Family Court Reporting Watch Roundup

 

• Correcting, clarifying or commenting on media reports of family court cases
• Explaining or commenting on published Judgments of family court cases
• Highlighting other transparency news

 

MEDIA (MIS)REPORTS OF FAMILY COURTS CASES 

Inaccurate, misleading or distorting

We followed up our letter to the Telegraph (which wasn’t published), about Mr Booker’s reporting of H (A Child), Re (Interim Care Order : fact finding) [2017] EWHC 518 (Fam), with a complaint. The text of that complaint is published here. We will update again on this shortly: 

 

The Times reported the Court of Appeal decision in Sharp v Sharp [2017] EWCA Civ 408 (13 June 2017), provoking twitter comment that their headline was misleading (see also case analysis below):

 

Notably accurate (or otherwise transparency positive) reports

The Guardian (Owen Bowcott) enabled readers to see the full published judgment by linking to it, when reporting Mr Justice Hayden’s outrage at cross examination of victims by alleged perpetrators, in the family courts:

 

The Guardian (again) linked readers to the source material they reported on (in contrast to other mainstream press publications reporting the new child cruelty consultation from the sentencing guidelines council):

 

 

NEWLY PUBLISHED CASES FOR EXPLANATION OR COMMENT

We analysed his Honour Judge Simon Wood’s family court decision in B (A 14 Year Old Boy), Re [2017] EWFC B28 (11 May 2017) (concerning alleged parental alienation) here in  Parental Alienation – an alien concept?:

 

We explained and contextualised the Court of Appeal decision in Sharp v Sharp [2017] EWCA Civ 408 (13 June 2017) – a financial settlement on divorce after a short marriage in Sharing (non)marital money: Sharp v Sharp:

 

Great Ormond Street Hospital v Gard 

• We posted updating blogs as the legal case about baby Charlie Gard unfolded through a Supreme Court decision to refuse his parents permission to appeal, to a decision of the European Court of Human Rights to extend ‘interim measures’ (requiring treatment to continue) to midnight on Monday 19th June, to allow his parents time to make a full application:

 

• Including this post by Allan Norman (@CelticKnot) for the Transparency Project on why ‘the Supreme Court is wrong on Charlie Gard and Withdrawal of Treatment‘:

 

 

We explained the Court of Appeal decision in J (Children), Re [2017] EWCA Civ 398 (23 May 2017), to overturn a decision to finalise care proceedings at a preliminary hearing, in Unfair Care Orders Overturned on Appeal:

 

 

IN OTHER TRANSPARENCY NEWS

We commented here on newly published research (commissioned by the Bar Council) on paid McKenzie Friends in private law children cases – and inaccurate reporting of it in the legal press:

 

Julie Doughty (Trustee of the Transparency Project) wrote for ICLR on the debate at Cardiff University about press regulation (re-posted here): Victims or Villains – Is the freedom of the press under threat?:

 

 

Feature pic: Courtesy of Flickr Lauri Heikkinenon via Creative Commons licence – thanks