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 had a piece, Consider apologising, family court judge tells father (20 May 2026) which we missed off last month’s roundup. This was about Her Honour Judge Owens in M v F & Another [2026] EWFC 106 (B) suggesting, at the end of her judgment, that the father should consider apologising to his child as a ‘first step to rebuilding their relationship’. The judge was dealing with the latest proceedings in ‘a very long history of litigation’ concerning A, a 17-year-old whose parents had been disputing arrangements for her since she was 18 months old. The judge said: ‘At this point, the only person who needs to change the way he approaches things and, in particular, his relationship with A, is F. If F can stop thinking in such rigid and controlling terms about only wanting to see A in accordance with his wishes, and if he can engage in regular, child-focused indirect contact with A as permitted by my orders, then there is still time for him to rebuild his relationship with A.’
The BBC reported that Parents of some of the children injured in the Southport knife attack say they believe they’ve been given insufficient support because of the anonymity given to them by the courts (22 May 2026). It explained that some parents had said their daughters missed out on support from local authorities after officials told them they did not know who their children were. All said they felt their daughters were being forgotten as their experiences had been erased from the public’s understanding of the attack. This seems to have been an unintended consequence of the presumption that victims of certain crimes by reaon of their vulnerability or the nature of the crimes should not be identified. The murdered girls and the killer have, of course, all been identified and their names are public property in the news. But for the survivors, the lack of identification appears to have meant a lack of attention to their needs. In some cases the families want their stories to be told. They have been scarred in both physical and psychological ways. Despite all this, the report concludes with the words: ‘The names of the girls have been changed in line with the court anonymity order and the wishes of their parents.’
The Guardian reported My mother was forced to give me up for adoption. But when we finally met decades later, it was far from a fairytale ending (6 June 2026) in which David Batty recalls his efforts to trace his original parents and his awkward meetings with them, and reflects on how attitudes have changed since the 1970s and on some of the residual issues around feelings of rejection, alienation and guilt that such reunifications engender.
BBC Wales Investigates had a piece Unofficial sperm donor sells BBC ‘baby batter’ delivered with tomato passata (7 June 2026), in which reporter Gemma Dunstan delved into the questionable world of unlicenced, unregulated, commercialised sperm donation services, advertised via social media, and the characters who populate that world (and the world in general it seems) — notably someone who calls himself ‘Joe Donor’ and claims to have fathered, in one way or another, 180 children around the world. His real name is Robert Charles Albon and he was the subject of a warning by the judge in a case in Cardiff, A v B and others [2023] EWFC 333, which we wrote about here, Judgment published to warn women against sperm donor who has “180 kids”. As part of the investigation, Dunstan writes, ‘We contacted him using an alias’ to arrange a delivery, and ‘He charged us £100 in cash, sent via post, for a syringe of sperm which came chilled by a box of tomato passata acting as an ice block.’ Ominously, ‘A licensed clinic checked the sample four hours after we received it and said all sperm cells were dead.’ A BBC Wales Investigates TV documentary ‘Swipe right for sperm’ is available on BBC iPlayer.
The Times (£) had a piece, Cohabitees would do well to put it all in writing (8 June 2026) in which Libby Purves commented on the government’s consultation on financial provision for cohabitants on separation, A fairer end of relationships (discussed more fully below). She seemed to think it would be better to educate people how best to make a decision about their own futures. ‘Are these really matters for the state to regulate? When individuals do have free choice to marry or civil-partner? People move in together with different ideas of permanence, fall out, run off, reconcile, record nothing in writing. It’s a choice.’ Later in the month The Telegraph also weighed in with a piece entitled Lammy wants new rights for unmarried couples. There’s a ruinously expensive catch (25 June 2026) in which Ayesha Vardag warned: ‘If the Government’s plan goes through, cohabitees won’t just be gaining new rights: they will be given new responsibilities. The proposal will make cohabitees legally and financially responsible for the ongoing financial needs of the other if they split up, which will be an absolute bonanza for family lawyers.’ Another warning note came from Natalie Page, posting as The Court Said on Facebook, with concerns for victims of domestic abuse, including the risks of economic abuse, post-separation financial control, and a lack of safeguards around litigation.
The Guardian reported that Family courts show ‘widespread’ gender bias and victim-blaming, report finds (9 June 2026), which was about a new report by Right to Equality, Scratching the Surface: Victim-Blaming and Bias in Family Court Judgments. The report use an AI tool to analyse 91 published family law judgments in England and Wales. It found that more than 72% of them contained ‘victim-blaming language and attitudes – often directed towards mothers’ while ‘the fathers’ conduct was contextualised or minimised’. The report’s authors were said to have ‘expressed concern the data suggested harmful attitudes could influence judicial decision‑making, “including reliance on rape myths, stereotyping, or overt scepticism toward mothers”.’ Launching the report, Right to Equality also noted that ‘Women were far more likely to be described as “emotional” by judges — a well-documented gender stereotype’. The publication generated a good deal of comment on social media, but we were glad to see that, as well as drawing attention to the judgments it had analysed, the report recommended that there should be ‘Government resourcing of a drastic increase in the number of published family court judgments’. Presumably that was not just to check them for prejudice, but in the interests of wider transparency.
The Times reported that Only children on the rise as more families delay first baby (10 June 2026) after the Office of National Statistics (ONS) published its latest figures for Births in England and Wales: 2025 on 27 May. The Times said ‘Campaigners blame the “motherhood penalty” for the fact the proportion of women stopping after one child has risen by about 50 per cent’. The notable shift to smaller families and the overall fall in the number of babies to the lowest since 1977 was said to be ‘because couples are increasingly delaying having children until their thirties’. On average women were 31 when they gave birth and fathers 34, compared with 1975 when the average ages were 26 for mothers and 30 for fathers. Time runs out, fertility falls, and costs rise, all combining to inhibit a second or more children, it seems.
Legal Futures reported that New family law service tackles misunderstanding around neurodivergency (10 June 2026) which was about a ‘neurodiversity aware family law service’, launched by the London-based law firm TV Edwards, which ‘aims to remove the misunderstandings that exist on all sides of the family justice system about conditions like autism, ADHD and dyslexia’.
The BBC was one of many covering the case of Teacher guilty of sexually abusing and murdering adopted baby (15 June 2026) which was about the conviction of Jamie Varley, 37, for the murder of 13-month-old Preston Davey and of his partner John McGowan-Fazakerley, 32, for sexual assault, child cruelty and allowing the death of a child. The couple had been approved for adoption and Preston began living at their home in Blackpool in April 2023, when he was nine months old. But in the just under four months he was in their care, he was routinely ill-treated, sexually abused and physically assaulted, suffering 40 traumatic injuries. The case was also covered in The Guardian and in Community Care, who reported on 19 June that Varley had been sentenced to a whole-life term while McGowan-Fazakerley was sentenced to 25 years imprisonment, of which he must serve two-thirds. The sentencing was broadcast by Sky News and remarks were later released (though not, for some reason, published on the Judiciary website).
The Times reported that King Charles enters era of transparency with personal tax disclosures (21 June 2026) which was not about family law as such, but a welcome boost in royal transparency after all the secrecy attending recent royal wills. According to the report, ‘The disclosure of personal tax payments by the King and the Prince of Wales is the first step in a concerted effort to make the monarchy more transparent, The Times understands.’ And there may be more to come, as it seems King Charles is thought to hope to’ embrace a new age of transparency’.
The Times reported that ‘My Oxbridge-educated husband stole everything from me’ (23 June 2026) which was about what it called economic abuse, in addition to emotional abuse. According to the report, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) ‘only began collecting data on economic abuse as part of its crime survey last year, when 19 per cent of women and 14 per cent of men said they had experienced economic abuse from a partner or ex-partner in their lifetime’. Some of the transactions involved would perhaps previously have been categorised as cases of ‘undue influence’, eg spouses being persuaded to guarantee debts for a partner or unaware that they had done so, as the example cases suggest. Another problem highlighted was that of false financial information being supplied to the court for the purposes of financial resolution hearings, or assets being concealed. The ‘Oxbridge educated’ bit of the headline, which seems frankly a bit clickbaity, is apparently to belie the notion that a ‘graduate with a successful career’ can do no wrong.
The Times reported that Parents face jail for ‘conversion’ abuse against LGBT children (25 June 2026) which was about the government’s launch of its Draft Conversion Practices Bill. The proposed legislation would outlaw criminal conversion practices, which are ‘acts carried out with the intention of changing a person’s sexual orientation or transgender identity’. Those convicted of the offences will face an unlimited fine, a prison sentence of up to five years or both. It will also be illegal to encourage or assist conversion practices outside England and Wales.
The Guardian reported that Paramedic and football coach among 13 men charged with abusing woman ‘drugged by husband’ (26 June 2026) saying reporting restrictions had been lifted in a case in which, rather like the Pelicot case in France, a husband is accused of drugging and sexually assaulting his wife over a period of 20 years and conspiring with other men to engage in abuse. Now he and the various co- defendants can be named. The main defendant has pleaded guilty to 15 charges – five rapes, three sexual assaults, six assaults by penetration and one count of sharing intimate images without consent – and denies 33 other charges. His co-accused, who range in age from 28 to 73, face charges including conspiracy to rape and conspiracy to assault by penetration. Five of the defendants are on bail and the remainder are in custody. Until the reporting restriction was lifted, the case was being reported anonymously in the press, eg by The Times, described Husband in rape trial pleads guilty to sexual assault of his wife (22 June 2026) as a ‘man, who is in his sixties and from the Stockport area in Greater Manchester’.
The Observer reported that the Age of criminal responsibility should be raised from 10 to 14, says Bar Council (28 June 2026). This followed a report by the Bar Council, on Reviewing the minimum age of criminal responsibility (MACR) (24 June 2026) concluding that ‘children under 14 – and society as a whole – are better served by non-criminal methods of addressing offending conduct.’ Kirsty Brimelow, the chair of the Bar Council, said the minimum age had not changed for more than 60 years and the law in England and Wales was now ‘increasingly out of step with other countries’. The report found that ‘Developments in neuroscience also made the case for raising the age at which young people could be arrested, prosecuted, convicted or sentenced for a criminal offence’. The report also covered deprivation of liberty orders (DoLs) and secure accommodation orders (SAOs) in the context of children coming before family courts or in care who might either be at risk of involvement in or victims of criminal activity.
BROADCAST & AUDIO COVERAGE
The BBC TV series Scams & Scandals had an episode entitled Tricked Into Pregnancy? (9 June 2026) about reproductive coercion, highlighting the case of Liv Nervo, whose case we have covered on the blog (see When ‘transparency’ orders create opacity). On the same day there was also a BBC File on 4 Investigates radio programme on the same topic, titled Tricked into pregnancy? The Liv Nervo story which is available on Sounds.
The Law and Disorder podcast, hosted by Sir Nicholas Mostyn (former High Court judge), Lord Falconer (former Lord Chancellor) and Baroness Helena Kennedy (barrister and human rights campaigner), had two family law focused episodes this month:
The Overhaul of Family Law: Will there be a fairer end to relationships? (10 June 2026) featured special guests former President of the Family Division Sir Andrew McFarlane and the broadcaster, commentator and family mediator, Joanna Gosling, to discuss the government’s initiative to overhaul family justice by moving away from adversarial court hearings to focus on the child and make way for a fairer end to relationships, including alternative forms of dispute resolution.
100 Years of Adoption (25 June 2026) features appearances by the former High Court judge of the Family Division, Sir Mark Hedley, as well as former Conservative Lord Chancellor, Michael Gove – who also happens to be adopted – to discuss the centenary of the creation of the first legal framework for adoption in England and Wales through the Adoption of Children Act 1926. They discuss the legislation, what went right, what went wrong, and what could (and should) change in the century to come. Gove is forthright about his own history and the unmarried student mother who gave him up for adoption in the 1960s. But the discussion also deals with more troubling and less consensual decisions, involving religious coercion or rescue from domestic violence, with the two judges offering examples from their own cases. The recent Supreme Court decision in Re X and Y (Children: Adoption Order: Setting Aside) [2026] UKSC 13 confirming that a regularly made adoption order can’t be set aside (which we wrote about here) is also discussed.
Sir Andrew McFarlane gave the annual Gray’s Inn reading at Gresham College, under the title There Must be a Better Way: Thoughts on the Future of Family Law (15 June 2026), which can be watched via YouTube. With the benefit of his experience as former President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew commented variously on the government’s proposals for reform of the law on cohabitation, pre-nups, enduring relationships for children in care, and surrogacy. Joshua Rozenberg wrote it up on his A Lawyer Writes blog next day, saying (in essence) ‘Former top family judge explains what needs to be done’.
Joshua Rozenberg’s A Lawyer Talks podcast had an episode called Justice for the unmarried (30 June 2026) on the government’s consultation (see below) on reforming the law relating to cohabitation, nuptial agreements and financial resolution, and features an interview with Professor Sharon Thompson of Cardiff University discussing these issues.
AI AND TRANSPARENCY
The Independent reported that Government to introduce AI ‘legal assistants’ in courts to cut rising case backlog (9 June 2026) saying ‘virtual legal assistants are set to be introduced across Crown Courts in the UK, the government has announced, in a bid to alleviate the mounting backlog of cases’. The announcement by the Lord Chancellor David Lammy MP was expected to be made during London Tech Week, perhaps for greater impact, though it would have to compete with negative responses to other proposals to cut the same backlog (eg by abolishing jury trials for many offences) and the mixed press AI has already had with its assistance in the courtroom, thanks to some notorious hallucinations (fake cases, etc).
As to the latter, the Kingsley Napley blog had a useful roundup on AI in the Courtroom (9 June 2026), noting its use by both lawyers and unrepresented litigants, and warning that ‘any material produced must be carefully reviewed and verified for accuracy and to avoid any risk of misleading the court and undermining the administration of justice’.
Coincidentally, on the same date that the above two items appeared, Right to Equality launched its report, Scratching the Surface (noted above), which used an AI tool to analyse judgments for judicial bias against women. The tool was called ViDA (Victim-Blaming Detection and Analysis), and was developed by herEthical AI. It was designed to ‘Uncover hidden manipulation and victim blaming language through intelligent analysis of human behaviour and language’.
The same tool was used to analyse Australian judgments, and found to generate remarkably similar results, as recorded in a LinkedIn piece by Jacob Carswell-Doherty: I tested the ‘Scratching the Surface’ methodology on 200 Australian family law judgments. Here is what I found (11 June 2026). However there were differences, which are mentioned in the post. What it demonstrates, however, is that such analysis can be carried out on any body of judgments, in any jurisdiction, provided the judgments are available, which means they must be published (underlining the need for more publication) and accessible to researchers for bulk analysis (which in some jurisdictions, eg France, they are not).
The Law Society Gazette reported that Lady chief justice commends AI usage by litigants in person (10 June 2026) saying ‘judges have found AI-assistant submissions from litigants in person “more helpful” than submissions drafted without AI support’. The Chief made the remarks during her annual evidence session before the Constitution Committee. She tried to reassure the committee as to the scope of judicial use of AI, saying ‘We are not talking about AIs doing the judging. We are talking about AI doing the laundry so that judges can do the art.’
Next day the Master of the Rolls gave his own AI flavoured speech, on AI in Arbitration – Promises and Pitfalls (11 June 2026) which was primarily focused on the idea of giving commercial parties the option of using AI to resolve their disputes as a cheaper alternative than appointing a professional human umpire. The question then was how to manage appeals against the resulting award. But Sir Geoffrey Vos’s speech went wider than that, saying he wanted to ‘promote, through the Online Procedure Rule Committee, an online Digital Justice System to resolve all civil, family and tribunal disputes quickly and efficiently, before court process begins, and at minimal cost.’
But not all judges are quite so enthusiastic. Legal Futures reported that Senior judge warns AI could compromise judicial independence (25 June 2026) after Dame Victoria Sharp, president of the King’s Bench Division, highlighted the dangers of allowing AI to become too embedded in the justice system during her speech, Without Fear or Favour: Judicial Independence, Past, Present and Future (22 June 2026). She warned: ‘Modern large language models do not reason as lawyers or judges reason… A judge who treats AI as a source of “judicial reasoning” rather than a useful tool risks outsourcing part of the judicial function.’
Another note of caution came from SLAW, the Canadian legal magazine, in Resisting the Echo Chamber: AI-Assisted Judgment Writing and the Risk of Homogenization (24 June 2026) in which Amy Salyzyn warned that ‘a growing body of research indicates that large language models (LLMs) have a homogenizing effect on writing and analysis, meaning that judges’ increasing reliance on AI may stifle the common law’s development’. In effect, she is saying that computers are just as likely as humans to indulge in groupthink. Don’t be seduced by the quality of the writing, when you should be considering the originality of the thinking.
LEGAL BLOGGING
In Parental responsibility and ‘do not resuscitate’: A view from the courtroom (22 June 2026) law student Harriet Humberstone wrote about her first experience of legal blogging, at a family court hearing before Mr Justice Poole in a case that concerned a mother, her child, and the court’s assessment of the child’s welfare. The child appeared to be suffering a serious incurable illness, leading to his likely death. Harriet comments: ‘A woman sat with what appeared to be the weight of the world on her shoulders; I later learned that she was the child’s mother.’
In Relocation: change in habitual residence during proceedings (24 June 2026) Julie Doughty attended an online hearing in Slough Family Court where the issue for the judge was whether the English court still had jurisdiction regarding a mother’s application, or whether family court proceedings should instead take place in Poland, where her son had moved with his father.
RECENT COMMENTARY
In ‘We’re at high risk from these people’ on the Right to Equality blog (2 June 2026) Jessica Bradley reports on the case of “Henry,” a young boy at the centre of prolonged family court proceedings, in which his father faces allegations of domestic abuse while his mother is accused of parental alienation. A plan for care by the maternal grandparents seems to have failed and a psychologist has recommended six further assessments, while the local authority is considering a Section 37 [Children Act 1989] addendum report. Counsel for the guardian says there’s no timescale or plan for all these recommended assessments. The judge urges everyone to work together, because otherwise, Henry’s future doesn’t look very promising.
Alex Ruck Keene on the Mental Capacity Law and Policy blog commented on the recent case in which Supreme Court overrules Cheshire West (2 June 2026). He says that in Reference by the Attorney General for Northern Ireland [2026] UKSC 16 (also reported in The Times, 18 June 2026,) the court made clear that the ‘acid test’ that Lady Hale had set down in Cheshire West should not be followed, because deprivation of liberty is ‘multi-factorial.’ It also held that there are circumstances in which it is possible for a person who lacks capacity (applying the Mental Capacity Act 2005) to consent to arrangements which confine them nonetheless to be seen (through the expression of their wishes and feelings) to be giving legally valid consent so as to take those arrangements out of the scope of Article 5. The MCLP blog has set up a resources page.
In his A Lawyer Writes blog Joshua Rozenberg commented, in Judge’s reasons published (4 June 2026) on the publication of sentencing remarks in the Fordingbridge rape case. This was the case in which two teenage boys convicted of raping two young girls in Hampshire were given non-custodial sentences by Judge Nicholas Rowland at Southampton Crown Court on 21 May. The case had provoked an outcry in the press and comments from politicians aghast at the apparent leniency of the punishment, which was perhaps not surprising given the government’s oft-announced campaign to target violence against women and girls. But it became clear when the full reasons were available that the judge had taken into account the fact that both boys had already spent a some time under curfew or in detention before being made subject to youth rehabilitation orders. The remarks are also interesting in showing how the judge used simple language so the boys would understand the seriousness of their offending and the risk of being returned to detention if they failed to comply with their obligations. Rozenberg concluded by reminding the judiciary of the need to publish reasons promptly in cases likely to attract media attention.
The Courts and Tribunals Observers’ Network blog had two posts about missing courts data. Committal for contempt of court: A lacuna of data (5 June 2026) in which Daniel Clark sets out a lack of data in relation to the number of people who are committed to prison following a finding of contempt of court. As he puts it, “inconsistent judgment publication combines with missing statistics to create not so much of a data gap but more of a data desert”.And in Missing super-injunction data (12 June 2026), Clark sets out missing data in relation to super-injunctions. A super-injunction, which is or ought to be interim, constrains a person’s ability to disclose the fact that the injunction exists. But the fact of its being made or continued ought to be recorded, yet it appears this is not always done. Given the nature of the order, the absence of a record of it is hard to detect.
The Open Justice Court of Protection Project posted A statement on the Court of Appeal’s judgment in Re Gardner (Deceased) (Court of Protection: Disclosure of Position Statements) (9 June 2026) following the decision in Re Gardner [2026] EWCA Civ 640. The project’s core team said: ‘The effect of the Court of Appeal judgment is to limit the circumstances in which position statements will be disclosed to court observers and to refer the matter of how transparency is operationalised in the Court of Protection back to the ad hoc Rules Committee. We welcome the clarity that this judgment has brought. We are keen to work with the Rules Committee in the development of an appropriate approach both to the disclosure of position statements and also transparency more generally.’
The Mouse in the Court had a post entitled ‘Essential feature of open justice’ to rise in price by 27%, HMCTS announce (22 June 2026) in which blogger Daniel Cloake expressed ‘some bemusement therefore at the contrast between the punitive charging of fees disincentivising access to documents versus the positive promotion of open justice by senior members of the judiciary.’ The price hike from £11 to £14 per document will take effect from 13 July 2026, subject to parliamentary approval, according to the announcement by HMCTS. Cloake points out that it is unusual for observers to need only one document when finding out about a case. Even on current prices, ‘a fairly standard set of pleadings, with a couple of court orders thrown in, will already set an interested non-party back £66, soon to be £84.’ This may be compared to the US document access platform Pacer, which imposes a cap on the sums to be paid by occasional non-party observers, thus avoiding a tax on open justice.
NEW JUDGMENTS OF INTEREST
Re B (A Child) (Interim Separation) [2026] EWCA Civ 748
This was an appeal by the Cafcass guardian on behalf of a six year old child against an interim care order for immediate removal made at the end of May by the Central Family Court in London. The guardian had filed a notice of appeal the same day and a stay was put on the removal, the child being returned to his father pending the hearing in mid June. Baker LJ in the Court of Appeal agreed that the decision had been a finely balanced one but concluded that the relevant case law (Re C (A Child: Interim Separation) [2019] EWCA Civ 1998) had not been followed by the judge and the case was sent back to a different judge for a decision.
Re F, G & H, Re (Return Home Under Supervision Order) [2026] EWCA Civ 713
Baker LJ refers in this judgment to ‘the not uninteresting question of the status of an order generated by the digitised system which is right in law but contrary to what the judge has unlawfully ordered’. The anomaly was that the judge had made a supervision order for two years, whereas there is a limit under the Children Act 1989 of one year (this can later be extended). The local authority had sought care orders, and appealed against the supervision orders on the basis of the judicial analysis, not just the technical points – the appeal was dismissed.
DD v EE [2026] EWHC 1359 (Fam)
This judgment relates to a series of hearings in April regarding missing children, where the judge, Hannah Markham KC, highlighted the role of the media when publicity was necessary. The judge said:
Parents who try to disappear with children should know that they cannot assume that they can hide behind an old-fashioned belief that the courts will not permit publicity about them, the children or their details. Whilst cases in which orders would permit the inclusion of the details of parties, the children and photographs are likely to remain rare, they can and may be used when the risks to the children and locating them outweighs the harm from the limited and focused publicity.
The courts in England and Wales work in an open and collaborative way with the press. This may to many appear to be a ‘new’ situation, but the basis for this relationship has existed for some time. The press provides a forum to ensure that the public are aware of decisions being taken and also can, in the right situations provide an avenue to assist in locating missing children [35-36]
Suzanne Martin (Freelance Journalist) v The Father & Ors [2026] EWFC 151 and Re A (A Minor: Domestic Abuse: Welfare) (No 4) [2026] EWFC 152
We’re featuring this case because there was an unsuccessful application by journalist Suzanne Martin, who had been attending hearings, for the anonymity of the father to be lifted. There is a total of four judgments published relating to the father’s applications for contact. In 2021, the mother suffered a horrendous physical attack, leaving her permanently injured, that police believed was orchestrated by the father. She lives in fear of her child being abducted. In these extreme circumstances, unusually, the judge at Gloucester Family Court made a prohibited steps order that the father should not remove the child from the mother’s care. Indirect contact only is in place. Ms Martin argued that it was in the public interest for the father to be identified because of his criminal record and history of abuse, and the fact that the perpetrators of the attack have not been found. The judge however concluded that, on balance, the risk of the child being identifiable was too high.
A, B & C, Re (Children: Shortage of Adoptive Placements) [2026] EWFC 127 (B)
This is an interesting judgment in identifying the shortage (or even absence) of potential adopters as one reason why the judge in Sussex Family Court decided against making a placement order but instead, a care order on the basis of the local authority amending its plan so that the child (aged three) remains in long term foster care with her current foster carer.
Derbyshire County Council v A Mother & Ors [2025] EWFC 523 (B)
This case heard in Derby Family Court last year (but only recently published) is another example of an increase in published judgments where section 26 Adoption and Children Act 2002 orders are made for continuing direct sibling contact, alongside a placement order. The judge explains why such an order in this case is necessary.
F v M & Anor [2026] EWFC 133 (B)
HHJ Owens at Oxford Family Court identified poor practice by agencies in this case regarding allegations of child sexual abuse, especially about the use of the word ‘disclosure’. She concluded:
… I would suggest that SAFE [a support charity] review the guidance given by MacDonald J [ AS & TH and ors [2016] EWHC 532 (Fam) and Re P (Sexual Abuse: Finding of Fact Hearing) [2019] EWFC 27 ] and consider whether their working practices need to be adapted accordingly if they are to work with children before any conviction, finding or admissions of abuse. Based on the evidence of the SAFE worker in this case, they may also want to consider whether training to understand that reporting something to the police is not the same as a conviction, finding or admission would assist. I would also suggest that the SW [local authority social worker] also review best practice guidelines and relevant training around working with children who make allegations of abuse, in particular the need to avoid use of the word ‘disclosure’ [71].
OTHER TRANSPARENCY etc NEWS
The Judiciary published updated Remote Participation Guidance (4 June 2026) for civil and family courts and tribunals following a review launched in 2024. Through this work, two documents have been produced. The first is the Judicial Remote Participation Principles, aimed at promoting consistency and ensuring proper consideration of both access to justice and the interests of justice. The second is Overarching Guidance, which provides a high-level framework to support a more consistent approach to remote participation across the courts and tribunals. Guidance for criminal courts was due to follow, but there didn’t seem to be any specific guidance about the Court of Protection, nor did the Family guidance appear to cover it.
The Ministry of Justice launched A fairer end to relationships: A consultation on reforming financial remedies on divorce and strengthening protections for cohabitants at the end of their relationship (June 2026). The consultation, which runs from 5 June to 14 August 2026, is designed mainly to address the prospect of reforming the law as it affects people living together in a familial relationship (what is sometimes inaccurately thought of as a ‘common law marriage’), but not legally married or in a civil partnership, when they break up on one of them dies. The government has chosen to frame this, rather simplistically, as part of its ‘commitment to strengthening the rights and protections available to women in cohabiting couples as part of our wider ambition to halve violence against women and girls in a decade’. The Law Commission’s 2024 scoping report identified a lack of certainty and accessibility in the current law, which is thought to create discrimination and inequality among those whose relationships have ended.
There was a debate in the House of Commons on Child Contact Arrangements on 10 June 2026, in which Alison Hume MP, proposing the relevant motion, asserted that many family courts are ‘not functioning in the child’s best interests’ and that allegations of domestic abuse, which are ‘estimated to occur in up to 62% of private law cases under the Children Act 1989 in family courts in England and Wales’, are increasingly being met with counterclaims of ‘parental alienation’ — described as a pseudoscientific concept promoted by unregulated experts appointed to make recommendations to the court. She then cited an earlier Right to Equality survey (published last year) saying it ‘reveals concerning patterns around child removal, including the role of parental alienation allegations, limited fact-finding on abuse and the influence of expert recommendations. In total, the 217 mothers had 342 children removed from their care. That is quite clearly not in the best interests of those children and is deeply traumatic for their mothers.’ That last sentence is somewhat concerning because, of course, the decision must have been made in each case that it was in the best interests of the child, since that is (or should have been) the paramount consideration. It is not always wise to counter one prejudice with another. But we should probably still rejoice that Parliament has given time to what is evidently an important issue.
The Government published its response to the Domestic Abuse Commissioner’s ‘Everyday business’ Report on 10 June 2026, highlighting what it is already doing (eg child focused courts) and saying ‘We are committed to going further and that is why later this year we will publish, alongside our partners across the Family Justice System, a Family Justice Strategy. This will set out our understanding of the wide-ranging issues that can make the experience of private law proceedings difficult for vulnerable Court users and our commitment to long-term reform of the Family Court.’ The response goes on to itemise particular recommendations in the commissioner’s report, and how the government plans to implement them. The commissioner’s response in turn is published on their website.
Nuffield Family Justice Observatory released their report Routes through court for families in private law proceedings (June 2026) exploring the different ways in which families interact with the family court. The research uses administrative data from Cafcass and Cafcass Cymru which was accessed in anonymised form through the SAIL Databank. (The report notes that ‘Access to Census 2021 data was refused by the HMCTS Data Access Panel.’) The analysis covers a cohort of adults who had a first private law application between 1 January 2016 and 31 December 2018 – 176,760 adults in England and 12,710 adults in Wales. This means that the data could be up to a decade old, and incomplete, and that the report’s findings predate the implementation of the Private Law Pathfinder. Nevertheless, a number of trends emerge which are listed in the report, such as the frequency with which parents return to the court for further hearings in particular types of case, and the crossover between private law and public law proceedings involving the same families.
The Nuffield FJO Chart of the Month for June demonstrated that the use of special guardianship orders has increased over the last 15 years. They cite a recent Nuffield Foundation-funded study in Wales by Cardiff University on Special guardianship families in Wales: Experiences and support needs.
Research in Practice published a briefing, Rethinking Domestic Abuse in Child Protection: How to respond differently, (24 June 2026) described as ‘A suite of new resources support practitioners and leaders to rethink how they respond to domestic violence and abuse (DVA) in child protection.’ They share learning on:
- How intersecting inequalities shape families’ experiences of social care and how an intersectional understanding of domestic abuse violence (DVA) can be incorporated into service design and delivery.
- How whole-person and whole-family approaches can improve outcomes for families and children.
- How to develop evidence-informed responses to DVA across social care.
The Youth Justice Board (YJB) published a comprehensive new Evidence and Insights Pack on Online Harms Affecting Children (25 June 2026). The release comes at a time of growing national momentum to protect children online, the YJB said, including the implementation of the Online Safety Act, plans to ban social media for under-16s by spring 2027, and an increased focus on online harms in the recent Youth Justice White Paper. The evidence pack highlights that while online platforms are central to children’s lives, they expose them to severe, overlapping risks of harm and exploitation, and suggests a number of strategies to reduce such risks. The board strongly welcomed the government’s recently announced decision to ban social media for under-16s by spring 2027 ( described as a ‘landmark government move to give kids their childhood back’).
The Parole Board launched a new video and leaflet for victims (29 June 2026) saying the parole system ‘can be complex and difficult for victims to navigate, so we want to be as transparent as possible about how the system works, by providing clear and concise information on topics such as: how to submit a Victim Personal Statement; the different stages of the process; and how to observe an oral hearing.’ The video is on YouTube and the information leaflet is here.
Journalists Hannah Summers and Louise Tickle were this year’s winners of the Press Award Campaign of the Year for their investigations into the family courts’ involvement with the family of Sara Sharif.
FORTHCOMING EVENTS
Making Justice Visible: Survey of Court Observers
Dr Judith Townend and Daniel Clark at the University of Sussex have launched a survey to inform a cross-jurisdictional analysis of the ways that different courts and tribunals in England and Wales facilitate open justice. Anyone who reports or observes hearings at least once a year is encouraged to respond. The survey contains a combination of long-form and multiple choice questions and shouldn’t take very long to complete (5-30 minutes depending on your responses). It closes on Monday 28 September 2026.
The Family Justice Council will hold its 12th Open Meeting on Monday 13 July 2026 from 11am to 1.30pm.
The meeting will be held remotely via MS Teams, and provides an opportunity for members of the public to see first-hand the work of the council and to ask questions. Guests will be able to observe the meeting, which will conclude with a question-and-answer session. The Council monitors the effectiveness of the family justice system, advising on reforms necessary for continuous improvement and promoting an interdisciplinary approach to family justice in England and Wales. For details on how to register and/or submit a question, see the FJC open meetings page.
Play: A DoL House (reminder)
At The Big House, London, N1 3LH, started in June, but continues till Saturday 11 July 2026. Book tickets
Created with The Big House members, judges, and legal experts, A DoL House is an unflinching, provocative play that steps inside a hidden system to ask: What does ‘keeping young people safe’ really mean? When does protection become control? And is there another way?
FAMILY LAW AND TRANSPARENCY IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS
India
The Times reported on ‘A romantic hike to old fort, then bride-to-be pushed fiancé off cliff’ (26 June 2026). This was about an allegation of premarital murder involving two individuals from wealthy families in India who’d been due to be joined in arranged matrimony. It appears that the bride to be, Siya Goyal, asked her fiancé, Ketan Agarwal, to join her on a trek to the picturesque Lohagad Fort in Pune, Maharashtra, to celebrate her 20th birthday. ‘A keen trekker, Agarwal needed little persuasion to go,’ the report says. But, unbeknownst to him, she had a secret lover, Chetan Chaudhary, 22, who is alleged to have acted as her accomplice in luring Agarwal to a fatal plummet from a great height. Her initial story was that he was taking photos from a spectacular view point and slipped and fell… But his family refused to accept that version, the police investigated further, and both accused have now confessed to murder, according to the police, and remain in custody. No doubt everyone from here to Netflix will be agog to see what happens next. Pull back a second, though. The report goes on to say: ‘Goyal’s family said they were heartbroken and had no idea about her alleged affair. “If my daughter is found guilty, then she should be thrown from the same place where Ketan was thrown from,” her mother, Pooja, told NDTV. Her father, Praveen, agreed: “From the fort where Ketan fell, the accused, even if it is my own daughter, should be pushed down.”’
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.
Featured image: photo by Lucy Reed