November 1, 2024 • 47 mins
Olivia Piercy
Olivia is a solicitor specialising in all aspects of family law and a Partner at Hunters Law LLP. She provides holistic family law advice on both the child and finance aspects of family breakdown for married and cohabiting couples. She has particular expertise in cases with complex children law issues including child abduction and child protection.
Olivia’s passion lies in domestic abuse protection and she is an activist and campaigner in that field. She previously worked at domestic abuse charity Rights of Women and has a Master’s degree in Human Rights focusing on gendered violence. She sits on Resolution’s Domestic Abuse Committee and is co-Chair of Resolution’s Working Party on Economic Abuse. Olivia is recognised for her expertise in domestic abuse and her understanding of the dynamics of coercive control.
She is ranked as a Next Generation Partner by The Legal 500 and has been praised for being “clever, focused and tenacious and completely dedicated to each client’s case".
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
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 if you're going through thisor you know anybody who is, I
really hope this series helpedyou.
Thanks for listening.
(00:55):
Hello and welcome to the SmartDivorce Podcast.
I'm delighted to be joined byOlivia Piercy today.
We had our first meeting whenwe were presenting a seminar
together at a family lawconference probably I'm going to
say it's getting on towards 12months ago now all about
(01:20):
economic and financial abuse,and since then I've been lucky
enough to be in the audience foranother of Olivia's
presentations and she blows meaway every time I listen to her
speak.
So I'm really looking forwardto this conversation today and I
hope you're going to find ituseful.
I'm going to let Oliviaintroduce herself properly,
(01:41):
because her CV and experience inthe area of domestic abuse is
monumental, so do you want toproperly introduce yourself,
Olivia.
Olivia Piercy (01:52):
Yeah, thank you so much for having me.
It's such an honour to be onyour podcast and I'm so excited
that you're doing a domesticabuse themed series.
As you know, it's my bigpassion, um, so I'm a family law
solicitor and a partner at afirm called Hunters Law in
london, um, and I do the fullgamut of family law.
(02:13):
So, um, children, finance, um,uh, but I tend to, 99% of my
clients are referred to mebecause they're victims and
survivors of domestic abuse.
I've got a a background inworking for domestic abuse
charities, and so that's theprism through which I see family
(02:33):
law, and I very much see it asmy role to support people
through their family law issuesand their separations and
divorces, protecting themthrough that process, um, from
ongoing domestic abuse.
Um, I see that, um, I seemyself having two roles.
One is protecting people withinthe family law process, trying
(02:57):
to get them a good outcome andprotect them through that
process, but also, um, I I spendhalf of my time campaigning to
change the law to make thesystem safer.
Tamsin Caine (03:09):
Excellent, which absolutely needs to happen.
Um, I wasn't going to ask you.
This is the first question, butin the light of your
introduction it feels like afeels like a sensible place to
start.
Um, do all of your clients knowthey've been in abusive
relationships when they come toyou?
Olivia Piercy (03:28):
I suppose more now because I'm specifically
referred people for that reasonor because they seek me out for
that reason, um, but I would saythat most of my clients, even
if they come to me for thatreason, it is only through the
process that they start tounderstand the, the depth, um,
(03:48):
and the severity of the abusethat they've experienced.
Um, there's just so muchgaslighting and brainwashing and
minimizing, um, and that's verymuch.
That's part of the process andthat kind of emotional journey
of like understanding whatyou've been through and also
what you'll continue to gothrough.
So a lot of people say, well, Ihave been through xyz, but I
just don't want to make an issueof it and we just want to try
(04:09):
and keep things as nice aspossible and I know how things
are going to go, um, uh, and soI think, as as the abuse, it
doesn't, it doesn't stop at thepoint of separation.
So, um, if people aren't awareor don't think that the abuse is
relevant at that point, whenthey come to me and their
marriage is over, it quicklybecomes clearer to them through
(04:31):
the process.
Tamsin Caine (04:32):
Yeah, absolutely, and it feels to me as if there's
a pattern that is not identicalbut similar in a lot of cases,
in the way that the cases withdomestic abuse in the I'm going
to say, in the background, butit's not in the background, it's
very much in the foreground,isn't it?
But where, where you're lookingat victim survivors, there
(04:54):
seems to be a kind of this isgenerally what happens.
Can you talk us through that alittle bit about, about how that
post separation abuse showsitself?
Olivia Piercy (05:06):
I think it's interesting that idea of it
being in the background, becauseI think that's where the family
court sees it.
They say, well, we're notlooking at the domestic abuse,
we're looking at the children,we're not looking at the
domestic abuse, we're looking atthe finances.
So that's in the background.
Keep it in the background,please, so we can focus on the
issues at hand.
But actually, the children andthe finances are the channels
through which the domestic abusecontinues to be perpetrated
(05:27):
post-separation.
You cannot separate thembecause the perpetrator isn't
separating them.
That's the point, um.
So those are the two channels.
You know the domestic abusedynamic does not change or
lessen upon separation.
It continues.
Somebody doesn't want to stophurting somebody or controlling
them because the relationship'sended.
(05:48):
It often gets worse and thelast remaining channels tend to
be the children, the childarrangements and finances.
So that's how it plays out withchild arrangements.
I'm sure you'll have a.
I think this episode isprimarily focusing on the
economic abuse with childarrangements.
(06:08):
We all know how that plays out.
But with economic abuse ittends to typically plays out in
three ways on the victimsurvivor and make it more
difficult for them to accesslegal advice and representation,
which puts them in a morevulnerable position.
(06:30):
Financial disclosure is notforthcoming, it's very difficult
to get any information aboutthe finance, so there's often a
lot of sort of smoke and mirrorslike in the lead up.
So sometimes that economicabuse happens throughout a
marriage.
So somebody can leave amarriage really having no idea
what their financial position is, or being put in a sort of
enforced debt situation orfinding that they are, you know,
(06:52):
burdened with an unfair amountof the outgoings for the family
and they don't really know whatthe other party's position is.
And it also carries onpost-separation.
So failing to provide financialdisclosure, which means that
your lawyers are saying to youwe can't really negotiate, we
(07:14):
can't sort this out until wework out what the finances are,
delaying matters as long aspossible, trying to separate
people from their legal teams ortheir support networks to
disempower them, and thenrearranging finances.
Businesses go bust, people gooff sick, they lose their jobs.
You know everything ends up ina trust.
It never belonged to me anyway,it was always my brother's.
(07:35):
You know it's just.
Money disappears and the delayexacerbates that.
So these are the ways thatdomestic abuse sort of is
carried out through economicabuse, post-separation.
Tamsin Caine (07:48):
I guess we should rewind a little bit.
Can you define economic andfinancial abuse for us, so that
we're all on the same page asfar as what that means?
Olivia Piercy (08:02):
So there is a legal definition of economic
abuse which, because I don'thave it right in front of me,
I'm going to get wrong.
It's in Domestic Abuse Act 1921and it's within that there's
finally a legal definition ofdomestic abuse, which is in the
Domestic Abuse Act, and itdefines as part of it economic
(08:23):
abuse.
Um, and so financial abuse isspecifically um uh sort of
enforced debt and um takingpeople's money and um it's, it's
more um uh specific economicabuse is more like the general
picture.
So financial abuse is part ofeconomic abuse, and economic
abuse can also include stoppingsomebody from pursuing career
(08:48):
opportunities, developing theirnetwork, getting education or
building confidence andopportunities in life, so
anything that has a kind ofeconomic impact.
So it's either depriving peopleof property, putting them in
debt, stifling theiropportunities, um and it uh the
(09:10):
research shows that 99 ofdomestic abuse relationships
involve economic abuse.
Tamsin Caine (09:16):
So it's it's not a sort of unusual niche form of
domestic abuse, it's really justpart and parcel of that general
dynamic yeah, it feels like,feels like something that's less
known, sort of more widely inthe general public, unless it's
an area that you work within andor or you are a victim survivor
(09:37):
and then you might have comeacross it, but it I keep reading
things on twitter and Iprobably should start looking at
Twitter because it just drivesme insane.
But it's, this thing aboutdomestic abuse is not just where
somebody's physically hurt.
All these things that we'retalking about now are still
(09:57):
abuse, but they're not aroundthe physical side of domestic
abuse, around the physical sideof domestic abuse.
Olivia Piercy (10:04):
Exactly.
I think people are aware ofeconomic abuse but it hasn't
occurred to them.
Everybody knows that people cutoff maintenance or hide their
money, but they haven'tidentified that as a form of
domestic abuse.
And I think the way tounderstand it is that domestic
abuse is coercive andcontrolling behaviour.
That is the dynamic, that iswhat's at the core of it.
(10:26):
It's not, that's not a sort ofless, a softer version of
domestic abuse that we sort ofstuck on to the original
definition.
That is what domestic abuse is.
It's a dynamic of control andcoercion.
And, uh, financial abuse,sexual abuse, physical abuse,
emotional abuse these are justmethods of control.
These are ways that somebodymaintains control over and over
(10:46):
another person.
Once you understand that, thenyou start to see, um, how all of
these different behaviors uhform part of domestic abuse yeah
, absolutely okay.
Tamsin Caine (11:00):
So we've talked about the fact that,
unfortunately, victim survivorsvictim-survivors even after
they've left the relationshipare likely to continue to be
abused, and some of that can bearound the whole divorce process
because, unfortunately, youhave to have some form of
(11:21):
contact, even if it's through alawyer.
Have some form of contact, evenif it's through a lawyer.
Um, how can victim survivor usethe existing laws that are in
place potentially to help themin their striving to become
divorced and end up in areasonably fair financial
situation?
Olivia Piercy (11:41):
it's a good question with wide-ranging
answers.
So you know the family courthas remedies.
You can apply for anon-molestation order to prevent
somebody from contacting youand harassing you and, you know,
abusing you and coming to yourhouse.
An occupation order can excludesomebody from the home if
they're being abusive um that.
(12:03):
You know these are difficultorders to obtain um but they are
available.
Obviously the police can also,you know, remove people from
properties and charge them andput them on and put them on bail
and all the rest of it.
So there are um, um remediesavailable, um or protective
measures available, um in indomestic abuse situations Sort
(12:24):
of.
The accessibility is variableand the effectiveness is
variable but they're very muchthere and worth finding out
about.
In terms of economic abuse, youknow if you're getting divorced,
you can't deal with economicabuse within a marriage.
You have to sort of getdivorced in order to assess the,
(12:45):
the um, the powers of thefamily court.
And you have to say we want youknow we're getting divorced and
we make an application, say wewant to sort out our um, our
finances, I want to make claimsfor, you know, capital and
income um the, the system youknow should address these issues
.
People are ordered to produceinformation about their finances
(13:07):
and then you're given a sort ofopportunity and a steer to help
you to negotiate once thatinformation is before the court.
And if you can't agree becausesomebody hasn't been reasonable,
the court will make a decisionand it has powers to divide the
(13:28):
assets.
We all know this.
It's really about how effectivethat is.
I think there are two issueswith the family court in terms
of how it deals with financialremedy cases domestic abuse.
One is that, um, even thoughthe law says that it takes
(13:49):
conduct into account, thatconduct must be taken into
account when dividing the assetson divorce um, judges actually
uh, uh, disregard it, um, in inalmost every single case.
So the the case law, the lawthat the judges, the judge's
interpretation of that statute,which says you know, everybody
(14:12):
must, you know, the judges mustconsider the conduct of the
parties, the case law tellsjudges to disregard it, and
that's because they don't havethe resources to have a kind of
moral court.
But of course, if you've beenthrough um extensive, uh serious
domestic abuse, you are goingto leave the marriage
significantly financiallydisadvantaged in so many ways
(14:35):
and ways that you won't knowabout yet, that nobody can see.
Yet um so um, you know, in myview, people need to be
compensated for criminalbehaviour which leaves one
person in a far more vulnerableand weaker position financially
for the rest of their lives andthe other person in a much
stronger position.
So currently the law does notaddress that.
(14:57):
It's something I think shouldbe changed.
And the other thing is that thecourt process itself is utilised
as a way of continuing toperpetrate abuse.
So people are ordered toprovide financial disclosure,
but the system is so slow andineffective that you can go
through months and months andseveral hearings before enough
(15:21):
pressure is actually put onsomebody to force them to
produce financial disclosure.
And so often we, you know, willnever get hold of enough
information to really understandwhat the financial picture is.
You know, it's not really goodenough.
We also have a system where,you know, one person can kind of
hold all the money and pay forexpensive lawyers and cut the
(15:41):
other person off.
They don't have maintenance.
They don't have maintenance,they don't have legal fees,
money for legal fees.
Um, there is a system in placeto help people to apply for an
order that one party pays theother party's legal fees, but
it's it's not.
The law isn't fit for purpose.
I'm not going to go into thedetails because I'll um bore you
, but basically the law isn'tfit for purpose.
(16:03):
It's incredibly difficult toget these orders and when you do
get them, they'reunsatisfactory.
Any family lawyer will chewyour ear off about it for hours
if you get on the subject ofLSBOs.
So there's lots and lots ofthings wrong with the law.
Also, lots of people are pushedinto mediation in completely
unsuitable situations.
Mediation is great.
It's exactly what people shouldbe doing.
It's the dignified,constructive, humane way to
(16:27):
resolve your finances and yourchildren issues post-separation.
But in a situation where oneperson doesn't want to provide
an accurate financial picture,has all of the control, is
abusing.
The other party is deliberatelytrying to delay so that they
can hide their money.
You're never going to to get asatisfactory outcome and it's an
abusive process.
(16:47):
So there's lots and lots ofthings that are currently wrong
with the financial remedy court,which means that, even though
it looks like it shouldeffectively address this sort of
abuse it doesn't, and actuallyit facilitates it in lots of
ways.
That was a very long answer.
Tamsin Caine (17:04):
No, it's just frustrating, isn't it?
I want to come back to and Iwill move forward again, but
everything you said, I had loadsof questions as a result of
them.
So we were talking about theorders that are available to
people, initially thenon-molestation order, and I
(17:26):
can't remember what the otherone was called.
That's the one.
Um, why are they so difficultto get?
And if you do get them, do theywork, are they?
Olivia Piercy (17:38):
Are they difficult to get?
um then.
So a non-molestation order iseasier to get.
An occupation order, um, thecourt decides on the balance of
probabilities whether one personneeds protection from the other
.
Um, legal aid is occasionallyavailable.
It's available for people whoare um.
(18:00):
You know, um the means test isvery, very stringent.
So most people in the countrywill fall um into the gap where
they're not financially eligiblefor legal aid but they can't
afford a lawyer.
So most people will be in asituation where if they want an
unmolestation order, they're noteligible for legal aid.
(18:21):
They go to a lawyer and thelawyer says, okay, that's going
to be you know 20 grand.
And they're like well, I don'thave that um, I mean, it's about
to abuse situation, don't haveany money um.
So there's that.
That's an immediate barrierbecause, you know, are they
difficult to get?
I can get you a normalizationorder probably.
You know I'm pretty good atthat.
Can you get yourself anormalization order?
How about if you're beingcross-examined by?
(18:41):
You know being cross-examinedon your allegations?
You're representing yourself incourt, um, you don't have
somebody you know to support you.
You don't have anybody toadvise you how to write your
statement.
You're making all the wrongallegations, because you don't
understand what you know, thethe complex tests that the judge
is applying, um.
So, yeah, they're difficult toget if you're representing
themselves yourself.
Um, it's a grueling process.
(19:02):
I have so many clients who arejust like I can't do that.
You know.
They're just like I can't gothrough that.
I just I've already beenthrough enough.
I've come, I've got all I'vegot to sort out the child
arrangements, I've got to sortout the finances.
I'm looking at two years oflitigation and I'm meant to go
to court and and set out in astatement everything that has
been done to me and then becross-examined on that in order
(19:26):
to to get that protection.
So it's emotionally draining,it's financially challenging.
Um, and then you do get in.
It's like six months, you know,because like, okay, we'll make
that order for six months.
Um, a lot of the time you canget someone to make an
undertaking.
You send a warning letter.
You say, if you don't, you know, if you you didn't promise to
leave my client alone, thenwe'll apply for a normalization
(19:47):
order.
And a lot of the time you'llget a letter back saying, okay,
I'll leave them alone and that's.
You know, that's enough.
But if they say, no, I'll dowhat I like.
Then you've got to decidewhether or not to go to court
and it's, you know, it's just alot to go through, isn't it?
Um and um, and occupationorders are difficult to get
because if you want to excludesomebody from their home, you've
(20:08):
got to show that they're notgoing to be homeless as well.
It's obviously a very onerousorder and a lot of the time now
people are saying, oh, the kidswill miss me and you know all
the rest of it.
So it's just, and sometimes ajudge will make an occupation
order, but it'll be like one way.
They'll just say, okay, well,you can have this room and you
can have this room and you canhave that room and you can have
the kitchen on this hours.
(20:28):
And I mean you can imagine whatthat feels like over the course
of the year when you're tryingto sort out your finances and
the child arrangements.
So you know these, these ordersare available and we do get
them.
Um, but then you know it's notlike that.
A lot of people just don't havethe stomach for it.
Tamsin Caine (20:45):
yeah, no fair enough.
So there are a lot oflimitations to these, and we've
talked a bit about the lawthat's there at the moment and
about some of the issues in theknow.
So if let's set aside for onesecond the people who do manage
(21:13):
to secure legal aid and thepeople who drop down the gaps
because there isn't any money topay for a lawyer but they don't
fit into the legal aid, whichis horrendous Well, what about
those people who there is money,yeah, within the family, but
they don't have access to payfor a lawyer themselves today?
(21:36):
But the likelihood is, as longas they don't spend all of the
money on legal fees through thedivorce process, there should be
something coming to them at theend.
Is there anything?
Anything that can be done forthose people?
Olivia Piercy (21:53):
they can try and borrow money.
Um, if you've got, if you, ifyou've got a financial remedy
case, um, before you're evenallowed to apply for an lspo,
that's an order that the otherparty pays your legal fees.
And it's not the other partypaying your legal fees, it's
from marital assets.
It's the one person has controlof the marital assets and
they're not sharing them.
Um, but, um, you've got tofirst apply for a litigation
(22:19):
loan.
So that's, that's the first.
You know.
The first thing you do is inthe situation is you write to
the other side and say can yougive us some money from legal
fees?
There's plenty of money there,you've, you've got big income.
They say no, no, I can't affordit, I can only pay for my own
legal fees.
Okay, fine, then you've got toapply for litigation loans and
the law actually says that.
It says you can't even ask foran order for the other person to
pay the legal fees unlessyou've applied for, and been
(22:41):
rejected for, litigation loans.
Litigation loans are set up byloan companies, specific loan
companies.
They're very high interestloans.
Um, from a solicitor's point ofview it's great because you
know cost of cut, you managed toget one cost of covered and
then what happens is, at the end, the court, you know you have a
(23:02):
deal where you say the.
You know you put in the courtorder that first the loan gets
paid off, um, and theneverything else gets split.
So, um, our fees get paid bythe loan company and then, um,
the loan gets paid off and theneverything else gets split, so
our fees get paid by the loancompany and then the loan
company gets paid back withinterest from the court order at
the end.
So there's that option.
But then, obviously, in a casewhere everybody's paying their
own legal fees, somebody's hadto take on these really high
(23:24):
interest litigation loans andthe other party is just using
the available resources.
So it's not fair.
If you don't get litigationloans, people go to commercial
loan lenders and if they don'tget those, they can make an
application for an LSPO or aLASPO to the family court.
But you've got to persuade asolicitor to basically run the
case on credit.
(23:44):
So you run up, you know, 20, 30grand of debt in the hope that
the court will order that theother side reimburses you for
your fees and pays for legalfees going forward.
Obviously, all the while theother parties, you know, hidden
the money to press their incomeand says they can't afford it.
So it's always such a gamble.
It's quite hard to persuade usto do them.
(24:05):
I'm constantly being persuadedto do them, with very success.
Uh, you know, because I can'tsay no.
Um, you know, because it's sounfair.
You just say he you know it'snot always he, but you know they
, they've got money, they'veinstructed their own very
expensive lawyers.
They're spending huge amountsof money just preventing this
(24:27):
person from having a bit ofadvice and representation.
Um, so yeah, they are difficult.
So that's that's, that's theway you get it.
Um, you know people borrow fromfriends and family.
Um, some people you know, ifyou've got a house in your name
and it's in this country andyou're in this country, um, and
there's not equity in it, youshould be able to get a
(24:48):
litigation loan.
That's, you know, that's theoption available for a lot of
people.
But they make these.
Also, when they make theseorders, the lspos, they do
what's called pound for pound,last votes a lot of the time.
So they'll say, okay, whatever,you know, the husband spends on
legal fees, the wife can spend.
These seem perfectly fair tojudges because they haven't
(25:11):
thought about it.
If you represent somebody in adomestic abuse situation,
economic abuse situation, ittakes so much more work.
It costs so much more to chaseand try to find out what the
bloody hell is going on, likewhat, to find out what the
assets are, than it does tosimply ignore my letters.
It's very cheap to ignore myletters.
It costs a lot of money towrite them, um, so, and also
(25:35):
you're supporting someone who'sintensely vulnerable, um, and
stressed, and you know, um, andthat takes a lot of time.
So it's not an equal amount ofwork done on each side.
So the pound for pound approachis also unfair and there's just
lots and lots of problems withthe current system which I'm
trying to change, which bringsus on to you trying to change
(25:55):
them.
Tamsin Caine (25:57):
So talk us through the project going on at the
moment.
The project OK, I'm at thatpoint going to hand over to you
and tell us about what you'redoing and tell us about some of
the changes that you'd like tosee.
Olivia Piercy (26:12):
Okay.
So this is a project byResolution.
Resolution is the body thatrepresents 6,500 family lawyers
(26:35):
6,500 family lawyers and we setup a working party for
resolution looking at economicabuse because we're starting to
sort of identify that all ofthese different behaviours that
happen during divorces likepeople not paying maintenance,
people not paying legal fees,refusing to provide financial
disclosure, breaching orders,delaying all of this stuff
(26:57):
started to realise that that isactually all part of one thing.
It's domestic abuse, it'seconomic abuse, but the law was
not addressing that.
It addresses it in childrencases.
We have a very advancedunderstanding of coercive and
controlling behaviour in privatelaw children cases, but the
financial remedy cases it's justvery much behind in its
(27:21):
understanding and application ofthe law and domestic abuse.
So we set up this working partyto look at it.
We started by um uh, doing a bigpiece of research.
So we surveyed all of thefamily lawyers, um, really in
the country and lots of otherprofessionals as well.
It's a multi-disciplinaryworking party, so it had um ifas
(27:44):
, um, it had domestic abusecharities, um academics and
family lawyers um, and wesurveyed everyone just basically
to say do you think that thelaw, um the family courts are
effective at dealing withdomestic abuse and financial
remedy cases, and over 80 peoplecame back and said no, uh, we
don't, and then ask some morespecific questions about, um,
(28:07):
the things that I've beentalking about today, and the
results were really compelling.
So, on the basis of that, wefelt that we had a mandate to
sort of come up with proposalsfor how the system could be
improved and changed, and someof that will be in case law.
Some of that would be statutoryamendment and some of it's just
(28:27):
best best practice, just doingthings better.
Um, so, um, we got together um ahuge group of um really
passionate and dedicated umfamily law professionals who
debated um all sorts ofdifferent proposals that we come
up with to really work out whatwould work and what wouldn't.
And um, uh, we're currentlywriting a big report which sets
(28:51):
out our research um and also theproposals for change um and
that's going to be uh publishedon the 8th of october, um, which
I believe is before.
This podcast um is beingproduced yeah, absolutely,
absolutely.
Tamsin Caine (29:09):
We will make sure we put a link to the report in
the show.
Don't say you will be able tohave a look at it, um, although
actually is it going to be inplain english?
Olivia Piercy (29:20):
no, it's not going to be in plain english,
but there's an executive summary, um, which will be in plain
english, um, which I expect isthe part that most people will
read, or blogs about theexecutive summary.
But, yeah, there'll be asummary at the beginning.
There's about 40 pages.
That perhaps only I understand,but there'll be, hopefully a
(29:41):
pithy, accessible executivesummary which will explain the
findings of our research and thekey recommendations for change.
And I don't know what willhappen next.
I know that the Law Commissionis doing a big project on
financial remedies in generaland that they have taken an
interest in our work and we hopevery much that our
(30:01):
recommendations will feed intotheirs.
And there's a lot more interestin general about economic abuse
and domestic abuse,post-separation and through the
family court process at themoment, so I really hope that
this will form a part of theconversation.
Tamsin Caine (30:20):
Yeah, fingers crossed.
So is your hope that I might beputting words into your mouth,
and I'm sure you won't.
Let me do that, um, but is yourhope that the, that the law
changes and that there's a,there's a fairer outcome for
victim survivors of domesticabuse during the divorce process
(30:43):
, so that they're not on theback foot all the time?
And and is that?
Is that in terms of the processitself, the ability for the
ongoing abuse through kind oflegal fees, particularly in the,
and the access to, to funds topay for legal fees?
Or is there another factor thatI've not thought about?
Olivia Piercy (31:07):
I mean, that's basically spot on, exactly, um,
my Exactly.
My hope is that we'll have amore progressive application of
domestic abuse within financialremedy cases.
I think what's happened is thegovernment, successive
governments, have strippedresources from the courts so
(31:28):
that the family courts are ontheir knees.
They cannot process cases fastenough, and the delay in the
justice system is causing andexacerbating harm, and so it's
completely understandable thatjudges and other concerned
individuals are saying we do nothave the capacity to start to
(31:50):
consider domestic abuse in thesecases because it's going to
slow things down and make a sortof broken system even more
broken.
That's a really compellingargument.
It's an intellectually dishonestargument.
You can't um and and.
And the fact that domesticabuse is so prevalent does not
mean that it's not serious andthat we should ignore it.
Um, we can't say we're justgoing to completely ignore.
The fact that domestic abuse isso prevalent does not mean that
(32:11):
it's not serious and that weshould ignore it.
Um, we can't say we're justgoing to completely ignore the
fact that this is leading tounfair outcomes and unsafe
outcomes for the most vulnerablepeople in our court system.
Um, sorry, the light's gone off, but the most vulnerable people
in our court system, um uh, youknow, in order to save
resources, you've got to get thelaw right and then the
(32:32):
resources have to meet the need.
Rather, than the lack ofresources, dictating uh the law.
Tamsin Caine (32:40):
I understand that this won't be enough, but there
is a move to try and get peoplewho it's appropriate for out of
the court system and usingalternative dispute resolution
methods.
Do you think that's gone farenough?
(33:02):
Do you think that's going tohelp at all, or is it just too
broken for that to have anymeaning at all?
Olivia Piercy (33:09):
No, I really support that.
Um, I think that there are lotsof people using the court
system who shouldn't be using it.
Um, and it's infuriating that Ihave to wait, you know, a year
for a fact finding um to so thecourt can establish, you know,
which of the two parents isabusing the children.
Because they're making crossallegations, which is what
(33:30):
happens in every domestic abusecase.
Um, you know, meanwhile, peopleare clogging up the system,
having stupid arguments.
Um, but they could, they shouldjust sort out um through
another, through another, youknow another channel.
So it it is, um, yeah, I thinkyou know people need help upon
separation and the court is not,is not, the right place to
resolve all of these issues.
(33:50):
So it's brilliant that otherchannels are, you know, are
being developed to help peopleand support people to resolve
their issues.
But cases involving domesticabuse, you know that is what the
court should be dealing withthese are all.
Domestic abuse is serious and somuch of it is dismissed.
(34:13):
People don't, you know, don'twant to accept that.
They want to say, well, that'snot very serious domestic abuse.
I think you can.
Just, you know, all domesticabuse is serious and if people
don't feel safe, uh, mediating,um, or you know doing something
you know and they need, and theyneed court orders and they need
to be in that system, they areentitled to that protection.
So I think my concern obviouslyis that if you start to say,
(34:36):
well, this is a case worthy forcourt and this isn't who's doing
that screening.
Tamsin Caine (34:42):
And with what?
Olivia Piercy (34:42):
And with what resources and with what skill
set.
I think if somebody saysthey're experiencing domestic
abuse and therefore their issuesneed to be resolved in court,
they need to be given thebenefit of the doubt because
it's too risky to say no.
No, you're probably making itup or it doesn't sound that
serious.
It's not that, you know, feelsa bit scary, doesn't it?
Tamsin Caine (35:03):
That's a little bit scary.
Yeah, is it in general the casethat if there is domestic abuse
in the relationship, that courtis really the only place that
can resolve the divorce, or arethere ever cases where you could
use a hybrid mediationlawyer-supported mediation or
(35:29):
private F, private FDR orarbitration or something like
that?
Olivia Piercy (35:32):
yeah, absolutely.
I actually think arbitration isfine.
I mean, arbitration is a is youknow, it has teeth like a court
system.
It's faster, which is what youneed.
Um, a lot of the time, aperpetrator, domestically,
doesn't want to arbitrate.
They'd rather have the very,very slow and effective court
system, and a lot of the time,it's the victim survivor who
wants to arbitrate.
Um, and I also think you know,yeah, of course, of course,
(35:55):
mediation can work.
Private fdrs, hybrid mediationroundtables, you know all of
this collaborative law, um,these things can work.
And because you know domesticabuse is it's different in
different relationships and thedynamics are different.
What people want.
I just think it's about givingpeople choice and making people
feel empowered and not makingthem feel there's so much
(36:15):
gaslighting.
Already, you know domesticabuse victims, survivors they're
always made to feel thatthey're the abuser, that they're
the liar, that they've got amental health issue, that
everybody's going to find out,they're crazy, that they're
greedy, that you know, and sothey're going into this with
such low confidence.
And then, if they're told like,oh, you know, be reasonable and
mediate, it's just um, that'swhat I'm worried about.
(36:36):
But of course, if somebody'slike do you know what and you
know, the court system is justnot a good place to be right now
, um, for for most people.
So if somebody wants to mediate,yeah, of course they should
give it a go.
I would just say to them don'tfeel pressured into it, let's
think about how to make thissafe.
Let's also put in put in placelike time limits, like if
somebody wants to mediate andsay, okay, well, why don't we
(36:58):
mediate if you've got, like,proper financial disclosure,
rather than going into this youknow conversation blind when
somebody's got all theinformation, someone doesn't,
and then say to the other partyokay, well, you've got a month
to give us full and frankfinancial disclosure.
Because that's a way of tellinglike, are they serious?
You don't want to mediate withsomeone who's just doing it to
waste your time and put pressureon you.
So there's just I think it'sjust being like really
(37:21):
thoughtful about how youestablish whether this is likely
to be a safe and effectiveprocess.
But absolutely, I mean, youknow you can sort out your
finances over the kitchen tableand there's nothing wrong with
that, and it's not for me totell anybody that they should be
going to court.
It's just.
It's just about making peoplefeel empowered and informed and
(37:45):
giving them a choice.
Tamsin Caine (37:47):
Yeah, and not accepting an offer because they
feel that they should andthey're being told that they're
not going to get any more by aperpetrator.
I think is the other thing thatworries me about mediating
settings if there's no legaladvice in the background, if the
(38:07):
victim survivor is not havinglegal advice in the background,
you know, if the victim survivoris not having legal advice, but
then they're being pushed intomaking a decision quickly
without full disclosure, andthat sort of thing is my fear
about those situations.
Olivia Piercy (38:23):
And there's so much fear involved.
You know you'll talk to someone, they'll want to meet it and
then they'll say, oh, but youknow I couldn't ask for his
pension.
He's always said he'll go mad.
I mean, you know it'll be likehitting the nuclear button you
just think that is not.
That is not a safe environmentor dynamic to mediate in, if you
think that asking for yourshare of the pension assets is
hitting a nuclear button andthat you've been told that for
(38:43):
years.
So it's just being aware thatthis is the situation that
people are in and and makingsure that mediators are aware.
You know, when my clients dowant to mediate and they often
do I often say well, let's havean agreement with the you know
lawyer on the other side that wecan both have a chat with the
mediator before, so that I getto have a chat with the mediator
and just say look, this is whatyou need to look out for, um,
(39:03):
because I want them to be aliveto the dynamics, because they
don't understand what's happenedbehind.
You know what's happenedbeforehand.
A lot of people who are in thedomestic abuse dynamic they're
so used to not showing that whenthey're in front of a
(39:24):
professional when they're infront of a professional yeah,
absolutely, and aren'tnecessarily, don't have the
confidence to voice theirposition.
Tamsin Caine (39:32):
In the setting where the other person is coming
across as very confident andsaying well, this is how it is,
that can be massively difficult.
Olivia, we're coming to the endof our time together.
It always goes so quickly, Iknow.
I know so.
So much to discuss on thistopic.
(39:54):
Is there anything that you wantto say to um round up or
anything that you think that itwould be useful for people to
hear?
Olivia Piercy (40:03):
um, I um probably won't surprise you, but I think
people should get legal advice,and I think they should get it
really early on.
I think they should get itreally early on.
You don't need to tell theother party you're getting it.
It's not an aggressive act.
You are entitled to thatinformation.
You're entitled to make a plan.
Nothing's going to happen as aresult of you getting legal
(40:24):
advice.
It's totally confidential.
But as soon as you have thatadvice advice you can start to
think about your options, youstart to become more empowered
and you start to break away fromthe narratives that somebody
else has been feeding you.
Um, so that's what I was that's.
You know it's about getting it.
You know, getting gettingyourself some legal advice as
(40:44):
quickly as possible.
And you know, I'm sure thatTamsin, would you know you would
say the same.
Um, you know, just having that,having that advice early on, is
what equips you and helps youto make a plan.
So much of this is strategic.
Um, it shouldn't be, but it is,and a lot of the time
somebody's been strategizing,you know, long before you even
know your relationship's over.
Um.
Tamsin Caine (41:04):
So yeah, I'd say, just get equipped with advice at
the as early as possible is mytip absolutely, and you've not
said this, but I am going to,because you might think well, I
can't really say this, but ifyou are going to get legal
advice, as olivia said, and takeher recommendation, check that
they have experience of dealingwith people who are in domestic
(41:28):
abuse situations, because thereare amazing lawyers out there
who have the experience and knowhow to work in these cases and
know what the perpetrator mightbe likely to do, and there are
people that have not got thatsame experience.
And if you have beenexperiencing that, you really
want to be's.
Who's worked these cases?
(41:49):
Who does them every day, likelike olivia?
Um, here's details will be inthe show notes if you want to
contact it okay, um, but no, Iactually think, um, it's a bit
more.
Olivia Piercy (42:02):
Every family lawyer will say that they deal
with domestic abuse, and everyfamily lawyer does deal with
domestic abuse.
Um, the law tells us that thedomestic abuse isn't relevant,
and so it's about findingsomebody who does think it's
relevant, even in circumstanceswhen the law is saying it isn't
so, rather than having someonewho shuts you down and says not
relevant or relevant, someonewho gets it.
(42:23):
Somebody thinks it's importantbecause, even though we can't
change the law with your case ormaybe we can, but generally
it's um it's.
It's about protecting you withinthat process, um, and
understanding why the domesticabuse is important, even if the
judge doesn't think it is.
Tamsin Caine (42:41):
Yeah, yeah absolutely, actually just a very
quick.
I know keep saying, sayingwe're going, and then other
things come up.
How would you find somebodyother than like emailing you,
which is probably going to be alot of people's first protocol?
How would you check whethersomebody believes that that's
(43:01):
important?
How would you go looking for asuitable lawyer who had got that
experience?
Olivia Piercy (43:08):
So Resolution does an accreditation, um, so
they could give you anyone who'sgot the resolution
accreditation is somebody who'sreally taken some time out um,
uh to um to get thataccreditation, also has done
enough cases um to to to beawarded it um.
(43:29):
But I mean, to be honest, theonly way that other than that,
other than someone who's got youknow very clearly, got kind of
specific expertise in theirprofile, um, or who comes to a
personal recommendation, theonly way that you can tell
whether somebody gets it, as ifyou know they get it when
they're talking to you, um.
So I do think you know I alwayssay when I speak to um potential
(43:51):
new clients, I always just sayyou know, I hope you're calling
around, speak to a few differentpeople and just see who you
click with, because that's soimportant for someone who gets
it, gets you, makes you feelsupported, makes you feel
listened to, um and um.
There isn't, you know, thereisn't a qualification for that,
there's no list, there's nospecial list out there other
(44:13):
than the resolutionaccreditation.
So yeah, I think I think youhave to call around and speak to
different people and don't beafraid to do that until you find
somebody.
You know if you've got somebodywho's who's who's um
undermining uh and making youfeel that you know, know, it
should be somebody who's drawingtheir stuff out and making you
feel it is important and wantsto hear about it, not somebody
(44:34):
who's sort of brushing over itand um, uh and um minimizing it.
Tamsin Caine (44:40):
Yeah absolutely great advice.
Wonderful, olivia, thank you somuch for joining me.
I think that's been a hugelyuseful session and and I hope
those of you listening willdownload the report and at least
read the executive summary, ifnot wading through the 45 pages.
Um, thank you for listening andplease do join us next time and
(45:02):
if you have found this episodeuseful, please do give us a
five-star review so that we canget the episodes out to even
more people and hopefully helpmore people as well.
Thank you, hi, and I hope youenjoyed that episode of the
smart divorce podcast.
(45:23):
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
would be fantastic.
I know that lots of ourlisteners are finding this is
(45:45):
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 called Separation, divorceand Dissolution UK.
Please do go on to Facebook,search up the group and we'd be
(46:07):
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 if you're going through thisor you know anybody who is, I
really hope this series helpedyou.
Thanks for listening.
(00:55):
Hello and welcome to the SmartDivorce Podcast.
I'm delighted to be joined byOlivia Piercy today.
We had our first meeting whenwe were presenting a seminar
together at a family lawconference probably I'm going to
say it's getting on towards 12months ago now all about
(01:20):
economic and financial abuse,and since then I've been lucky
enough to be in the audience foranother of Olivia's
presentations and she blows meaway every time I listen to her
speak.
So I'm really looking forwardto this conversation today and I
hope you're going to find ituseful.
I'm going to let Oliviaintroduce herself properly,
(01:41):
because her CV and experience inthe area of domestic abuse is
monumental, so do you want toproperly introduce yourself,
Olivia.
Olivia Piercy (01:52):
Yeah, thank you so much for having me.
It's such an honour to be onyour podcast and I'm so excited
that you're doing a domesticabuse themed series.
As you know, it's my bigpassion, um, so I'm a family law
solicitor and a partner at afirm called Hunters Law in
london, um, and I do the fullgamut of family law.
(02:13):
So, um, children, finance, um,uh, but I tend to, 99% of my
clients are referred to mebecause they're victims and
survivors of domestic abuse.
I've got a a background inworking for domestic abuse
charities, and so that's theprism through which I see family
(02:33):
law, and I very much see it asmy role to support people
through their family law issuesand their separations and
divorces, protecting themthrough that process, um, from
ongoing domestic abuse.
Um, I see that, um, I seemyself having two roles.
One is protecting people withinthe family law process, trying
(02:57):
to get them a good outcome andprotect them through that
process, but also, um, I I spendhalf of my time campaigning to
change the law to make thesystem safer.
Tamsin Caine (03:09):
Excellent, which absolutely needs to happen.
Um, I wasn't going to ask you.
This is the first question, butin the light of your
introduction it feels like afeels like a sensible place to
start.
Um, do all of your clients knowthey've been in abusive
relationships when they come toyou?
Olivia Piercy (03:28):
I suppose more now because I'm specifically
referred people for that reasonor because they seek me out for
that reason, um, but I would saythat most of my clients, even
if they come to me for thatreason, it is only through the
process that they start tounderstand the, the depth, um,
(03:48):
and the severity of the abusethat they've experienced.
Um, there's just so muchgaslighting and brainwashing and
minimizing, um, and that's verymuch.
That's part of the process andthat kind of emotional journey
of like understanding whatyou've been through and also
what you'll continue to gothrough.
So a lot of people say, well, Ihave been through xyz, but I
just don't want to make an issueof it and we just want to try
(04:09):
and keep things as nice aspossible and I know how things
are going to go, um, uh, and soI think, as as the abuse, it
doesn't, it doesn't stop at thepoint of separation.
So, um, if people aren't awareor don't think that the abuse is
relevant at that point, whenthey come to me and their
marriage is over, it quicklybecomes clearer to them through
(04:31):
the process.
Tamsin Caine (04:32):
Yeah, absolutely, and it feels to me as if there's
a pattern that is not identicalbut similar in a lot of cases,
in the way that the cases withdomestic abuse in the I'm going
to say, in the background, butit's not in the background, it's
very much in the foreground,isn't it?
But where, where you're lookingat victim survivors, there
(04:54):
seems to be a kind of this isgenerally what happens.
Can you talk us through that alittle bit about, about how that
post separation abuse showsitself?
Olivia Piercy (05:06):
I think it's interesting that idea of it
being in the background, becauseI think that's where the family
court sees it.
They say, well, we're notlooking at the domestic abuse,
we're looking at the children,we're not looking at the
domestic abuse, we're looking atthe finances.
So that's in the background.
Keep it in the background,please, so we can focus on the
issues at hand.
But actually, the children andthe finances are the channels
through which the domestic abusecontinues to be perpetrated
(05:27):
post-separation.
You cannot separate thembecause the perpetrator isn't
separating them.
That's the point, um.
So those are the two channels.
You know the domestic abusedynamic does not change or
lessen upon separation.
It continues.
Somebody doesn't want to stophurting somebody or controlling
them because the relationship'sended.
(05:48):
It often gets worse and thelast remaining channels tend to
be the children, the childarrangements and finances.
So that's how it plays out withchild arrangements.
I'm sure you'll have a.
I think this episode isprimarily focusing on the
economic abuse with childarrangements.
(06:08):
We all know how that plays out.
But with economic abuse ittends to typically plays out in
three ways on the victimsurvivor and make it more
difficult for them to accesslegal advice and representation,
which puts them in a morevulnerable position.
(06:30):
Financial disclosure is notforthcoming, it's very difficult
to get any information aboutthe finance, so there's often a
lot of sort of smoke and mirrorslike in the lead up.
So sometimes that economicabuse happens throughout a
marriage.
So somebody can leave amarriage really having no idea
what their financial position is, or being put in a sort of
enforced debt situation orfinding that they are, you know,
(06:52):
burdened with an unfair amountof the outgoings for the family
and they don't really know whatthe other party's position is.
And it also carries onpost-separation.
So failing to provide financialdisclosure, which means that
your lawyers are saying to youwe can't really negotiate, we
(07:14):
can't sort this out until wework out what the finances are,
delaying matters as long aspossible, trying to separate
people from their legal teams ortheir support networks to
disempower them, and thenrearranging finances.
Businesses go bust, people gooff sick, they lose their jobs.
You know everything ends up ina trust.
It never belonged to me anyway,it was always my brother's.
(07:35):
You know it's just.
Money disappears and the delayexacerbates that.
So these are the ways thatdomestic abuse sort of is
carried out through economicabuse, post-separation.
Tamsin Caine (07:48):
I guess we should rewind a little bit.
Can you define economic andfinancial abuse for us, so that
we're all on the same page asfar as what that means?
Olivia Piercy (08:02):
So there is a legal definition of economic
abuse which, because I don'thave it right in front of me,
I'm going to get wrong.
It's in Domestic Abuse Act 1921and it's within that there's
finally a legal definition ofdomestic abuse, which is in the
Domestic Abuse Act, and itdefines as part of it economic
(08:23):
abuse.
Um, and so financial abuse isspecifically um uh sort of
enforced debt and um takingpeople's money and um it's, it's
more um uh specific economicabuse is more like the general
picture.
So financial abuse is part ofeconomic abuse, and economic
abuse can also include stoppingsomebody from pursuing career
(08:48):
opportunities, developing theirnetwork, getting education or
building confidence andopportunities in life, so
anything that has a kind ofeconomic impact.
So it's either depriving peopleof property, putting them in
debt, stifling theiropportunities, um and it uh the
(09:10):
research shows that 99 ofdomestic abuse relationships
involve economic abuse.
Tamsin Caine (09:16):
So it's it's not a sort of unusual niche form of
domestic abuse, it's really justpart and parcel of that general
dynamic yeah, it feels like,feels like something that's less
known, sort of more widely inthe general public, unless it's
an area that you work within andor or you are a victim survivor
(09:37):
and then you might have comeacross it, but it I keep reading
things on twitter and Iprobably should start looking at
Twitter because it just drivesme insane.
But it's, this thing aboutdomestic abuse is not just where
somebody's physically hurt.
All these things that we'retalking about now are still
(09:57):
abuse, but they're not aroundthe physical side of domestic
abuse, around the physical sideof domestic abuse.
Olivia Piercy (10:04):
Exactly.
I think people are aware ofeconomic abuse but it hasn't
occurred to them.
Everybody knows that people cutoff maintenance or hide their
money, but they haven'tidentified that as a form of
domestic abuse.
And I think the way tounderstand it is that domestic
abuse is coercive andcontrolling behaviour.
That is the dynamic, that iswhat's at the core of it.
(10:26):
It's not, that's not a sort ofless, a softer version of
domestic abuse that we sort ofstuck on to the original
definition.
That is what domestic abuse is.
It's a dynamic of control andcoercion.
And, uh, financial abuse,sexual abuse, physical abuse,
emotional abuse these are justmethods of control.
These are ways that somebodymaintains control over and over
(10:46):
another person.
Once you understand that, thenyou start to see, um, how all of
these different behaviors uhform part of domestic abuse yeah
, absolutely okay.
Tamsin Caine (11:00):
So we've talked about the fact that,
unfortunately, victim survivorsvictim-survivors even after
they've left the relationshipare likely to continue to be
abused, and some of that can bearound the whole divorce process
because, unfortunately, youhave to have some form of
(11:21):
contact, even if it's through alawyer.
Have some form of contact, evenif it's through a lawyer.
Um, how can victim survivor usethe existing laws that are in
place potentially to help themin their striving to become
divorced and end up in areasonably fair financial
situation?
Olivia Piercy (11:41):
it's a good question with wide-ranging
answers.
So you know the family courthas remedies.
You can apply for anon-molestation order to prevent
somebody from contacting youand harassing you and, you know,
abusing you and coming to yourhouse.
An occupation order can excludesomebody from the home if
they're being abusive um that.
(12:03):
You know these are difficultorders to obtain um but they are
available.
Obviously the police can also,you know, remove people from
properties and charge them andput them on and put them on bail
and all the rest of it.
So there are um, um remediesavailable, um or protective
measures available, um in indomestic abuse situations Sort
(12:24):
of.
The accessibility is variableand the effectiveness is
variable but they're very muchthere and worth finding out
about.
In terms of economic abuse, youknow if you're getting divorced,
you can't deal with economicabuse within a marriage.
You have to sort of getdivorced in order to assess the,
(12:45):
the um, the powers of thefamily court.
And you have to say we want youknow we're getting divorced and
we make an application, say wewant to sort out our um, our
finances, I want to make claimsfor, you know, capital and
income um the, the system youknow should address these issues
.
People are ordered to produceinformation about their finances
(13:07):
and then you're given a sort ofopportunity and a steer to help
you to negotiate once thatinformation is before the court.
And if you can't agree becausesomebody hasn't been reasonable,
the court will make a decisionand it has powers to divide the
(13:28):
assets.
We all know this.
It's really about how effectivethat is.
I think there are two issueswith the family court in terms
of how it deals with financialremedy cases domestic abuse.
One is that, um, even thoughthe law says that it takes
(13:49):
conduct into account, thatconduct must be taken into
account when dividing the assetson divorce um, judges actually
uh, uh, disregard it, um, in inalmost every single case.
So the the case law, the lawthat the judges, the judge's
interpretation of that statute,which says you know, everybody
(14:12):
must, you know, the judges mustconsider the conduct of the
parties, the case law tellsjudges to disregard it, and
that's because they don't havethe resources to have a kind of
moral court.
But of course, if you've beenthrough um extensive, uh serious
domestic abuse, you are goingto leave the marriage
significantly financiallydisadvantaged in so many ways
(14:35):
and ways that you won't knowabout yet, that nobody can see.
Yet um so um, you know, in myview, people need to be
compensated for criminalbehaviour which leaves one
person in a far more vulnerableand weaker position financially
for the rest of their lives andthe other person in a much
stronger position.
So currently the law does notaddress that.
(14:57):
It's something I think shouldbe changed.
And the other thing is that thecourt process itself is utilised
as a way of continuing toperpetrate abuse.
So people are ordered toprovide financial disclosure,
but the system is so slow andineffective that you can go
through months and months andseveral hearings before enough
(15:21):
pressure is actually put onsomebody to force them to
produce financial disclosure.
And so often we, you know, willnever get hold of enough
information to really understandwhat the financial picture is.
You know, it's not really goodenough.
We also have a system where,you know, one person can kind of
hold all the money and pay forexpensive lawyers and cut the
(15:41):
other person off.
They don't have maintenance.
They don't have maintenance,they don't have legal fees,
money for legal fees.
Um, there is a system in placeto help people to apply for an
order that one party pays theother party's legal fees, but
it's it's not.
The law isn't fit for purpose.
I'm not going to go into thedetails because I'll um bore you
, but basically the law isn'tfit for purpose.
(16:03):
It's incredibly difficult toget these orders and when you do
get them, they'reunsatisfactory.
Any family lawyer will chewyour ear off about it for hours
if you get on the subject ofLSBOs.
So there's lots and lots ofthings wrong with the law.
Also, lots of people are pushedinto mediation in completely
unsuitable situations.
Mediation is great.
It's exactly what people shouldbe doing.
It's the dignified,constructive, humane way to
(16:27):
resolve your finances and yourchildren issues post-separation.
But in a situation where oneperson doesn't want to provide
an accurate financial picture,has all of the control, is
abusing.
The other party is deliberatelytrying to delay so that they
can hide their money.
You're never going to to get asatisfactory outcome and it's an
abusive process.
(16:47):
So there's lots and lots ofthings that are currently wrong
with the financial remedy court,which means that, even though
it looks like it shouldeffectively address this sort of
abuse it doesn't, and actuallyit facilitates it in lots of
ways.
That was a very long answer.
Tamsin Caine (17:04):
No, it's just frustrating, isn't it?
I want to come back to and Iwill move forward again, but
everything you said, I had loadsof questions as a result of
them.
So we were talking about theorders that are available to
people, initially thenon-molestation order, and I
(17:26):
can't remember what the otherone was called.
That's the one.
Um, why are they so difficultto get?
And if you do get them, do theywork, are they?
Olivia Piercy (17:38):
Are they difficult to get?
um then.
So a non-molestation order iseasier to get.
An occupation order, um, thecourt decides on the balance of
probabilities whether one personneeds protection from the other
.
Um, legal aid is occasionallyavailable.
It's available for people whoare um.
(18:00):
You know, um the means test isvery, very stringent.
So most people in the countrywill fall um into the gap where
they're not financially eligiblefor legal aid but they can't
afford a lawyer.
So most people will be in asituation where if they want an
unmolestation order, they're noteligible for legal aid.
(18:21):
They go to a lawyer and thelawyer says, okay, that's going
to be you know 20 grand.
And they're like well, I don'thave that um, I mean, it's about
to abuse situation, don't haveany money um.
So there's that.
That's an immediate barrierbecause, you know, are they
difficult to get?
I can get you a normalizationorder probably.
You know I'm pretty good atthat.
Can you get yourself anormalization order?
How about if you're beingcross-examined by?
(18:41):
You know being cross-examinedon your allegations?
You're representing yourself incourt, um, you don't have
somebody you know to support you.
You don't have anybody toadvise you how to write your
statement.
You're making all the wrongallegations, because you don't
understand what you know, thethe complex tests that the judge
is applying, um.
So, yeah, they're difficult toget if you're representing
themselves yourself.
Um, it's a grueling process.
(19:02):
I have so many clients who arejust like I can't do that.
You know.
They're just like I can't gothrough that.
I just I've already beenthrough enough.
I've come, I've got all I'vegot to sort out the child
arrangements, I've got to sortout the finances.
I'm looking at two years oflitigation and I'm meant to go
to court and and set out in astatement everything that has
been done to me and then becross-examined on that in order
(19:26):
to to get that protection.
So it's emotionally draining,it's financially challenging.
Um, and then you do get in.
It's like six months, you know,because like, okay, we'll make
that order for six months.
Um, a lot of the time you canget someone to make an
undertaking.
You send a warning letter.
You say, if you don't, you know, if you you didn't promise to
leave my client alone, thenwe'll apply for a normalization
(19:47):
order.
And a lot of the time you'llget a letter back saying, okay,
I'll leave them alone and that's.
You know, that's enough.
But if they say, no, I'll dowhat I like.
Then you've got to decidewhether or not to go to court
and it's, you know, it's just alot to go through, isn't it?
Um and um, and occupationorders are difficult to get
because if you want to excludesomebody from their home, you've
(20:08):
got to show that they're notgoing to be homeless as well.
It's obviously a very onerousorder and a lot of the time now
people are saying, oh, the kidswill miss me and you know all
the rest of it.
So it's just, and sometimes ajudge will make an occupation
order, but it'll be like one way.
They'll just say, okay, well,you can have this room and you
can have this room and you canhave that room and you can have
the kitchen on this hours.
(20:28):
And I mean you can imagine whatthat feels like over the course
of the year when you're tryingto sort out your finances and
the child arrangements.
So you know these, these ordersare available and we do get
them.
Um, but then you know it's notlike that.
A lot of people just don't havethe stomach for it.
Tamsin Caine (20:45):
yeah, no fair enough.
So there are a lot oflimitations to these, and we've
talked a bit about the lawthat's there at the moment and
about some of the issues in theknow.
So if let's set aside for onesecond the people who do manage
(21:13):
to secure legal aid and thepeople who drop down the gaps
because there isn't any money topay for a lawyer but they don't
fit into the legal aid, whichis horrendous Well, what about
those people who there is money,yeah, within the family, but
they don't have access to payfor a lawyer themselves today?
(21:36):
But the likelihood is, as longas they don't spend all of the
money on legal fees through thedivorce process, there should be
something coming to them at theend.
Is there anything?
Anything that can be done forthose people?
Olivia Piercy (21:53):
they can try and borrow money.
Um, if you've got, if you, ifyou've got a financial remedy
case, um, before you're evenallowed to apply for an lspo,
that's an order that the otherparty pays your legal fees.
And it's not the other partypaying your legal fees, it's
from marital assets.
It's the one person has controlof the marital assets and
they're not sharing them.
Um, but, um, you've got tofirst apply for a litigation
(22:19):
loan.
So that's, that's the first.
You know.
The first thing you do is inthe situation is you write to
the other side and say can yougive us some money from legal
fees?
There's plenty of money there,you've, you've got big income.
They say no, no, I can't affordit, I can only pay for my own
legal fees.
Okay, fine, then you've got toapply for litigation loans and
the law actually says that.
It says you can't even ask foran order for the other person to
pay the legal fees unlessyou've applied for, and been
(22:41):
rejected for, litigation loans.
Litigation loans are set up byloan companies, specific loan
companies.
They're very high interestloans.
Um, from a solicitor's point ofview it's great because you
know cost of cut, you managed toget one cost of covered and
then what happens is, at the end, the court, you know you have a
(23:02):
deal where you say the.
You know you put in the courtorder that first the loan gets
paid off, um, and theneverything else gets split.
So, um, our fees get paid bythe loan company and then, um,
the loan gets paid off and theneverything else gets split, so
our fees get paid by the loancompany and then the loan
company gets paid back withinterest from the court order at
the end.
So there's that option.
But then, obviously, in a casewhere everybody's paying their
own legal fees, somebody's hadto take on these really high
(23:24):
interest litigation loans andthe other party is just using
the available resources.
So it's not fair.
If you don't get litigationloans, people go to commercial
loan lenders and if they don'tget those, they can make an
application for an LSPO or aLASPO to the family court.
But you've got to persuade asolicitor to basically run the
case on credit.
(23:44):
So you run up, you know, 20, 30grand of debt in the hope that
the court will order that theother side reimburses you for
your fees and pays for legalfees going forward.
Obviously, all the while theother parties, you know, hidden
the money to press their incomeand says they can't afford it.
So it's always such a gamble.
It's quite hard to persuade usto do them.
(24:05):
I'm constantly being persuadedto do them, with very success.
Uh, you know, because I can'tsay no.
Um, you know, because it's sounfair.
You just say he you know it'snot always he, but you know they
, they've got money, they'veinstructed their own very
expensive lawyers.
They're spending huge amountsof money just preventing this
(24:27):
person from having a bit ofadvice and representation.
Um, so yeah, they are difficult.
So that's that's, that's theway you get it.
Um, you know people borrow fromfriends and family.
Um, some people you know, ifyou've got a house in your name
and it's in this country andyou're in this country, um, and
there's not equity in it, youshould be able to get a
(24:48):
litigation loan.
That's, you know, that's theoption available for a lot of
people.
But they make these.
Also, when they make theseorders, the lspos, they do
what's called pound for pound,last votes a lot of the time.
So they'll say, okay, whatever,you know, the husband spends on
legal fees, the wife can spend.
These seem perfectly fair tojudges because they haven't
(25:11):
thought about it.
If you represent somebody in adomestic abuse situation,
economic abuse situation, ittakes so much more work.
It costs so much more to chaseand try to find out what the
bloody hell is going on, likewhat, to find out what the
assets are, than it does tosimply ignore my letters.
It's very cheap to ignore myletters.
It costs a lot of money towrite them, um, so, and also
(25:35):
you're supporting someone who'sintensely vulnerable, um, and
stressed, and you know, um, andthat takes a lot of time.
So it's not an equal amount ofwork done on each side.
So the pound for pound approachis also unfair and there's just
lots and lots of problems withthe current system which I'm
trying to change, which bringsus on to you trying to change
(25:55):
them.
Tamsin Caine (25:57):
So talk us through the project going on at the
moment.
The project OK, I'm at thatpoint going to hand over to you
and tell us about what you'redoing and tell us about some of
the changes that you'd like tosee.
Olivia Piercy (26:12):
Okay.
So this is a project byResolution.
Resolution is the body thatrepresents 6,500 family lawyers
(26:35):
6,500 family lawyers and we setup a working party for
resolution looking at economicabuse because we're starting to
sort of identify that all ofthese different behaviours that
happen during divorces likepeople not paying maintenance,
people not paying legal fees,refusing to provide financial
disclosure, breaching orders,delaying all of this stuff
(26:57):
started to realise that that isactually all part of one thing.
It's domestic abuse, it'seconomic abuse, but the law was
not addressing that.
It addresses it in childrencases.
We have a very advancedunderstanding of coercive and
controlling behaviour in privatelaw children cases, but the
financial remedy cases it's justvery much behind in its
(27:21):
understanding and application ofthe law and domestic abuse.
So we set up this working partyto look at it.
We started by um uh, doing a bigpiece of research.
So we surveyed all of thefamily lawyers, um, really in
the country and lots of otherprofessionals as well.
It's a multi-disciplinaryworking party, so it had um ifas
(27:44):
, um, it had domestic abusecharities, um academics and
family lawyers um, and wesurveyed everyone just basically
to say do you think that thelaw, um the family courts are
effective at dealing withdomestic abuse and financial
remedy cases, and over 80 peoplecame back and said no, uh, we
don't, and then ask some morespecific questions about, um,
(28:07):
the things that I've beentalking about today, and the
results were really compelling.
So, on the basis of that, wefelt that we had a mandate to
sort of come up with proposalsfor how the system could be
improved and changed, and someof that will be in case law.
Some of that would be statutoryamendment and some of it's just
(28:27):
best best practice, just doingthings better.
Um, so, um, we got together um ahuge group of um really
passionate and dedicated umfamily law professionals who
debated um all sorts ofdifferent proposals that we come
up with to really work out whatwould work and what wouldn't.
And um, uh, we're currentlywriting a big report which sets
(28:51):
out our research um and also theproposals for change um and
that's going to be uh publishedon the 8th of october, um, which
I believe is before.
This podcast um is beingproduced yeah, absolutely,
absolutely.
Tamsin Caine (29:09):
We will make sure we put a link to the report in
the show.
Don't say you will be able tohave a look at it, um, although
actually is it going to be inplain english?
Olivia Piercy (29:20):
no, it's not going to be in plain english,
but there's an executive summary, um, which will be in plain
english, um, which I expect isthe part that most people will
read, or blogs about theexecutive summary.
But, yeah, there'll be asummary at the beginning.
There's about 40 pages.
That perhaps only I understand,but there'll be, hopefully a
(29:41):
pithy, accessible executivesummary which will explain the
findings of our research and thekey recommendations for change.
And I don't know what willhappen next.
I know that the Law Commissionis doing a big project on
financial remedies in generaland that they have taken an
interest in our work and we hopevery much that our
(30:01):
recommendations will feed intotheirs.
And there's a lot more interestin general about economic abuse
and domestic abuse,post-separation and through the
family court process at themoment, so I really hope that
this will form a part of theconversation.
Tamsin Caine (30:20):
Yeah, fingers crossed.
So is your hope that I might beputting words into your mouth,
and I'm sure you won't.
Let me do that, um, but is yourhope that the, that the law
changes and that there's a,there's a fairer outcome for
victim survivors of domesticabuse during the divorce process
(30:43):
, so that they're not on theback foot all the time?
And and is that?
Is that in terms of the processitself, the ability for the
ongoing abuse through kind oflegal fees, particularly in the,
and the access to, to funds topay for legal fees?
Or is there another factor thatI've not thought about?
Olivia Piercy (31:07):
I mean, that's basically spot on, exactly, um,
my Exactly.
My hope is that we'll have amore progressive application of
domestic abuse within financialremedy cases.
I think what's happened is thegovernment, successive
governments, have strippedresources from the courts so
(31:28):
that the family courts are ontheir knees.
They cannot process cases fastenough, and the delay in the
justice system is causing andexacerbating harm, and so it's
completely understandable thatjudges and other concerned
individuals are saying we do nothave the capacity to start to
(31:50):
consider domestic abuse in thesecases because it's going to
slow things down and make a sortof broken system even more
broken.
That's a really compellingargument.
It's an intellectually dishonestargument.
You can't um and and.
And the fact that domesticabuse is so prevalent does not
mean that it's not serious andthat we should ignore it.
Um, we can't say we're justgoing to completely ignore.
The fact that domestic abuse isso prevalent does not mean that
(32:11):
it's not serious and that weshould ignore it.
Um, we can't say we're justgoing to completely ignore the
fact that this is leading tounfair outcomes and unsafe
outcomes for the most vulnerablepeople in our court system.
Um, sorry, the light's gone off, but the most vulnerable people
in our court system, um uh, youknow, in order to save
resources, you've got to get thelaw right and then the
(32:32):
resources have to meet the need.
Rather, than the lack ofresources, dictating uh the law.
Tamsin Caine (32:40):
I understand that this won't be enough, but there
is a move to try and get peoplewho it's appropriate for out of
the court system and usingalternative dispute resolution
methods.
Do you think that's gone farenough?
(33:02):
Do you think that's going tohelp at all, or is it just too
broken for that to have anymeaning at all?
Olivia Piercy (33:09):
No, I really support that.
Um, I think that there are lotsof people using the court
system who shouldn't be using it.
Um, and it's infuriating that Ihave to wait, you know, a year
for a fact finding um to so thecourt can establish, you know,
which of the two parents isabusing the children.
Because they're making crossallegations, which is what
(33:30):
happens in every domestic abusecase.
Um, you know, meanwhile, peopleare clogging up the system,
having stupid arguments.
Um, but they could, they shouldjust sort out um through
another, through another, youknow another channel.
So it it is, um, yeah, I thinkyou know people need help upon
separation and the court is not,is not, the right place to
resolve all of these issues.
(33:50):
So it's brilliant that otherchannels are, you know, are
being developed to help peopleand support people to resolve
their issues.
But cases involving domesticabuse, you know that is what the
court should be dealing withthese are all.
Domestic abuse is serious and somuch of it is dismissed.
(34:13):
People don't, you know, don'twant to accept that.
They want to say, well, that'snot very serious domestic abuse.
I think you can.
Just, you know, all domesticabuse is serious and if people
don't feel safe, uh, mediating,um, or you know doing something
you know and they need, and theyneed court orders and they need
to be in that system, they areentitled to that protection.
So I think my concern obviouslyis that if you start to say,
(34:36):
well, this is a case worthy forcourt and this isn't who's doing
that screening.
Tamsin Caine (34:42):
And with what?
Olivia Piercy (34:42):
And with what resources and with what skill
set.
I think if somebody saysthey're experiencing domestic
abuse and therefore their issuesneed to be resolved in court,
they need to be given thebenefit of the doubt because
it's too risky to say no.
No, you're probably making itup or it doesn't sound that
serious.
It's not that, you know, feelsa bit scary, doesn't it?
Tamsin Caine (35:03):
That's a little bit scary.
Yeah, is it in general the casethat if there is domestic abuse
in the relationship, that courtis really the only place that
can resolve the divorce, or arethere ever cases where you could
use a hybrid mediationlawyer-supported mediation or
(35:29):
private F, private FDR orarbitration or something like
that?
Olivia Piercy (35:32):
yeah, absolutely.
I actually think arbitration isfine.
I mean, arbitration is a is youknow, it has teeth like a court
system.
It's faster, which is what youneed.
Um, a lot of the time, aperpetrator, domestically,
doesn't want to arbitrate.
They'd rather have the very,very slow and effective court
system, and a lot of the time,it's the victim survivor who
wants to arbitrate.
Um, and I also think you know,yeah, of course, of course,
(35:55):
mediation can work.
Private fdrs, hybrid mediationroundtables, you know all of
this collaborative law, um,these things can work.
And because you know domesticabuse is it's different in
different relationships and thedynamics are different.
What people want.
I just think it's about givingpeople choice and making people
feel empowered and not makingthem feel there's so much
(36:15):
gaslighting.
Already, you know domesticabuse victims, survivors they're
always made to feel thatthey're the abuser, that they're
the liar, that they've got amental health issue, that
everybody's going to find out,they're crazy, that they're
greedy, that you know, and sothey're going into this with
such low confidence.
And then, if they're told like,oh, you know, be reasonable and
mediate, it's just um, that'swhat I'm worried about.
(36:36):
But of course, if somebody'slike do you know what and you
know, the court system is justnot a good place to be right now
, um, for for most people.
So if somebody wants to mediate,yeah, of course they should
give it a go.
I would just say to them don'tfeel pressured into it, let's
think about how to make thissafe.
Let's also put in put in placelike time limits, like if
somebody wants to mediate andsay, okay, well, why don't we
(36:58):
mediate if you've got, like,proper financial disclosure,
rather than going into this youknow conversation blind when
somebody's got all theinformation, someone doesn't,
and then say to the other partyokay, well, you've got a month
to give us full and frankfinancial disclosure.
Because that's a way of tellinglike, are they serious?
You don't want to mediate withsomeone who's just doing it to
waste your time and put pressureon you.
So there's just I think it'sjust being like really
(37:21):
thoughtful about how youestablish whether this is likely
to be a safe and effectiveprocess.
But absolutely, I mean, youknow you can sort out your
finances over the kitchen tableand there's nothing wrong with
that, and it's not for me totell anybody that they should be
going to court.
It's just.
It's just about making peoplefeel empowered and informed and
(37:45):
giving them a choice.
Tamsin Caine (37:47):
Yeah, and not accepting an offer because they
feel that they should andthey're being told that they're
not going to get any more by aperpetrator.
I think is the other thing thatworries me about mediating
settings if there's no legaladvice in the background, if the
(38:07):
victim survivor is not havinglegal advice in the background,
you know, if the victim survivoris not having legal advice, but
then they're being pushed intomaking a decision quickly
without full disclosure, andthat sort of thing is my fear
about those situations.
Olivia Piercy (38:23):
And there's so much fear involved.
You know you'll talk to someone, they'll want to meet it and
then they'll say, oh, but youknow I couldn't ask for his
pension.
He's always said he'll go mad.
I mean, you know it'll be likehitting the nuclear button you
just think that is not.
That is not a safe environmentor dynamic to mediate in, if you
think that asking for yourshare of the pension assets is
hitting a nuclear button andthat you've been told that for
(38:43):
years.
So it's just being aware thatthis is the situation that
people are in and and makingsure that mediators are aware.
You know, when my clients dowant to mediate and they often
do I often say well, let's havean agreement with the you know
lawyer on the other side that wecan both have a chat with the
mediator before, so that I getto have a chat with the mediator
and just say look, this is whatyou need to look out for, um,
(39:03):
because I want them to be aliveto the dynamics, because they
don't understand what's happenedbehind.
You know what's happenedbeforehand.
A lot of people who are in thedomestic abuse dynamic they're
so used to not showing that whenthey're in front of a
(39:24):
professional when they're infront of a professional yeah,
absolutely, and aren'tnecessarily, don't have the
confidence to voice theirposition.
Tamsin Caine (39:32):
In the setting where the other person is coming
across as very confident andsaying well, this is how it is,
that can be massively difficult.
Olivia, we're coming to the endof our time together.
It always goes so quickly, Iknow.
I know so.
So much to discuss on thistopic.
(39:54):
Is there anything that you wantto say to um round up or
anything that you think that itwould be useful for people to
hear?
Olivia Piercy (40:03):
um, I um probably won't surprise you, but I think
people should get legal advice,and I think they should get it
really early on.
I think they should get itreally early on.
You don't need to tell theother party you're getting it.
It's not an aggressive act.
You are entitled to thatinformation.
You're entitled to make a plan.
Nothing's going to happen as aresult of you getting legal
(40:24):
advice.
It's totally confidential.
But as soon as you have thatadvice advice you can start to
think about your options, youstart to become more empowered
and you start to break away fromthe narratives that somebody
else has been feeding you.
Um, so that's what I was that's.
You know it's about getting it.
You know, getting gettingyourself some legal advice as
(40:44):
quickly as possible.
And you know, I'm sure thatTamsin, would you know you would
say the same.
Um, you know, just having that,having that advice early on, is
what equips you and helps youto make a plan.
So much of this is strategic.
Um, it shouldn't be, but it is,and a lot of the time
somebody's been strategizing,you know, long before you even
know your relationship's over.
Um.
Tamsin Caine (41:04):
So yeah, I'd say, just get equipped with advice at
the as early as possible is mytip absolutely, and you've not
said this, but I am going to,because you might think well, I
can't really say this, but ifyou are going to get legal
advice, as olivia said, and takeher recommendation, check that
they have experience of dealingwith people who are in domestic
(41:28):
abuse situations, because thereare amazing lawyers out there
who have the experience and knowhow to work in these cases and
know what the perpetrator mightbe likely to do, and there are
people that have not got thatsame experience.
And if you have beenexperiencing that, you really
want to be's.
Who's worked these cases?
(41:49):
Who does them every day, likelike olivia?
Um, here's details will be inthe show notes if you want to
contact it okay, um, but no, Iactually think, um, it's a bit
more.
Olivia Piercy (42:02):
Every family lawyer will say that they deal
with domestic abuse, and everyfamily lawyer does deal with
domestic abuse.
Um, the law tells us that thedomestic abuse isn't relevant,
and so it's about findingsomebody who does think it's
relevant, even in circumstanceswhen the law is saying it isn't
so, rather than having someonewho shuts you down and says not
relevant or relevant, someonewho gets it.
(42:23):
Somebody thinks it's importantbecause, even though we can't
change the law with your case ormaybe we can, but generally
it's um it's.
It's about protecting you withinthat process, um, and
understanding why the domesticabuse is important, even if the
judge doesn't think it is.
Tamsin Caine (42:41):
Yeah, yeah absolutely, actually just a very
quick.
I know keep saying, sayingwe're going, and then other
things come up.
How would you find somebodyother than like emailing you,
which is probably going to be alot of people's first protocol?
How would you check whethersomebody believes that that's
(43:01):
important?
How would you go looking for asuitable lawyer who had got that
experience?
Olivia Piercy (43:08):
So Resolution does an accreditation, um, so
they could give you anyone who'sgot the resolution
accreditation is somebody who'sreally taken some time out um,
uh to um to get thataccreditation, also has done
enough cases um to to to beawarded it um.
(43:29):
But I mean, to be honest, theonly way that other than that,
other than someone who's got youknow very clearly, got kind of
specific expertise in theirprofile, um, or who comes to a
personal recommendation, theonly way that you can tell
whether somebody gets it, as ifyou know they get it when
they're talking to you, um.
So I do think you know I alwayssay when I speak to um potential
(43:51):
new clients, I always just sayyou know, I hope you're calling
around, speak to a few differentpeople and just see who you
click with, because that's soimportant for someone who gets
it, gets you, makes you feelsupported, makes you feel
listened to, um and um.
There isn't, you know, thereisn't a qualification for that,
there's no list, there's nospecial list out there other
(44:13):
than the resolutionaccreditation.
So yeah, I think I think youhave to call around and speak to
different people and don't beafraid to do that until you find
somebody.
You know if you've got somebodywho's who's who's um
undermining uh and making youfeel that you know, know, it
should be somebody who's drawingtheir stuff out and making you
feel it is important and wantsto hear about it, not somebody
(44:34):
who's sort of brushing over itand um, uh and um minimizing it.
Tamsin Caine (44:40):
Yeah absolutely great advice.
Wonderful, olivia, thank you somuch for joining me.
I think that's been a hugelyuseful session and and I hope
those of you listening willdownload the report and at least
read the executive summary, ifnot wading through the 45 pages.
Um, thank you for listening andplease do join us next time and
(45:02):
if you have found this episodeuseful, please do give us a
five-star review so that we canget the episodes out to even
more people and hopefully helpmore people as well.
Thank you, hi, and I hope youenjoyed that episode of the
smart divorce podcast.
(45:23):
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
would be fantastic.
I know that lots of ourlisteners are finding this is
(45:45):
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 called Separation, divorceand Dissolution UK.
Please do go on to Facebook,search up the group and we'd be
(46:07):
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!