PPC1 Family Law common mistakes
PPC1 Family Law · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Calculating a spouse's intestate share from memory instead of applying the statutory order and fractions to the stated facts, so the surviving spouse's share is stated as a flat one-half or one-third regardless of whether children, parents, or siblings survive.
Candidates learn a single headline figure early and never re-derive it, so they miss that the spouse's share changes with the class of surviving relatives and with the number of children.
What to do instead
Before answering, list who survives the decedent in a column, then apply the intestacy rule step by step and show the arithmetic. Practise a set of scenarios (spouse plus one child, spouse plus three children, spouse plus parents only, spouse plus siblings) and write the fraction for each until the pattern is automatic.
Treating community property and separate property as interchangeable when dividing assets, labelling an asset community merely because it was acquired during the marriage.
The default assumption that everything earned during marriage is shared feels intuitive and is reinforced by everyday usage, so candidates skip the characterisation step and go straight to division.
What to do instead
For every asset in a fact pattern, write a one-line characterisation with its basis: acquired before marriage, acquired during marriage with community funds, separate property commingled, or traced to a separate source. Only then allocate. If tracing is ambiguous, state the presumption that applies and why.
Answering a child custody question by naming a single standard such as 'best interests of the child' without applying the enumerated statutory factors to the facts given.
The phrase is memorable and appears correct, so candidates stop there, not realising that examiners award marks for factor-by-factor application rather than for reciting the label.
What to do instead
Build a reusable checklist of the factors that recur (stability, caregiving history, each parent's capacity, the child's wishes by age, sibling cohesion, any family violence) and, in every custody answer, address each factor that the facts touch, noting which are neutral or unsupported.
Confusing the grounds for divorce with the conditions for the financial or property settlement, and importing fault into the ancillary relief analysis.
Popular discussion of divorce is saturated with fault language, and candidates carry that framing into questions where the jurisdiction is no-fault and conduct is relevant only in narrow, exceptional circumstances.
What to do instead
Separate the answer into two headed parts: dissolution (ground and procedure) and consequences (property, support, children). In the second part, state expressly that fault is not a general factor and identify the limited situations where conduct can be weighed.
Stating a maintenance or support outcome as a single figure or duration without showing the calculation method, the needs-and-means comparison, or the statutory guideline being applied.
Model answers in study material often present only the final number, so candidates imitate the conclusion and omit the reasoning chain that carries the marks.
What to do instead
Write support answers in a fixed sequence: identify the claimant's reasonable needs, the payer's ability to pay, the standard of living during the marriage, any statutory formula or guideline, then the proposed amount and duration with a sentence justifying each step. Practise with numbers so the arithmetic is visible.
Describing the formalities for a valid marriage or the requirements for a prenuptial or separation agreement generically, without distinguishing which defects make the instrument void, voidable, or merely unenforceable.
Candidates memorise a list of requirements but not the consequence attached to failing each one, so they treat all defects as equally fatal.
What to do instead
Draw a three-column table for each instrument: requirement, consequence of failure, and who may challenge it. Fill it from the statute and keep it as a revision aid. In answers, name the consequence explicitly rather than saying the arrangement is 'invalid'.
Ignoring jurisdiction and conflict-of-laws issues when the facts mention parties living in different states or countries, or a marriage or divorce obtained abroad.
Candidates focus on the substantive family law they have revised and treat residence facts as background colour rather than as the trigger for a threshold question.
What to do instead
Adopt a habit of scanning the facts first for domicile, habitual residence, nationality, and place of celebration or decree. If any appear, open the answer with a short jurisdictional paragraph before reaching the merits, and address recognition of foreign decrees separately.
Answering a domestic violence or protection order question by describing the procedure only, without addressing the standard of proof, the range of orders available, and their duration and enforceability.
Procedure is easier to recall in sequence, so the substantive protective framework is under-revised and candidates produce a process description that earns little credit.
What to do instead
For protection questions, structure the answer as: qualifying relationship, type of conduct alleged, standard of proof, orders available (including exclusion, no-contact, and any emergency order), duration, and consequences of breach. Learn the statutory maximum duration for each order type.
Treating adoption, guardianship, and custody as the same legal relationship, using the terms interchangeably and attributing parental responsibility to the wrong party.
The concepts overlap in everyday speech and all concern children, so candidates blur them and lose marks on the precise legal effect of each order.
What to do instead
Write a one-page comparison of adoption, guardianship, custody, and parental responsibility covering who holds decision-making authority, whether the birth parents' rights end, and whether the arrangement is revocable. Use the correct term deliberately in every sentence of the answer.
Giving a conclusion with no authority, or citing a case or section number that does not stand for the proposition asserted.
Under time pressure candidates pad answers with plausible-looking citations rather than checking, and examiners penalise both the absence of authority and misattribution more heavily than a plainly stated gap.
What to do instead
Cite only what you can state accurately: name the statute and section, or the case and its one-line holding. If unsure of a reference, describe the rule and mark the authority as uncertain rather than inventing a number. Keep a personal one-line holding list per case and revise it before the exam.