“But the great thing is that if the couple do reach a settlement, it is theirs, it is not imposed by a third party such as a judge.The names of the couple in this article have been changed.. The gas-guzzling Jaguar has always been a thirsty beast. “They have to get to grips with all sorts of horrors and long-held fears,” she says. Even so, the avenue can be relatively inexpensive: most couples require three to six 90-minute sessions, at a cost of about pounds 250 a session, compared to fees charged by central London lawyers of at least pounds 150 an hour. Legal Aid may become available in some cases.Hazel Wright, spokeswoman for the Family Mediators Association, says it can be daunting for a couple to unravel their affairs in front of strangers.

I saw one couple where the man only attended as a way of seeing his partner and begging her to come back.”Mediation services have existed since the 1970s, and there are about 1,000 mediators, many affiliated to the Family Mediators Association or National Family Mediation. Some work alone, others in teams of two, pairing a lawyer with a professional from a social work or counselling background.Ms Bross, partner in a north London legal firm, Bross & Bennett, stresses that mediation is not a substitute for legal advice; each partner is advised to retain an independent lawyer, and settlements should be legally ratified. “It is often not appropriate if there has been domestic violence, or if there is a big power imbalance where one partner simply bullies the other,” she said.”Some people are so bitter that they can’t sit down in the same room with each other, never mind talk reasonably Others take part for the wrong reasons. “Mediation brought us together to talk, and helped to put our relationship on a civilised footing.”This is a route that is increasingly being taken by couples negotiating their way through the minefield of separation. It is likely to become even more common when the relevant sections of the Family Law Act 1996 – the hotly-contested divorce legislation introduced by the former Lord Chancellor, Lord Mackay – come into force. The Act requires couples to be informed about the possibility of attending mediation sessions.But there are still a lot of popular misconceptions surrounding it Many people confuse it with marriage counselling In reality, mediators offer no views on a relationship.

They act as objective referees as far as the practicalities are concerned, encouraging couples to reach joint decisions on matters such as access to children, division of assets, housing and financial support.The advantage over communicating through lawyers is that the approach is non-adversarial. But it does not work for everyone, or for every issue, according to Ruth Bross, who mediated for the Roberts. SOON after Natasha Roberts told her husband, Stephen, that their 22-year marriage was over, the battle lines were drawn. She wanted to remain in the family home and to keep their two daughters at private schools Wounded and embittered, he refused to agree to anything. The stage was set for them to slug it out through their solicitors, a lengthy and acrimonious process that could have ended up in the divorce courts. Early on, though, a lawyer suggested that they try to resolve their differences with the assistance of a mediator, an impartial third party.
By the time that they had completed five sessions, the couple had drawn up a satisfactory financial settlement. Mrs Roberts says that the process enabled them to communicate about practical matters and spared their daughters the spectacle of all-out war.”We were absolutely unable to sort things out between ourselves,” she said.

But you may not stipulate the regularity which which more intimate relations should occur. In this country, it is illegal to enter into a contract for the provision of sexual services – even if the signatories are married to one another.. “Otherwise it will not be worth the paper it is written on.”You can, if you like, follow the example of some American couples and write into a contract a pledge to spend quality time together. In the meantime, according to Mr Shepherd, judges are more inclined to take them into account if both partners sought independent legal advice beforehand and if both were candid about their financial affairs.”The other key factor is whether provision is made for major changes in circumstances such as the birth of a child,” he says. “He had a business worth pounds 6m that he wanted to leave to the children of his first marriage, and he was not prepared to take the risk.”But such agreements are far from routine here, though in the United States and many European countries they are part of the culture. It is not that we are more starry-eyed; it is the fact that they are not recognised by the English courts.The Lord Chancellor’s Department is considering reforms that would make these contracts legally enforceable. People are getting married later in life, by which time they may have amassed savings that they are loathe to share, and those entering second marriages may be anxious to make independent provision for existing children.In the case of film stars and rock singers, the considerations are clearly more pressing.

Elizabeth Taylor signed one with her eighth husband, Larry Fortensky, although he still managed to walk away with pounds 1m.It is partly publicity about such deals that has prompted couples away from the limelight to follow suit, according to Nigel Shepherd, head of the matrimonial division at Berrymans Lace Mawer, a national law firm.”I dealt with one case where the man refused to get married unless his partner signed a pre-nuptial contract,” Mr Shepherd says. Thus Barbra Streisand recently put on hold plans to marry her fiance, James Brolin, while their lawyers hammered out a pre-nuptial agreement.Michael Jackson, meanwhile, said to be worth pounds 500m, has a contract with his wife, Debbie Rowe, which gives her no rights to his fortune in the event of a divorce. Where contracts on dividing the spoils of union were once the exclusive preserve of the rich and famous, they are increasingly gaining currency among ordinary couples.
Marked changes in the way we live are the main factor. Now I sometimes have to reschedule my workload to avoid certain people or not go out to avoid “so and so”.