Iain Duncan-Smith’s Centre for Social Justice recently delivered its interim report on its study and proposed reform of family law in this country. The proposals contained in the final report – not due to be delivered until next year – are expected to be adopted by the Conservative party and give us some idea as to the changes that a David Cameron-led government might introduce.
 

The reforms look likely to encourage the relationship between children and their fathers and grandparents in the wake of their parents separation by improving access rights as the Conservative Party look to put family first. The report also recommends the introduction of the “family relationship centre”, based upon a model found in Australia, where the family can come together in a neutral environment and learn more about the process of divorce.
 

There will also be tax breaks and incentives in order to promote marriage and to encourage the family to stay together. The Centre for Social Justice’s review argues that couples are far less likely to split up if they are married than if they are simply cohabiting.
 

The report also calls for pre-nuptial agreements to be made legally binding. It’s an issue that has been in the headlines more and more lately with Seddons seeing an increase in the number of instructions requesting one is drawn up. Perhaps, indeed, it is only a matter of time before these agreements are made binding by statute following the increasing number of comments from the judiciary who advocate more and more weight being afforded to them.
 

The more controversial aspect of these reforms are in the way they recommend scaling back the rights afforded to cohabiting couples. Case law surrounding parties who have chosen to cohabit instead of marry has rapidly developed in the space of the last few years to reflect the change in society’s attitudes towards relationships and caution should be exercised before their growth is slowed.
 

The interim proposals produced by the Centre for Social Justice are undoubtedly one step forward in some distinct areas and one step back in others. While they recognise the need for fathers and grandparents to have greater access to the children of the family, the curb to the new rights being introduced to afford cohabiting couples greater protection seems ill-advised.