changes in family law

Introduction
The Labour Government provides ‘Families are the bedrock of our society. They nurture children, help to build strength, resilience and moral values in young people, and provide the love and encouragement that helps them lead fulfilling lives.’ It is difficult to define ‘family’ because different people have different ideas on what a family is. Since many people have many views on what a family is, there is no set definition. The closest thing to a legal definition is a judicial statement that a family is what the ordinary man on the street thinks it (Sefton Holdings ). Traditionally, the word of family refers to a group of persons related to each other by blood or marriage. Over the last 30 years there has been a significant change in the pattern for family such as marriage, co-habitation and divorce.
Marriage
The traditional and orthodox role of family law clearly focused on marriage. Martha Albertson Fineman root the variety of potential meaning of marriage in ‘The Authonomy Myth’ . Lord Penzance coined the classic definition of marriage in English law in Hyde v Hyde as ‘voluntary union for life of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others’. This has been manifested in the Matrimonial Causes Act (MCA) 1973 s.11(c) . This has also been re-affirmed by the HOL in Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza , where Lord Millet stated that in a marriage, ‘a man’s spouse must be a woman; a woman’s spouse must be a man’.
Transsexual
However, the traditional meaning of marriage has been changed over years and has been opened to transsexual. Transsexual marriage cases are dominated by the British decision on Corbett v Corbett . In Goodwin v UK , ECHR held that a transsexual, which was prevented from marrying a person of her cho...

... middle of paper ...

...e and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1976, ss.16-18 of the Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates' Courts Act 1978, and the Matrimonial Homes Act 1983, providing two specific types of order and extending the categories of persons entitled to apply for an order under . This is illustrated in the case of Lucas v Lucas . This application could be made within 48hours of a domestic violence assault to protect the victim and or a relevant child. Also, the introduction of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 brought into existence an injunctive order to prohibit harassment, physical or verbal threat or fear of violence. The Domestic Violence Crime and Victims Act 2004 has removed the s.41 . Molestation was defined in C v C . Subsequently, non-molestation orders are reformed and dealt with in s.42 . Thus, breaching a non-molestation order is now an arrestable offence.