by Rosemary Bennett, Social Affairs Correspondent from Times Online

The number of couples getting divorced is the lowest for 26 years as couples put off getting married until they are older and wiser.

Data for 2007 from the Office for National Statistics showed that divorces in England and Wales fell for a third consecutive year, down from 12.2 divorces per 1,000 married men in 2006 to 11.9. The divorce rate peaked at 14 per 1,000 in 1993.

Experts say that it could be the end of the steady rise in the divorce rate that began in the 1970s. They say that it is significant that more couples are choosing to marry in their 30s when they are more realistic about the ups and downs of relationships and better able to cope with problems when they arise.

Others blamed the credit crunch, saying that couples cannot afford to get divorced.

However, Jenny North, policy director at Relate, said that financial troubles were often the last straw for couples under strain.

“There is a great deal of speculation around the impact of the economy on couples and families and we know that financial issues create uncertainty and distress – the brunt of which is born by partners and families," she said.

"The reality is that couples split up in all economic climates as we have seen throughout our 70-year history. UK families urgently need easy access to emotional support to manage the fall-out from conflict when they separate."

The only age group to record an increase is the over-60s. There were 13,678 divorces among the over-60s last year compared with 12,636 in 2006. Among men in the over-60s the rate rose from 2.2 to 2.3 per cent, and among women 1.4 to 1.6 per cent.

Marilyn Stowe, divorce lawyer for Stowe Family Law, said that the rise among older people may be linked to a longer life.

“People now have more energy in their later years and realise there is nothing left in their marriage once they have had their career and the children have left home,” she said.

It is a global phenomenon. According to data released by the United States Bureau of the Census, the number of divorced senior citizens in the US has risen by more than a third over the past decade to just under 2.2 million.

Most divorces still take place among younger people, however, suggesting that if you get through the first few years of married life the chances of staying together increase.

For the sixth consecutive year both men and women in their late twenties had the highest divorce rate of all five age groups at around 26.8 per 1,000.

The figures showed a total of 117,193 children aged under 16 affected by divorce in 2007 – 20 per cent of whom were under five and 63 per cent under 11.

The figures also recorded the number of dissolutions of civil partnerships for the fist time. There were 42 dissolutions granted last year, 14 to male couples and 28 to female couples.

Civil partnerships were introduced in December 2005 and 18,059 took place in the first year. Last year there were 8,728.

Samuel V. Schoonmaker, IV of the The Schoonmaker Legal Group, LLC provides an informative update of family law cases in the State of Connecticut through his "Appellate Preview." Here is a recently submission by Attorney Schoonmaker:

The following decisions will be officially released on August 26, 2008:

Cannon v. Cannon, __ Conn.App. __. Affirmed. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by modifying an unallocated alimony and child support order retroactive to service of a post judgment motion to modify. Three years of retroactivity was unusual, as were several procedural twists relating to a corrected memorandum of decision, but ultimately this was a discretionary ruling.

In re Devaun J., __ Conn.App. __. Affirming termination of parental rights. The mother waited until after the trial court had terminated her parental rights before she sought voluntary termination of her parental rights by an open adoption. The trial court had no independent obligation to suspend, sua sponte, two years of contested termination proceedings so that it could explore open adoption as an alternative to termination of parental rights.

Michael Pelly | August 25, 2008

THE Rudd Government should dismantle the Federal Magistrates Court and create a one-stop shop for family law, according to the peak national body for lawyers.

The Law Council of Australia says the Federal Magistrates Court, which opened its doors in 1999, has been feuding with the Family Court over resources. The council argues that integration of the two courts is urgently needed.
Federal Attorney-General Robert McClelland is awaiting a report by KPMG consultant Des Semple on the federal court system. The report was due at the end of May, but has been delayed because Mr McClelland expanded Mr Semple's brief to cover the Family Court of Western Australia, which operates outside the federal system.

In a speech two weeks ago, the Attorney-General maintained key services were not operating in the best way and said: "Fresh thinking is required."

Relations between the two courts have been marred by petty squabbles and funding fights.

In Adelaide, a Family Court judge ordered Federal Magistrates Court staff out of tearooms for stealing "Family Court tea bags". And there was also attempt to have the entire magistrates court staff banned from the Family Court floor because they were a "security risk".

Requests from the Federal Magistrates Court to use vacant Family Court rooms in Sydney and Brisbane have been refused.

The creation of the Federal Magistrates Court as a lower-level federal court removed a significant amount of federal law work from the state and territory courts and freed up superior courts, such as the Federal Court and the Family Court, to concentrate on more complex cases.

More than half of all migration matters and 75 per cent of family law applications are now completed by more than 50 judicial officers in what is regarded as the workhorse of the federal judiciary system.

The Australian understands three options are being explored by Mr Semple: the formation of a Federal Courts Authority to oversee all courts except the High Court, changing the standing of the Federal Magistrates Court, and mergers with other courts.

Key officials of the courts involved have told The Australian they believe Mr McClelland is inclined to split the Federal Magistrates Court and turn it into branches of the Federal Court and the Family Court.

This would mean all family law matters would begin in the Family Court, rather than matters being divided according to their complexity.

While this would mean the end of the Federal Magistrates Court, its judicial officers have been assured their jobs are safe.

The Law Council's submission to Mr Semple, who headed the commonwealth's Family Law Council when the Howard government introduced the Federal Magistrates Court, says the current arrangement is "wholly unacceptable". It says there should be a "single coherent structure with a common pool of resources delivering family law services at the appropriate level" and argues: "This model should provide significant efficiencies and cost savings."

The council, which represents 50,000 members of state and territory law societies and bar associations, says practitioners consistently emphasise the need for one registry, one set of rules, one set of forms and uniformity of procedures.

Lawyers complain they can wait up to 18 months for a trial in the Family Court, while the Federal Magistrates Court aims to conclude all its matters within six months.

The council says the effective running of the family law courts requires a single budget and a single administration. However, it calls for "a higher level of judge" to be retained to hear appeals and the more complex and lengthy cases.

The submission also argues that the Federal Magistrates Court was poorly conceived, but it concedes that by offering a low-cost alternative, the court has delivered significant value.

"It is important that any changes which might be made, that the current culture of the FMC is maintained," the submission says.

Family Court Chief Justice Diana Bryant and Federal Magistrates Court chief magistrate John Pascoe told a family law conference in Adelaide two weeks ago that they accepted change was inevitable.

Chief Justice Bryant said: "I think both courts are now looking forward to a thorough consideration of how the system can best operate for the benefit of the litigants and a hopeful end to the resourcing tensions inherent in the existing arrangements."

Mr Pascoe has told Mr McClelland that Federal Magistrates Court judicial officers should be renamed judges - a position the Law Council supports - and that they should receive 90per cent of the pay of Family Court judges.

Federal Magistrates Court judicial officers are currently paid $249,490, which is 78per cent of the pay for federal judges and Supreme Court judges around the country, who receive $319,880.

Ninety per cent would mean a pay rise to $287,892.

As there are 53 magistrates, the cost to taxpayers of the pay increase would be more than $2 million a year.