Please find a number of our previous clients’ experiences when working with Cath and the team.
Client Journeys
Harry
Harry is a businessperson who has a thriving practice in a rural area. His work life was extremely demanding, and he had to spend a lot of time on call. He separated from his wife and was able to buy a new property as he had sufficient capital and earnings to do so. He wanted his five children to spend time with him and also wanted his wife to understand that for him to continue providing for her and the children that for things to work, she would have to be flexible when it came to him having contact with them.
Harry was also keen to make sure that he preserved as much of his business as possible. Preserving the business was a means of ensuring a significant amount of income for the family going forward. Cath advised him of the various different process options and he felt the collaborative practice appealed most to him. With the help of Cath and his wife’s collaborative lawyer we managed to navigate a bespoke settlement which allowed Harry to preserve and continue to operate his business but at the same time having flexible contact with his children. In return, his wife received a significant amount of ongoing support from Harry which was far more than she would have received if she had taken matters to court. This was a win, win for the family.
Dave
Dave came to Cath as he had been separated from his wife for some time – around 7 years. They had two children together and had managed separation really well. They were both best friends and had both moved on with new partners. The children were happy, and Dave and his wife had sorted out all financial issues between them. Dave had essentially walked away and left his wife with the family home.
Dave and Cath had an initial meeting, and we discussed his rights and obligations, and the fact that he could potentially make a claim for money against his wife in respect of the former home. Cath explained to Dave that she had to give him this advice however it was up to him how he wished to proceed. Dave was of the firm view that he did not want to make a financial claim and was happy to get divorced without first entering into a separation agreement. Cath then divorced Dave from his wife on a fixed fee basis which was the most cost-effective option.
Marie
Marie consulted Cath after receiving advice from another lawyer. She had not married but has co-habited with her partner for over 20 years and they both had two children together. He was a successful businessperson and Marie had given up work. She had been made aware by her previous solicitor that she had to raise a court action to secure rights as a co-habitee within a year of separation.
Marie had an initial consultation with Cath a month before she had to raise a court action and was told that she had to act very quickly to preserve her position. Marie wrestled with whether she should rock the boat and raise action and a week before she would have been time-barred contacted Cath. She apologised for taking so long and asked Cath to raise an action for her.
Cath arranged a consultation for the following day with Counsel and a summons was drafted and served on her partner before the time bar expired. The case was then frozen, and we were then able to negotiate a financial settlement within a few months. This gave Marie the financial independence that she had wanted.
Jane
Jane had consulted Cath while she was resident in Dubai. She wanted to leave Dubai with her two children and come back to Scotland. Cath explained the divorce process to Jane. Jane wanted to wait until she was back in Scotland with her children before raising proceedings. Cath was able to serve the divorce papers on Jane’s husband when he came over to Scotland to exercise contact with the children. Cath put him in touch with a lawyer in Scotland so he could be properly advised and understood the implications of the divorce. He decided to not defend the action and Cath obtained a divorce decree and residence order for Jane.
Andrew
Andrew worked offshore and had various homes across the world including Thailand and Scotland. He was born in Scotland but had worked all over the world. He was married to a Thai national and had three children. He had spoken with lawyers in Thailand and understood the process there but wanted to understand what the process would be here on Scotland.
Cath discussed the pros and cons with Andrew and his Thai legal team, and it was determined that we should raise proceedings in Scotland. His Thai lawyers were able to serve the summons in Thailand after which divorce was granted.
Kenneth
Kenneth was married to a Scottish wife and was married with three children and live in Switzerland although separately. Both Kenneth and his wife were keen to tie up their affairs as they would subject to a large tax bill in Switzerland if they did not do so within a certain time period post-separation.
Cath referred Kenneth’s wife to another lawyer in Scotland and we were then able to discuss the terms of the separation agreement that was entered into. Cath was then able to divorce Kenneth within the time frame he required thus avoiding the large tax bill.
Bobby
Cath had already negotiated a separation agreement for Bobby when he received a writ from his wife seeking divorce and a residence order in respect of their 7 year old daughter. His wife was now seeking to set aside the 50: 50 shared care agreement they had entered into only a year before.
Cath lodged a robust defence on Bobby’s behalf and at the first Child Welfare Hearing insisted that the child’s views were sought by someone independent. This was ordered by the court and at the second hearing the case settled with Bobby receiving an order from the court for 50:50 shared care.
Suzanne
Suzanne had first been a client in 2018 when she separated from her husband and Cath had drawn up a Minute of Agreement to formalise finances. Suzanne now felt it was time to proceed with divorce. As Suzanne and her husband had been separated for some time, Cath advised that the best way forward was to proceed by way of SPA (simplified divorce) as there were no children under the age of 16, and finances had been previously agreed.
Suzanne came back to Cath after receiving the forms stating there may an issue regarding one of the questions on the form as she had just found out her husband was in fact in hospital with mental health issues. Cath advised Suzanne that she could not continue by way of SPA and had to proceed by Writ. This was done and divorce was granted.
Yusef
Yusef was of Turkish descent but was a British citizen who had been living in Scotland with his Turkish wife for over 10 years. He had separated in 2018 and his wife had returned to Turkey to live, however, his son remained in Scotland. Yusef now wished to divorce. He had previously entered into a Minute of Agreement so there were no finances to finalise.
Cath advised that we did not require his wife to sign anything as this could be based on 2 years separation without consent. His wife was required to do nothing, but we would need to wait for 42 days to elapse. We would also need to serve the papers in Turkey which could prove time consuming and arduous. Cath secured a Scottish lawyer to accept service on Yusef’s wife’s behalf saving time and money and divorce was granted.
Marion
Marion contacted Cath as an ex-pat working abroad who was seeking to finally divorce her husband. Marion was a medic who married in Scotland then lived and worked in Australia with her husband and children. Marion and her husband lived in several locations in Australia before finally separating in 2014. The separation was not amicable, and Marion remained in Australia for a short period of time before moving to Malaysia. The children were now adults and at university, and over time Marion lost all contact with her husband who remained in Australia but in a location unknown.
Cath advised Marion that as there were no finances to finalise, she could proceed with Divorce through the Court of Session but as she did not know her husband’s address, they would try to serve on the adult children as next of kin in the first instance. Marion’s children however did not wish involved. The next step was to engage a tracing agency in Australia to locate her husband’s whereabouts in order to serve the Divorce papers. Unfortunately, the tracing agency were unable to find Marion’s husband with the limited information she had, so in terms of the Court of Session rules, a classified advertisement was placed in a prominent Australian newspaper announcing a Divorce action had been raised. Marion’s husband did not respond/defend the action and Divorce was granted.
Get in Touch Today
Cath Karlin is a vastly experienced lawyer and uses this alongside her expertise to assist you however possible. She is very familiar with the process of divorce and can expertly guide you whatever your situation. Her divorce and separation expertise spans a number of issues including child custody, division of assets, prenuptial cohabitation agreements, surrogacy cases and expatriate divorce. If you’re curious about costs, we have a page breaking down the initial costs of a consultation. Read her reviews to see how great she is at what she does and get in contact today. I really pride myself on my local reputation, with 60 5-Star Google reviews.
Find out where you stand
Get in touch
How can I help?
If you’d like to arrange a consultation or find out if I can help you please do get in touch.
Main office call: 0131 357 1515
Direct dial call: 0131 357 1516
Address
Cath Karlin Family Law
51 William Street
Edinburgh
EH3 7LW