In this episode, Tamsin speaks to Emma Nash from the Family Law Language Project. From their website, “the language of law needs to be understood by those who need to engage with it. This is so important when it comes to family law as the implications of misuse of language can translate into genuine suffering for children and families. We also need to re-think how we practically apply family law. We need to move away from language that promotes conflict and leads to Court proceedings, towards a language that puts the welfare of children first.
The Family Law Language Project has a simple mission: to help make family law easier to understand, less hostile and more accessible for everyone. We intend to do this by improving the understanding and use of language.
Emma Nash is a solicitor and Head of the Family Department at City law firm Fletcher Day. In addition to her family law practice, Emma writes and speaks extensively on family law issues. Emma is also the founder of The Family Law Language Project, an initiative that launched in November 2021 with the aim of making family law more accessible and reducing conflict by improving the understanding and use of language.
Twitter: TheFLLProject
Instagram: thefamilylawlanguageproject
Tamsin Caine is a Chartered Financial Planner with over 20 years experience. She works with couples and individuals who are at the end of a relationship and want agree how to divide their assets FAIRLY without a fight.
You can contact Tamsin at tamsin@smartdivorce.co.uk or arrange a free initial meeting using https://calendly.com/tamsin-caine/15min. She is also part of the team running Facebook group Separation, Divorce and Dissolution UK
Tamsin Caine MSc., FPFS
Chartered Financial Planner
Smart Divorce Ltd
https://smartdivorce.co.uk
P.S. I am the co-author of “My Divorce Handbook – It’s What You Do Next That Counts”, written by divorce specialists and lawyers writing about their area of expertise to help walk you through the divorce process. You can buy it by scanning the QR code…
--
Transcript
(The transcript has been created by an AI, apologies for any mistakes)
Tamsin Caine 0:06
Hello, and welcome to the Smart Divorce Podcast. I'm Tamsin Caine and I will be your host during this, our series six of the podcast. We're delighted that you're joining us again. And I hope that you really enjoy today's episode. During series 6, we'll be speaking to other divorce professionals who help in perhaps some of the more unusual ways. So we will be speaking to lawyers who deal with international divorce. We will be speaking child inclusive mediation, to name a few. I really hope that you enjoyed today's episode. Let's jump right in. Hello, and today, I am very delighted to be joined by Emma Nash, Emma is a solicitor and head of family department at city law firm Fletcher Day. In addition, Emma writes and speaks extensively on family law issues, as I think lots of us do who work in the divorce space, I think we get all drawn into it. But Emma is also the founder of the Family Law Language Project, which is an initiative that launched in November 2021. And the aim of it is to make family law more accessible and reduce conflict by improving the understanding the use of language, which is what hopefully we're going to talk a little bit more about today. Because that fits in well with everything that the Smart Divorce and the Smart Divorce podcast is trying to do. So, Emma, welcome. Thank you for joining me. Thank you for responding to my random "fancy coming on my podcast" message. It was really good. I'm fascinated by the Family Law Language Project, would you give us a little bit of background as to as to how it started?
Emma Nash 2:04
Absolutely. I think it sort of starts from two places. First was the Family Solutions Group, which I think most people in family law know is a subgroup of the private law working group, who were basically given the rather mammoth task of trying to work out how to make family law better. And they came up with a report called What about me in 2020. And one, they identified many problems with the current system and made many recommendations. One of the problems they identified was the use of language and the misuse of language. And that was across the board in the media and in the profession and misunderstandings by the public. And those being reinforced. And then the use of language that was archaic, alienating, too technical, or it was actually increasing parental conflict. And they sort of thought, well, they made some recommendations about what could be done about that, which includes some sort of wide sweeping ideas about sort of re education of the public. But around about the same time, I think just before this report came out, I had done an article for The Times having a bit of a grumble about some of the words that are commonly misused or misunderstood in, in family law. And they picked up on this and they sort of came to me and said, Oh, you've already done a bit of thinking about this. Do you want to take that further. And we had a couple of meetings, and I started thinking, and that turned into a committee of people coming together with the idea of let's create a platform that's accessible, that's there for everyone that will help identify this misuse of language that will help identify language that isn't appropriate, and will inform educate people about what is better language, what is the correct language, but also provide a space for everyone to understand people's different experiences of language? I think that that it's really important when you're when you're coming to this, as a lawyer, your experience of family law, language is very different from someone who's actually needs to use the system, particularly the young people in it. Let's face it, you mentioned that you write about family law. Yes, we're lawyers. We're not all lawyers, but we're in that space, and we can live and breathe it. But that system is not there for us. And people who are using it aren't understanding it, or feeling alienated or the language is making that experience worse for them. We have to listen to them. And we have to understand that and we have to sort of think creatively about what we can do to improve things. So that was sort of the starting point. And it took about 12 months to go from that sort of initial meeting that initial idea to the launch. And when we got to the launch, we've got a website, which has got some content on it and we will continue to put content out but that's not our main mission to be a space of information, although that will that will be a place for ideas to be shared for information to be provided for debates to He started, but also as the starting platform across social media, to provide that space to say, I've seen this use of language, I don't think it's right. What about this, or this was on the TV the other day, and it was really good. Or this is my experience, to provide something that everyone can engage with, everyone can learn from. And I do say that as a lawyer being, you know, having a very specific experience of that. And we're evolving. So you know, we are moving, we said at the start of the project, that we weren't quite sure exactly where it was going to go. And we wanted it to be a very positive thing. This is about naming and shaming people and saying, you've got that wrong, you're causing further damage. It's about saying, Hey, that's not quite right. This is why it's important to get it right. And here's a better use, or, you know, what do you what is a better use of a term? Or what's the term that maybe we haven't thought of that can be that can be better? So it's about having those conversations, making making people think about the language they use. And I have to say, if that's the only thing that we get out of this is to get several people thinking more about the language they use, we will have done well, because in the last 18 months or so I have been analysing everything I say, and it's made me really, really think and actually changed the way I do a lot of things.
Tamsin Caine 6:21
That's impressive. I mean, that I can't even begin to imagine how enormous this task is where you even start, but I suppose my first question is, can you give us some, or an even an example of, of a term that was being used incorrectly within the family law space and putting you on the spot now, so haven't prepared you for this?
Emma Nash 6:48
I mean, there's lots of examples, the one that sort of immediately springs to my mind, and I say this a lot is the term custody. And I use that she now together with a word that's come up a lot, which is visitation. And I think the word custody, we removed it from the norm in the early 1990s, because it was parent focused, it suggested a right of control of ownership. And that's not the right way to approach children. But also it has associations with criminal law going into custody, having custody or something. And then people say visitation and immediately sort of, you know, you go further down the criminal route and look at prison visitations. And suddenly, we're using the same language for that type of world that we're using to assess parents relationships with their children. And that's that that immediately creates the wrong type of attitude. It's not child focused. It's focused about the what the parents want. And in and what what the child needs gets lost. So I'm finding, but it is prolific. But this highlights another problem that we had that we get so much media from across across ponds. In America, they use this language for that. But I, you know, I think, say I want you to have someone comes out and want full custody is one of the worst things you could say. Because it's all about that's all about you wanting to have control. It's not thinking about the child at all. But there are many other other examples that have that have come up. And I think another one that bothered me was repeatedly seeing in the media in mainstream media using common law marriage and common law spouse, which is so damaging when people start to think that they have these rights, and they don't, and but they see it and it gets reinforced. And even if you want to use that in the context of talking about a television show from from another jurisdiction, you have to put some sort of caveat about that, because this is where people are getting their information from.
Tamsin Caine 8:44
Yeah, no, absolutely. Yeah, those are, those are things I hear all the all the time and that the custody one and bearing in mind, I deal with the financial stuff. So this isn't the children work isn't my area of expertise. But quite often I'm working with people right at the beginning of their separation, and they'll they'll come in and say, Well, I'd like custody, and and they can have access on every other weekend. And you're like, No, that's not how it works. And it is all it's about winning, like you say power and control, and it stops being about actually what a realistic future looks like for the children. So
Emma Nash 9:26
I think that's right. And it's interesting, you say that from a finite financial point of view with sort of the sort of possessiveness of having custody. One of the without coming up with sort of specific words. What comes up a lot when looking at financial matters, is the possessiveness that people use my house, my pension, this is mine, I must keep it rather than actually, you know, if you don't move, start moving away from that language, even without saying, you know, it's, it's not just yours, but just talking about it in a neutral way. You will immediately diffused that kind of that fear and that control that That, I think feeds into a lot of the conflict. It's not because people necessarily trying to be antagonistic. They're They're scared that there's uncertainty. And so they are they are already geared for a fight.
Tamsin Caine 10:12
Yeah. Oh, absolutely. Yeah, definitely. And, and I think, like you say, some of the language that that surrounds the work that we do, definitely kind of leads into that. And I think I mean, be interested to know what you feel about, because obviously, we've recently had no fault divorce come in. And they've changed the language around decree nice saying Decree Absolute. Is that something that you think will help Mattis? Or is it not enough of a step?
Emma Nash 10:45
It's going to help, it's a huge step. It's not going to change everything. But anything that makes the system more accessible and more understandable has to be better. I'd say this is not a system for lawyers. You know, I'm actually quite pleased, I don't have to waste time explaining what decree nisi means. Because, you know, and you waste time doing it. And you know, I've done a few letters recently, you know, with the law, and my letters are much shorter. Because I'm not, it's not having to explain something which I don't wait, you know, it is obvious, you have this conditional order, and then you have your final order. I think we also have to keep in mind that language is evolving. And there may come a time when that's not the right language, because we've moved on and people need to maybe don't even understand conditional, I'm reaching. But the point is, that we cannot assume we've got it right. We have to keep checking, keep checking that it is the right language for this society now, not necessarily the society that that drafted the legislation at the time.
Tamsin Caine 11:45
Yeah, we might have a like, an emoji or something.
Emma Nash 11:49
Wow. Okay.
Tamsin Caine 11:55
I was just thinking in terms of so I have teenage kids. And certainly my son doesn't speak in whole words. Certainly in Britain. They're all you know, it's emojis, or like weird spellings of strange things. So yeah, I think I think you're absolutely right.
Emma Nash 12:17
Sorry, I was they were. I mean, that's something that, you know, coming from a technical point of view mean, we were talking a little earlier about SDRs, STRS and FHD. Ras. And actually, you know, I've been sitting in in court in cases where they've been talking about PGM. And M us and, you know, these are people who are sitting in court, people are talking about them, but they don't know, because the barristers, the courts got into their own language. So I think all of that, you know, yes, making sure the language is accessible for the people who need to understand it, but will also help you it has to be usable, as well. So it's really interesting to hear that comparison. I liked the emoji point there. I'm gonna remember.
Tamsin Caine 12:58
I think Yeah, I think some of the, some of the initials that are used in, in, in the law, it's very similar to initials that are used in financial services. But it's not something you're familiar with on a on a day to day basis. So there are still loads of initials and family law that I have to go and Google when I've been to a meet with lots of lawyers, because I'm like, I have absolutely no idea what that means. And so yes,
Emma Nash 13:31
We do mean that we've recently had the efficiency statements, we've got es ones and es twos, I see information coming out about this guidance coming out about this for not for lawyers, and ESone, you have to understand that if we can encounter that document. So yeah, we have to be careful.
Tamsin Caine 13:47
Yeah, I think you're right. And I think we're trying to move to a world or or certainly there are people in the in the Force Base and who we're trying to move towards more of a team working so that we're playing on professional strength. So we're working with divorce coaches, we're working with financial planners, we're working with all sorts of other professionals in the area, rather than just lawyers. And it's great that loads all understand this fantastic. But if they want to bring other people along with them, then it will be great to have a language that that was understandable to to all of us as well as typically.
Emma Nash 14:26
I think it's so important to have that team around you. And I think one thing that I often find myself explaining to clients, I'm a lawyer, I have this very specific role in the breakdown of your relationship. But I am not the only person you're going to need I'm not there to provide I'm here for legal advice. I'm almost a tool in that respect. And that's something else that I've done. The language project is looking at that helping people understand that having a your relationship breakdown doesn't necessarily mean going TO to a lawyer and then going to court. You have this huge space around you. A huge amount of professionals who are that'll help you. And ideally keep you out of court. And actually, you know, who is a part of that? But it's it's not the only thing I think understanding that world is that it's much larger than much more supportive than people think, will again help sort of diffuse that idea that you've got to come. You've got to prepare for a fight.
Tamsin Caine 15:20
Yeah, no, absolutely. And you see it, you see it so often, I had a new client, come work with me a month or so ago. And, and beforehand, she was emailing me. And she said, so if I come and work with you, do I not need a lawyer then? Right? It's not, it's not one or the other, like, you need me because you need me to help you with this bit of the finances bit, but you need a lawyer because they can give you legal advice that I can't give you. So actually, it's not a one or other situation, it's, you need a team of people, each playing to their own strengths around you. And I think if we can, if we can talk in those terms, also, as well as the language that we use around this, these things and not, you know, not, I'm going to take a few notes, this sort of language, I'm going to take you for every penny that she's gone, or he's got really, how is that going to help anybody? You know, you're the CO parent with the with the other person, if you've got children, probably for the rest of your life. It's not going to be massively helpful if you've decided to go and have a huge battle in court. So yeah, I think I think it's, it's really interesting. So. So what, where are you up to? At the moment? Where's the project took to what are the next steps?
Emma Nash 16:41
Well, we've, since we launched, we've been doing a lot of work in promoting the promoting the project. So there's been a lot of stuff out there in the press. In the legal press, I've been doing lots of interviews like this and talking to people doing lots of writing about it. And basically trying to and getting people to engage with the social media accounts, which is starting to take off, I think our next stage is going to be focused on providing some more content, particularly some more accessible content, we're looking to do video, video articles, things that are a bit different, that show things rather than simply telling people things, like a lot of the time, we don't want to put information out that people have to sit and read. Because they're not going to use we're doing things a visual, we've commissioned some cartoons to try and help literally demonstrate things. I've mentioned the video articles, and then we're hoping to host a training event later in the year. And then we will look to do something for the I think the anniversary of the launch just to sort of say, right, here's where we're going, and here's what the next step will be. And then it's going to be a matter of carrying on making people aware of the project, getting more and more people engaged in the project as a particularly young people getting getting them engaged, getting different perspectives, different views, and just really get people thinking about about about the language. So I think there'll come a point when we will simply be, you know, we will be sort of churning out the material. That's not quite where we want to be doing. But regular useful information. Of course, we have to react to what happens in in the world and family law. And they just keep the keep reminding people that we're here, keep putting language into people's mindset. People keep thinking about it. And hopefully, you know, we'll start to see some some changes. Yes, small, any small change on any case of any one person is fantastic. The big picture change we want to be part of we know that that's that's a slow process. But we think we can make a difference from a language perspective. And it's just a matter of sort of getting on and making as many people as aware of that as possible.
Tamsin Caine 18:41
Yeah, I think that I think that's brilliant that they social media account that that you have in the in the website that you've gotten the videos that you're going to put out there, that they aimed at the general public, or they're aimed at lawyers who who's their intended audience,
Emma Nash 18:57
I think this comes down to what I say quite a lot about this project, everyone has got something to contribute, and everyone has got something to learn. And I think anyone from the profession who comes into thinking about language or thinking about what they do, thinking, I know what I'm talking about, or I know how to do this job I have too much of is is is you know you're missing something. And if they if I give sort of a couple of examples, one of the video articles, I'm looking to interview a court interpreter. And so that's going to be very enlightening for the profession. But I think also for the people as well. And we're looking to do something on gaslighting because that's a term that gets used a lot and I think Miss you understand where that comes from. We're looking to go back and maybe look right back. Again, we could we could talk about the case or we could talk about everything that you can find this plenty of information out there. But what we want to do some shirts, we might try and look at the original play gaslight and actually understand why we use that term because, again, if you're familiar with play, but I didn't, there are a few greater examples. Have coercive controlling abuse and how you gaslight making someone think that they're going crazy. So that's the kind of thing we're looking looking for, I think some of the stuff we put out there will be much more geared to some sectors to some people and some to others. And ultimately, we'll be looking to put things out there that are accessible to across languages, we'll be putting subtitles on things. So we're trying to keep that in mind, always be aware of what could probably always do better.
Tamsin Caine 20:31
That sounds that sounds really brilliant, I come across so many people who are if experienced coercive control of if some in some way, shape or form. And so yeah, that I didn't know about the play. So I will go look,
Emma Nash 20:49
really good play. And I hope we're able to do do it justice in some way. Just to give you a really quick summary, a husband goes looking in another room that his wife doesn't know about for something. And in order to look in that room, he has to turn the gas lights on in there. And it means the gas lights and the rest of the house go dimmer. And she says to him, when you left the house, the gas lights went dimmer. And he says no, they didn't. You're going crazy. That's really basics, not through justice. And there are other bits and pieces about moving things around that. You know, there's a lot more to it than that. But that's basically what that concept comes from.
Tamsin Caine 21:30
I had no idea. But yeah, that makes
Emma Nash 21:33
I try not to give too much away as well.
Tamsin Caine 21:36
We can all go watch it. That sounds that sounds really good. Something that that's kind of come into my mind while we've been talking is and I'm sure you're aware of this, but is the use of some of tools like family wizard. When the in the language that pupils are using between themselves as well as the language that we as professionals use towards to clients to describe things. Is that something that the projects looking at covering as well? They're kind of what we say to what one party says to their soon to be ex?
Emma Nash 22:15
Yes, absolutely. Working with our family wizard on various, various projects. James Evans has very kindly agreed to join our committee and help. So I think you'll probably be seeing a lot more of our family was in the family language project working together going forward. Absolutely anything we can do to improve that, that that language that they use, whether they're coming from a place that they don't understand something, or that they don't realise that conflict is having the impact that it's having. And that's something that is really all boils down to we are so much better informed now about the damage that conflicts does, that we cannot ignore things that make it worse, such as misuse of language. So yes, anything like our family wizard that can help improve that. We're very supportive of them
Tamsin Caine 23:06
Excellent, we spoke to James a couple of couple of episodes ago, so if anybody's not heard that and like to go back and find out more about our family wizard and how it can help you with the, with the language that you use between one another, then please look that up because it was a fascinating interview with him. Really good. So that I really liked the idea of if you're working with a family, where is it? Because I think that that I don't know how I don't understand can't get my head around how on earth it tells when you're sending it. Like you can pick out offensive words, but it seems to know when you're being sarcastic or...
Unknown Speaker 23:49
saying that yeah, their tone metre. Now, I think that they're most interesting projects. And we've sort of glibly talked about how we might translate that and use that apply that to say, solicitors correspondence to identify, you know, paragraphs that are unhelpful, or that, you know, are actually going to increase the conflict of the case. Because I think, you know, as I said, once you start looking at even even language that you think isn't necessarily because you're writing to another professional, but you got to remember that there's this person at the beyond that professional reading that that's going to interpret that in a certain way. So yeah, the way I think they're toning is very interesting. I can't fathom their algorithms or how they manage that that either but I've seen it in practice. It's quite something. It would be brilliant
Tamsin Caine 24:31
if they could apply it to to lawyers letters as well. I really have seen it you know, I certainly have examples of of clients lawyers who've received really pretty offensive correspondence from the other side and you know, like you say is you are a person actually working with with clients who are going through divorces is already quite an amount If position to be and then, you know, I think family lawyers do need looking after and if there's anything that out there that can that can kind of tone down
Emma Nash 25:14
that's the that's the thing, how do you still do their jobs? But I do think it's and some people will be resistant to it, think you know, when it comes to particularly children work and family law, you have to to be really careful about that. There is really no justification for using aggressive language. But one of the things that, you know, I get a lot of thoughts about against and starting this project is using the greeting, Dear Sirs, because for ages, I thought, well, it's a bit archaic, but it's, you know, it's tradition. It's what everyone uses, and there's not really a suitable alternative. And then when this was delivered, no, there has to be something better. We are not law firms are not groups of men anymore. And this is this is what this is, you know, this is where that comes from. And once I started thinking about it as like, right, okay, well, why don't I find out who the person is I'm writing to use their name, even if you're still writing formally. Or if you're writing to a law firm will use the name of the law firm. And suddenly, it's like, Well, okay, there are other options out there. And now, it actually seems to me, you know, kind of grates on my CDs, because I'm like, it's it's not appropriate anymore. But how do you then turn around and say, Can you not write Dear Sirs, we're not, we're not, we're not a firm of men. These days, it might not be appropriate anyway, because you're making assumptions about how someone wants to be referred to. But how to address that. I think this is this this point, in particular, through practice through using better language and getting as many people to can come to think about the language that you're using, once you start thinking about it, you will start to notice that actually, I didn't need to say that. Or maybe there's a better way of saying that. And if someone else is thinking about it, it feeds back and you will see it and you know, sort of making change happen that way, rather than saying you should have done this differently.
Tamsin Caine 26:59
Yeah, no, absolutely. And I think that that's so interesting about the dare says, because there are not a huge number of it's largely women who are family lawyers is certainly what I found, you know, there are yes, there are male family lawyers, but there's a huge proportion of women. So actually deer says is, is really kind of not appropriate in when you're writing in that situation. It's, it is really strange. It reminds me I had a message on LinkedIn the other day, and from somebody that I don't know, and bless them, it was somebody congratulating me on something that they'd written Dear Mrs. Caine, and I'm like, right, I'm not the mrs. But you've all somatically looked at my profile, and assumed that that's why and I was like, if he'd written, dear Tamsin, I'd be like, no worries, that's absolutely fine. And maybe people don't like to be to have their first name use, but it really, like, grated on me. And I was like, Well, I know this person's trying to be polite, but actually, you know, we are in a different world that we very rarely get referred to it by a surname and, you know, and Miss Mrs. S, whatever. It's, you know, any billion Schools in the courtroom?
Emma Nash 28:27
I think it comes down to this idea of what makes you comfortable. What do you how do you want to be referred to this courtroom? Because again, you are you not alienating people, you're not making assumptions about them? And would it really be that difficult at the start of a case to ask the other side to ask in the courtroom, do you mind if I, you know, use mother father or he rather than, you know, making making the assumptions and potentially alienating people. And, you know, we talked about your new sensei versus this, but you could have a completely different way of doing it. That doesn't put people against each other, but also makes them understand who they are, whoever one is in the room, and that they're being referred to in a way that's comfortable. I think that would be a much better system than making it you know, doing it so formally and setting all these things out and maybe make jumping, jumping and making these assumptions and people feeling they have to fit into the office sit there and be quiet will be referred to as the, you know, the maternal grandmother MGM or something like that, because that's what's done.
Tamsin Caine 29:25
Yeah, no, absolutely. Do you know what I'd never even thought of the vs thing. Bro up. Kramer versus Kramer which probably too young to remember. But when I was alive, my mom loved that film. And yeah, and that was the proper court battle. You know, court battle divorce and that is you know, you go from you think in terms of cases being somebody versus somebody is that it's like a boxing ring, isn't it and you straightaway pull in their language conflict. If
Emma Nash 29:56
you think about the language we use, we call court battles. It's a book Seeing bring people talk about barristers having them in your corner, it's fighting language. And it really, again, it reinforces that idea that you have to fight otherwise you're going to lose, you're going to lead, you use that control, you're not going to have, you're not gonna get a settlement, you're not going to have, you know, access to the facts of your success, because your children as much. And people in particular, when by the time they've got to annoy, they're already so far down that path, you have to talk them back. And often, a lot of the damage is done. But if you think about the battle language, fighting language is prolific throughout the way we talk about law, and family law and family law, I think has to be seen differently from other areas of law, because the the end goals, the solutions that we're looking for are about families, about children about society, they're not about winning, getting paid. And if we make people feel that way, it's you know, you're going to carry on that that antagonistic. Feeling, and we just need to think, Hey, this is this is an area of law, we need the law, we have to have some technical language. And that's why we're the family law language project. But we don't have to do things in such a way that makes that process worse, or that is necessarily the same way as every other practice area of law does things.
Tamsin Caine 31:23
Yeah, no, I absolutely agree. That's so fascinating. I can't I can't believe that we've been talking for so long. But really interesting. For anybody listening who's interested in finding out more about the project or finding the project on social media and following it, can you could you just give us the where that where they can find you?
Emma Nash 31:50
Absolutely. So the website is a little bit longer, it's easy to remember, it's familylanguageproject.co.uk And our Twitter is at the FL project. And if you put family language project into Instagram will pop up we've got a really distinctive logo which is colourful building blocks with the with the with the name of the project. So we do stand out and once you've found that you'll find us across everything else.
Tamsin Caine 32:15
So that's fantastic mock, put that in the show notes as well so that hopefully people just be able to click on that and find the straightaway. Thank you so much for joining me, it's been really interesting to talk to you and I'm really looking forward to hopefully that project surging forward and reducing conflict in family law.
Emma Nash 32:34
Thank you for having me, it's been a real pleasure
Tamsin Caine 32:41
I hope you enjoyed the episode of the Smart Divorce podcast. If you would like to get in touch please have a look in the show notes for our details or go onto the website www.smartdivorce.co.uk. Also if you are listening on Apple podcasts or on Spotify and you wouldn't mind leaving us a lovely five star review. That would be fantastic. I know that lots of our listeners are finding this is incredibly helpful in their journey through separation divorce and dissolving a civil partnership. Also, if you would like some further support, we do have Facebook group now. It's called 'Separation divorce and dissolution UK.' Please do go on to Facebook, search up the group and we'd be delighted to have you join us. The one thing I would say is do please answer their membership questions. Okay, have a great day and take care!