Mr. David Drakeford:

I would like to spend some time looking at the weaknesses in the current system, but I do not have the time. However, it is clear the legislation as it currently is, with the four-year minimum period, has a huge impact on children. Not only is the four years a minimum separation period, it tends to include extensive litigation between both parties. It can be very vitriolic. Parents then look at who their children are siding with and the outcome for children is very bad. We must look at some of the other models. I used to work formerly with the European Commission and I have close friends who are involved, but I am not an expert on the legal side. However, I have seen what they do in some of the Nordic countries. They have no fault divorce systems and mediation is enforced. Parents can separate after six months and divorce after six months if both consent. That has a huge benefit for children. Can one imagine the outcome where differing divorcing parents actually co-operate with each other? I am not saying they are going to be the best of friends afterwards, but they actually co-operate together in the upbringing of their children. They work out the finances and maintenance through a mediation process. If that is motivated, a number of people here would not have to go through the four to five years minimum of litigation, which is vitriolic. I have to say straight out that the only winners are the barristers and solicitors. None of the children benefits from this. The models they use in the Nordic country should be looked at. If there is going to be reform, moneys have to be ring-fenced. Lots of these families lose huge amounts of money. They are torn apart and their assets are stripped. The whole issue is the custody and asset stripping battle. What is worse, as has already been mentioned, is that there is inconsistency in a lot of the judgments. I cannot understand this. If there are legal requirements to deliver for the welfare of the children, why do people and barristers play to judges? They know they might get a better result with one judge than another. They all know these games internally. I have witnessed it myself. I recommend strongly the models used in some of the Scandinavian countries where mediation can lead to non-vitriolic and non-advarsarial results and protect children. Children's rights are never looked at in these cases. I will not go into any more detail, but I have witnessed it.