Avatar photo

Sofia Lagergren

mckinnells2

Sofia Lagergren is a solicitor at McKinnells in Lincoln, specialising in all aspects of family law. She has a special interest in obtaining protection for victims of domestic violence and regularly deals with issues concerning contact with and residence of children, divorce, civil partnership and financial issues following the breakdown of relationships.


Sofia Lagergren is a solicitor at McKinnells in Lincoln, specialising in all aspects of family law. She regularly deals with issues concerning contact with and residence of children, divorce, civil partnership and financial issues following the breakdown of relationships.


Cohabitation is now almost as common as marriage. The social stigma attached to cohabitation (they are ‘living in sin’ – look away!) has long gone. Sadly, however, the law has not caught up with this reality.

As a family solicitor I am often meeting clients who need advice after their relationship breaks down. More frequently now, the couples are not married or have not entered into a civil partnership. Equally frequently, the woman (it’s usually the woman who raises this point) assumes that if she has lived with her partner for more than six months then she has become a ‘common law wife’ and is entitled to make a claim against her ex’s property.

So is this true? Well, actually no. It’s just an urban myth with no basis in reality. I do know however, that it is one that is often peddled by ‘Billy’ down the pub who does not let any lack of any legal qualification stop him giving advice to anyone who buys him a drink.

The law makes a clear distinction between the rights of married couples and those in civil partnerships on the one hand, and couples who live together without any such formality on the other.

The existence of a marriage or civil partnership does create property rights, which can then be enforced if the relationship breaks down. Who owned what before the marriage or civil partnership becomes pretty irrelevant. The Court will decide the division of a property by looking at the value of all assets and then dividing them fairly between them.

No such rules apply if a cohabitating couple breaks up. There, the division of assets will simply be based on who has legal title to those assets. Generally, the one who owns the property keeps it and the one who doesn’t own it gets a nice cardboard box to either pack their possessions into, or to sleep in depending on circumstances.

There are exceptions, such as where one of the parties has spent money improving the property belonging to the other, or where there are children. However, these rights come from trust law, which is complex and can be difficult and expensive to enforce, especially for someone living in a cardboard box.

Now, as I see the aftermath of these cases, I do feel it would be very helpful to couples to be aware of these differences beforehand. I accept that in a romantic relationship none of us want to be practical. None of us want to think about the relationship breaking down. But, failure to do so will often lead to disastrous financial consequences.

I would urge all couples to think about these practicalities. These days, most people have heard of pre-nuptial agreements and more and more are using them. They should also consider cohabitation agreements. Think about it – If you make a will it does not mean that you are going to die immediately afterwards. Similarly, just because you make a pre-nuptial agreement or a cohabitation agreement does not mean that the relationship is doomed to fail. It simply means that if it does go wrong, then you limit the scope for future acrimony and dispute.

Sofia Lagergren is a solicitor at McKinnells in Lincoln, specialising in all aspects of family law. She has a special interest in obtaining protection for victims of domestic violence and regularly deals with issues concerning contact with and residence of children, divorce, civil partnership and financial issues following the breakdown of relationships.

Sofia Lagergren is a solicitor at McKinnells in Lincoln, specialising in all aspects of family law. She regularly deals with issues concerning contact with and residence of children, divorce, civil partnership and financial issues following the breakdown of relationships.


The government has just published the Norgrove report on family justice, which was undertaken in order to look at ways in which the family court system could be reformed in order to make it more efficient and cost-effective.

It doesn’t make for good reading. To me, this report fails on two levels. First, because some of the proposals are barking mad. Second, because the changes, far from saving money, will probably end up costing more.

The proposal that is making all the headlines is that it rejects the idea of giving both parents equal rights so that they share access to children. Predictably, and understandably, groups representing and campaigning on behalf of fathers have soundly criticized this.

All too often, access to children becomes a battleground for embittered parents, where the outcome, whatever it is, damages all concerned. Giving both parties equal rights would have avoided this. It is a real opportunity missed. By not clearly defining such rights it means that bitter disputes will continue to play out through the courts. It’s sad, but inevitable.

Equally controversial is the proposal for separated couples to deal with their own divorces rather than use a lawyer. Instead they would access an information hub, download forms, talk things through and then sort things out amicably. I am not sure which planet this is supposed to happen on — most of the divorce clients I see cannot even stand to be in the same room as each other, let alone sit down over a cup of tea and calmly decide how to end their relationship.

There doesn’t seem to be any understanding of the fact that divorce and separation are highly emotional issues, often triggered by mistrust, betrayal or even physical violence. When extreme emotions are at work then logic and reasoning go out of the window along with their ex’s clothes and CD collection.

However, according to this report, mediation is the answer to everything, so let’s look at this for a moment. For mediation to work, a separated couple have to be able to agree matters. If they can do that, then they probably don’t need mediation. If they can’t agree things, then mediation is not going to work anyway!

The only creditable way to handle a divorce is when someone looks at the issues without emotion and can deal with the facts objectively on your behalf, and that’s where lawyers like me come in. We work on your behalf to get the best outcome.

Now, we all know this government is committed to saving money; and most would agree that savings do have to be made, so the Legal Aid budget is now in the firing line. Never mind that the whole budget for legal aid would only keep the NHS running for one weekend, cuts are going to be made in 2012. Side by side with this, the government wants to reform family courts. So does reform equal cost savings? I am not so sure.

There are some good things in the report, such as reducing the time taken in dealing with child care cases. The present delays are a scandal. But by being cost driven and not understanding human emotions, the report has missed an opportunity to really get to grips with some of the problems in family justice.


Sofia Lagergren is a solicitor at McKinnells in Lincoln, specialising in all aspects of family law. She has a special interest in obtaining protection for victims of domestic violence and regularly deals with issues concerning contact with and residence of children, divorce, civil partnership and financial issues following the breakdown of relationships.

+ More stories