info@transparencyproject.org.uk
  • Facebook
  • X
  • Facebook
  • X
The Transparency Project
  • Legal Blogging
  • Posts
  • Projects
  • Events
  • About
  • Who
  • Dictionary
  • Resources
  • Media
  • More search options
Select Page
‘How the MoD tried to cover up domestic abuse by a special forces soldier’

‘How the MoD tried to cover up domestic abuse by a special forces soldier’

by reporting watch team | May 6, 2026 | Cases, FCReportingWatch, Notorious, Open Reporting

This headline appeared in The Observer on 3 May. The sub headline says: A member of the armed forces who terrorised his wife has been allowed unsupervised access to their daughter – in a case that British military authorities tried to keep out of the public eye. The...
Family Court Reporting Watch Roundup: April 2026

Family Court Reporting Watch Roundup: April 2026

by reporting watch team | May 5, 2026 | Cases, FCReportingWatch, Transparency News

Welcome to the Roundup, where we correct, clarify and comment on media reports of family law, explain and comment on published family court judgments, and highlight other transparency news.  MEDIA COVERAGE OF FAMILY LAW, TRANSPARENCY etc The Law Society Gazette...
Inaccurate press reporting on a family court contact dispute

Inaccurate press reporting on a family court contact dispute

by reporting watch team | May 1, 2026 | Cases, Comment, FCReportingWatch

Between 5 and 7 April, a story was published on three associated local news sites in Dorset with the headline ‘Dorset court rules mother should have no contact with child’. The articles said that a judge in Bournemouth Family Court had made an order relating to a...
Supreme Court confirms the permanence of adoption

Supreme Court confirms the permanence of adoption

by Julie Doughty | May 1, 2026 | Cases, Explanation, FCReportingWatch

The Supreme Court judgment in Re X and Y (Children: Adoption Order: Setting Aside) [2026] UKSC 13 was published on 22 April. We had watched the hearing and we wrote about it in this post on 20 February – Undoing an adoption order: an update. We don’t have...
Next Entries »

Subscribe to our posts

Recent Comments

  • Jolyon Maugham on Censorship by Meta? update on Pringle v Nervo
  • Linda on Sara Sharif -what we now know from the Safeguarding Review
  • Anon on Why doesn’t the family court punish professionals who break the rules?
  • Louisa Biggs on Hair strand testing – pitfalls and limitations
  • Lainie on ‘Oh I’m sorry, did I forget to mention you don’t have to agree to this?’ When social workers forget that interventions under ‘Child in Need’ are voluntary

Search for something in particular

More search options

May 2026
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031
« Apr    
  • Analysis
  • Cases
  • Comment
  • Consultations
  • Court of Protection
  • Dictionary
  • Events
  • Explanation
  • FCReportingWatch
  • FOI
  • Guidance Note
  • Legal blogging
  • Notorious
  • Open Reporting
  • Project
  • Reporting Pilot
  • Resources
  • Transparency News
  • Trends
  • Uncategorized

access to courts data adoption Adoption targets alienation anonymisation Article 8 assisted dying Cafcass care proceedings child protection children's views committal contempt of court correctionrequests court of protection covid CPConf2016 divorce domestic abuse domesticabuse domestic violence Expert Evidence. experts finances financial remedy FLJ forced adoption guidancenote Human Rights Act 1998 IPSO journalist judgments legal aid legalbloggingpilot mckenzie friends misconduct open justice parental alienation pathfinder psychologists publication remotejustice Section 20 agreements social work transparency

  • Facebook
  • X
The Transparency Project, Charity Number 1161471.
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it.