John McKee McKenzie Friend

13/02/2026

I am no longer providing services for family law.

The usefulness of modern AI in particular Microsoft copilot renders unnecessary the need for anyone not involved in high conflict court cases to use a McKenzie friend.

Just make sure to check the output and in particular check cases against https://www.bailii.org/

Be open with the court about using AI.

For those of you involved in high conflict cases the unfortunate developments in family law and in particular the removal of the presumption of contact have made self representing an impossible task.

The best advice in high conflict cases is to find a good family lawyer and commit to properly funding them for the entirety of your case.
In the long run this will save you money and heartache.

Look at the expense from the point of view that the outcome of proceedings will affect the relationship you have with your children until they are at least 22 or 23 years old.

I wish you all good luck.

Your system has been denied access to BAILII for administrative reasons (excessive traffic or potentially abusive actions). If you wish to restore access, contact [email protected] with your organisation name, the IP address from which you're connecting, and any keyword you may have been issued.

28/07/2025

🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧

02/07/2025

An important case which will have general application for those less well off where significant pension assets were built up before the marriage and the other party is young enough to build their own pot.

Is it a thing? What does it cover? And what effect should it have?

09/05/2025

For those unmarried separating couples where one of you has said the other can keep the house and the other has taken on all the expenses of the house.

The seminal decision in Hudson v Hathway was handed down on 14 December 2022, shortly before the Christmas break. It prompted a flurry...

11/04/2025

UK family law often follows developments in other common law jurisdictions.
Most notably have been the recent changes in both UK Domestic Violence and Divorce laws.

It speaks volumes that a former Australian family court judge now puts on record his experiences which are being replicated widely across UK family courts.

“The Family Court system is in enormous trouble.’ That is a momentous statement given that the speaker, Adelaide barrister Stuart Lindsay, is a former Family Court judge. But there’s much more… This experienced insider blames the parlous state of this vital institution on a campaign led by the Labor Party to ‘promote a particular pronounced feminist ideology in the Family Law Act’.

You can watch the full interview on the below link.

Adelaide barrister Stuart Lindsay, a former Family Court judge, speaks out about the damaging campaign by the Labor Party to promote feminist ideology though...

04/04/2025

Absent parents pay tax on the money they pay under the child maintenance service schemes despite gaining no personal benefit from those payments and regardless of whether they actually get to see their children.

It's a position I have always felt was unfair and I'd like to see a policy change that allows these payments to be offset against the absent parent's income tax calculation.

If you feel the same please use the letter below to send to your MP.

[Your Name]
[Your Address]
[Postcode]
[Email Address]
[Date]

[Name of MP]
House of Commons
London
SW1A 0AA

Dear [Name of MP],

Re: Proposal for Tax Relief on Child Maintenance Payments for Non-Resident Parents
I am writing to you as a constituent to raise a matter of concern regarding the tax treatment of child maintenance payments made by non-resident parents. I believe the current policy is outdated, unfair, and places an undue financial burden on individuals who are fulfilling a legal obligation to support their children, without receiving any personal benefit from those payments.

Under current UK tax law, child maintenance must be paid out of a parent’s post-tax income. There is no scope to deduct these payments from gross income or to claim any form of tax relief. As a result, non-resident parents may face a double financial disadvantage — paying income tax on money that is then used solely to support a child they do not live with, and receiving no personal or financial benefit from that expenditure.

This approach is inconsistent with other areas of tax policy, where personal or household costs are sometimes recognised — such as in relation to dependents, spouses, or childcare. Moreover, it risks discouraging voluntary compliance with child maintenance arrangements and imposes disproportionate hardship on parents who are often already under financial pressure.

Proposal:
I respectfully propose that Parliament consider introducing a form of tax deduction or relief for child maintenance payments, either:

As a deduction from gross income for tax purposes, or

As a tax credit similar to childcare support mechanisms.

This would recognise the public interest in ensuring children are properly supported, while also treating non-resident parents fairly and equitably in the tax system. I also suggest that HMRC consult on this issue with affected parents and family law practitioners.

I understand that tax law is complex and politically sensitive, but I believe this issue deserves attention — particularly in light of rising living costs and the importance of promoting responsible parenting across both resident and non-resident households.

I would be very grateful if you would raise this matter with the Treasury or the Chancellor, or support a debate or inquiry into the matter.

Thank you for your time and representation. I would welcome your views and any update you can provide.

Yours sincerely,
[Your Full Name]

23/03/2025

When professionals hold influence in legal or psychological circles, they can shape narratives to serve their own interests. By dismissing or discrediting parental alienation, they ensure that cases remain complex, drawn-out, and heavily litigated—creating more work (and income) for themselves and their colleagues.

It also allows them to maintain control over who gets appointed as experts, which reports are considered credible, and which legal arguments gain traction. If a small group dictates the ‘accepted’ view within courts, they can create a cycle where only like-minded professionals are hired, reinforcing their position while side lining those who acknowledge alienation as a real issue.

20/03/2025

I would highly recommend a total social media detox to everyone

10/01/2025

Very pleased to have been awarded a commendation by The University of Law in my Masters of Law LLM.

06/01/2025

It’s about time this disgraceful state of affairs was addressed.

Exclusive: David Neuberger believes lack of access to state-funded lawyers for family disputes is ‘wrong in principle’