Everything I have, with you I share...

...except my bank statements, my diary and the vintage Porsche I haven’t told you about.

Should married couples share everything?

A recent internet statistic claims that one third of people would be willing to snoop on their partners to see if they are having an affair.  But what if you’re after more than evidence of an indiscretion?  If partners are willing to snoop to discover the true extent of their other half’s social exploits then what about their financial exploits?

The law recognises the need for privacy and confidentiality, even against one’s spouse.  The subject was considered in the much publicised case of Imerman [2010] EWCA Civ 908 which went to the Court of Appeal. In that case Lord Neuberger MR stated that:

“The notion that a husband cannot enjoy rights of confidence as against his wife in respect of information which would otherwise be confidential as against her if they were not married, seems to us to be simply unsustainable.” (para 82) and

“Subject of course to the court being satisfied that the normal equitable principles would otherwise be in play, a claimant is not to be denied equitable relief merely because the defendant is, or has obtained the material or information in question from, his or her spouse.” (para 85)

In other words, if a spouse gathers evidence surreptitiously, their other half will still have all the remedies available to them which would exist had their spouse been a complete stranger, such as ‘breach of confidence’, ‘theft’, or ‘offences under the Computer Misuse Act 1980’.

The equitable relief that Lord Neuberger was referring to in Imerman was the return of hundreds of thousands of documents that the wife’s brothers had stolen from the husband’s computer.  These documents were confidential to the husband, and the wife had no more right to retain them than the husband would have had to retain a copy of the wife’s personal diary (assuming she kept one).

So, there exists a right to confidentiality between spouses (which I am sure many people will be very relieved to hear) but what happens when the parties separate and there are financial proceedings on foot?  The Court requires both parties in proceedings to give full and frank disclosure of their financial circumstances.  Documents, including bank statements, asset portfolios and property valuations, which can be kept secret during the marriage, must be laid bare.  This did not help the wife in Imerman as it was held that the fact that the husband would have been under an obligation to disclose the disputed documents was not relevant to the principle of confidentiality.  Interesting then, that a couple who are going through a divorce owe each other a greater obligation to disclose their financial affairs than a couple who is happily married.  

Should the same level of financial disclosure exist within a marriage as on divorce?   After all, it is not just the assets which couples are keeping from one another but debts too, £41billion according torecent reports.  Such dishonesty could lead to bankruptcy, and further financial consequences for the whole family, so perhaps there is an argument for saying that spouses must share such information with each other?  It does still leave the problem of actually obtaining the information as, even if spouses were obliged to share their financial position with one another then, according to Imerman, a spouse who sought to obtain information from their other half through dishonest methods could still be breaking the law.  The only solution would be to remove the principal of confidentiality against one’s spouse and the Courts have made it quite clear that they are not prepared to do that.

If you’d like to read more on this topic then Mr Justice Mostyn gave an excellent analysis of marriage and the economic relationship between spouses in his address to the All ParliamentaryGroup on Family Law in 2010.

Don’t be shy!  Tell me what you think.

Children and Religious Upbringing. Who gets the final say?

A recent decision by a Judge in Romford County Court has ruled that a 10 year old Jewish girl can be baptised into the Anglican Church against her mother’s wishes.

 

Religious differences can often be a factor in the breakdown of a relationship.  Just look at Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes and their different views on Scientology.  When children are involved things rarely go as smoothly as they have done for TomKat, particularly if both parents have strong views on how the child should be raised.

So who should have the final say in the spiritual upbringing of children?

In the Romford case the mother argued that her daughter was too immature to make such a significant decision.  In Judaism, it is believed that intellectual maturity is not gained until a girl reaches bat mitzvah (usually at the age of 12).  The Judge did not share this view and his decision appeared to be largely influenced by the girl’s own reasons for wanting to be baptised, which she was allowed to explain directly to the Judge during the proceedings. The decision has not been well received by the Jewish community.

The mother was also concerned that the experience would be unsettling for the girl given her Jewish upbringing. The girl’s father had also been brought up as a Jew and only converted to Christianity after separating from the mother.  The Judge did consider this, explaining to the girl that she would not lose her Jewish heritage by being baptised and that she should be encouraged to be educated in both religions. This has further outraged members of the Jewish community as they see this as confusing the girl’s religious identity.

Was the Judge Right?

The issue of religious upbringing was dealt with in the High Court case of Re N in 2011 where it was confirmed that neither parent has a predominant right to choose a child’s religious upbringing and, where the parents follow different religions, the child should be allowed to learn about and experience both.  The mother in the Romford case did not object to the child being exposed to, and learning about, her father’s religion.  The father took the girl and her brother to church on a regular basis which the mother was aware of and had agreed to.  She had also acknowledged that, should her daughter wish to be baptised once she was older, she would be free to do so.

In light of the above, did the Judge go too far in saying that the 10 year old could be baptised? Or was he right to put the wishes of the child over those of the mother?

What do you think?