Maureen Mullally has practised family law for nearly 30 years and she now works as a mediator, helping separating couples achieve amicable divorces without expensive court battles. In her fifth book, 'You can't marry your mother-in-law and other common legal misconceptions', she takes a light-hearted look at the absurdities of the law, including a proposed 'Human Rights Bill' for pets! Dry wit is laced with useful facts to create a riveting and revealing read.
LP: What motivated you to write a book which points out how ridiculous the law can be?
MM: Well, since I have written several serious books on divorce and separation, I thought it would be fun to set the record straight on areas where people are ill-informed about the law. Although most of the topics have been tackled in a light-hearted way, there are still some misconceptions that are no laughing matter.
LP: Yes, there is a lot of ambiguity within the law that the average person finds difficult to get to grips with.
MM: There are some very quirky and unbelievable things about our present laws. Most readers will find that the book contains a few surprises, as well as useful information.
LP: You touch on topics that highlight how the law can let people down?
MM: Perhaps the most obvious is the treatment of rape victims. Sadly, juries tend to be prejudiced against the victim. There is still the suggestion that the victim 'asked for it', reflected in the appallingly low conviction rate. The government is aware that this is an issue but has yet to do anything about it.
LP: I was amazed to read about the 'human rights code' for our furry friends. How did that come about?
MM: Margaret Beckett was responsible for drawing up the initial plans to give pets rights, earlier this year. She began by drafting a code for cat owners; further codes will be drafted to apply to all domestic pets. I believe that valuable parliamentary time should be spent tackling world peace and climate change, not on drafting rules that are supposed to be in the pets' interest - and what is not clear is how the pets will accuse their owners if they are breached!
LP: You mention in the book that having a marriage licence does not necessarily mean that you are legally married, is this right?
MM: Yes, there was a case in Essex where the office cleaner noticed the marriage licence for the venue had expired. Almost 100 couples had been 'married' there since. A High Court Judge ruled that, so long as the couples believed that they had been legally married, they were. I am sure that this will be challenged when the first of those couples decides to separate. A wealthy husband could argue that there had been no marriage and if that argument succeeded, the wife could walk away with nothing.
LP: How does the book reflect your own experiences as a practitioner specialising in family law for almost 30 years?
MM: The most common misconception people have is that 'common law marriage' exists. It's widely believed that couples who have lived together as man and wife for a certain number of years have the same rights as married couples. Sadly, for example, I had to advise an unfortunate woman who had been employed as a mother's help with a family from the age of 16. After the mother developed mental illness and was hospitalised, the father and my client formed a relationship and lived together for 20 years. She brought up his two children and they had two of their own. Out of the blue he told her that she would have to move out so he could move his new girlfriend into the house. 'All I want,' she explained, 'is what I'm entitled to.' She had never made any financial contribution to the purchase of the home as she was too busy looking after the family. Had she been married she would have been entitled to an interest from that property and/or maintenance for herself, but as a common-law wife she received nothing. It happens all the time and the government is looking at giving common-law wives legal rights, but nothing has yet been done.
LP: Another thing, which might surprise some readers, is that joint ownership of a property does not necessarily mean an equal share?
MM: People naturally assume that joint ownership means half each, but it all depends on the type of joint ownership it is.
LP: Isn't family law a very secretive area of the law?
MM: That's another misunderstanding. Family courts deal with particularly private and sensitive matters that make them reluctant to publish details about disputes relating to children and finances. However, family judges would welcome the opportunity to have open access to family courts, as long as anonymity was granted to protect all parties, especially children. This might help dispel the myth that women get favourable treatment in family courts. My view is that court is the worst place to resolve family issues and couples should consider professional mediation as a preferable alternative.
LP: Have you seen an increase in the popularity of mediation since you began to practise at the South East London Family Mediation Service?
MM: This is a very significant moment for mediation. The Principal Registry of the High Court Family Division has allocated mediators an information desk in a public waiting area and a separate room to give advice to couples. Judges are beginning to see the emotional and financial benefits of mediation to separating couples, as contrasted with a court battle. While the parties will not get exactly what each wants, at least they'll be able to live with the agreement they make. It helps when children know their parents have made the decision, and not a strange judge.
LP: So you think it's a less hurtful way to handle divorce?
MM: Absolutely. Our service has an 80 per cent success rate concerning cases with children. The key thing about mediation is that it allows separating couples to resolve matters with a neutral mediator present who doesn't take sides, make judgments or tell them what to do. They are in a calm environment in which they can express their own views and explore options that both might be content with.
LP: Can you help on couples reaching an amicable agreement on who gets custody?
MM: Yes, but it's not custody anymore, despite the fact that the media insist on calling it 'custody' and 'access'. These dated words imply that one parent has 'ownership', which is not the reality. If orders have to be made by the court, they will be 'residence' or 'contact' orders, which allow both parties to go on being parents, regardless of who the child lives with. If they can focus on that and co-operate together on what is best for their child, it will not be a problem to reach agreement.
LP: Going back to your book, how difficult was it to use everyday language to deal with some of the more confusing areas of the law?
MM: I have never found it difficult to use simple language - all my books are written in a down-to-earth style. Some lawyers find it very hard and sometimes there is a deliberate attempt to make things appear more complex than necessary. I started writing because I wanted to make family law more accessible to everyone.
