioners also
understanding, though, that,even though, yes, they're not
there to to find whether or notthat person is guilty, if it is
(24:04):
something that's important andis going to have a bearing on
how that other person has beenable to financially look after
themselves and contribute andwill be able to look after
themselves in the future, thenit's something that must be
included.
Um, and it isn't just that weshould just be batting them out
and saying, oh well, you shouldbe going to the police about
that or you should be going toget a normal station order about
(24:27):
that, because I think thatquite often, you know that we
can be guilty to sort of saythis isn't the right forum for
it.
Finances but it is
Tamsin Caine (24:37):
Sometimes it is and sometimes should be on.
Should be on that form 100%.
I'm gonna just ask you anotherquestion.
Uh, non-molestation order.
You mentioned that a second ago.
So there are some orders.
So I know um rachel talks inher blog about the broken legal
(24:58):
system and about how she didn'tfeel in a position to fight her
ex on an even keel because shedidn't have access to money and
so on.
What, what's a normalizationorder?
What?
Or because there are otherthings that can be done and put
(25:20):
into place before we get to thefda fdr final hearing, what are
those things that we should beconsidering or that victim
survivors could consider withtheir legal team putting into
place at kind of in quite anearly stage?
Rachel Ward (25:38):
so, first of all, there is a non-molestation order
which you can apply for.
There's no court fee.
You can do it as well onlinethrough the national centre of
domestic abuse uh, victimsupport abuse group.
Uh, they have special legalprofessionals who will take you
to court.
There will will be no fee.
So if you're eligible to dothat, then that's the way that
(25:59):
you should approach it.
Obviously, there's solicitorsas well, like me, who can assist
and who've had a lot ofexperience of making those
applications.
So they are immediate orderswhere the court will grant it
without any notice to the otherparty to say that they can't
come into contact with them,they can't intimidate them,
can't damage property.
Then, alongside that, there's aconsideration as to whether or
(26:21):
not they could come within acertain distance of them, and
sometimes that lends its hand tous making applications for
occupation orders.
So they are more difficult toobtain and can be seen as quite
draconian because we aresomewhat ousting them from the
property.
But if there's a need to dothat, then that's something else
that we're there and can assistwith.
(26:45):
I don't know how much thesecharities do with the help with
occupation orders.
I know that they do with thenormal station orders, but I'm
not sure whether or not theyhave as much experience with
occupation orders.
But then after that, the otherapplications that I wanted to
(27:07):
discuss was things like themaintenance pen and suit
application.
So, like we said and I thinkRachel says it that she didn't
have the financial support, shedidn't have all the financial
resources to be able to pay forlegal support.
So her husband was a highearner.
(27:27):
He'd spent £200,000, I thinkshe said, on his legal fees,
whereas she was dripping hersolicitor £25 here and just to
get some, some sort of help anddoing a lot on her own.
But we can make applicationsbefore, during, obviously, the
the financial dispute, duringthe separation, before any final
(27:48):
orders are made for financialsupport.
And we can.
What we do is we complete aschedule of outgoings and
compare that to their income andany shortfall we would be
saying should be met by thefinancially stronger party.
So we always explore that.
The other thing is legalservices payment orders.
(28:15):
So quite often we apply tocourt to ask that they pay the
weaker financial parties legalfees and more often than not, if
the financial resources arethere, then those applications
are successful, as long asyou've exhausted the methods of
payment.
Litigation loans, support fromfamily.
Litigation loans, you know,support from family.
(28:36):
If there's nothing like thatthat's available, which quite
often there isn't, because theymight not be named on the family
home or you know it might bethat it's a business that's got
all the money in, but you knowthey're in rented or there isn't
much equity in the property.
So sometimes it's quitedifficult for people to get
litigation loans.
There is that option for us tobe able to apply for those, and
(28:56):
so there is financial supportand we will explore all those
options with our clients to makesure that they aren't the
weaker party once they separatethat.
They might have been the weakerparty during the marriage or
during the relationship, butwe'll put them on an equal
footing and make sure that theyhave just as strong of a legal
team and advisors and everyoneelse around them to be able to
(29:21):
make informed decisions that'sbrilliant, because I think
that's really important.
Tamsin Caine (29:26):
I think a lot of people feel that they need to
represent themselves and thatthey, as you say, as a litigant
in person, so that they're nothaving the the legal, same legal
support and they're up againstsomebody who's got the best
lawyers, the best well, notnecessarily the best, but the
most expensive lawyers.
(29:46):
Yeah, you know the the big kindof London guys who you see on
the telly and you know and Ithink it's intimidating.
Rachel Ward (29:56):
It is, isn't it?
Yeah, absolutely.
And it's really difficultbecause the people who've left
these relationships are, youknow, their confidence is
probably at their lowest and tocome across like you know,
against someone like that, thenthey are just going to accept
unfair settlements because theyhaven't got the financial
resources to value things either.
(30:18):
And it is costly.
We can't get away from the factthat it's it's it's emotionally
exhausting, it's costly, andbut you, if you've got the right
team around you, we can just wecan make it easier and we can,
we can resolve it faster.
I think
Absolutely definitely um.
(30:41):
In the blog, Rachel talks aboutum, the preparation of her first
barrister, who she didn't feelwas was fully up to speed.
Um, and she talks about the FDR.
Um, for those people who arelistening, who have never been
through the court process, canyou just talk a little bit about
(31:02):
what the FDR is and why it's soimportant that the barristers
are up to speed and how they canmake sure that their barristers
are up to speed?
What should be happening toensure that their barrister is
as fully informed as possible inpreparation for the FDR?
Yes, of course that's a lot of questions, sorry
(31:23):
, I can cope, I think.
So there is normally threecourt hearings.
There's a first appointment,which I just discussed before,
which is more directions.
So you go to court, you say,right, OK, well, we've looked at
the financial disclosure and wewant to raise a questionnaire.
We want to.
We don't agree on the value ofthe family home.
(31:44):
We want someone to come in andso that you know to give a
valuation that we both agree on.
We've got business.
We need to get, you know, anaccountant to come in and value
that business.
So that's that appointment.
When you get to FDR you shouldhave all that information and
it's it's used as an opportunityto put forward all the evidence
without any sort of examinationor cross-examination, um for
(32:07):
the court to give some sort ofindication as to what they think
a fair settlement would be.
So they will look at the valueof everything.
They will look at, you know,potentially things that people
have included in there for me,the questionnaire and they will
say, right, OK, well, we'velooked at discuss the fact that
she says that she found itreally difficult that they
(32:40):
hadn't prepared, that they youknow that they didn't have the
right paperwork and things likethat, and that she then, I think
, used the final hearing for theopportunity to be able to
prepare more thoroughly.
Now I would hope, if you had adecent solicitor and that
solicitor had fully, you know,briefed council that they should
(33:00):
have had all the paperworkready for you to be able to use
the FDR like a final hearing.
So it's quite unusual andsurprising that she found
herself Well, I don't know ifit's unusual, but in my cases I
don't know obviously, across youknow, across the sort of when
other solicitors have beenacting that you should be able
(33:20):
to use that opportunity properlyto be able to negotiate a
settlement without then havingthe cost of having a final
hearing, Because a final hearingwill most likely be two or
three days with a barristerwho's probably costing two or
three thousand pounds a day, youknow.
And so if you can use the FDR asa final hearing, then that's
(33:43):
what it's, that's what it'sthere for
yeah, so the the responsibilityof ensuring that the barrister
is fully prepped?
does that lie with the solicitor?
Are they?
Are they supposed to make surethat the barrister has all the
paperwork and is also also fullyup to speed on on the case and
(34:05):
and any issues that have beenarising in the case?
Yeah, and I think that's why it's sometimes
important to get a barristerearly, even if your solicitor is
going to potentially attend thefirst appointment or, you know,
is generally running the case.
I think if you can get yourteam early so they can fully
understand all the facts, ratherthan your barrister picking up
the papers two or three daysbefore having a case that's
(34:29):
quite similar the day beforethat, you know, I think that
that's a benefit for everyone toget your legal team early
around you to fully understand,especially when you're dealing
with someone who's leaving,someone with narcissistic
personality disorder, andexplaining to the barrister and
there's a lot of barristers nowwho who are fully equipped to be
(34:51):
able to deal with cases likethis up and down the country.
You know I've got barristersthat I'll refer to in London,
birmingham and in Manchester whofully understand how to
approach people like this.
But they have to know and andquite often if your solicitor
isn't understanding you anddoesn't think that you've got
enough of a, you know a case torun condo, then it isn't going
(35:14):
to be referred to in the papers,it is going to be very basic
papers.
This, you know.
Property is worth x, thisbusiness is worth y.
They've been married for 20years and they've got two
children and no mention, yeah,of anything to do with why the
relationship broke down and youknow, and potentially the abuse
that's continued post separation
(35:36):
so is it as a victim survivor?
you need to.
If you don't feel that yoursolicitor is briefing your
barrister fully, is thereanything you can you can do
about that, or
I think, arrange a conferencebefore you're hearing you.
We can do.
We often do them remotely now,so it doesn't have to be, you
(35:58):
know, at great expense.
Um, I think it's important tohave that confidence in your
legal team and you're only goingto get that by meeting them and
discussing things with them andyou know and being able to
explain how you feel and whatyou think is important,
Tamsin Caine (36:14):
Brilliant love it.
Um, and we talked earlier andand I know this is a this is
something that that rachel'stalked about is the the belief
in the system.
Now, you mentioned earlierpeople that sometimes people
want to try and get everythingdone through mediation.
They want to try and just usesolicitors.
(36:35):
They don't want to apply to thecourts because we know that
that's a costly process and Iknow you talked about sometimes
it's necessary.
If you feel that you're in thissituation where the other
person's messing about to applyto the court to get that, to get
things moving, how would youever try other alternatives up
(36:59):
front and how do you know how,how do you get the sense very
early on that actually thisneeds, this just needs to go to
the courts because the otherperson is not going to play ball
.
Rachel Ward (37:12):
I think that I normally can assess it from a
response, from a first letter.
So it doesn't mean that when Isay we're automatically applying
to court, that I meet theclient and I fill out the
paperwork on the first day and Ihave to go the following day,
you know I'll meet the client,I'll understand obviously what
the client and I fill out thepaperwork on the first day and I
have to call the following day.
You know I'll meet the client,I'll understand obviously what
they want and I always followdown the streets.
I always say to them I work foryou.
(37:33):
Because they come to me andthey're so intimidated and they
think that I'm going to bereally bullish and you know,
tell them how that they need torun their cases.
But, like I said to you,everyone wants different things.
So I always say to them youknow I'll work for you and I'll
send them the first letter.
I always send to them to checkbecause they know whether or not
you know that sentence is goingto aggravate that person, you
know, or that my tone's too niceor my tone's too aggressive,
(37:57):
and then we'll work together onthe initial letter and so quite
often it'll be, you know, acouple of drafts before it's
initially sent out.
But the response is indicativeas to how then I'll run the case
.
If I have a letter back from asolicitor or from the person and
they are just, you know,mudslinging and not really
(38:18):
getting anywhere, then I'll thensort of look to alternatives.
Mediation isn't appropriateanyway when there's been
domestic abuse, so we quiteoften can bypass that anyway.
But we'll decide whether or notthere's any point in entering
into voluntary disclosure, andsometimes there is.
(38:39):
But more often than not if Ienter into voluntary disclosure
then I get a four me, me back,even though they've asked for
financial disclosure, saying TBC, tbc, tbc.
So it is just a delaying tactic.
So at that point for definite,if I get something then and
they've wanted to push it tothat point I make the
(38:59):
application, because then I'monly updating the disclosure.
I'm not having to do for me allover again.
I have got the 12 months and itis going to be that we're
making the application.
So we've only got to top it upby another three months or
whatever before we have thatdirection from the court.
So I'm always just conscious ofpeople's costs and I always say
(39:19):
to people when they say oh, howmuch is it going to cost?
It's really difficult because Ihave to say, well, it depends
how the other party engages andit depends on how far we get
through the process and what youcan agree on and what you can't
agree on.
But I also say, it's the timethat I spend, so you can also be
quite savvy.
You know you only send me oneemail.
(39:40):
You know, don't send me 15which you could copy and paste
into one, because it is justtime half the time, and I will
always update you.
You know if there's somethingcoming in and things like that.
So it is also you just havingthat element of trust and and
solicitors, you know, not justcollating loads of documents
(40:00):
that are completely unnecessaryas well.
You know, I do need tounderstand a little bit, so I
might ask for a few.
You know whatsapp messages oremails, but I don't need a
year's worth because, again, I'mjust I'm wasting your time.
Yeah absolutely.
Tamsin Caine (40:15):
You mentioned that you don't feel that mediation
is appropriate for, um, forvictims, survivors of abuse, um,
and it's.
Does that count for anymediation?
So you wouldn't even engage insomething like hybrid mediation.
Rachel Ward (40:29):
So I was going to say that I did think hybrid
mediation, but that's a very newconcept and it is only
something that we have only beensort of exploring more recently
.
Uh, we have had one recently athill dickinson and it was
really successful, um, becausethe mediator can hold privileges
(40:50):
.
So that's the difference, um,and and it's worked and we've
reached a settlement usinghybrid mediation.
So I do think that that when Isaid, yeah, it's not a blanket,
not, it's not appropriate, thereare, there are options, um, to
explore that I would obviouslycanvas with any clients at the
beginning.
Tamsin Caine (41:09):
Yeah, absolutely no.
That's.
That's great, and earlier on,when we were talking, you
mentioned um private FDRs andand I think, potentially
arbitration is also aconsideration that you that you
might bring into these cases topotentially bring them to our
close earlier on.
Obviously, the post-separationabuse and the emotional drain on
(41:34):
anybody going through theseprocesses is horrific and if
there's the finances to enablethem to do it, would you say
that something like a privateFDR and arbitration are
appropriate and, if so, couldyou just tell us briefly a
little bit more about both thoseoptions?
Rachel Ward (41:53):
Yeah, so a private FDR is an alternative to the
traditional court route in thecontext of divorce and financial
proceedings.
What we'll do is it will besimilar to the way that I'd
explained previously an FDR,except that we would have
instructed a private judge.
So quite often it's a barristerand they will sit as a private
(42:17):
judge and will be able to attendeither a chambers or clients
will often come and meet in ouroffices and the other party and
will conduct a court hearing ina more private setting and they
will provide what's called aneutral evaluation and again
(42:43):
advise what they think would bea it was if it was being held in
a proper um court environment.
So the benefits of that isobviously the flexibility.
We can sort of instruct someonequite quickly, um, and at the
moment we can be waiting for afinal hearing for sort of six,
seven, eight months.
(43:03):
So it does allow people to bebe able to get to this process a
lot quicker.
And, but it is obviously it canbe expensive.
We're having to pay for a judge, but it does.
There's less maybe sort ofletters going to and fro you
know to and fro and in between,so it can be quite there's cost
(43:26):
considerations, you know, to andfro and in between, so it can
be quite it.
There's cost considerations,you know, and benefits to to
doing it both ways, but ifpeople can afford to do it that
way, then it definitely reducesthe stress.
Um, and because obviously thelonger it goes on, I think it's
like anyone it's always theunknown that's scary, isn't it?
(43:46):
And I think once you've gotthat knowledge, then you can
then make decisions as towhether or not to put forward
offers at that point as well andto potentially reach a
settlement.
So, like court, it'snon-bindinginding the outcome of
(44:06):
a private FDR, so you can stillgo off to final hearing, but I
think it's an effective andefficient way of dealing with
things,
Tamsin Caine (44:16):
And arbitration is similar to a private FDR, isn't
it?
But equivalent to a finalhearing, but that does give a
binding.
Rachel Ward (44:27):
Yeah, it does.
that's the difference betweenarbitration
Tamsin Caine (44:31):
so, again, those things are worth considering if
you want, if you, if thefinances are available and you
want to speed things up again,it's yeah, so it's just a
neutral third party who ischosen, you know, by the
disputing parties to be able toto guide them into reaching a
settlement.
Rachel Ward (44:50):
But, like you said, arbitration, the the difference
is is that it can be binding.
Yeah, brilliant.
Tamsin Caine (44:57):
We're coming to the end of our time together,
Rachel.
That feels like it's absolutelyflown.
I think we said before westarted recording that we we
think we could probably havetalked all day about all the
issues that were brought up inthe um in the blog by Rachel.
But yes, to be um focusing onon some of the things that we
(45:18):
think could be done differently,to give people a bit of
positive news, that that thereare other options available to
you and it doesn't have to go inthe way that unfortunately it
did for Rachel, if you get theright team together.
Is there anything you want toadd before we finish up?
Rachel Ward (45:37):
No, not really.
I just think that the firststep is obviously the bravest.
I think once you've made thatdecision to leave that party,
then you know that you've takena step to a brighter future.
And it isn't easy, but thereare people obviously around to
support you through this who'vespent a lot of time sort of
(46:00):
honing their skills tounderstand and to be able to
guide you through this you know,as best as we can.
Tamsin Caine (46:08):
Yeah, well said, absolutely right.
And if you do want to get intouch with Rachel, if you are in
this position and you need somelegal support in leaving or in
going through the divorceprocess, please do get in touch
with her.
All Rachel's details of how tocontact her will be in the show
notes below, so please look themup and get in touch with Rachel
(46:29):
.
If you do need some excellentsupport and if you have found
this episode useful, please dolike, subscribe, share, give us
a lovely five-star review,because it does help us to get
the podcast out to more peopleand helps us to help more people
.
So thank you for listening andwe'll see you next time, hi, and
(46:53):
I hope you enjoyed that episodeof the Smart Divorce Podcast.
If you would like to get intouch, please have a look in the
show notes for our details orgo onto the website
wwwsmartdivorcecouk.
Also, if you are listening onApple Podcasts or on Spotify and
you wouldn't mind leaving us alovely five-star review, that
(47:15):
would be fantastic.
I know that lots of ourlisteners are finding this is
incredibly helpful in theirjourney through separation,
divorce and dissolving a civilpartnership.
Also, if you would like somefurther support, we do have a
Facebook group now it's calledSeparation, divorce and
(47:36):
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 doplease answer their membership
questions.
Okay, have a great day and takecare.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!