Telephone Attendance: Morris v Morris - Essay Example

? ATTENDANCE ____________________ File No: Morris/29 2 March Fee Earner: Ravinder Singh and Julie Simpson Nature of Attendance: Telephone Call – Morris v Morris Time Spent: 7 units ___________________________________________________________ WORK DONE/INSTRUCTIONS: Telephone attendance between Ravinder Singh (RS) and Alan Morris (AM) to discuss the case of Morris v Morris. Issues Raised Reaching an Agreement before Court AM was initially determined to have his say in court and was sure that the court would grant him more contact than what we’re offering him or even a residence order. RS informed AM of the stress and cost of going to a final hearing and that he would need to give evidence, as would our client. RS suggested to AM that the court do not look favourably upon parents who just want to keep on fighting; clearly that sort of behaviour is detrimental to the children. Children’s Wishes and Feelings AM seemed to be of the view that he had a right to see his children; RS explained that contact is always for the benefit of the children – they have the right to contact if it is in their best interests. The CAFCASS officer, Mrs Smith, recorded in her report that the children were mature enough to understand the dispute. Simon and Lily made their decisions clearly and eloquently that they did want to see AM although wished their grandmother to be present throughout contact. They also desire to continue living with their mother. AM believes that his wife has ‘poisoned’ Simon and Lily against him and that is why they have told Mrs Smith that they wish to remain with their mother and have supervised contact. RS explained to AM that this is not the issue – the child psychologist confirmed that the children have suffered harm. Evidence RS explained that the court will hear AM’s evidence and he will have his say, albeit unrepresented, although the court will also hear from Mrs Morris and the instructed expert’s recommendations. RS also explained to AM that the court great deal of weight to expert opinions. Residence The CAFCASS and the child psychologist reports recommend that the children should remain living with Mrs Morris. Simon and Lily also expressed their wishes to remain living with their mother. RS drew AM’s attention to the CAFCASS report, in particular the section that relates to residence. The reasons given in the report were that the children are settled with Mrs Morris in their home and at their school. Mrs Smith believes that they may be at risk of harm if they did not live with their mother. AM strongly objected to the suggestion that he had harmed his children. RS drew AM to Mrs Smith’s report where she states that she has seen the evidence in Mrs Morris’ statement, the casualty report, GP report and neighbour`s evidence which all support Mrs Morris’ statement of domestic abuse. This of course, hinges on the issue of the injunction which does not look favourably upon AM. We are confident that we will be able to show that it is in Simon and Lily’s best interests for residence to be granted to Mrs Morris. Contact RS attempted to negotiate a contact arrangement that is in the best interests of the children. RS suggested contact be supervised in accordance with the recommendations within the CAFCASS report, taking into account the children’s wishes and feelings. Simon and Lily would be happy with their paternal grandmother being present during contact. RS made AM aware that the Local Authority are stating that they would become involved with the family if the children were to have anything other than supervised contact. RS asked AM if he had any suggestions of his own for contact. He suggested weekends and overnight stays at the weekend. *see below Supervised Contact heading. RS proposed that Mrs Morris take the children to AM’s mother’s house and she will take the children to AM’s house for 3 hours on a Saturday between 1pm and 4pm. AM stated that he would agree if he could pay half of the child support he currently pays and that the injunction is lifted. RS explained to AM that the law sets the amount of maintenance he pays to Mrs Morris for the children which is not relevant to this issue. RS explained that he must pay child maintenance irrespective of any contact order or agreement and that we should keep discussions about money and contact separate for that same reason. Injunction AM raised the issue of the current non-molestation order against him which prevents him going to Mrs Morris’s property, which is obviously where the children currently reside. To overcome this issue, we have suggested that AM’s mother facilitates handovers thus avoiding AM breaching the terms of the injunction. Supervised Contact The proposal of supervised contact as recommended by the experts` reports was put to AM. Both reports advised that contact should be re-established although supervised. AM strongly objected that a 3rd party would supervise contact. We drew AM’s attention to Page 3 of the CAFCASS report expressing that the children would feel more comfortable and secure with their grandmother present. It was suggested that supervised contact need not be in place indefinitely although would certainly be the case for the foreseeable future. Once the children feel more comfortable with AM and the authorities are content with the progress AM has made with the children, he may be in a position to go back to the court and ask for the terms of the contact order to be varied. Domestic Abuse AM strongly denies the allegations of domestic abuse and brought up an incident that allegedly occurred at a PTA disco in 2011. Allegedly Mrs Morris claimed that AM had hit her after the disco although AM states that neither he nor Mrs Morris attended the disco and went on to say that Mrs Morris “just imagines these things”. RS suggested that it was not helpful to get into discussion about events leading up to the divorce. Additional Points AM repeatedly used abusive language toward RS and cut the conversation short at an early stage due to his anger although he did call back and apologised for his behaviour. AM implied a hint of racism during the conversation saying that the courts “may treat men differently where RS is from”. AM was very angry at the way the case was proceeding, it was not in his favour and he did apologise to RS. AM would benefit from legal representation and seemed to be looking to us to advise him. PROPOSED ACTION: AM agreed to accept our proposal and see how it works out. We suggested contact begin this Saturday afternoon from 1 – 4pm with the agreement of his mother to supervise contact; Contact is agreed on the basis that AM’s mother would be available on Saturday afternoon; AM will confirm his mother’s availability as soon as possible by calling the office to speak to RS or his secretary if RS is not available; Once we have confirmation, RS will contact Mrs Morris to confirm arrangements to AM. SIGNED: Julie Simpson DATED: 02.03.10 SUPERVISOR SIGNATURE: Ravinder Singh Task 1b Kempstons LLP 101 High Street Bedford MK42 7AB Ref: Morris/29 Date: 03.03.10 Ext: 236 Contact: Julie Simpson Email: juliesimpson@kempsonslaw.co.uk Mrs Morris 27 Matachin Lane Bedford MK42 8UH Dear Mrs Morris Re: Contact and residence matters concerning Simon and Lily Morris Ravinder Singh has now discussed your case with Mr Morris and an agreement, in principle, has been reached with regard to contact and residence. The agreement is as follows: Mr Morris’ mother, Mrs Morris, is to supervise contact; Contact is to take place on a Saturday from 1pm – 4pm; As you are aware, the terms of the non-molestation order prevents Mr Morris coming to your property therefore we have proposed that Mrs Morris facilitates handovers. We propose that you take the children to Mrs Morris’ house and she will then take the children for contact thereafter and at 4pm, you would then collect the children from Mrs Morris`s house. Mr Morris is barred from accessing the residence. We explained to Mr Morris that the chances of success giving him unsupervised contact or residence of the children was highly unlikely following the recommendations made in the CAFCASS and child psychologist`s report. Mr Morris was adamant throughout the conversation that he wanted to express his views in court. We suggested that the court would not look favourably upon either party prolonging the already difficult situation. This was certainly not in Simon and Lily’s best interests. As you are aware the CAFCASS report confirms the children’s views and opinions to which the court would give some weight. Both Simon and Lily want contact with Mr Morris although they want their paternal grandmother to be present. As we have previously advised, once supervised contact can be seen to be going well and the local authority are content that Mr Morris can have unsupervised contact with the children, Mr Morris can make an application to the court for the terms of the contact order to be looked into. This proposal is the first that Mr Morris has accepted and I would ask you to consider it carefully and contact me within the next 4 days to discuss our response and contact can commence on Saturday 6th March where Mr Morris will confirm the availability of his mother. Yours sincerely Miss J Simpson Trainee Legal Executive Negotiation Plan Date: 27.03.10 Parties: Mrs Alice Morris and Mr Morris Our Client: Mrs Alice Morris Fee Earner: Ravinder Singh (trainee legal executive: Julie Simpson) Objectives of the Parties: 1) Mrs Morris To keep residence of the children; To keep contact to a minimum; Contact to remain supervised. 2) Mr Morris Contact Order on seeing the children; Residence Order on accessing it; Contact to be unsupervised by a third party; To have more than 3 hours per week contact with the children. When a court considers questions determining the upbringing of children, their paramount concern is the welfare of the children concerned – as per s1 Children Act 1989. The Welfare Checklist will be considered following each issue that will be raised during negotiations. Issues Issue 1 – Contact Arguments for Mrs Morris: Factual/Evidential The children have already suffered harm and to continue seeing Mr Morris poses a further risk of harm due to his previous behaviour; Mrs Morris wants to provide a stable upbringing for the children and is concerned that Mr Morris’ behaviour could disrupt this stability. Arguments against Mrs Morris: Factual/Evidential CAFCASS have recommended in their report that Mr Morris does love the children and should have contact with them; The court`s paramount consideration is the children’s welfare and they will consider the wishes and feelings of the children; The experts` reports recommend that the children show sufficient maturity to have their views taken into consideration by the court. The children also desire to live with their mother. Legal points to consider: The above points will draw the court`s attention to any harm that the children have suffered or are at risk of suffering and how capable each parent is in relation to meeting the children’s needs. Evaluation Mr Morris has a high probability of success with this issue as the court will act in the best interests of the children and only make an order if it is better than making no order at all. The CAFCASS officer and the child psychologist concur that Mr Morris should have contact with the children; Simon and Lily have both also expressed their desire to see Mr Morris. Issue 2 – Supervision of contact Arguments for Mrs Morris: Factual/Evidential The CAFCASS report recommends that supervised contact take place until the threat of further harm has been resolved. As the issue of further harm has yet to be established it would be prudent for contact to remain supervised in the interim; The child psychologist’s report recommends that Mr Morris seek help for anger management. So far Mr Morris has not made us aware that he has enlisted on an anger management programme. Arguments against Mrs Morris: Factual/Evidential The experts` reports support the view that Mr Morris does not pose a danger to the children and both reports only recommended supervised contact in the interim not as a long-term plan; Mr Morris proposes that he does not need to be supervised by a third party during contact. It is likely that he will raise the issue that he has proven during the interim months that he does not pose a threat to Simon and Lily’s welfare. Legal points to consider: The above points will draw the court`s attention to the ascertainable wishes and feelings of the children concerned in light of their age and understanding. The instructed experts suggest that Simon and Lily are both of sufficient maturity to have their wishes taken into consideration by the court. The children both expressly stated they wanted supervised contact. It would be highly unlikely that the court would not abide by the children’s wishes in this case. Evaluation Mrs Morris’ arguments are sound and reasonable; contact may be going well at the moment although the longer-term period must be considered. There has not been a sufficient period of supervised contact to allow contact to be unsupervised. The children gave their wishes and feelings and this was that their grandmother supervises contact sessions. Issue 3 – Residence Arguments for Mrs Morris: Factual/Evidential The CAFCASS and child psychologist reports recommend that the children stay resident with Mrs Morris; The CAFCASS report states that Mr Morris has not yet accepted full responsibility for his actions, he is still in the belief that his actions were unacceptable; A major concern is that if Mr Morris is unable to accept responsibility for his actions then this behaviour could develop again with the chance of it being directed towards the children or towards another party in the children’s presence; The children are settled at home with Mrs Morris and at their current schools and to uproot the children at this stage could be detrimental to their education; The children have suffered enough traumas in their lives due to the domestic abuse within the household, the breakdown of their parents’ marriage and the contact issues. If Simon and Lily were to be removed from Mrs Morris’ care at this point, it could prove to be very damaging to both children; The CAFCASS report has supported the fact that the children may suffer further harm if removed from their mother`s care into the care of Mr Morris; The child psychologist also supports that the children should remain resident with Mrs Morris. Arguments against Mrs Morris: Factual/Evidential Mrs Morris’ sense of injustice stems from feelings that Mr Morris has not been punished for his actions towards her which has nothing to do with what is best for the children; Mr Morris argues that Mrs Morris has lied about the domestic abuse although I do not feel this is a strong argument. Legal points to consider: The above points will draw the courts attention to: The wishes of Simon and Lily as previously mentioned, they are mature enough to give their view on who they prefer to live with; The emotional, physical and educational needs of the children who have already suffered much upheaval in their lives; The likely effect of the change in living arrangements could be highly detrimental to the children at this stage in their childhood; As previously mentioned, the children have witnessed some domestic abuse, there has undoubtedly been harm caused and the children have already shown great distress by the situation; Where a court is considering whether to make a section 8 order, it shall not make the order unless it considers that doing so would be better for the children than making no order at all. Evaluation Mrs Morris’ arguments are highly persuasive and sound. I believe it would be highly unlikely that the court would grant residence to Mr Morris following the children’s views, both report recommendations and the fact the children are settled and happy living with Mrs Morris. Overall Evaluation Mrs Morris will probably succeed in her application for residence as the experts’ reports recommend that the children remain resident with their mother. The court will be unlikely to depart from the recommendations made by the instructed experts. The court will take into consideration the welfare checklist under section 1 of the Children Act 1989 when determining any questions relating to the upbringing of children. The court`s paramount concern is the children’s welfare throughout the case. Mrs Morris is again likely to be successful in supervised contact although her desire for no contact at all will be unlikely to be achievable as the court will give great weight to the children’s wishes and feelings. We must also note that the children have already suffered significant harm by witnessing some of the domestic abuse in the household. Therefore, to remove Mr Morris from their lives would cause the children further unnecessary distress. Kempstons LLP 101 High Street Bedford MK42 7AB Ref: Morris/29 Date: 28.05.10 Ext: 236 Contact: Julie Simpson Email: juliesimpson@kempsonslaw.co.uk Mrs Morris 27 Matachin Lane Bedford MK42 8UH Dear Mrs Morris Re: Your complaint Thank you for your letter of the 24th May. After careful consideration I would like to respond as fully as I can to the points you made. Trainee legal executive I have looked into your complaint about the conduct of one of our trainees in this case and deeply regret that the behaviour of the trainee was unprofessional, falling short of the standards we expect at this firm and I would like to extend my sincere apologies to you. The trainee in question is no longer with the firm. I understand that the letter dated 3rd March 2010 regarding breaching the court order simply explained the consequences of breaching the order. I can understand the tone of this letter may have been alarming and caused you some distress and I hope that you will accept our apologies in this matter. We will reduce your total fees by 10 per cent for breaching the court order. Conduct of case You were advised fully on the law relating to the Children Act and how it applied to your case and I am satisfied that the advice given was correct and that you accepted this advice willingly. I appreciate that the law can appear harsh to someone in your position but I do not believe that any other agreement could have been reached. It must be understood that both the experts` reports supported supervised contact therefore the likelihood the court would make an order following their recommendations. We are only able to advise you in accordance with the law, lawyers do not make the laws, they simply practice it. We cannot change the law and can only advise you on what the likely outcome of litigation. As you are aware, Mr Morris was not represented at court. Therefore, negotiations prior to the hearing were held between Mr Singh and Mr Morris directly. Had Mr Morris been represented then negotiations would have been held directly with Mr Morris’ legal representative. We can confirm that both the Solicitor`s Regulation Authority and Resolution Codes of Conduct were adhered to. Disclosure I have researched the issue of the unfortunate disclosure of your address and telephone number internally with anyone in this firm who had contact with Mr Morris and can confirm that none of our employees divulged your details. I have however contacted Mrs Smith, the CAFCASS officer, who informed me that with regrets, they may have released your address. If you would like to take matters further, I suggest contacting CAFCASS with your complaint or if you would prefer, we can do this on your behalf. As you are aware, the terms of the non-molestation order prevent Mr Morris from contacting, harassing or intimidating you. The injunction also has a power of arrest attached meaning that if Mr Morris breaks the terms of the order, the police can arrest him. Fees and Supervision I am very pleased that you chose to instruct this firm to conduct your case. I would refer to our initial client care letter written on 24th September 2009, this letter clearly set out the level of fees charged and the time limit to pay those fees. We pride ourselves on charging reasonably for our expertise and expect our clients to meet those fees in good time. I would also refer you to the last paragraph of your client care letter whereby it is clearly written that Mr Singh supervised the trainee legal executive who worked on your case. The trainee involved in your case is an integral part of the firm and gains training through involvement in clients’ cases. Your client care letter of the 24th September 2009, clearly explained that the trainee would be involved in your case and her work would be carefully supervised by Mr Singh. I note that you did not object to this during the case. I hope the above is satisfactory and that I have answered all the points raised in your letter. Should you wish to discuss any matter further, please do not hesitate to contact me. Yours sincerely Sophie Williams Complaints Partner Read More