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 reported that Motion calling for free court transcripts gains cross-party backing (29 June 2026) saying an early day motion by Lib Dem MP Jess Brown-Fuller, calling on the government to extend free access to transcripts across the justice system, had received cross-party support. Currently, under the Sentencing Act 2020, Crown court sentencing remarks are provided free of charge. The EDM looks to go further, calling on full transcripts of proceedings in both crown and magistrates’ court cases to be made available.
The Telegraph reported that Deaths outnumber births for first time in 50 years (1 July 2026) noting that ‘Think tank accuses Government of being ‘asleep at the wheel’ in failing to support family life’. The think tank in question was the Centre for Social Justice (CSJ), which had issued a press release entitled “Death Day” marks new era as deaths set to overtake births in England and Wales in response to last month’s figures from the Office of National Statistics (ONS). See also, House of Lords Library, Declining birth rates and population ageing: Impact and government response (1 June 2026).
The BBC reported that Mother says new custodial sentences for daughter’s rapists ‘better’ but still ‘not enough’ (2 July 2026) after the Attorney General referred the sentences in the Fordingbridge child rape case, which had been the subject of criticism from the victims’ families and in the press, to the Court of Appeal under the unduly lenient sentence scheme. We had an item about the case in last month’s roundup, about publication of the sentencing remarks and whether doing so sooner might have avoided some of the more speculative or ill-informed commentary. But two new stories have emerged. First, the Court of Appeal (on the AG’s referral) has increased the sentences to include actual prison terms as opposed to suspended ones; which was what this BBC story was about, and the victims’ families’ response to it. And secondly, as Joshua Rozenberg reported in CPS in the dock (6 July 2026), the court was now considering what further steps to take to deal with the fact that the Crown Prosecution Service had published a press release on the Fordingbridge rape case containing ‘very significant errors’ and then left them uncorrected for nearly three weeks.
The BBC reported that Married at First Sight UK star arrested on suspicion of rape (2 July 2026) following a BBC Panorama investigation into the Channel 4 reality TV show. It had revealed rape allegations from two female cast members on the show, while a third woman alleged a non-consensual sex act. The men involved have denied all the allegations against them. The police are now investigating, says the BBC, before helpfully explaining: ‘Billed as a “bold social experiment”, Married at First Sight UK – known to many as MAFS – sees single people agree to “marry” total strangers, after meeting for the first time at their mock weddings.’ (What, you think, could possibly go wrong?)
The Times (£) had a piece, Adoption horror goes on, we’ve just exported it (3 July 2026) in which columnist Sarah Ditum argued that ‘in foreign baby farms, surrogates for British families face the same awful lives unmarried mothers used to have here’. This was prompted in part by the (then) prime minister’s recent apology for the forced adoption of babies born to unmarried mothers in the mid-20th century. Ditum says the consequence has been that couples look elsewhere, including commercial surrogacy arrangements with mothers abroad who are often as exploited and coerced as the unmarried mothers who had to give up their babies in the past.
The BBC asked What could new rights for unmarried couples mean for your money? (4 July 2026) citing the government’s current consultation, A fairer end to relationships on reforming financial remedies on divorce and strengthening protections for cohabitants at the end of their relationship. The article provided an explainer complete with diagrams of what happens to their assets and finances when one partner dies intestate or they split up. It compared the position with other jurisdictions which have already introduced some protection for cohabitants.
The Times reported that My husband recorded me having sex with strangers (4 July 2026) which turned out to be a review of the BBC podcast, Swingers, investigating ‘a story about pressure and control and how swinging can create shame — and shame can create silence.’ One woman involved, Ruth O’Grady, was motivated to share her story and waive her anonymity after hearing about the Gisele Pelicot case in France. Reviewing the podcast in The Times, Patricia Nicol says ‘The experiences of O’Grady make for an eye-opening listen. Rarely, if ever, have I heard a programme on BBC Sounds where the content warning felt so necessary.’ Pressured by her husband Chris to join a swinger site, ‘O’Grady had expected them to connect with couples, but soon it was almost always just her having sex with strange men in their home or in a lay-by or car park — encounters Chris liked to record.’ BBC Radio 4 Woman’s Hour (27 July) also featured Ruth’s story and the fact that her husband prioritised this abuse over her care of their young child.
The BBC reported that Mum who accused ex-partner of rape wins appeal against family court judge (6 July 2026) saying the mother had successfully appealed against a decision of Judge Robin Tolson KC, who allowed her ex-partner – who was being investigated by the police for rape – overnight contact with their three young children. Mr Justice Keehan ordered a rehearing. The BBC also mention that Tolson has been the subject of other criticism for his decisions. We haven’t been able to find a published appeal judgment.
The Guardian reported that UK-based couple say overseas fertility clinic made twins using wrong sperm (7 July 2026) saying the British couple, who had twins with a surrogate mother overseas, later discovered they had no biological connection to the children after the fertility clinic in Sri Lanka mistakenly supplied donor sperm. They made the discovery via DNA tests while applying for British citizenship for the children. Instead of applying for parental order, they had to apply to adopt the children, which was granted by Mr Justice Peel in PP & QQ v RR (leave to withdraw parental order application) [2026] EWFC 172. We published Salomé Ashenden’s explainer about the legal technicalities of the case on this blog, The parent trap: the legal conundrum of surrogacy (31 July 2026).
In similar vein, The Times reported Surrogacy warning after fight to bring baby to UK from Kyrgyzstan (9 July 2026). This was about a single man in his 50s who made complicated arrangements to have a child born for him using his sperm and a donated egg, via a fertility clinic in Northern Cyprus who matched him with a surrogate mother from Kyrgyzstan who was working in Dubai. He applied for a parental order after securing a British passport for the child, once born, after encountering difficulties with the legal status and poor legal advice from the commercial agencies involved. The judgment of Mrs Justice Knowles in Re Q (Surrogacy: Legal Advice) [2026] EWHC 1538 (Fam), granting the order in the interests of the child, includes a warning to would-be parents to take proper legal advice.
The Bureau of Investigative Journalists (TBIJ) reported that New family court rules spark hope that the ‘days of bogus experts are over’ (10 July 2026) saying ‘changes coming into effect this month will keep unregulated experts out of courts in all but exceptional cases’. The updated Family Procedure Rules came into effect on 20 July would tighten a loophole by requiring courts to use a regulated expert unless an issue could only be resolved with their particular expertise, or to avoid a delay that could harm a child’s welfare, in which case the judge would also have to explain what efforts were made to find a regulated expert. The report includes a comment from Lucy Reed KC saying she believes the new rules – which apply to all experts, not just psychologists – make it “practically impossible” to instruct the types of unregulated psychologists that have given cause for concern including in alleged parental alienation cases.
Legal Futures reported that Family Court names expert who only “skimmed” the paperwork (10 July 2026) which concerned the case of Re X and Y (Care Proceedings: Publication of Judgment: Criticism of Expert Witness) [2026] EWFC 132 in which Mrs Justice Knowles decided to name a medical witness, Mr Patrick Mitchell, a consultant neurosurgeon, about whose evidence she had made ‘sharp criticisms’ in a previous fact-finding judgment concerning non-accidental injuries to a child. Mitchell had said in his report that ‘Nothing in the medical evidence points towards a nonaccidental injury.’ Six other medical experts disagreed but Mitchell showed ‘an unwillingness to engage with the opinions of other experts’. The local authority and children’s guardian were highly critical of Mitchell’s evidence and sought to name him in any published judgment. The judge concluded both that the judgment should be published and that he should be named, robustly rejecting the suggestion that it might put off other medical experts. ‘Those who act or wish to act as experts in the Family Court (or any other jurisdiction) need fear nothing from being named in published judgments if they have the necessary expertise and apply themselves conscientiously to the duties required of them by court rules’.
The Guardian had an opinion piece by Baroness Deech entitled David Lammy’s proposed cohabitation law would be bad for couples – and worse for some women (14 July 2026) which offered yet another point of view on the government’s (Lammy has been replaced in the Burnham reshuffle) consultation about the financial consequences of of cohabitation. Deech describes the proposals as a ‘political timebomb’ and says they fail to respect the wishes of women who deliberately choose to keep their finances separate.
The Law Society Gazette reported that Family court judge’s oral judgment a ‘hazardous’ and ‘unwise course’ says Court of Appeal (14 July 2026). This was about B and G (Fact-Finding) [2026] EWCA Civ 860 in which a mother and father appealed against the decision of Her Honour Judge Kushner, in Luton Family Court, who had delivered her judgment from notes instead of writing it out first, despite the complexity of the issues. She had reserved judgment for six weeks before delivering it, but had not put it into the form of an authorised judgment. When a transcript was ordered, the final version appeared to contain a number of insertions and corrections to the original. Lord Justice Baker said her judgment was ‘to a certain extent lacking in structure and written in a somewhat informal and discursive style’ and said this was ‘a hazardous course to take in a case, like this, where the evidence is complex’. Lady Justice Andrews added that ‘Whilst judges are, and should be, free to decide whether to deliver an oral judgment or hand down a written one, there are some cases in which it should be readily apparent that the latter course should be followed unless there are good reasons not to. In my view, because of the nature and complexity of the issues, this case fell within that category, and it was most unwise of the judge to embark on the course which she did.’ The case was remitted to the family presiding judge for the South Eastern circuit.
There was also a case summary in the Local Government Lawyer, Court of Appeal criticises “unwise” decision of judge to give ex tempore judgment in care proceedings (17 July 2026) and a more critical commentary by Suzanne Martin in her Family Court Chronicles, Family Court Judge Edited Transcript (15 July 2026), which concludes as follows:
‘For practitioners, and for parents who fear the opacity of family‑court decision‑making, the judgment serves as both a rare glimpse into how appellate courts dissect trial‑level reasoning and a reminder that fact‑findings on non‑accidental injury are not insulated from scrutiny. It also quietly sets a benchmark for how far judges can go in “correcting” their own judgments after the event. Any attempt to tidy up ex tempore reasons in light of appeal grounds will now sit under the shadow of Baker LJ’s warning that amendments must reflect what was truly in the judge’s mind at the time – not what, with hindsight and pressure, they wish they had said.’
The Times reported on How red tape and outdated rules trap children in care homes (17 July 2026) following remarks by Josh MacAlister, the children’s minister, saying the system must change. The vast majority of potential foster carers are rejected, leaving children languishing in care homes, many of the businesses charging councils hundreds of thousands of pounds for the children’s care. The minister basically seemed to be saying the criteria were too strict, for selection of foster carers, and in consequence the children were not being placed and were costing more to care for. There were also many children in unregistered care homes, which councils were forced to rely on, even for children subject to deprivation of liberty orders, for want of any suitable alternative. However, Martin Barrow argues that not all people enquiring are potential carers and that some children are more suited to small homes than foster care.
The Law Society Gazette reported that Naming solicitor makes story ‘more interesting for editors’, judge says (20 July 2026). This was about Allis Beasley, a solicitor and part-time judge making a claim in London South Employment Tribunal, who had sought to be anonymised proceedings against the firm Brachers, where she had been a partner specialising in property litigation disputes until 2024. She said she was anxious about disclosing medical details in support of her claim and the effect naming her might have on her future employment prospects. Employment Judge Tom Perry refused the application, accepting, inter alia, that ‘there may be legitimate public interest in the claimant’s identification in these proceedings both generally because it makes cases more interesting for editors and particularly because of her status as a solicitor and the specific public office she holds.’
The Bureau of Investigative Journalism (TBIJ) reported that New rules could ensure courts consider domestic abuse in separation settlements (23 July 2026). This was prompted by the government’s consultation on cohabitation, which includes a question about the extent to which abuse should influence the distribution of assets when married or cohabiting couples separate. The article reports a number of suggestions that the courts should indeed look at conduct, particularly abusive conduct, when considering the redistribution of assets following relationship breakdown. For example, the approach suggested by family law group Resolution, would be ‘to specify domestic abuse in the list of factors a judge must consider – except when it’s fair to disregard it.’
The Times reported from Inside the NHS unit helping mothers with postpartum psychosis (24 July 2026). It said hundreds of women every year are admitted to the NHS’s growing network of mother and baby units, designed to treat mothers suffering from temporary mental conditions, in preference over traditional psychiatric wards, thus avoiding the separation from their babies that is often a focus of their anxiety. The article featured women who had benefited from the units.
The BBC reported on What Love Island tells us about the changing face of dating (26 July 2026) with academics and others commenting on the idea that the traditional male and female roles in dating have been modified, with women more confidently making the first move and men adopting a more passive role – as apparently reflected in the reality TV show. But a note of caution: ‘One study by researchers at Liverpool John Moores University examining Love Island and relationship education, found some young people do look to reality dating programmes for ideas about romance and relationship behaviour. But it also found most viewers described the programme as entertainment and were aware that what they watched did not necessarily reflect real life.’
The Times reported that Most children who commit sex offences do not get custodial sentences (26 July 2026). This was based on figures released by the Youth Justice Board showing, inter alia, ‘that 19 out of the 86 proven rape offences committed by children aged ten to 17 in 2025 resulted in custody, accounting for 22 per cent of cases’. Separate data obtained through a freedom of information request showed that ‘there were 314 proven sexual offences committed by ten to 17-year-olds last year, up by 38 per cent from the 227 committed in 2021.’ Most offenders were boys aged from 15 to 17. The number of offences involving children sending indecent images has gone up by over 40% over the last decade. (The investigation into the figures appears to have been prompted by the Fordingbridge child rape case mentioned above and in last month’s roundup.)
The Mirror reported that Mum of tragic baby campaigns to ban parental rights for those who kill or harm children (28 July 2026). This was about a mother, Jo Early, who said it was wrong that her ex partner Gavin Gibbs was entitled to remain in contact with their daughter Abi, now 18, after he had been jailed for causing grievous bodily harm to her twin brother, Charlie, in 2008 when he was three months old. Gibbs was convicted of breaking his arm but cleared of murder. Early is now campaigning for parents who seriously harm their children to be banned from having access to them or their siblings. (Currently parental responsibility is only removed when a person is convicted of killing their partner, under what is known as “Jade’s Law”.) Victims Commissioner for England and Wales, Claire Waxman, is reportedly backing her campaign.
The BBC reported that Mum and boyfriend jailed for girl’s murder (30 July 2026). Another depressing story, about a two-year-old girl in Teesside, being abused and ultimately murdered by her mother, and the mother’s new boyfriend, both in their early 20s. Both were found guilty of murder and child cruelty and were sentenced to life imprisonment with minimum terms of 22 and 28.5 years respectively. The case was also covered in The Times: Mother and boyfriend jailed for life for murdering toddler (30 July 2026).
The BBC reported that Puberty blockers trial can start recruiting children after judge rejects legal challenge (31 July 2026) saying the Pathways trial, run by researchers at King’s College London (KCL), would start recruiting more than 220 children aged between 11 and 16 years old from 1 August. This followed the dismissal of a claim for judicial review brought by opponents of the use of puberty blockers, in R (Bayswater Support Group & Ors) v Health Research Authority [2026] EWHC 2043 (Admin). The article refers to the Cass Report and other developments leading up to the decision to run the trial, in order to see whether and what sort of treatment might safely and legitimately be provided for juvenile gender dysphoria.
BROADCAST & AUDIO COVERAGE
You can watch the Law reform lecture 2026 (2 July 2026) given by Mrs Justice Eady on the topic of ‘Modern slavery in 2026’ via the Bar Council website. The was followed by a panel discussion on modern slavery legislation and case law in its wider context alongside employment law and human rights.
LEGAL BLOGGING
In Legal blogging in Brighton Family Court: Overreach and Overrun? (8 July 2026) Alice Twaite described attending a hearing in Brighton in April 2026, in a ‘long-running, way out of time targets, complex, and seemingly intractable’ case concerning a nine year old girl, living with her mother, who was reluctant to spend more time with her father. This was the fourth hearing so far and a further hearing was scheduled for later in the year.
Lucy Reed published a post on this blog, An observation of a domestic abuse fact finding hearing – a worrying vignette (19 July 2026) about a case she had attended in 2024 as a legal blogger in the magistrates’ court, but in which she felt, as a barrister, that the competence and conduct of the Qualified Legal Representative’ (or ‘QLR’, a barrister appointed by the court to ask questions on behalf of a litigant in person), was sufficiently worrying to report it to the Bar Standards Board. Waiting for the regulator to do what turned out in the end to be nothing meant that she was unable to write about the hearing till nearly two years later.
Reed also published, on her Pink Tape blog, A post script – what about the mother’s lawyer? (19 July 2026) commenting further on another aspect of the family justice system which was illustrated by that hearing, namely how low is the actual hourly rate of pay (not much more than the national living wage) for someone like the mother’s barrister in the case, taking account of the paperwork involved, and the time required to prepare for the hearing.
RECENT COMMENTARY
The Institute of Advance Legal Studies (IALS) blog had a piece by Hazel Stevenson noting that AI is coming to a court near you! (updated 22 June 2026) following the government’s announcement concerning AI use in the Crown courts. She urges transparency over how AI is to be used, to retain public confidence and avoid mission creep. ‘It is the unconscious heading towards robo judge rather than the conscious decisions that concerns me. The dangers of hallucinations, bias etc are being thought about, I suspect the risk of unintentional mission creep are may be not so much. The time to think about this is now.’
Holdthefrontpage published a law column by Charlie Moloney, Preston Davey trial shows limits on reporting graphic detail (29 June 2026) about the ethical and emotional burdens on journalists reporting cases involving graphic detail of domestic abuse (to a 13-month-old child in that particular case), and their duty to filter the detail included in their court reports, while remaining fair and accurate to the parties involved and providing the public with the scrutiny that open justice demands. He cites the risk of ‘excessive or gratuitous’ details breaching the IPSO Editors’ Code, but adds that ‘These are also the kinds of decisions court reporters are used to making under pressure, adopting not only their common sense, but also their humanity.’
In Badger Trust badgered (29 July 2026) Joshua Rozenberg commented via his A Lawyer Writes blog on a recent judgment of Mr Justice Fordham, R (Wild Justice & Anor) v Natural England [2026] EWHC 1932 (Admin), in which the judge castigates the Badger Trust, one of the applicants in a judicial review case, for breaching an embargo on a reserved judgment, which had been circulated to the parties’s legal teams for checking in advance of delivery, but emphatically not for distribution of a press release announcing the result. He explains the difference between a court embargo and a journalism embargo, and agrees with a suggestion that that distinction should be spelled out clearly whenever circulating what he calls a Confidential Embargoed Draft Judgment (CEDJ). Fordham J concludes, at para 10:
‘No party with whom a CEDJ has been shared by the Court is permitted to alert – or communicate their position on – the outcome or content of an upcoming judgment, to the press or anyone else. No communication of that nature is permissible ahead of receipt of finalised handed-down judgment. It is a breach of a duty imposed by the Court and owed to the Court. It is significant. It can also be a contempt of court. The Court will always investigate it fully, and treat it very seriously.’
In AI in the family courts: the cases you haven’t heard about yet… (29 July 2026) family law barrister Julia Nelson on her Substack discusses some recent cases where AI has been used to assist litigants in the family courts, either beneficially (such as in preparing an easy-read version of the judgment) or in ‘unsettling’ ways (such as a witness using it to help prepare their witness statement). She concludes:
‘AI earns its place doing the things it’s good at: translating, summarising, drafting, searching, making decisions more accessible to the people affected by them. Where it falls down, every time, is when it’s asked to stand in for the verification and judgement that a human decision maker is legally and professionally obliged to bring.’
NEW JUDGMENTS OF INTEREST
other than above
Re T and F (Placement Orders: Child’s Permanence Reports) [2026] EWCA Civ 902
A ‘child permanence report’ (CPR) is the comprehensive report (about 80 pages) that is prepared by an adoption agency to be considered by the local authority when making its decision on whether a child should be adopted. If the adoption panel does make that decision, it will then be for a court to decide on making a placement order.
In this appeal judgment, the CPRs for two children hadn’t been sent to their parents’ solicitors, despite three court orders that they should be. The Court of Appeal concluded that this was a serious procedural irregularity but that, in the circumstances, the outcome for the children wouldn’t have been different if the order had been complied with, because the parents were provided with the relevant information. The appeal was dismissed, but Lord Justice Baker said that such an irregularity could not be condoned and, in different circumstances, might have led to an injustice.
Re D (Change of Circumstances: Domestic Abuse Allegations) [2026] EWCA Civ 969
This judgment reads like a catalogue of errors that had occurred in Exeter Family Court, relating to a child arrangements order that a seven year old child move from living with her father to her mother. Lord Justice Baker in the Court of Appeal made these observations at the end of the judgment: where the court has decided at the FHDRA (dispute resolution hearing) that there won’t be a fact-finding hearing into allegations of abuse but the Cafcass officer’s section 7 report concludes that allegations of abuse are a material factor in the decision about the child’s future, this should be expressly drawn to the court’s attention. The question of whether to hold a fact-finding hearing should then be reviewed. There had been a lack of judicial continuity in this case and, had the final hearing been conducted by the same judge as the FHDRA, he probably would have realised that the conclusions reached in the Cafcass report required him to revisit his decision about the allegations.
Re J (Children) [2026] EWCA Civ 989
This was an unsuccessful appeal by a mother against a decision refusing her leave to appeal against placement orders made by Cardiff Family Court. The Court of Appeal concluded that the mother’s circumstances regarding parenting had not changed to the degree that is required by the legislation and case law. A second ground of her appeal was that the foster carers for the children had now been approved as adopters. Her lawyers argued that this was change that indicated a less intrusive order, special guardianship, was appropriate. Lady Justice King said that the decision had been that the children should be placed for adoption, and that this did not extend to the court having jurisdiction over who the adopters would be, and that special guardianship had not been a viable option before the court.
Mr Justice Mckendrick made a public interest immunity (PII) order in an open judgment with regard to matters that were heard in a closed hearing. A local authority, Harrow, had applied for a care order to protect ‘Child A’ but there had been allegations against a number of connected adults of child trafficking and modern slavery which were being investigated by the police. The police gave evidence in a closed hearing of the harm that would be caused to their investigation if they were to give full disclosure of information they held. The judge agreed to public interest immunity to protect the police from having to make full disclosure, although this had implications for the care proceedings which would probably have to involve special advocates.
This is a short judgment from Derby Family Court in which the judge is very critical of the conduct of a QLR (qualified legal representative). The judge said that the QLR had read out a short list of questions by a party rather than follow the guidance that is intended to ensure a fair hearing. He also seemed completely unfamiliar with the court documents. The QLR was dismissed. The judge said that this was not first time he’d been faced by this sort of problem. We wrote earlier this month about another case where a QLR was not adequately prepared with the papers.
A Father v A Mother [2026] EWFC 188 B
This judgment centred on the judge’s concerns about a Cafcass report. The judge stated at the outset that he wasn’t going to name the Cafcass officer or her manager. Guidance on publication of judgments is that front line Cafcass workers aren’t named, although managers may be. Somehow, this application had been ongoing for more than two years before HHJ Willans took it over in West London Family Court. There’d been an allegation by a child’s mother against the father regarding an incident in 2022, but a district judge had found this not proven and had directed a section 7 welfare report by Cafcass, with the direction: The author of the section 7 report must note that the court has not made any findings against the father and recommendations shall be on the basis of that. The Cafcass reporter however had written a report on the basis of the impact on the mother and child of alleged abuse, and recommended cessation of contact with the father. HHJ Willans said that Cafcass hadn’t followed the law and guidance regarding allegations. He made an order for safe and managed development of contact. The approach of Cafcass in this case had been inconsistent with their reporting duty to the Court.
Re Charlie (a Child) (Fact Finding and Welfare: Fracture) [2026] EWFC 160 (B)
There’s some interesting discussion about future direct post-adoption contact in this judgment from HHJ Richard Case in Swindon Family Court. Care and placement orders were made in respect of a 15 month old boy who had an unexplained injury; sadly, although the judge acknowledged the mother’s love and commitment, he concluded that she was unable to keep the child safe from risks from other adults. The judge invited the local authority to agree to prioritise – for the first six months of the search – potential adopters willing to consider twice yearly direct contact.
RT v DW (Protected Party: Proceeding in the Absence of a Litigation Friend) [2026] EWFC 183 (B)
As the case name given here helpfully indicates, this case in Cardiff Family Court was about an adult who lacked litigation capacity but didn’t have any legal or welfare representation. The issue for HHJ Muzaffer was fairness in a dispute between a divorced couple, both litigants in person, about their former matrimonial home. A consent order had been made that the property be sold and the net proceeds split equally. However the husband was now contesting this. He was living alone in the five-bedroom house, while the wife was in ‘modest’ rented accommodation along with their adult son who slept on a sofa. In the absence of agreement by the Official Solicitor to act as the husband’s litigation friend, the judge had to decide whether to proceed with the case. The judge said:
‘The systemic difficulty is that vulnerable individuals such as the husband do not have automatic recourse to legal aid in cases of this kind. The husband has been left to navigate matters alone and without representation, while the wife has had to endure the continuing financial and emotional burden arising from the protracted litigation. The reality is that both parties have, in a very real sense, been impeded in their access to justice and have suffered hardship as a result. This is a matter that ought to give rise to real concern.’ [25]
Although the judgment deals with quite complex issues, it includes a ‘simplified explanation’ of the decision, written for the husband.
FH v MH (PD12J: Parallel Criminal Proceedings) [2026] EWFC 195 (B)
The district judge in Birmingham Family Court explained that he was publishing this judgment because of important issues concerning the approach to be adopted where private law children proceedings run in parallel with criminal proceedings arising from substantially the same allegations of domestic abuse. The court had to consider the extent to which a father’s continued ‘not guilty’ plea in criminal proceedings, following findings of fact made by the family court, should influence the assessment of current and future risk to the children. The judge also had to consider the weight to be attached to evidence of meaningful behavioural change and therapeutic intervention where criminal liability remains in issue.
Ruth Elizabeth Gray v Duncan Keith Gray [2023] EWFC 349 (B)
We’ve only recently seen this judgment because although it came out in 2023, it’s only just appeared on The National Archives (TNA). It’s a financial remedy case from Croydon Family Court. The dispute was over the former matrimonial home. In view of Mr Gray’s serious misconduct of the proceedings, the district judge ordered that he pay ¾ of the total costs. He also ordered publication of the judgment in order for Mrs Gray and her lawyers to counter any future misinformation and harassment by Mr Gray.
A couple who had lived together for seven years and had a two year old child, for whom they shared parental responsibility (PR) had a second child, born in June. The children’s mother died shortly after the birth. Because the parents weren’t married, the father discovered there was no way to establish his PR, without the mother’s consent. He therefore had to apply to court for a declaration of parenthood and a PR order. His barrister appeared pro bono. The orders were swiftly made by the district judge in Derby Family Court. The father supported publication of the judgment, saying he hoped that, if possible, his experience might help prevent other bereaved parents having to face the same difficulties in the future. We understand that consideration is being given to a more straightforward court process for any future similar situation.
MN v OP & others [2026] EWFC 207 B
HHJ Robinson in Middlesbrough Family Court set out his reasons for publishing this judgment. In September, the judge had made a care order which was exceptional in that the child was to live with his mother. The risk of harm to the child came from his father’s extreme hatred of the mother and the fear he had consequently instilled in the child. In June, the mother applied to court for a specific issue order that the father return the child’s passport and for permission for her to take the child on holiday abroad. The issues were complicated by the child not clearly expressing whether he wanted to go on the holiday or not. The judge praised all the practitioners who had been involved in the case and he also described a meeting he’d held with the child. He concluded that the holiday could go ahead and he also made a non-molestation order (although this hadn’t been applied for) to prevent the father from contacting the boy (other than as arranged by the local authority) for the next two years.
OTHER NEW DEVELOPMENTS
The Law Commission proposed clearer rights for kinship families (8 July 2026) saying its aim was ‘to facilitate parental responsibility for kinship carers, and improve kinship care law for the benefit of children and families’. It said that over 160,000 children are currently being cared for by kinship carers such as grandparents, aunts, uncles and family friends, and proposed a new single court order that could ‘replace a complex patchwork of existing orders’. The simplification would be achieved by replacing, for them, special guardianship orders (SGOs) and child arrangements orders (CAOs) with a flexible kinship care order (KCO). A kinship parental responsibility agreement (kinship PRA) would enable parents to enter into an agreement with a kinship carer. In support of its proposals, the commission published a consultation paper on kinship care. (They have also published an Easy Read summary of the consultation paper.) The public consultation period will run until 16 October 2026.
The Department for Education launched a consultation on Updating foster care standards and guidance (8 July 2026). The consultation will run till 16 September 2026. The department is seeking the views of anyone working in fostering or related areas or people with lived experience of fostering. For more on this, Family Law Week rounded up some responses to the news from various relevant organisations: DfE publish proposed updating foster care standards and guidance.
The Ministry of Justice announced Government action so children do not pay for a parent’s crime (8 July 2026) in the form of a pilot scheme, under which ‘vulnerable children with a parent in prison will be recognised earlier and better supported under Government efforts to give every child the best start in life’. The scheme is due to run from 2026 to 2028, starting over the summer with an official launch in autumn 2026. Like many government announcements from this month, it is branded with a rubric saying: ‘This was published under the 2024 to 2026 Starmer Labour government’. (As if to say, watch this space, who know what the Burnham lot will do with it.)
The government published its Immigration and Asylum Bill 2026 (8 July 2026), one of whose purposes (according to the research briefing) was to ‘make it harder for migrants to invoke human rights law’. The bill would amend existing legislation telling judges how Article 8 rights should be interpreted in appeals. ‘It aims to tighten the rules so that fewer migrants secure residence rights in future: an accompanying impact assessment suggests that there could be 11,700 more Article 8 cases refused.’
The government announced that Last woman to be hanged in the UK pardoned 70 years on (8 July 2026). The woman in question, Ruth Ellis, was granted a conditional pardon for murder on the grounds that, in the exceptional circumstances of the case, including evidence of domestic abuse and coercive and controlling behaviour that may have been understood differently today, she might not have been convicted or might have had a partial defence. The case has acquired some notoriety and was the subject of a film, Dance with a Stranger (1985), but no doubt hers was not a unique case and there must be many other criminal cases from the old days that would have been decided differently in today’s theoretically more enlightened times.
Oxford Law Faculty published Private Family Law and Child Sexual Abuse: A Research Report by Jaime Lindsey and Joanna Harwood, along with a press release Listening, believing, protecting: lessons for private family law in child sexual abuse cases (10 July 2026). The report is based on research into how family justice processes were experienced in cases involved child sexual abuse. It says ‘Very little evidence has been gathered specifically looking at the voice of the child in cases where there are CSA allegations. By hearing directly from people who experienced the family court as children, this research responds to the need to build the limited evidence base on children’s experiences of these proceedings. We also conducted focus groups with professionals to explore their experiences of CSA cases in private family law cases.’ There is also a link to a short video presented by Lindsey, entitled Improving the Family Justice System, on YouTube. We summarised the report here – Who is listening to child victims of sexual abuse in private law proceedings?
Another academic report came from the University of Manchester with the press release Family courts must do more to hear children’s voices, study says (21 July 2026) which referred to research led by the Dr Elizabeth Dalgarno in partnership with SHERA Research Group members and The Survivor Family Network. ‘Researchers analysed the experiences of 77 children involved in private family law cases, based on interviews with 45 mothers. Using the concept of “childism” – prejudice and discrimination that devalues children’s perspectives and how to challenge these prejudices – they found evidence of systemic failures that can leave children feeling unheard and exposed to further harm.’ The full report in the Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law is titled Systemic harm and institutional silencing: children’s wellbeing in private family law proceedings (16 July 2026).
The government published the Independent review of social work professional regulation in England (July 2026) chaired by Dame Annie Hudson, which aimed to assess the effectiveness of Social Work England and government in delivering statutory functions set out in the Children and Social Work Act 2017. It said ‘Social Work England’s significant progress is commendable. However, overall effectiveness is undermined by serious and persistent weaknesses in key areas.’ The report sets out a comprehensive programme of reform requiring co-ordinated action by Social Work England, government and the wider sector. The government also published its response, saying broadly that it ‘accepts the review’s central case for reform’ and promised that it ‘will take forward implementation in a way that is practical, proportionate and focused on sustained improvement’.
NAGALRO issued a press release on 16 July 2026 welcoming ‘moves to improve Social Work England’s fitness to practise performance’, following the Hudson review. ‘Nagalro has long had concerns about the inordinate delays faced by social workers who are subject to fitness to practise complaints,’ it said, and ‘welcomes the government’s resolve to require Social Work England to provide a strategic improvement plan within six months. That response, however, only addresses the first two limbs of the Review’s three requirements. The response has no word about resourcing, and without sufficient resources, those improvements may prove to be unattainable.’
The Nuffield Foundation published a research project report on Children and Policing in England and Wales: Adopting a Child First Approach (20 July 2026). The research was led by Dr Vicky Kemp from the University of Nottingham and Dr Miranda Bevan of King’s College London. The report finds that frontline decisions about children are increasingly being made by relatively inexperienced and inadequately trained response officers, with a tendency to default to arrest rather than considering less intrusive alternatives, and a failure to listen to and engage meaningfully with children. It also found that ‘children who came into contact with the police frequently presented with significant, and often overlapping, vulnerabilities, including mental health difficulties, neurodivergence, learning disability, experiences of trauma, exploitation, family instability, substance misuse and educational exclusion.’ The report recommends Child First approaches to prioritise diversion, minimum intervention and the use of less intrusive responses wherever appropriate, and earlier multi-agency involvement. There is an interview with Dr Kemp by Joshua Rozenberg on his A Lawyer Talks podcast, entitled Cells for Kids (28 July 2026).
The Nuffield Foundation also published a report, Public inquiries: are they fit for purpose? (22 July 2026). It says its ‘purpose is to present a different vision for public inquiry’, namely ‘as a standing institution to investigate systemic harm for the benefit of both those affected and the wider public’. It considers the drawbacks of public inquiries in formation, operation, and outcomes and analyses proposals that have been put forward to make them more effective. ‘They should not follow the current legalistic model, unless required to fulfil human rights law demands, but should take inspiration from good practices and principles of social science and other disciplines too.’ The report is the subject of a interview with its author, Andrew Williams, by Joshua Rozenberg on his A Lawyer Talks podcast, Helping with inquiries (22 July 2026).
The House of Commons Library published a research briefing on Changes to the law on abortion in England and Wales (22 July 2026) which aims to ‘provide an overview of how the law on abortion in England and Wales has changed following the assent of the Crime and Policing Act 2026. It does not comment on, or add to, the debate on the ethics of abortion.’ One of the provisions of the 2026 Act provides for the issue of a pardon and erasure of criminal records for women convicted in the past for certain offences committed in relation to their own pregnancy. (With thanks to the Law & Religion UK blog for flagging this up.)
The Family Justice Council (FJC) announced publication of its guidance on Disclosure to Children and Young People (31 July 2026). This guidance is for young people who want to know what was said, or written, about them in files held by the courts, Cafcass, or a local authority. It was prompted by a suggestion from Mrs Justice Knowles. The guidance will also be useful to professionals helping young people to access documents. (Note that neither the guidance nor the process maps include disclosure in Adoption cases.)
FORTHCOMING EVENTS
Family Law Week Private Children Law Conference 2026
will be held on 9 October 2026 at the De Vere Grand Connaught Rooms, London, 8.30 am to 4.30 pm. The programme includes a range of panel discussions built around this year’s theme, The Evolving Landscape, which will explore the changing legal, social and practical realities shaping private children law. There is a large number of speakers, led by HH Stephen Wildblood KC. More details and tickets here.
FAMILY LAW IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS
France
The BBC reported that French MPs approve assisted dying law with strict rules after years of argument (15 July 2026), saying the National Assembly had voted to create a right to assisted dying under strict conditions after thrice rejecting the idea in previous votes by its upper house, the Senate. Parts of the bill will be referred to France’s Constitutional Council for examination before it can become law. ‘It would allow assisted dying for French adults with a “serious and incurable” life-threatening illness “in an advanced or terminal stage”.’ The procedure involves a decision by a doctor but not, apparently, any judicial approval of the type required under recent attempts to legislate to the same effect in the UK.
Germany
The BBC reported that German politician faces calls to resign over surrogacy child (17 July 2026) explaining that centre-right politician Jens Spahn ‘has been accused of double standards, after he revealed he and his husband had become parents using a surrogate mother in the US’, despite surrogacy being banned in Germany and officially opposed by the Christian Democrats of which Spahn is a member. While Spahn was health minister in 2020, he turned down call for the ban to be relaxed. A report next day in The Times indicated that Spahn had autodefenestrated: Top German MP resigns over surrogate son ‘hypocrisy’ (18 July 2026).
Japan
The Times reported that Mayor’s maternity leave is a break too far for Japan’s conservatives (19 July 2026). This was about Shoko Kawata, the youngest female mayor in her country, whose decision to take four months of maternity leave from her duties as mayor of Yawata, whose population (like that of much of Japan) is declining steeply, and allow her work to be performed by a deputy under her supervision. Kawata’s office received 70 emails and phone calls denouncing her decision, though she also got 90 expressions of support. She is reported as saying ‘Society says it needs more children, yet childbirth is still treated as an individual responsibility. It welcomes children, but not childbirth itself.’
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