Family Court Divorce Cases

Non-disclosure within legal proceedings and divorce cases is a contempt of court and, yet, rarely are there penalties applies to those found to have hidden assets with the intention of deceiving their former spouses and the courts.

Almost always, it is the women and children in divorce cases who suffer because the legal system is failing in its duty to provide fairness and equality.

The Michelle Young Foundation was set up to campaign for equal rights for women in divorce cases. We will continue to press for fundamental changes to the legal system, especially, the Family Courts system, which we believe are vital if women are ever to experience true equality.

Please state the name of the court, your case number, name(s) of judge(s) and law firm(s) involved where you have not received justice.

  1. Family Courts Children

Who unlawfully took the child or children. Please state the name of the court, your case number, name(s) of the judge(s), the law firm(s) involved and social services department and social workers involved

In 2020, the Ministry of Justice published a report revealing the horror of a Family Court system routinely allowing abusive men to gain contact and sole care of children even when the children and the mothers reported and evidenced the abuse, in some cases with lethal consequences to both mother and children. A court system which listens to debunked and discredited theories, such as “Parental Alienation”, rather than accepting the evidence of abuse and violence where such evidence exists. A court system which listens to a network of unqualified, unaccredited and self-styled “experts” who espouse theories which have not been tested or checked and allowed these so-called “experts” to gain credibility in a Family Court system which rarely lets in the light of scrutiny.

2. Bankruptcy Courts

Insolvency Fraud is a crime which involves the stealing of assets and funds from individuals and businesses using Insolvency Law and the judicial system as the means through which to commit the crime.

The modus operandi (method of offence) by which the crime is committed is that what is written on the Statutory Demand is a false representation of facts, which brings the matter within the ambit and scope of the Fraud Act 2006, but the fact the Statutory Demand contains a false representation of facts which is being passed off as genuine, brings the Statutory Demand within the ambit and scope of the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981.

Fraud by False Representation carries a maximum penalty on conviction on indictment of a term of imprisonment not exceeding 10 years.

Making A False Instrument carries a maximum penalty on conviction on indictment of a term of imprisonment not exceeding 10 years.

Using A False Instrument With Intent to Deceive or Defraud carries a maximum penalty on conviction on indictment of a terms of imprisonment not exceeding 10 years.

The venue for the hearing of bankruptcy petitions, in the case of individual bankruptcies, is one of the County Court Hearing Centres authorised under the Insolvency Rules 2016. In cases of individual bankruptcy, the High Court only has jurisdiction in cases of Criminal Bankruptcy, where a debtor is outside the UK when the Petition is issued and where proceedings are brought by HMRC and in cases of corporate insolvency.. Despite this, there is evidence of individual bankruptcy proceedings being pushed through the High Court when the High Court has no jurisdiction to do so.

What is also of concern is that judges who sit in the bankruptcy courts have, in the past, been solicitors or barristers within firms of Insolvency Practitioners and it is not beyond the realms of possibility that bias or undue partiality enters the equation.

It has also been noted that Certificates of Appointment of so-called “trustees in bankruptcy” are often suspect. In many cases, the Certificate lacks a court seal, but there is evidence emerging that the signatures on Certificates of Appointment are not on the list of authorised signatories held by the Insolvency Service.

This raises questions as to just how many other suspect Certificates of Appointment are in circulation and how much money and property those holding such Certificates of Appointment and claiming to be “trustees in bankruptcy” have taken from victims of fraudulent bankruptcy. These suspect certificates are likely to be False Instruments, in accordance with the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981.

Falsely Claiming to Be Acting Under the Authority or Process of A Court is a criminal offence carrying a maximum penalty on conviction on indictment of a term of imprisonment not exceeding 7 years.

Please name the court, case number, judge(s) name(s), law firm(s) name(s), name(s) of insolvency practitioner(s) and accountancy firm(s).

3. Solicitors Selling Loans

Many major solicitor’s firms have undisclosed lending partnerships with high interest and often barely-regulated or unregulated high interest loan companies. When a client attends a paid-for meeting for advice on divorce, the solicitor pressure-sells them a loan as if this is a normal part of the divorce process. The loans lock the client into that particular law firm. The minimum is always £30,001, this being the threshold over which the client cannot complain and get a refund if the solicitor’s firm does a bad job. The money goes directly into the Solicitor’s account and, often, they control when, frequently taking payment in advance, and allowing their client to take the interest charge hit to the sole benefit of the solicitors. Often solicitors will carry on increasing the amounts borrowed at crucial points in the divorce process, for example, two weeks before the FDR or Final Hearing, leaving the client to face court unrepresented, or pay and this, often, until all the assets are gone. These loans bankrupt people. Even those clients who end up with a settlement find it is rapidly eroded by interest rates as high as 29%. The solicitors charge for “administering” the loan, often as much as £10,000, the loan companies as much as £6,000 for administering the loans. Penalties, charges, fees, build up until the divorcing client is left with nothing.

Loan companies include: Ratesetter, Novitas, Iceberg, Detach, Ampla, Level, Harbour Litigation, West One.

Solicitors who routinely sell these loans include: Payne Hicks Beach, Stewarts Law, Hunter Solicitors, Burgess Mee, Miles Preston, Family Law in Partnership, Sintons Blick, Tees Law.

There is a petition to sign on Here is a link:

Any whistleblowers inside the system with information on the level and nature of corruption in the Family Courts or Insolvency and Bankruptcy Courts are invited to contact me directly. All information given will be treated in the strictest confidence as will the identity of whistleblowers. Contact me at:

Contact us within information on unethical or corrupt court staff, judges, bankruptcies, solicitors and estate agents, please contact:

Contact us with information about unethical Divorce Loans and Divorce Solicitors, contact:

To contact us with information on unethical judges and judgments in Children Act proceedings, social workers, psychologists, psychiatrists, Court Guardians and CAFCASS employees, contact:

Everything you share with us is in strictest confidence. We will never share your information without your express written consent.

For details of judicial corruption, please visit:

Please see our “VIDEOS” page, too.