THE DIVORCE INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX
|THE LUNATICS ARE RUNNING THE ASYLUM
|Why men are now going their own way MGTOW VIDEO
|The men-only divorce club: Think you should always get the kids and the house when your marriage crumbles?
FULL ARTICLE HERE
We do not recommend any man puts their trust in a divorce lawyer no matter how much they claim to
fight your corner. They ALL must answer to the global law society whose main objective is to strip
men and the family dry using ex-wives allegations to take control of mens wealth, homes and children.
As a divorce lawyer with 18 years’ experience, Barbara Johnson-Stern has seen her fair share of heartbreak and agony, stepping in to comfort distraught clients bullied by their partners.
But in her case these clients are men, not women. Barbara heads up the UK’s first law firm for men only and says not only do we severely underestimate the trauma suffered by men in divorce, but that settlements are too often biased in favour of women.
It’s a burgeoning industry: Barbara’s firm Cordell & Cordell has had four solicitors at its base near Chancery Lane, London, since opening in 2015, but is planning to recruit more and to expand into Cardiff, Birmingham and Manchester.
The company has more than 100 offices in the U.S., where it began 26 years ago promising American husbands: ‘We’re going to help you keep the dollars you earned.’
‘Women are often seen as the biggest losers in divorce, but that’s an outdated view — it’s almost the opposite now,’ says Barbara, 49, a softly-spoken but tenacious lawyer from Colorado, whose husband Dan is British.
She feels there’s so much support for women getting a divorce — from retreats to online clubs — that now it’s men’s turn to get specialist help. ‘Men come to us and say: “She’s told me I’m going to lose everything and I’ll never see my children again.” They feel their wives hold all the cards.’
She knows her views won’t be popular with many, but she feels women — and it’s women who instigate 65 per cent of divorces — often have a sense of entitlement. There’s an unspoken rule she’ll keep the family house, the children and also the standard of living she enjoyed when they were married.
‘They want their life to stay the same — they just don’t want their husband in it.’
Too often, she says, men are paying long-term spousal maintenance to their ex-wives even after the children have grown up, which is unfair to men and outdated.
‘Women should be expecting to work,’ she argues. ‘Someone like my grandmother did what was expected of her — she got married, had babies (eight of them) and raised the family. She wouldn’t have been able to move into the workplace after a divorce; she had a very basic education and no opportunities.
‘But it’s different now. Women come to the marriage table able to make decisions about their future and having the skills to keep them competitive in the workplace.’
Barbara agrees with Baroness Deech, who has tabled a Bill in the House of Lords to limit maintenance payments for ex-partners to three years after a divorce.
It passed its second reading in February and is in the committee stage. Baroness Deech argues that British judges are being old-fashioned and over-chivalrous in awarding women payments for 15 or 20 years when they are perfectly capable of earning their own money.
‘People wonder why, 15 years after a marriage has ended, one person has to keep paying money to another,’ she said, arguing that these kinds of settlements undermined women’s equality rather than did them a favour.
Her Bill follows intense debate over a string of high-profile cases in recent years where ex-wives were awarded what appeared to be eyebrow-raising settlements.
Earlier this year, surveyor Graham Mills was forced to increase the monthly payments he makes to his ex-wife Maria, despite the fact they divorced 15 years ago and she got a lump sum of £230,000 plus £1,100 a month maintenance.
He’d wanted to cut the payments as their son was 23 and he felt his ex-wife should be independent. ‘I feel like I’m paying for her mismanagement of her finances.
‘I don’t think it’s a good message to send to men or women,’ he said after the case.
But his ex-wife argued she’d run up debts over the years as a single mother with a history of bad health, which had prevented her from working at times.
Other cases have seen women awarded huge sums, adding to London’s reputation as the wives’ divorce capital of the world. In 2014, financier Sir Chris Hohn had to pay his ex-wife £337 million in what is thought to be Britain’s biggest divorce settlement. They had four children and were married for 17 years.
In what has become a classic case from 2006, Alan Miller was ordered to give his wife Melissa £5 million after a childless marriage lasting under three years.
And last June, millionaire entrepreneur Dale Vince had to give his ex-wife a lump sum of £300,000 even though he started his business a decade after they split up in 1992, when both were penniless peace protesters.
Barbara says it’s incredibly difficult to get women primary earners to pay their lower-earning husbands maintenance. ‘There’s hostility and resistance — they feel it’s not fair.’
She feels that for most ex-partners, three to five years of maintenance is enough while they get back into the workplace. This is separate from child maintenance, which she stresses should always be paid, because children’s interests take priority.
But doesn’t that mean the woman’s standard of living may drop if she’s taken time out from work to look after children and finds her earning power reduced, post-divorce?
Perhaps, admits Barbara, but adds: ‘A lot of women stay at home [to look after children] because they want to. They knowingly make decisions that will impact on their future, and they have to be responsible for those decisions.
‘I don’t think it’s fair that the woman expects to be looked after. I think that we should all — men and women — expect to take care of ourselves.’
And while our mothers’ generation may have reasonably expected to keep the family home after divorce, that’s simply not possible for most people now house prices are so high.
‘If you are going to stay in it you have to be able to share it — and that means refinancing to give equity to the other partner so they can have a comparable house with bedrooms for the kids to stay in.’
She says there’s an unspoken expectation the man will leave the family home, no matter who has instigated the divorce. ‘Women tend to say, right, we’re divorcing so will you please leave — and the man packs his suitcase, a bit like leaving a hotel room. That’s unfair.’
Telecoms engineer Martin Newton, 44, faced this situation when his wife Eve asked for a divorce after 13 years together. He’d paid a £200,000 deposit on their £320,000 house in Surrey using all his life savings, and had viewed it as their pension.
But when Eve announced she wanted a divorce, she demanded she keep the house for herself and their two sons aged ten and eight, plus maintenance, so she didn’t have to work for the first year or two after the divorce.
Martin agreed, and had to move in with his elderly mother while the divorce went through.
‘I felt she was the one with all the power because I didn’t want my children to suffer, so I basically traded everything for that.
‘I lost my life savings and pension pot — friends said I was mad, but I knew I would have the moral high ground, and Eve couldn’t use anything to turn the kids against me or stop me seeing them.
‘I thought in divorce things got divided 50:50, but solicitor friends told me it was more like 70:30 to the woman, usually. How is that fair?’
Martin suffered depression after his divorce in 2015, which is very common, says Barbara. We can underestimate the trauma men feel during divorce, she adds, partly because men don’t tend to share their feelings.
She’s had clients come to meetings with spreadsheets of the family finances — which can make the woman think he isn’t that upset. ‘Many men find comfort in numbers versus the emotional side. They never tell me if they’re scared or overwhelmed. But it doesn’t mean they’re not feeling these things.’
In almost every one of her firm’s cases, it’s the woman asking for the divorce. She suspects many have been planning a split for two or three years and the man’s often unaware. That’s certainly the position Clive Harrington, 48, from Sussex, found himself in. His wife Claire had an affair six years ago and the couple moved home four years ago to make a fresh start. But she told him last autumn she wanted a divorce, and wanted him out of the house.
‘She was so calm, she’d obviously been planning it for months,’ he says. ‘She’d even earmarked one-bed flats I could rent, and worked out which days I could take our youngest son to school that would fit in with her part-time job.
‘She was sitting at the kitchen table telling me all this, but I could hardly hear her.
‘I was completely pole-axed by what she was saying because as far as I was concerned things were ok — not great, but ok — between us. I’ve refused to move out for now, but living apart under the same roof creates a toxic atmosphere, especially for the children.’
He adds: ‘But I know if I move out I won’t see the kids so often and family life would essentially be over for me.’
It’s getting better for men, particularly if your children are older. But when they are very young it can be harder for the man. Even if the couple work full time and their baby is in a nursery and taking a bottle, the mother will still often get preference. I think that’s unfair.
Barbara says men should never move out of the family home until it’s been decided how and when they’ll see their children.
‘It’s getting better for men, particularly if your children are older. But when they are very young it can be harder for the man. Even if the couple work full time and their baby is in a nursery and taking a bottle, the mother will still often get preference. I think that’s unfair.’
She is aware her firm raises eyebrows in the legal profession: she’s heard people say they’re anti-women, and that it pits the sexes against each other.
‘We are not anti-women,’ she says. ‘You can want men to have the best settlement possible without thinking you want women to walk away with nothing.’
The average divorced woman has one third of the pension a divorced man has, and research shows a divorced man’s income increases by 11 per cent, while a woman’s falls by 17 per cent.
‘Men-only firms are a terrible idea,’ says Liz Cowell, principal family lawyer at Slater And Gordon, who also sits as a district judge. She worries such firms take a needlessly confrontational approach.
Barbara disagrees: ‘When I joined the firm I worried I’d be representing men who wanted to bring their wives down.
‘But you really don’t see that — they just want a fair settlement. We want men to understand they have a voice and they have rights.’
Some of the names have been changed.
|Lawyers use same persecution tactics against divorcing men
| Why marriage has become a hostile environment for men VIDEO
|A fight for equality? No, it's a plot to wipe out marriage
The campaign to get rid of marriage has not gone away. Civil partnerships for heterosexuals were not thrown out by the Appeal Court last week, only put off till later. They will come.
FULL ARTICLE HERE
In fact, after 20 years of New Labour government (some of it nominally Tory) we can now look back and survey the smoking ruins of marriage. It’s not that the New Labour radicals and their Tory imitators wrecked marriage on their own. It’s just that they have more or less finished it off.
The very words ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ have been erased from official forms and even from normal conversation. We all have partners now, whether we want to or not.
Divorce figures have fallen only because so many couples don’t get married in the first place. The marriage statistics show that more and more people simply aren’t bothering to make any sort of legal commitment at all before setting up home and starting a family.
As Lady Justice Hale, now tipped to be boss of the Supreme Court, said in 1982: ‘Family law now makes no attempt to buttress the stability of marriage or any other union,’ adding ‘the piecemeal erosion of the distinction between marriage and non-marital cohabitation may be expected to continue.’ And how.
Marriage has a strange, unique status in the courts. If you break a contract with your building society or a car leasing company, the law will come down against you.
If you break the marriage contract, the law will take your side and will eventually throw the other party out of the marital home if she or he insists on sticking to the original deal. Odd, eh? It’s amazing how many men, the usual victims of this strange arrangement, still get married at all.
I’d guess that marriage figures are artificially swollen each year by an unknown but large number of fake weddings, aimed at getting round immigration laws. Who can say? By their nature, such things aren’t always easy to detect.
|Where you are most likely to see men suffering from PTSD
When the media publish articles on Post Traumatic Stress Disorder they usually associate them with soldiers,
people living in war zones, major accidents and various extreme events that lead to traumatization of the victims of such events.
FULL ARTICLE HERE
However we can say with absolute certainty there are more men suffering from PTSD globally who have had PTSD DELIBERATELY
triggered by the freemason madmen embedded in the judicial, legal and police mafia's and who are intent on destroying men's lives for profit who rely on
stolen children to feed a network of satanic blackmail techniques that keeps their dimwitted goons in line.
Some of the symptoms PTSD triggers in victims are
Being easily startled
Feeling tense or “on edge”
Having difficulty sleeping
Having angry outbursts
Some factors that increase risk for PTSD include:
Living through dangerous events and traumas
Seeing another person hurt, or seeing a dead body
Feeling horror, helplessness, or extreme fear
Having little or no social support after the event
Dealing with extra stress after the event, such as loss of a loved one, pain and injury, or loss of a job or home
Having a history of mental illness or substance abuse
Not only are men facing the divorce industrial complex suffering serious PTSD symptoms but their children, seeing their father belittled and ripped from their lives, will have lifelong PTSD symptoms and may be part of the master plan to make it easier for those wishing to control to make them jump when demanded to by the state destroyers and with a fathers biological protection with little influence.
Never mind the appalling financial mess men are being left in but PTSD is driving men to their own suicidal thoughts by an evil satanic cult that uses psychological techniques to better their own wallets through leaving men unable to function. Their lives are driven out of control by the maniacs and psychopaths determined, despite growing evidence, to continue to take advantage of the failures of any oversight that ensures the few controlling the many are getting away with murder.
There are women who may also suffer and have likely been formerly married to a freemason and will endure the same harrowing experiences
as men when faced with judges who are hand picked freemasons there to protect their lodge buddies financial position. BUT NOT IF WE CAN HELP IT!!!!!!!!!!!
|Britain's judeo masonic judicial mafia use flawed sexist WOMENS AID stats to block fathers from their children
More children are murdered by disturbed mothers than fathers but these massive changes take no account
Men are getting used to the feminist / homo leaning Guardian's attacks on heterosexual men using feminist
warped stats and backing up the judeo masonic mafia that has taken over decisions that juries should be
deciding on. They are producing propaganda for a government and legal mafia destroying families.
FULL ARTICLE HERE
LATEST: Rachel Tunstill, 26, is charged with the murder of her newborn baby girl after her body was found inside a kitchen bin
Chilling handwritten confession of mother who killed two of her children as she is jailed for life for murdering baby son
(She would still get SYMPATHY from womens aid and Britain's vile judicial mafia during divorce)
Toddler 'murdered by mum and lesbian lover "could" have been killed by single stamp on child'
(These are the types of witch bitches Womens Aid fall over themselves to help yet NEVER raise issues
about them in their man hating rants)
Mother set fire to own home with son, 3, inside - and then blamed her ex-husband
Mother jailed for life for murdering toddler daughter Ayeeshia Smith
(If fathers stepped in to stop murdering mothers they would be charged with domestic violence)
'They signed her death warrant... they failed her completely': Father of toddler murdered by her mother claims social services ignored his calls about her welfare after daughter was returned to the drug addict
(and womens aid would STILL back here)
Mother, 29, is charged with the murder of her baby girl who died 'just minutes' after being born
(Makes a nonsense of feminist womens aid entitlement rants)
Mother charged with newborn baby's murder
Mother who murdered Ayeeshia Jane Smith 'offered to SELL the tragic tot to a friend in return for drug money'
Two 15-year-old girls "battered and tortured" a woman to death found guilty of murder
(As ever the lunatic lesbian mafia who run Womens Aid were NOT available for comment and wont be marching through the streets critical of
women murderers while they concoct HATE crimes against heterosexual men)
Woman 'killed her 4-year-old stepson by holding his legs in scalding hot water to punish him for not liking baths'
Mother accused of stamping her infant daughter to death continued to claim child benefits for her for six months after her death
Female teacher's chilling apology before she tried to kill her 15 week old baby boy by hurling him head-first into the ground after accusing her partner of having an affair
(Another stat Womens Aid would rather ignore)
Mother already in jail for smothering toddler daughter admits killing baby son
(One more stat that the lunatic feminazi running Womens Aid always fail to mention when they attack
UK judges change court rules on child contact for violent fathers
Reforms aim to end presumption that a father must have contact with a child when there is evidence of domestic abuse
Senior judges are taking steps to end the presumption that a father must have contact with a child where there is evidence of domestic abuse that would put the child or mother at risk.
The reforms are to be introduced in the family courts after campaigning by the charity Women’s Aid, which identified that 19 children have been killed in the last 10 years by their violent fathers after being given contact with them by judges.
The changes include a demand from one of the most senior family court judges for all the judiciary to have further training on domestic violence and to act to ensure women and children are protected.
Mr Justice Cobb announced the changes on Friday after talks with Women’s Aid, and following concerns raised in a Guardian investigation.
Cobb said: “It is indeed most disturbing to note that for at least 12 children [in seven families], of the 19 children killed … contact with the perpetrator [the father] was arranged through the family courts.
“For six families, this contact was arranged in family court hearings [two of these were interim orders], and for one family, contact was decided as part of the arrangements for a non-molestation order and occupational order.”
Since its report on the child murders last year, Women’s Aid has identified another case in which a child was murdered by a father after being given contact via the family court. The charity is presenting their updated report to the prime minister in Downing Street on Monday.
Cobb also called for an end to the cross-examination of domestic violence victims by alleged perpetrators in court hearings, a practice banned in the criminal court. He said there needed to be “decisive action to cure this deeply unsatisfactory situation”.
Cobb’s reforms were endorsed on Friday by the President of the family division, Sir James Munby, who praised both Women’s Aid and the “hard hitting articles in the Guardian” for highlighting the issues.
The changes are contained in amendments to judicial guidance known as practice direction 12J. A key change announced by Cobb was that the presumption in the family court that there should be “contact at all costs” with both parents would be scrapped. He said it should be excluded in domestic violence cases where involvement of a parent in a child’s life would place the child or other parent at risk of harm.
He also said judges needed to be more alert to perpetrators of domestic violence using the courts as a way to continue their abuse. “Family court judges should be sure that they understand the new offence of coercion [controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship],” he said.
Cobb called for judges to be more alert to how violent men could use the access within the courts to assault their former partners, putting forward a proposal for courts to consider more carefully the waiting arrangements before a hearing, and arrangements for entering and exiting the court building.
Munby pointed out that austerity measures had impacted on courts’ ability to protect vulnerable witnesses. He said in his own court in the Royal Courts of Justice in London there was no safe waiting room and no video link.
“The problem, of course, is one of resources, and responsibility lies … ultimately with ministers. More, much more, needs to be done to bring the family courts up to an acceptable standard, indeed to match the facilities and ‘kit’ available in the crown court,” said Munby.
In his report on Friday, Cobb said it was essential that family court judges used the practice direction as it had been amended.
“By this report, I wish to highlight the concerns raised by Rights of Women, Women’s Aid … I hope that positive steps can now be taken to address in the family court the problem, long since addressed in the criminal court, of the alleged victims of domestic abuse being directly questioned by their unrepresented alleged abusers.”
Polly Neate, director of Women’s Aid, welcomed the changes. She said: “There should never be a presumption of contact where one parent is known to be a perpetrator of domestic abuse, as is made clear today.
“We urge the Family Procedure Rule Committee, and lord chancellor and secretary of state for justice, Liz Truss MP, to agree the new practice direction, with all of the changes set out by Mr Justice Cobb, without delay.”
The Ministry of Justice has indicated – following the articles in the Guardian and questions in parliament – that it is going to change the law to enforce a ban on direct cross-examination.
|Hyde Park Protest against British state's child thieves
There is a great plague going on across the globe that is NOT being reported by the lawyer controlled mass media. A plague destroying men's lives and families under the guise of a continual rant to try and justify the mass plunder in the biggest heist across the planet.
FULL ARTICLE HERE
Brad Pitt finding out what its like to deal with the divorce psycho syndrome
(Any man considering marriage should study how Brad and his children are being treated to appease a psycho
drunk on legal power)
'Domestic violence' is ranted like 'Weapons of Mass destruction' as the excuse to relieve a country of its oil wealth so DV helps the parasites to relieve ex-fathers of all their worldly possessions. The judeo masonic parasites have taken control of the courts, the cops, the councils and every other form of murderous thuggery used against decent fathers to virtually wipe out a whole species of men not part of their satanic cult.
Their rantings are becoming more extreme in their controlled rags as the internet has woken up so many from the masonic slumber instigated by a media that manufactures the FAKE news that allows this plague to continue unabated. But NOT if we can help it . NO distraction REPEAT NO distraction is going to stop us from continually focusing on the main threat across the globe to decent men and that is the divorce industrial complex intent on using whatever devious ploys they can to satisfy a greed and twisted lust for children stolen into care for a blackmail network that is only now being exposed in their media forced to accept their victims have alternative platforms to expose what has been covered up for so very long.
|Divorce is the biggest government tax grab EVER VIDEO
| Why Hundreds of Thousands Of Children Go Missing Every Year - Icke VIDEO
Where there is an allegation of domestic violence you can be sure that is the trigger for the child thieves
|Seven lawyers lost in UK's farcical child abuse inquiry VIDEO
The very bastards responsible for making children vulnerable
and open to abuse expected to sit in judgement
|Inside America's Billion Dollar Divorce Industry VIDEO
The legal mafia rake it in from their divorce victims misery
|Restraining orders used to feed the legal perverts
| Want to know what a living hell is like? get divorced
Even with all the money in the world Brad Pitt and Johnny Depp cannot ensure a dignified end to their relationships.
FULL ARTICLE HERE
Brad Pitt ‘Sickened’ By Angelina’s Hollywood Illuminati Rituals
What Happens When a Society Destroys the Institutions Which Are Designed to Protect Children?
Vile bitches have been allowed, thanks to the crooks running the legal system , to drag them through the smear campaigns that ultimately led them to lose not only large chunks of their wealth but to suffer the indignity of begging to see their children.
The legal mafia can use restraining orders to SHUT down a mans ability to protect his family, not only from women they use to care for who now throw the legal wolves at them, but that power men quickly find out restrains ALL their male traits that allows a corrupt system to take whatever they want from a man under the guise of law.
When men realise the enormity of what they are now biologically programmed to do is severely curtailed thanks to the biggest scum and filth on the planet they become vulnerable to suicide. It has been proven in psychological testing that the first three months after a man splits from his former wife not only is he emotionally disturbed but he is made to feel helpless by the psychological handcuffs that curtail his ability to protect his children from the rigors of a monster that suggests they can provide better protection while making millions in the process.
Only the continued exposure of the gangsters taking control of our children for the most devious and perverted reasons will men unite against the scum and filth like British jewish lawyer Greville Janner who, despite abusing young boys for decades, was allowed to create laws that leave men unable to provide the biological protection that removes vulnerable children into care homes for Janner and his ilk to access for their own devious lust for young boys. A sick and sinister satanic monster with vile judeo masonic perverts at its head.
Angelina Jolie Admits To Illuminati Sacrifice In Leaked Video
Brad Pitt ‘Sickened’ By Angelina’s Hollywood Illuminati Rituals
Sources close to Brad Pitt claim the star was “sickened” by the Hollywood Illuminati rituals that Angelina Jolie introduced him to.
It is also claimed that the leaked video, in which a 23-year-old Angelina Jolie admits to joining the Illuminati, participating in secret rituals, and making animal sacrifices, was released by Pitt as retaliation for Jolie “attempting to destroy his career.“
The stunning footage of Jolie revealing the true inner workings of Hollywood as she describes her experiences participating in secret Illuminati rituals to close friends, was leaked and uploaded to YouTube just four days after Jolie filed for divorce from Pitt.
The divorce has already become ugly, with smears and counter-smears, and now the claim that Pitt has publicly outed Jolie as a member of the secret society is threatening to further escalate tensions.
Although Jolie cites the standard “irreconcilable differences” on her divorce papers, she or her proxies have made it known that she’s seeking sole custody of their 6 kids on the grounds that Pitt is unfit – dependent on marijuana and alcohol, and prone to violent outbursts.
A recent incident, alleged to have taken place while the family were flying back to Los Angeles on a private plane, is cited in the tabloid press as the incident that pushed Jolie to file for divorce. Apparently drunk, Pitt allegedly became physically abusive of one of their children – said to be their oldest, 15-year-old Maddox – after he intervened in his adopted parents’ argument.
Sources close to Pitt told the New York Post‘s Page Six that although the Fight Club star shouted at Maddox, “he never raised a hand to the boy.” The sources also believe that Jolie is attempting to destroy Pitt’s career.
All of which makes the timing of the leak of the video in which Jolie admits to joining the Illuminati very interesting — suggestive of an attempt by Pitt to retaliate against Jolie.
The Illuminati was always going to be a bad fit for the Fight Club star, and unlike Jolie, who embraced the cult unreservedly, Pitt always maintained a safe distance.
However it widely believed that Pitt has Illuminati connections. In early September, the Moneyball star made the Illuminati 666 hand-sign while posing for a photo taken for a recent interview
And at the Toronto International Film Festival in 2011, Pitt was asked by reporters to talk about his lean years acting in low budget flops – before his breakthrough came in A River Runs Through It and he shot straight to the top of the Hollywood A-list.
As reported by Fred Topel for StarPulse on September 19, 2011, Pitt “joked” about making a pact with Satan. Pitt said:
“I grew up in a very Christian environment, a healthy environment, a loving family. But there were just parameters and things I didn’t understand. I always questioned it and it took me to my adult years or leaving home where I could really try on something different for myself. That was Satanism. It’s working out really well. I made a pact. That’s why the movie came out so well.”
|Get a job! Divorce courts curb meal ticket deals for ex-wives
We still don't believe this has been stopped
FULL ARTICLE HERE
Shift comes after landmark case ordered spouse to find work seven years after her split
Ex-wives who live off maintenance payments from their husbands are increasingly being ordered to get a job instead.
No longer can they live a life of leisure and rely on a monthly slice of their former spouse’s earnings, divorce
lawyers said yesterday.
Courts are far less willing to grant them the right to be supported for life – sounding the death knell of ‘meal ticket’ divorces.
Even if a mother in her fifties has not worked for decades, to raise a family, she will be expected to retrain and find work.
The shift follows a landmark case last year in which the ex-wife of a millionaire racehorse surgeon was told she should find work.
The Appeal Court backed Tracey Wright’s ex-husband Ian Wright after he complained it was unfair that he be expected to support her indefinitely, even after his retirement, while she made ‘no effort whatsoever to seek work’.
Now other courts are following suit, imposing time limits on maintenance orders rather than making them life-long.
Holly Tootill, a family lawyer with JMW Solicitors, which handles about 300 divorces a year, said the result of the Wright case had had a ‘marked impact’ on all such cases.
She said: ‘What we’re effectively seeing is the death of the so-called “meal ticket” which maintenance had long been regarded as.
‘Indefinite awards – or “joint-lives” orders – used to be something of a norm, a means of ensuring that the financially weaker spouse was provided for, especially until a couple’s children had grown up, when the arrangement might be revised.’
But she said since the ruling, in February last year, time-limited maintenance arrangements were becoming more common.
‘That is a perceptible shift. As a result, the current expectation in divorces heard across the country appears to be that wives should only receive support for such a period of time which, it is felt, allows them to retrain, if necessary, and find work rather than remain dependent on their ex-husband into the future.
‘I’m aware of numerous examples of women who have been forced to come to terms with the prospect of providing for themselves, including cases of women who had not worked for three decades in order to raise a family, being obliged to find a job in their fifties.’
‘Wives can, of course, challenge that view but few seem willing to do so.’
The case of Ian and Tracey Wright last year went all the way to the Court of Appeal after Mrs Wright challenged the ‘harsh words’ of a family court judge who said there was no good reason why she had done no work since her divorce.
When they divorced in 2008, the couple’s £1.3million seven-bedroom home, set in 16 acres of Suffolk countryside, was sold and the proceeds divided.
Mrs Wright, 52, was left with a £450,000 mortgage-free house near Newmarket, Suffolk, plus stabling for her horse and her daughters’ ponies. Her ex-husband, 60, was ordered to pay her £75,000 a year in maintenance and school fees, including £33,200 for her personal upkeep.
But Mr Wright, who runs an equine hospital in Newmarket, carrying out life-saving surgery on racehorses worth up to tens of millions of pounds, went to the High Court to seek a cut in his payments.
Judge Lynn Roberts agreed, saying Mrs Wright, a former legal secretary, should find a new job. ‘The world of work has innumerable possibilities … vast numbers of women with children just get on with it and Mrs Wright should have done as well,’ she ruled.
The case of Ian Wright last year went all the way to the Court of Appeal after his ex-wife Tracey challenged the ‘harsh words’ of a family court judge who said there was no good reason why she did not have a job
The case of Ian Wright last year went all the way to the Court of Appeal after his ex-wife Tracey challenged the ‘harsh words’ of a family court judge who said there was no good reason why she did not have a job
‘I do not think the children will suffer if Mrs Wright has to work … [it] may well provide them with a good role model. It is possible to find work that fits in with childcare … I reject her other reasons relating to responsibilities for animals, or trees or housekeeping.’ She added: ‘Mrs Wright has made no effort whatsoever to seek work or to update her skills…on the basis that she would be supported for life. It is essential that she starts to work now.’
The couple’s youngest daughter, then aged ten, lived with her mother, while the other daughter, who was 16 at the time, was at boarding school.
The ex-wife challenged the decision to slash her future maintenance, but Lord Justice Pitchford, sitting at the Court of Appeal, rejected her claim.
He said divorcees with children over seven should work for a living.
But Mrs Wright claimed she had been ‘made to feel like a criminal … for putting my children first’.
Elizabeth Hicks, family law expert at Irwin Mitchell, said judges increasingly made it plain ‘spousal maintenance is no longer a meal ticket for life’.
Charlotte Posnansky, of law firm Charles Russell Speechlys, added: ‘The pendulum has swung heavily in favour of women when considering the financial implications upon divorce … [but it] seems to be swinging back again.’
|UK divorce laws a joke after judges gave ALL man's money to his ex-wife and threatened him with jail
THE BIGGEST TERROR THREAT TO MEN'S WELFARE COMES FROM FAMILY COURTS AND THE ROGUE CORRUPT FREEMASON JUDGES
WHO OPERATE THEM FOR THE EXCLUSIVE ENTITLEMENT OF WOMEN BUT PRIMARILY THE CROOKED LEGAL MAFIA MAKING BILLIONS
FROM THE SPOILS. YET WE DON'T HEAR ANY OUTCRY FROM THE POLITICAL MAFIA WHO ARE WATCHING MEN'S LIVES BEING DESTROYED
BY DRACONIAN JUDGEMENTS.
FULL ARTICLE HERE
A former millionaire software tycoon has branded Britain's divorce laws 'out of date' after winning a test case against a suspended jail sentence imposed against him for failing to keep up maintenance payments to his ex-wife.
Peter Morris, 51, said he has been left 'empty handed and homeless' since the end of his 25-year marriage to ex Jane after she was given the majority of the former couple's £560,000 wealth.
Mrs Morris, 52, was awarded £500,000 in the settlement while he received £66,000. He was later ordered to pay her £77,000 in maintenance and other 'debts' and was last year given a six-week suspended prison term for failing to pay her £2,000 per month.
But his lawyers told Court of Appeal judges jailing husbands for failing to pay maintenance violates their human rights and is a 'curious survivor' of Dickensian debtors laws which has 'no place in the modern world'.
Mr Morris is now asking for a financial 'clean break' from his ex, insisting he cannot pay her anything more as he is 'homeless, insolvent, and unable to meet his obligations.'
The couple enjoyed quarter of a century of well-heeled married life in their £1.2million four-bedroom detached house in the Chilterns.
Mrs Morris gave up her pre-marriage career as a businesswoman and 'stayed at home to look after the home and care for their children by agreement with her husband.'
He was MD of a software company with a seven-figure turnover, who earned up to £240,000-a-year, and the family enjoyed 'expensive holidays' as part of an enviable lifestyle.
Even when their marriage hit the rocks and they split in 2013, their 'extravagant' spending, particularly by Mr Morris, continued unabated.
By the time the case got to court, the money had almost dried up and Judge Glen Brasse ruled that only enough remained in the pot to meet the core needs of the wife and the couple's children.
Judge Judith Hughes QC later hit him with a suspended jail term for his failure to pay up.
Challenging the decision, Peter Duckworth, for Mr Morris, said a system which can see husbands jailed over debts to their ex-wives is a legal relic that ought to be consigned to history.
He told Lady Justice Black, Lord Justice Floyd and Mr Justice Moylan: 'The objective seems to be to force the husband into a situation from which he cannot escape...it is a very curious survivor of very old practices. Mr Morris's case raises an issue of public importance.
'Procedures are being implemented which don't comply with the obligations of the UK under the European Convention on Human Rights, consigning the husband to a prison sentence on a charge of which he was only dimly aware, at a time when he was not legally represented'.
Holding prison sentences over husband's heads was not 'in keeping with the modern view that husbands and wives approach this court on an equal footing,' added the barrister.
Following those arguments, Damien Garrido QC, for Mrs Morris, accepted that her ex-husband's suspended jail term should be overturned.
But she is hotly contesting his case that they should go their separate ways financially and that he shouldn't have to pay her any more.
Mr Morris, whose company has gone into administration, insists that his financial fortunes have continued to plummet and it is simply 'impossible' for him to pay all he owes.
And Mr Duckworth claimed that Mrs Morris is now better off in real terms than her ex-husband.
He told the court: 'There is nothing to suggest that the husband wilfully or deliberately neglected to pay maintenance.'
The barrister added: 'He was thrown out of his London flat and is living on the charity of his lady friend.
'He has been left in an impossible situation of being homeless, insolvent, and unable to meet his obligations'.
Of Mrs Morris, Mr Duckworth said: 'The indications that she can manage on the income that she has are many. She has a net income of over £23,000 a year.
'She is currently working for an estate agents as a receptionist. Her employment status is permanent. The wife moved into a mortgage-free property.
'There is also an entitlement from the estate of her late mother. This is a significant move in the wife's resources.
'The husband lacks the means to pay spousal maintenance, but the wife is secure in a new career, is backed by an inheritance and not in need of funds.
'In the current circumstances, he will be unable to go on paying anything to his former wife. Is this now a clean break case? I submit that it is.
'I believe it is time now to sever financial ties between this couple,' the barrister said.
Mr Garrido, in reply, urged the judges to uphold the maintenance order.
He complained that there was 'a complete absence of clarity' about Mr Morris's income, due to 'contradictory statements and complete lack of disclosure.'
The barrister went on to assert that Mr Morris is receiving substantially more money each month than he professes.
The judges have now reserved their decision on Mr Morris's appeal and will give their ruling at a later date.
Mr Duckworth said outside court: 'It is essentially a test case'.
Without a clean break, Mr Morris was anxious that his ex-wife could again seek to enforce the debt, putting him at risk of jail once more, he added.
|The entitlement that has to STOP as Christina Estrada handed £53m by UK's masonic / zionist judicial crooks
Her list of entitlements would make any man physically sick. The scum and filth who pamper to
these golddigging demands are the enemy of any decent man who is being shafted by a totally corrupt
FULL ARTICLE HERE
Ms Estrada was cross-examined in court on her needs, which she said included:
£40,000 a year for fur coats
£109,000 a year for haute couture dresses
£21,000 a year on shoes
£60m to afford a luxury London home
A £4.4m countryside home in Henley-on-Thames
£495,000 for five cars - three in London and two in the America
A former supermodel has been awarded a £53m ($69m) lump sum after a divorce battle with her billionaire ex-husband.
Berkshire-based Christina Estrada, 54, had wanted £196m from Saudi businessman Sheikh Walid Juffali, 61, to meet her "needs" - including £1m a year on clothes - the High Court was told.
The total settlement, which takes into account her own assets, is about £75m.
Her lawyers said this makes it "by more than £50m, the largest needs award ever made by an English court".
Ms Estrada, who is is currently living at the matrimonial home bordering Windsor Great Park, had rejected an offer that, when added to her own assets, would have given her £37m to live on.
The US citizen was married to Mr Juffali for 13 years and has been based in the UK since 1988.
She said: "Having grown up in a middle-class family and having enjoyed a successful career until my marriage, I am fully aware that the spectacular life Walid and I led was immensely fortunate and rarefied.
"And I fully understand how this can be perceived in the wider world.
"My focus now is to support my daughter and move forward with our lives."
She added that the process had been "bruising and distressing", explaining that her ex-husband had taken a second wife and divorced her without her knowledge, and had used diplomatic immunity to try to stop her accessing a legally binding settlement
The former Pirelli calendar model argued in the London court that she was 'ENTITLED' to a settlement that would allow her to maintain her lifestyle.
She told family judge Mrs Justice Roberts: "I was a top international model. I have lived this life. This is what I am accustomed to."
Her lawyers estimated her ex-husband is worth £8bn.
But Mr Juffali, who has been married three times, said in a written statement that was a "fantasy" figure, putting his current net worth at £113.8m.
He could not attend court because he is terminally ill with CANCER and undergoing treatment.
He said in the statement that he had left the vast majority of his wealth to his three eldest children, including his teenage daughter with Ms Estrada.
The sheikh divorced Ms Estrada in Saudi Arabia in 2014 under Islamic law, without her knowledge. He had married a 25-year-old Lebanese model in 2012 while still married to Ms Estrada.
Mr Juffali's solicitors Mishcon de Reya issued a statement after the hearing, stating that he had "shown himself to be a fair man who has been prepared to offer his ex-wife a more than comfortable lifestyle for the rest of her life, which he believes she deserves".
"The sole purpose of this case was to evaluate an appropriate financial settlement based on Ms Estrada's needs, as opposed to the extraordinary demands presented by her at the start of this case," they added.
Mrs Justice Roberts said in her ruling that Ms Estrada had described her lifestyle during the course of the marriage as "magical".
She added: "That may well be an apt description. The issue is the extent to which she should be entitled to continue with the bubble of a 'magical existence' for the foreseeable future. I am concerned with ensuring that adequate provision is made to meet her reasonable needs."
Mr Juffali has been ordered to pay Ms Estrada her lump sum by 29 July.
Though Ms Estrada's lawyers said she received the largest "needs award" ever made by an English court, larger total payouts have been made in the past.
In 2014, a court said Jamie Cooper-Hohn should receive £337m in her divorce from London financier Sir Chris Hohn.
Three years earlier, the late Russian oligarch Boris Berezovsky's former wife Galina Besharova reportedly agreed to accept between £165m and £220m as part of a settlement.
|Divorcing men in a police state
FULL ARTICLE HERE
Ex-Wife fights for share of ex's £175,000 payout for child abuse: Estranged partner could make legal history after arguing money is a marital asset
(Divorce hitting new lows with this disgusting claim)
Ex-wife fights for chunk of abuse victim’s £175,000 payout
The Divorce Industrial Complex
Divorce Industrial Complex tries to tighten its grip to appease golddiggers(VIDEO)
Domestic abuse industry gives feminists / legal mafia the excuse to entitlement
KERCHING! Their husbands built up some of Britain's most famous retail names while they brought up the children. Now they're divorcing and pocketing millions. Fair - or just greedy?
Divorce Leads to Bankruptcy
Child Support Industrial complex(video)
Many argue over to what degree countries have a police state in operation? In the west, where the political and legal mafia have been pushing feminist and homosexual agenda's, there is one section of society that can clearly see the depths of a police state and that is divorcing men.
It is only when you are hounded, persecuted and attacked primarily for your estate and children , thanks to the utter corruption of the west's divorce industrial complex, that you see ALL the arms of the state being used to destroy your life from a well oiled bunch of stasi like vermin only to happy to instigate the court orders that ensure men can be rounded up like sheep and pushed around for decades by the thugs who are getting away with murder.
The political scum that seek the electors vote come election time are fully aware this system is in operation and not only condone the long term harassment of heterosexual men but , at every opportunity, add additional ploys to ensure the most lucrative terror threat on the planet for men is the divorce courts.
Despite regular reports of men being found at the bottom of cliffs or high buildings, on railway tracks or next to a large bottle of pills NONE of the evil bastards that are behind the mass culling of men take any notice but instead continue to ride roughshod over every right men require to STOP the state machine rolling over them like an enormous tidal wave.
Forget the utter bullshit of their manufactured threats pumped out by a complicit media. The west truly has a massive police state operating in every area of the countries behind this monster that is only truly visible to the men facing oppression that has come from decades of evil laws manufactured by zionist / freemasons who have become ultra wealthy thanks to the draconian powers imposed on heterosexual men. These same bastards immune to the very laws they themselves manufacture.
|Ex-Wife fights for share of ex's £175,000 payout for child abuse
Disgusting divorce claims have reached new depths
FULL ARTICLE HERE
Ex-wife fights for chunk of abuse victim’s £175,000 payout
An estranged wife is trying to claim part of the £175,000 compensation her husband received for suffering sexual abuse as a child.
As part of her divorce settlement, Helen Tippett, 41, has applied to the courts for a share of the cash paid to Andrew Kerslake.
Mr Kerslake, 45, regarded the compensation as ‘dirty money’ and put it into a trust to be given to charity when he dies.
But Miss Tippett claims the money is a marital asset and wants her share of it. It is believed legal history will be made if the courts find in her favour.
Mr Kerslake was molested between the ages of five and ten by a family friend. After he finally went to the police in 1998 his abuser was jailed for three years.
The father-of-four was paid £175,000 by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority – a government organisation which pays damages to victims of violent crime – in 2002.
He set up the Andrew Kerslake Trust and the fund has grown to almost £250,000 after being invested by his lawyers.
Mr Kerslake, who has waived his right to anonymity as a victim of sexual abuse, said: ‘I was given the money to compensate for what happened to me when I was a very young boy.
'I was abused over 500 times, every Monday, Wednesday, Friday and Saturday. It left me with both physical and emotional damage.
‘I didn’t apply for the money, I didn’t really want it at the time. But I’m not prepared to hand it over as part of our divorce settlement.
'It doesn’t seem right that my ex-wife should get a penny of it – it does not belong to her, she wasn’t the one who was abused.
‘It is shameless and immoral that she is even trying. I’m very disappointed in her.’
When the compensation was paid the couple were happily married. Miss Tippett was studying for a humanities degree and Mr Kerslake was a stay-at-home father.
He said: ‘My wife wanted to spend it, she wanted a beautiful house, she had all sorts of ways of spending it. But to me it was dirty money...I could not bring myself to use it.’
Devout Catholic Mr Kerslake wants the fund to be his legacy and has laid down instructions about how it should be used to help other victims of abuse.
His 19-year marriage came to an end four years ago and he has since become estranged from his children.
His wife reverted to her maiden name, and Mr Kerslake believes she is now in a relationship with a man named Jarrod Williams who is 11 years her junior.
Mr Kerslake, who walks with the aid of crutches after breaking his back in a fall, said: ‘They say they are not living together but he posts pictures of the two of them in bed on Facebook.
‘I’m concerned some of that money would end up in his pocket. That can’t be right.’
Mr Kerslake said he now suffers from a variety of health problems. His legal team say that if Miss Tippett wins the case it will be the first time compensation paid to a sex abuse victim has been part of a divorce settlement.
He said: ‘I don’t want people to think I put the money in a trust to stop Helen getting her hands on it – that is not the case.
‘I just don’t want the money myself and it is my wish it will be divided between two charities of my choice when I die.
‘It was paid to me for something that happened long before I met Helen. I still have to live with the consequences of that.’
Mr Kerslake lives alone in a housing association bungalow in Llanharan, near Bridgend in south Wales.
His estranged wife now works part-time in a church breakfast club and claims she needs the money to buy a house for herself and her two youngest children.
Miss Tippett was accompanied by Mr Williams at two preliminary hearings at the County Court in Pontypridd.
She refused to comment on her claim, which is due to be decided in September.
|Why are there 70,000+ children in care homes in the UK?
Grafton Close children's home had dark secrets
FULL ARTICLE HERE
Newcastle mother's 17 children taken into care after birth
(BBC smear fathers as the cause not the mothers mental state)
Mother charged after child's remains found in London home
Dark secrets of Richmond’s Grafton Close children's home
HOMOPAEDO'S ABUSED BOYS IN FLAT THEY COULD SHARE BECAUSE OF HUMAN RIGHTS
Homopaedo's left free to abuse boys - because social workers feared being branded homophobic
HOMOPAEDO RINGLEADER OF INTERNATIONAL RING TO GET LIFE IN JAIL
HOMOPAEDO WITH LONG HISTORY OF ABUSING BOYS FOSTERED CHILD
HOMOSEXUAL RIGHTS CAMPAIGNER HEADED HOMOPAEDO RING
According to a recent BBC report (BBC controlled by lawyers) almost 70,000 children are in care homes across England and Wales. That does NOT include Scotland on those records. The BBC report obviously leans heavily in favour of the mothers of those children when the major factor is that the mothers are suffering from mental health problems and the main reason the children are in care. Mothers with mental health problems accusing fathers of domestic violence a
common racket done through lawyers milking the system for millions.
However there is a far more devious and dangerous reason for much of this in that many of the mothers have divorced the biological fathers, who if the courts operated correctly would take care of the children, instead they REMOVE the fathers prior to using the mothers mental state to snatch the children into care.
There are a number of reasons for lawyers and judges acting in this way (never juries).
1. Public money in the form of legal aid into the millions is provided for these court cases
and making lawyers millionaires on the back of now vulnerable children, and no doubt a substantial amount of that money will end up in the judges pockets as well.
2. Social Services and local freemason run councils are paid a fortune to find accommodation for children stolen into care.
3. Many care homes are operated by paedo's left to abuse children now without mothers and fathers.
4. The system is made as corrupt as possible and leaves children open to abuse from the likes of top BBC tv presenter Jimmy Savile who regularly visited care homes to access young vulnerable children for himself and the paedo ring he operated out of BBC studios.
Also a social services overflowing with feminists, homosexuals and lesbians only to happy to hand those vulnerable children out to
be abused and well documented homopaedo's deliberately partnering to gain adoption of young boys for their own perverted ends.
5. Many sheeple would fail to understand the enormity of what is going on right under their noses and could not believe those who have charged THEMSELVES with the protection of children and who have used freemason manufactured laws to separate children from their biological fathers are the ones who need to be sectioned for their part in the most wicked
legalese that have left thousands of children in the hands of the gangsters and mobsters running the family courts for their own self enrichment and perverted ends.
|War being waged against men after judicial mafia hand £300,000 to ex wife who divorced man 20 years ago
Staggering how extreme Britain's lunatic judges are now going in their vile judgements. Meanwhile
lawyers are lining their pockets over these outrageous demands
FULL ARTICLE HERE
Unemployed ex-wife gets handed £300,000 share of fortune even though he only made his money a decade after they broke up
£1million for clothes, £500,000 for cars and a £26,000 MOBILE PHONE bill: What Saudi billionaire's model ex-wife wants every year in her £250 MILLION divorce payout
Former Pirelli calendar girl 'demands £250m' in divorce from Saudi billionaire ex-husband
Kathleen Wyatt had originally demanded a £1.9million payout from Dale Vince, who is thought to be worth around £107million
The ex-wife of a hippy-turned multi millionaire has been handed a 'modest' £300,000 in a settlement - despite divorcing almost 20 years ago.
Dale Vince is now worth more than £100m after founding green energy firm Ecotricity , but was penniless when he and ex Kathleen Wyatt divorced in 1992, having met in 1981.
However, she later demanded a £1.9million payout from the millionaire and has now won a "modest" lump sum payment of £300,000 in final settlement.
She had not lodged a maintenance claim until more than 25 years after they had separated, and nearly 20 years after their divorce.
How much she will actually receive of her award remains uncertain, because of outstanding legal bills which have yet to be fully quantified.
Approving the terms of the settlement, High Court family judge Mr Justice Cobb, sitting in London, said: "I am perfectly satisfied that it is reasonable, and that the wife is entitled to receive a modest capital award following the breakdown of this marriage.
"The lump sum payment agreed between the parties fairly represents, in my view, a realistic and balanced appraisal of the unusual circumstances of this case."
Wyatt's initial claim was thrown out of court in March 2015, but she successfully appealed the decision.
According to Business Insider UK , the couple did not "seal off" the financial arrangements section of their divorce papers.
Mr Vince is now thought to have a net worth of about £107m while Ecotricity is worth £57 million.
He founded the company in 1995 with a single wind turbine he had used to power an old army truck he called home on a hill near Stroud in Gloucestershire.
Neither Ms Wyatt, 55, of Monmouth, nor Mr Vince, 53, of Stroud, Gloucestershire, were in court for the announcement of the settlement.
|Feminazi/Guardian view of marriage (Men need to heed those warning signs) VIDEO
|Petition to Congress: Stop False Allegations of Domestic Violence
The number one global racket of freemasons who control family courts, through their judicial mafia, and the laws governing them that
allows these scum to enrich their coffers from the hard work and wealth of the men that are abused inside their utter dens of iniquity
FULL ARTICLE HERE
We, the undersigned, are writing in hopes of bringing to your attention a dire misjustice that is occuring in our
state as well as many others across the US. Laws inacted to protect the victims of the vile crime of domestic violence
are being misused by both citizens as well as law enforcement, and in this process innocent men's lives are being destroyed.
In most states, the burden of proof is being thrown out and the simple word of the accuser is being taken without question,
many times without the accused even being allowed to speak. True victims of domestic violence, some of whose names you
will find below, find this to be deplorable. Not only can a woman falsely accuse a man of domestic violence without fear
of consequence, but the accused man has no voice against her.
The accuser can be a mentally disturbed individual using
such laws to exact her revenge against a man who simply does not want to be in a relationship anymore,
and her word is automatically taken, even when no evidence is in place. The man in such cases is automatically
arrested, injunctions are automatically set in place, and even if he is able to prove his innocence in court
he has lost months of his life due to the fact that she cried wolf.
Worse yet are the cases of these innocent men who are poor and have no means to hire private attorneys.
Their public defenders assume they are guilty and therefore do only the bare necessities to be their legal
voice.We are not in any way asking for a revocation of the laws that protect true victims of domestic violence.
Our wish is that these laws be revisited and indications made to to allow for criminal and civil prosecution when
someone, whether male or female, has misused these laws in a vindictive and cunning way. We also would ask that
law enforcement officers, public attorneys, and judges be forced to recognize the precept that the accused is
innocent until proven guilty. Unfortunately, in the cases of domestic violence accusations, the opposite is true.
An example of this is that of a 20 year old Florida resident who made the bond that was set for him, only to be picked up the very next day without provocation.
The accuser in this case simply told the court she was afraid. He had done nothing in terms of trying to contact her or
see her, and was not without several witnesses the few short hours he was free. Something must be done to prevent those
who would lie about being a victim of domestic violence from continuing to do so.
If it is not, our prisons will be overrun with innocent men and our streets will be controlled by the women who sent them there.
FAMILY COURTS 18
FAMILY COURTS 17
FAMILY COURTS 16
FAMILY COURTS 15
FAMILY COURTS 14
FAMILY COURTS 13
FAMILY COURTS 12
FAMILY COURTS 11
FAMILY COURTS 10
FAMILY COURTS 9
FAMILY COURTS 8
FAMILY COURTS 7
FAMILY COURTS 6
FAMILY COURTS 5
FAMILY COURTS 4
FAMILY COURTS 3
FAMILY COURTS 2
FAMILY COURTS 1