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 Financial Times (£) invited its readers to Meet the women who made London the divorce capital of the world (2 Dec 2025). The women in question included Fiona Shackleton, famous for representing Paul McCartney in his divorce from Heather Mills, who recalls Mills pouring water on her head during the hearing, no doubt in a bid to dilute the strength of the former Beatle’s case. The surprisingly frothy article refers to the leading cases which might also just have had something to do with London’s appeal to forum-shopping divorcers, such as White v White (see below), Radmacher vs Granatino, the Potanina case, and Standish vs Standish (all without citation).
The Conversation had a piece, Parental child abduction: why extending criminalisation is not the answer (8 Dec 2025) referring to a proposed amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill, which we covered in the November roundup. This piece says ‘The government is attempting to remedy what could be seen as a gap in the law. But this approach fails to take into account what we know about the situations in which this kind of parental child abduction occurs. In many cases, it involves a mother fleeing domestic abuse with her children.’
The BBC reported that Hundreds tell BBC of adopted children’s struggles amid calls for lifelong support (12 Dec 2025). This followed the BBC’s report (summarised in our last roundup) that more than 1,000 adopted children had been returned to care over five years. Dozens of adoptive parents told us they had been blamed for the difficulties of often traumatised young people. The charity Adoption UK had raised the issue with England’s children’s minister, calling for permanent funding for therapy and a wider review of the support available. Another charity, Coram, said the adoption system was ‘under exceptional strain’. The report includes personal histories of a number of people affected.
The Law Gazette (10 December) reported ‘Court of Appeal dismisses psychotherapist’s bid for family court anonymity‘ on an appeal by a psychotherapist against a decision by Ms Justice Henke in the High Court to publish a judgment that had included some adverse findings about her professional conduct. The psychotherapist had been providing therapy for children in the family – she was a ‘witness of fact’ not an expert witness appointed by a court. The Court of Appeal agreed the psychotherapist should be named and referred to her regulatory body. Any points she had wanted to raise should have been made in the High Court proceedings. The case is Re E (a child) [2025] EWCA Civ 1563.
The Times (£) reported that Ex-children’s commissioner to chair grooming gang inquiry after delays (9 Dec 2025) saying that after months of delays the Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood had now announced that Baroness Longfield, the former children’s commissioner, would lead the inquiry. It noted that her inquiry ‘will examine why perpetrators’ ethnicity and religion caused the authorities to cover up the abuse but will not report back until 2029 and will not cover all areas affected by the scandal’.
The BBC asked Why are sperm donors having hundreds of children? (13 Dec 2025) with a fairly general article about the risks of relying on a small number of high-frequency donors, many of them based in other countries (such as the European Sperm Bank in Denmark – source of something known as ‘Viking sperm’) and mentioning cases where the sperm might contain undetected genetic flaws. This referred back to an earlier BBC report about one such case, Sperm from donor with cancer-causing gene was used to conceive almost 200 children (10 Dec 2025). This was also covered in The Times, Sperm donor with cancer gene fathers nearly 200 children.
The Bureau of Investigative Journalism (TBIJ) reported the happy news that Mother and son reunited for Christmas six years after ‘draconian’ court order (18 Dec 2025) after the boy, when aged nine, had been ‘taken away from his mother on the recommendation of an unregulated psychologist’, namely Melanie Gill, who had ‘advised the court she had turned the children against their father’. The boy and his sister had been sent to live with their father in 2019 before a family court judge had gone on to ban any further contact with their mother – an order she described as “unthinkably draconian”. Gill has been the subject of investigation by TBIJ in relation to other cases. The report (by Hannah Summers) covers the hearing before Lieven J in the present case, and the judgment as LM (A Child) (Interim Welfare Arrangements) [2025] EWHC 3243 (Fam). From this it appears that the judge was not addressing complaints about Gill’s report so much as reassessing the case on the basis of current circumstances. She said ‘The factual situation, focusing on LM rather than his parents, is now very different from when he was 10 years old’ and that the boy, now 16, ‘needs some emotional space from both parents, and from the pressures that both place upon him’. She concluded that he should live with a friend of the mother for the next few months and have gradually increased contact with the mother, while also encouraging him to ‘re-engage’ with his father.
In January, TBIJ reported that Officials reject calls for a review of Melanie Gill’s child removal cases (28 Jan 2026) saying the government and judiciary had refused to order a review of family court cases involving ‘unregulated psychologist Melanie Gill’ which had been called for by the new victims’ commissioner, Claire Waxman, in October. This followed reporting on cases as above by TBIJ and ‘demands for a public apology from a group of mothers whose children were taken away from them after Gill gave evidence in their cases’. The government said it shared Waxman’s concerns but decided a review would not be a proportionate response.
Legal Futures reported that Complex court processes “shut out litigants in person” (19 Dec 2025). It said a report by Blind Justice, a community interest company that supports LiPs and promotes “evidence-led” court reform, had found that court processes ‘increasingly function as gatekeepers to justice’ and shut out litigants in person (LiPs), and that, despite digital modernisation, court systems ‘largely serve professional users’, leaving LiPs at the mercy of ‘high-volume call-centre systems that are ill-equipped to provide accurate or consistent procedural guidance.’ There is no link to, and we have not been able to access, the report ourselves but LF says that a detailed version of the report has been sent to the Lord Chancellor, David Lammy MP.
The Times reported that I had to battle my daughter’s killer boyfriend to care for my grandchild (21 Dec 2025). This was about the struggle by Linda Westcarr, the mother of Kennedi Westcarr-Sabaroche, to deprive Gogoa Lois Tape, after he had killed her daughter, of parental responsibility for their baby, the applicant’s grand-daughter, whom she was now looking after. Tape, the report explained, ‘despite his crimes, retained parental responsibility and held power over decisions relating to her education, living arrangements and medical treatment. This meant Westcarr was forced to seek permission from the killer about the child’s day-to-day care while he was in custody.’ The problem is that the law which was intended to achieve this, known as ‘Jade’s law’, has been passed (as Section 18 of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024) but not yet brought into force, nor has any date for that been announced. The Times report is by David Woode, crime editor, who notes that The Times had been invited to address the judge on the making of a transparency order, naming the adult parties despite objections by Haringey, the local authority. ‘We said there was widespread reporting of the criminal case and the child’s privacy was respected, and this would continue in any future reporting. We told the court there was significant public interest in reporting the family court proceedings and supported Westcarr’s right to tell her story.’ The judgment by HHJ Willans (which the Times does not link to) is Westcarr v Tape; re A (A Child) (Mother killed by Father) [2025] EWFC 374, which we wrote about on 11 November – Court lifts grandmother’s anonymity at her request.
The BBC reported that Family cremates wrong body after hospital mistake (27 Dec 2025), saying ‘Scotland’s largest hospital has apologised after a bereaved family was given the wrong body for a cremation ceremony. Morgue staff at the Queen Elizabeth University Hospital (QEUH) in Glasgow passed an incorrectly labelled corpse to undertakers’. The mistake was blamed on human error.
The BBC reported a Call for circumcision safeguards after baby death (2 Jan 2026) saying a ‘coroner has warned that further babies could die unless the government introduces regulation of non-therapeutic male circumcision following the death of a six-month-old boy in west London’. Assistant coroner Anton van Dellen had written a prevention of future deaths report after the death of a baby boy from medical complications following circumcision by someone who had been recommended to his parents. The coroner noted that there were currently no requirements for training, accreditation or registration of those carrying out the procedure, and no rules on record keeping, infection control or aftercare. The report is being sent to the Department of Health and Social Care, and to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. The current position regarding circumcision for non-medical reasons on babies too young to consent also raises questions about children’s rights.
The Law Gazette kicked off the new year with the tantalising news that It’s over: end of the road for ‘Divorce Day’ (5 Jan 2026) but it turned out to be just another piece of ‘research’ from a solicitors’ firm looking for clicks (surely ‘at data’?) which suggest there might be bigger surges of interest in divorce at other times of the year. HRC Law had found that over the last 2 years, its own data showed ‘February and March 2024, and April and September 2025 to be the busiest months for divorce and separation enquiries’. From this they conclude that ‘divorce day’ – the busy first working day after Christmas and the New Year, is ‘a myth’.
That did not stop The Times adding its own twist, with It’s divorce season. What happens when married co-founders split? (10 Jan 2026) pointing out that the annual spike in divorces ‘is usually framed as a human-interest story but it also has serious implications for British businesses’. That’s because some couples (presumably in big money cases) are also often ‘co-founders, shareholders and directors of the same company’: what happens to the company, its employees and customers, when the warring parties fight over the assets? The reporter cites a couple of examples and quotes from a solicitor, with the advice to ‘be transparent about the true financial position of the business. Attempts to obscure earnings to secure a more favourable settlement are futile.’
The BBC reported that Abandoned baby Elsa to be adopted and regularly see two siblings (6 Jan 2026). This was good news, given the sadness of the two-year Elsa saga, about a newly born baby left in a shopping bag in a London park on a freezing cold day in January 2024, and the discovery from DNA testing that two sibling babies had previously been abandoned in similar circumstances. We have mentioned the story, covered for the BBC by Sanchia Berg, at various stages in our roundups. At the latest hearing ‘East London Family Court heard Elsa was thriving, that she was already living with her new family, and has a loving relationship with them. All three siblings’ adoptive parents have agreed that Elsa who is now nearly two, brother Harry, 8 and sister Roman, 6 should have regular meetings as they grow up.’ Judge Carol Atkinson said ‘the siblings shared something “extraordinary”, adding: “No-one they will meet in life is likely to understand what it is like to be a foundling. But they each know and understand”.’
The Times reported that Church of England delays decision on same-sex blessings again (15 Jan 2026) saying: ‘Bishops have said it may take them until almost 2029 before they make a decision on allowing blessing ceremonies for same-sex couples, a delay described as “utterly disgusting” by some priests.’ In 2023 the bishops decided they would not support gay weddings in church, but would back priests offering blessings to gay couples. Those blessings were formally backed by the General Synod in February 2023. Since then they have been trying to decide whether to permit blessings to take place as special ‘standalone’ ceremonies, rather than only allowing them as brief interludes during routine Sunday services.
The Independent reported that Artist loses WhatsApp test case in battle to prove ex husband signed £1.5m house to her (15 Jan 2026). This was about a woman who had been awarded the marital home in divorce proceedings as against an ex-husband who, unbeknownst to her, had the previous week been made bankrupt, depriving her of his half share in its value. She claimed the man’s WhatsApp messages agreeing to sign over his share to her amounted to a “written and signed” document. But Mr Justice Cawson rejected that argument, saying the inclusion of the sender’s name in the message header was analogous to that on emails, and was not equivalent to a written signature. He also found as a fact that the husband had not intended to transfer his interest immediately. The other point in the case concerned an order for sale of the property for the benefit of the trustees in the husband’s bankruptcy and when that should take place. The report quotes extensively from but does not name or cite the judgment, which appears to be: Reid-Roberts v Mei-Lin (Re Gudmundsson (a Bankrupt)) [2026] EWHC 49 (Ch). (Cawson J was hearing an appeal and cross-appeal from an earlier judgment by Deputy Insolvency and Companies Court Judge Frith.) The Times also failed to cite or link to the judgment in its report, WhatsApp texts are not contracts, judge rules in £1.5m divorce row.
The Guardian had a book review, Custody: The Secret History of Mothers by Lara Feigel – why women still have to fight for their children (23 Jan 2026) from which it was clear that the book was very much a historical survey, with some examples featuring famous women like George Sand and Edna O’Brien, demonstrating ‘what happens when the irresistible forces of women’s liberation come up against the immovable objects of children’s needs, patriarchal reflexes, lawyers’ arguments and ex-spouses’ anger’. In what the reviewer calls a ‘rushed’ epilogue, Feigel ‘shows through contemporary courtrooms and documents how children are still being caused unnecessary pain by both parents and lawyers’. In other words, plus ça change. An extract from the book, was also published by The Guardian, on 18 January. Some readers responded on the Guardian’s letters page: When it comes to child custody, is the system failing families?
The book was also reviewed in the Times, The horror of child custody battles — from Edna O’Brien to Alice Walker (10 Jan 2026) where it was described as a ‘great roar of a book’ and the reviewer was a bit more positive about the contemporary material.
BROADCAST & AUDIO COVERAGE
In Not just a farmer’s wife (22 Dec 2025), on A Lawyer Talks, Joshua Rozenberg’s podcast, Simon Beccle, solicitor with Payne Hicks Beach talks about the historic big money divorce case of White v White [2000] UKHL 54; [2001] 1 AC 596; [2000] 2 FLR 981 in which the House of Lords said that the division of joint property on the break-up of a marriage should be checked against the “yardstick of equality”. Beccle acted for Mrs White.
Radical with Amol Rajan on BBC Radio 4 had an episode Children in Care: How to Fix the Fostering Crisis (Louise Allen) (22 Jan 2026). The crisis is that more children are coming into care, many of them needing to be fostered, but the number of carers is falling. Currently there are over 100,000 children in care in England, more than ever before, and there’s a shortage of 6,500 foster families needed. Rajan speaks to foster carer and author Louise Allen about the crisis in the system and what it will take to fix it. She explains why we need to be more honest about the realities of caring for often vulnerable kids and focus on retaining foster carers rather than recruiting new ones.
LEGAL BLOGGING
In ‘Much loved’ two-year-old to be adopted following contested court proceedings (26 Jan 2026) Julie Doughty on this blog reports the outcome of a three-day final hearing at Cardiff Family Court in November, in which care and placement for adoption orders were made in respect of a two year old boy who had been removed from his parents, foreign nationals from East Europe, under an interim care order in January 2025. The case had taken longer than usual to reach a conclusion, owing to complications and other delay factors, including a late proposal for kinship care abroad which ultimately proved without foundation.
RECENT COMMENTARY
Law & Religion UK commented in Jehovah’s Witnesses and blood transfusion: Child A (1 Jan 2026) on the somewhat cumbersomely titled case Petition of a Scottish Health Board for the court to exercise its parens patriae jurisdiction to authorise medical treatment of Child A [2025] CSOH 121. Lady Tait in the Outer House of the Court of Session identified the core issue as how to exercise the Court’s parens patriae jurisdiction in respect of a capacitous child under 16 who was about to undergo a medical procedure in which blood loss was inevitable. Even though the risk of needing a blood transfusion was low, the child had refused it on the grounds of her religion, but the court decided on a best-interests basis to override her objection and permit the procedure within a limited period if clinicians considered it medically necessary.
Suzanne Martin’s Family Law Chronicles substack had a post, She Helped Change the Law on Abuse. Now the Courts Have Taken Her Child (8 Jan 2026) about a woman who had been a victim of rape and coercive control by her ex‑partner, unsuccessfully attempting to resist an application by her child’s paternal great aunt and uncle for a Special Guardianship Order (SGO). Her opponents had counsel and solicitors ranged against her, while she was unable to afford any representation and thus forced to represent herself. (She had been told, perhaps in error, she could not get legal aid.) The social worker report appears to have fallen short of what was expected. Martin comments that ‘this case exposes how easily the safeguards [under PD 12J] can fail when one ingredient is missing: effective legal representation for the parent most at risk. The woman is now attempting to appeal against the SGO. But, says Martin, ‘Cases like this, when they surface, offer a rare glimpse into how a system built to protect can instead reproduce harm—not with the blunt force of disbelief, but with the gentler, more insidious mechanisms of delay, imbalance and procedural neglect.’
The Law Gazette had a piece, Stop referencing fake case citations, judges warned (16 Jan 2026) about the problems caused by including fake case citations in published judgments concerning their misuse, because of the risk of inadvertently embedding such bogus ‘authorities’ as precedents. While some litigants might not know better, a major risk of relying on AI chatbots to answer legal questions is that of fake cases being ‘hallucinated’ as authority for the answers; but even lawyers (who should know better) had cited fake cases after relying on AI in their research; and judgments criticising or disciplining them for doing so have often included the very names and fake citations that the judgment was saying ought not to have been used. The article cites an Australian case in which the judgment adopted the policy of redacting the false citations, to avoid their further propagation. (Fake citations are not the only risk of using AI for legal research: we had a blog post explaining the risks of submitting confidential information to chatbots when seeking advice: ChatGPT and Transparency Orders)
5RB chambers posted Sunday Times granted transparency order in care proceedings about fabricated or induced illness (23 Jan 2026) about the judgment of Lieven J in A Local Authority v A Mother & Ors [2025] EWHC 3498 (Fam). The post reported that The Sunday Times would be permitted to name the Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust in its reporting on allegations of FII, the condition formerly known as Munchausen syndrome by proxy. Reporter Emily Dugan had already published three articles about FII, including the increase in FII allegations made by hospitals against parents and the impact of this on families. Her reporting also raised concerns about the 2021 Guidelines produced by the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health. The local authority (supported by the hospital trust) argued that the child might be identifiable and that there might be disruptive protests outside the hospital. The judge did not agree; she allowed the variation. and confirmed that Ms Dugan’s investigations directly involved court decision-making so the open justice principle in Dring applied. (The articles can be read if you have a subscription to The Times. There’s a Good Morning Britain feature from July 2025 with Ms Dugan and one accused mother.)
In A window widened, on A Lawyer Writes (28 Jan 2026) Joshua Rozenberg noted that ‘A journalist investigating what’s been officially described as the “harmful pseudo-science” of “parental alienation syndrome” has been allowed unprecedented access to expert reports provided by a clinical psychologist in four family cases.’ This was about a judgment from Mr Justice Poole in the case of Bradley v CM & Ors [2026] EWHC 125 (Fam) in which the accredited journalist Jessica Bradley sought access to documents in cases she had not attended and for which a transparency order had not been made. This was a situation not covered by the existing rules, for which the judge said practice guidance would be useful. Rozenberg highlights two key points in the judgment: 1. the judge said (at para 151) ‘it is not for me to dictate how a journalist should write about a case, only whether she should be permitted to see certain documents and to communicate their contents and/or publish information in and about the proceedings.’ 2. Allowing access and some limited publication of documents, the judge also made clear that ‘Permission to have access to documents from the court file is given to Ms Bradley only.’ We discuss the case in more detail here: Journalist allowed to read psychologist’s reports
NEW JUDGMENTS OF INTEREST
Other than noted elsewhere in this Roundup.
Re D (A Child: Recusal) [2025] EWCA 518
A mother in private law proceedings had applied, by way of a letter, that a district judge recuse (remove) himself from the case on the grounds of bias. There were several grounds of appeal submitted to the Court of Appeal – we’ll mention just two aspects. The father complained that the mother’s arguments included many references to non-existent case authority that she had picked up with the assistance of AI. The court didn’t criticise the mother for this but warned that ‘All parties – represented and unrepresented – owe a duty to the court to ensure that cases cited in legal argument are genuine and provide authority for the proposition advanced.’ Another odd thing about the history of this case is that the district judge did make an order recusing himself but nobody knew why, and the father hadn’t even been informed. The Court of Appeal said there had been serious procedural irregularities in the case, which was returned to the senior judge in the circuit.
Re VW (Looked After Child: SMT: Need for Application) [2025] EWHC 3298 (Fam)
A three year old child who was in long-term foster care needed surgery which the judge described as ‘uncontroversial’. The local authority (LA) applied for the High Court to use its inherent jurisdiction to authorise the surgery. The judge, Poole J, ruled that it’s not necessary to apply to court in a situation like this where everyone with parental responsibility (the parents and the LA) actively agreed that the recommended treatment was in the child’s best interests and there was no borderline decision to be made causing uncertainty or difference of opinion amongst the treating clinicians or those with PR.
C (A Child) (Interim Separation: Residential Care) [2025] EWCA Civ 1618
The parents in this case had been waiting four months for their appeal to be heard, apparently because of a delay in obtaining court transcripts. They had been living with their baby (subject to an interim care order (ICO) ) in a residential assessment unit for almost all the baby’s lifetime. In August 2025 the LA gave notice to the residential service that they were ending the placement and applying to separate the baby and the parents. HHJ Thomas in Medway Family Court refused the LA application. He said that the grounds for interim removal under an ICO weren’t met because the residential service hadn’t itself given notice and was able to continue the placement. LA appealed and the Court of Appeal agreed with them that the judge had not taken all relevant factors into account. The appeal was allowed and the application sent back to a different judge.
N (A Child: Placement Order: Proportionality) [2025] EWCA Civ 1541
This is quite a complex judgment where the balance between a mother needing support and being unable to care for her child (now aged two) had to be carefully evaluated. Care and placement orders had been made in Barnet Family Court. The Court of Appeal said that the LA plan for adoption wasn’t necessary or proportionate. The deficiencies in the parenting that the child was likely to receive from his mother didn’t justify the termination of the parent/child relationship. Peter Jackson LJ said that the Court would probably have ended the proceedings by substituting a supervision order but no contact has taken place for three months, since the day of the family court order. The LA’s applications should be reheard, and would be transferred to the Family Division for urgent resolution.
This judgment was delivered in September but was only published in late January. The Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) asked a local authority back in July to send it details about the findings in a family court case that it needed about an individual who had applied to work with young children, but the LA mistakenly said it wasn’t allowed to share the information without a court order. Mrs Justice Arbuthnot said that FPR 12.73(1)(a)(viii) read with FPR 2.3 make it clear that the DBS is a professional acting in the furtherance of the protection of children and the LA is entitled to disclose information about proceedings held in private. She concluded: ‘I trust that this judgment will be read by local authorities so that it is clear to them that, if asked, information should be disclosed to the DBS concerning family proceedings applying the law as set out above.’ [26]
Birmingham City Council v M and others [2026] EWFC 3 B
We’re including this judgment from Birmingham Family Court because it includes some positive planning and decision-making about siblings aged nine months and 13 years who are to be separately placed but the LA envisages ongoing contact between them and also with their mother. The plan is adoption for the younger child and long-term fostering for the older child. Respective placement orders and care orders were made.
Re S (relinquished baby) [2025] EWFC 463
In this case, the LA sought permission to proceed with an early permanence adoption without the baby’s father being notified. The mother had consistently asked that the child be adopted and had followed the process for adoption with consent. She put forward reasons why the father shouldn’t be notified; the judge accepted evidence that it would be very difficult to find out who he was because the mother had never told anyone, and it seemed he had shown little interest in the mother other than a brief relationship. As well as considering article 8 rights to family life and any potential relationship between the father and the child, the judge weighed up the respective rights of the father to procedural fairness and the child’s right to a timely resolution and security of the early placement. He said that he was writing the judgment on the basis that when the child was older he might read it and understand why the decision was made.
MRU v ECR (Financial Remedies) [2025] EWFC 218 (B)
We’ve included this financial remedy judgment mainly because the judge set out in detail why he was publishing it and how he was protecting the children of the marriage from being identified. He commented that the parties had been subject to intense media scrutiny throughout the end of their marriage and their divorce; there’d been stories on the long-term abuse of the applicant by the respondent. A Transparency Order was in place and the hearing was attended by reporters from ITV. We’re not sure why the couple received media attention as it’s not a ‘big money’ case. However it’s unusual in having the wife’s conduct taken into account in a financial claim, the reason being that this had directly led to reducing the husband’s earning capacity.
Re C, D, E and F (ACA s51A: contact order after adoption) [2025] EWFC 436 (B)
This is an unusual case because judges are reluctant to make orders for contact against prospective adopters but here, the adopters proactively wanted the children to stay in contact with each other. The orders (under section 51A Adoption and Children Act 2002) were necessary because of inaction by the local authority. HHJ Reardon made adoption orders in respect of four siblings in two separate adoptive placements. The two older children live together, as do the two younger. Back in March 2024, section 26 orders (for sibling contact while the placement orders were in effect) had been made alongside care and placement orders. The two sets of siblings were to see each other for contact twice a year. This hadn’t been complied with either before or after the children were placed. By the date of the adoption hearings, both sets of adoptive parents were asking the court to authorise future contact.
M v F & Ors [2025] EWFC 442 (B)
This is a lengthy judgment about a contact dispute that had been in proceedings for three years. We’re mentioning it because the judge, Mr Recorder Rowbotham at Northampton Family Court, criticised the court appointed expert, psychologist Dr. Kevin Wright, for significant gaps in his report. Interestingly, at the end the judgment, delivered on 5 November, the judge refers to the topical discussion on Parliament removing the statutory presumption of contact, to clarify that his order would have been the same whether the presumption was in force or not. We think this is probably the approach being taken at present, as Parliamentary time has not yet been found to pass that repeal
OTHER TRANSPARENCY etc NEWS
The Department for Education announced Plans for a new national Child Protection Authority (11 Dec 2025) and launched a consultation on its organisational model and powers. The announcement explained that the new authority would be ‘tasked with identifying emerging threats and driving accountability across the system’ and would ‘strengthen England’s child protection system by providing national oversight, ensuring that vulnerable children are not failed by the authorities who are supposed to protect them’.
It said the creation of the new authority ‘delivered on’ (ie met or fulfilled) a key recommendation from IICSA’s report and problems identified by the Casey Audit into group-based child sexual exploitation, and that it ‘comes alongside’ a broad package of measures being introduced through the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, which will ensure that agencies responsible for looking after children are working together closely and sharing relevant information, to get frontline expertise to where it’s needed and ensure no child falls through the cracks. It also ‘sits alongside’ the Independent Inquiry into Grooming Gangs announced by the Home Secretary this week.
The consultation on Establishing a Child Protection Authority consultation will run for 12 weeks, and closes at 11:59pm on 5 March 2026.
The Government unveiled plans for its VAWG strategy to better protect children from misogyny and abuse (18 Dec 2025), saying its Violence Against Women and Girls (VAWG) strategy will focus on healthy relationships and consent, and tackle relationship abuse through a new helpline. Under the £20 million package teachers will get specialist training on how to talk to pupils about issues like consent and the dangers of sharing intimate images; and families ‘will be empowered to address these harmful attitudes and behaviours head on, with young people taught to identify positive role models and challenge unhealthy myths about women and relationships’. Police and social services will also be given the tools they need to intervene in harmful relationships with new guidance on teenage relationships, while the legal framework for domestic abuse will be reviewed so it properly represents adolescents’ experiences.
The Nuffield Family Justice Observatory (NFJO) ‘chart of the month’ for December 2025 showed how There are more babies and young children in public law proceedings than in care. ‘The majority of public law proceedings in the family courts are for younger children, in stark contrast to the population of children in care, where most are over the age of 10. These differences can be partially explained by the outcomes for younger children in proceedings; a high proportion of cases involving children under a year old in England and Wales will result in adoption or a special guardianship order. There has also been an increase in older children in care, particularly those on voluntary accommodation orders, who have not come through the family justice system (section 20 of the Children Act 1989 in England and section 76 of the Social Services and Well-being Act 2014 in Wales).’
The Ministry of Justice published a report, Private Law Pathfinder Pilot: understanding the experience of children and families (6 Jan 2026) presenting the findings of the research to understand the experiences of children and families of the Pathfinder pilot in Dorset and North Wales family court areas. We covered this in more detail on the blog: Children and parents speak up about the Pathfinder in private law – new research published.
The Government announced Free access to sentencing remarks for all victims (19 Jan 2026) saying that in future all victims would have free access to judges’ sentencing remarks in their case, instead of having to pay anything from £40 to hundred of pounds. The measure is designed to improve transparency and victims’ experiences in the courts, consistent with the recommendations of the Leveson Review, according to the announcement (whose link to it had, however, broken: we’ve replaced it with the permanent archive). The expansion follows the success of a pilot scheme which found free access helped victims feel a greater sense of justice, supported their wellbeing, and increased their faith in the justice system.
FORTHCOMING EVENTS
The Financial Remedies Conference 2026 will take place at the De Vere Grand Connaught Rooms in London on 16 April 2026. Family Law News is promising ‘leading experts who will share insights on the latest legal developments, challenges, updates and best practices shaping the field’. Full programme and more details to follow. Group Booking discounts available. Contact info@familylawweek.co.uk.
TRANSPARENCY PROJECT NEWS
As we announced at the end of last year, in January 2026 our founder and chair, Lucy Reed KC, commenced her two year term as Vice Chair of the Family Law Bar Association. Consequently, Lucy has stepped back from her role as chair of The Transparency Project, and fellow founding member and trustee, Dr Julie Doughty, has now taken Lucy’s place as chair.
Another founding member and trustee, Paul Magrath, has taken up a new role as Law Reports editor at The Times, alongside his continuing role as Head of Online Content at the Incorporated Council of Law Reporting for England & Wales.
FAMILY LAW AND TRANSPARENCY IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS
Italy
The Times reported that Children taken into care in Italy from home in woods ‘self-harming’ (7 Jan 2026). This rather confusing headline referred to the fact that young children from a family living off-grid in the woods in Italy, who had been taken into care after the whole family was discovered suffering from the effects of mushroom poisoning, were now suffering from stress and guilt causing them to self-harm. Right-wing politicians have supported a petition signed by over 150,000 people calling for their release, after their fate sparked a national debate. ‘Since their arrival at a care home in Vasto near Palmoli, the daughters, Utopia Rose, 8, and Bluebell, 6, and her twin brother Galorian, have been allowed to see their father for one hour, twice a week. Their mother has been billeted on another floor of the centre and is allowed to see them at meal times.’ An earlier report in the Times had noted that Italy gripped by family’s fight to live a simple life in the woods (28 Nov 2025).
Northern Ireland
BBC NI noted that BBC reports from family court case in NI media first (4 Dec 2025) saying it was the first time the media had been given permission to report on a case in a family court there. The case, which concerned the welfare of a young child, was part of a new media pilot scheme (following the success of that in England & Wales), introduced by the Lady Chief Justice, Dame Siobhan Keegan to help the public understand the work of the courts. Keegan was quoted as saying: ‘Sadly, you’re going to see some cases which are really representing a very sad side of life.’
The reporter, Eve Rosato, explained that the case was being covered, not for its legal significance, but ‘as an example of the kind of case that moves through the family High Court in Northern Ireland every year.’ The child had been taken into care soon after birth, from parents whose previous children were also in care. The judge, Kinney J, described the parents’ relationship as dysfunctional and violent. The situation was sufficiently serious to justify making a ‘freeing order’, to sever all parental ties between parents and child permanently. The child will now be placed for adoption.
Finally…
We have a small favour to ask!
TEN YEARS A CHARITY
The Transparency Project is a registered charity in England and Wales run by volunteers who mostly also have full-time jobs. Although we’ve now been going for over a decade, we’re always working to secure extra funding so that we can keep making family justice clearer for all who use the court and work in it.
We can’t do what we do without help from you!
We’d be really grateful if you were able to help us by making a small one-off (or regular!) donation through our Just Giving page.