author Samantha Woodham Samantha Woodham is a barrister at 4PB and co-founder of The Divorce Surgery. Related Read the journal Financial Remedies Journal – 2025 Issue 2 | Summer Related Latest Parliamentary Debate Reveals Government’s Latest Intentions for Financial Remedies and Cohabitation Law Reform The Government gave a significant update on Monday 10 November 2025 in the House of Lords regarding its plans for financial remedies and cohabitation law reform. It signals a major overhaul of how the law treats relationship breakdown across all types of couples. Promises Unkept: Unpaid Child Maintenance and the Price of Inaction Unpaid child maintenance remains one of the most persistent and under-addressed financial injustices affecting separated families in England and Wales. The failures of the CMS destabilise the very integrity of financial provision for children post-separation. Finality and Funding: a Further Thought on CC v UU Concerning the Availability of LSPOs for Enforcement Proceedings In the case of CC v UU, concerning post-final order LSPOs, did Peel J fall into error? Should the judgment have been decided differently? is curated by The Leaders In Family Law Books & Software EXPLORE OUR PRODUCTS
Parliamentary Debate Reveals Government’s Latest Intentions for Financial Remedies and Cohabitation Law Reform The Government gave a significant update on Monday 10 November 2025 in the House of Lords regarding its plans for financial remedies and cohabitation law reform. It signals a major overhaul of how the law treats relationship breakdown across all types of couples.
Promises Unkept: Unpaid Child Maintenance and the Price of Inaction Unpaid child maintenance remains one of the most persistent and under-addressed financial injustices affecting separated families in England and Wales. The failures of the CMS destabilise the very integrity of financial provision for children post-separation.
Finality and Funding: a Further Thought on CC v UU Concerning the Availability of LSPOs for Enforcement Proceedings In the case of CC v UU, concerning post-final order LSPOs, did Peel J fall into error? Should the judgment have been decided differently?