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
GB News (among others) reported on Woman exposed for faking TWO births to rob ‘father’ of £30,000 in child support (5 Oct 2026). This was about a woman (referred to as ‘Jane’) who formed an attachment to a man (‘John’) and managed to induce him to believe she had become pregnant by him and then, after reporting him for assault, as a result of which he was remanded in prison for several months, told him that she had given birth to the baby, sending him photos and updates about the alleged baby (called ‘Shiloh’). She maintained the deception even after he had been released from prison, telling him social workers prohibited him from contact. She subsequently told him she’d got pregnant again, but they separated permanently before the new baby (called ‘Aryeh’) was born. Yet even after the relationship ended, John kept sending money to support what he believed were his two children, with the total reaching around £30,000. The matter came to court when John applied for parental responsibility. Giving judgment in John v Jane [2026] EWHC 415 (Fam), Mrs Justice Judd described it as a ‘most extraordinary case’ but, having considered all the evidence, concluded on a balance of probabilities that the pregnancies, of which there was no official record, were indeed fabricated, for reasons of revenge, or because of her mental health problems, or by way of fraud. The Times report (Woman faked two births and claimed £30,000 support from ‘father’, 4 Oct 2026)) notes that ‘Judd’s ruling was handed down in February but the judgment has only now been made public’. The rubric at the head of the published version states that the applicant (John) is seeking permission to appeal, which may account for the delay in publication.
The Times (£) reported that Couple granted parentage despite illegal deal to pick child’s sex (5 Oct 2026). This referred to a decision by Mr Justice MacDonald to grant a parental order to a male couple for a 20-month-old baby boy referred to only as “G” who had been born through an unlawful Chinese surrogacy arrangement in which they would have received a refund if the baby was a girl. The couple said they were unaware of the illegality of the arrangement. But, says the report, ‘Helen Gibson, founder of Surrogacy Concern, which wants to see foreign surrogacy banned in Britain, said she was “appalled” to see the parental order granted’. MacDonald J said that he had decided to grant the parental order because it was in the child’s ‘best interests’. The report refers extensively to his judgment without citing or linking to it, but it appears to be: D & Anor v K (Illegal Chinese Commercial Surrogacy) [2026] EWFC 279.
The Independent reported that ‘I’ve finally got my son back – but my cruel IPP sentence means he could be taken away again at any time’ (4 October 2026) which was about a woman (pseudonymised as ‘Rachel’) who had been sentenced for a street robbery 20 years ago to an Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) jail term, with a minimum term of 17 months, following a string of previous convictions after being groomed into sex work as a child and struggling with drug misuse. Although IPP sentences had since been abolished, she remained under threat of recall, and the fact that she had indeed been recalled following a neighbour’s report of a disputed altercation, meant she had been separated from her baby. The report states that ‘Rachel has spent almost nine months battling to prove to a family court that Joshua can be safely returned to her care in a series of hearings which The Independent was given exclusive access to attended.’
Local Government Lawyer reported that Number of infants subject to care proceedings remains “concerningly high”, say researchers (8 Oct 2026). This was about a report published by Lancaster University Centre for Child and Family Justice Research, Born into Care: 1 in every 118 infants in England at risk of care proceedings in 2024/25 (6 Oct 2026). The report followed up on research first published in 2018, and its ‘findings show that the rate at which infants are involved in care proceedings remains substantially higher than it was at the beginning of the period. However, the longer time series also reveals an important change in the more recent trend: rates increased considerably over the earlier years, reached their highest level around 2019/20, and have since declined – although they remain concerningly high.’
The BBC asked What happens when you grow up not knowing your family medical history? (10 Oct 2026) in which is was suggested that ‘There needs to be some kind of mechanism where adopted people’s care records can be updated with family information that becomes available throughout the lifespan.’ The article featured the experiences of various adoptees who had struggled to obtain health information in various circumstances.
The Times reported that UAE royal passed out in street with a child after cocaine binge (13 Oct 2026) saying the Crown Court had heard that a member of the Abu Dhabi royal family had ‘passed out on a busy London street after a drugs binge while looking after a three-year-old child’. Members of the public had taken care of the child until police turned up while the royal remained comatose for half an hour. The report said ‘The 32-year-old admitted one charge of child neglect and has been undergoing drug addiction treatment at the Priory centre in Woking, Surrey, since the incident.’ The report includes photographs of the woman and an ‘unconscious man’ who was with her at the time.
The BBC reported that BBC Scotland wins 8-year legal challenge over exclusion of reporter from court (13 Oct 2026) after the European Court of Human Rights ruled in the case of Duff and BBC Scotland v United Kingdom (Application no. 8562/19) that the UK had not only breached a journalist’s Article 10 right to freedom of expression when a sheriff closed a court hearing at the instance of one of the parties, but was also in breach of Article 13 in failing to provide an effective remedy or appropriate relief for the breach. That was because the only remedy available, by way of judicial review, would have been too late to prevent, or remedy the effect of, the exclusion. The court held that an effective remedy in this case implied the possibility to make submissions on the request to close the court and to obtain a ruling before the hearing took place. That suggests that the current state of the law in England, if not Scotland, may be inadequate in failing to accord the media (or other observers) any legal right to make submissions when a party applies for a hearing to be held in private. The BBC report explains that the case from which the journalist was excluded had concerned a care home where residents were reported to have been mistreated. It was obviously a case of public interest meriting observation and scrutiny.
Today’s Family Lawyer reported that ‘Unprecedented’ divorce judgment rules wife should take £120m share of family trust interest (15 Oct 2026) saying the High Court rejected a husband’s claim that his interests in family trusts worth billions of pounds shouldn’t be treated as matrimonial assets. It refers to a judgment of Mr Justice Garrido in TP v TF (Matrimonialisation; Family Trusts; Fair Division) [2026] EWFC 210, in which he found for the wife, ordering her former husband to pay her £120.4m, reflective of a share of his £378m of trust assets, with deductions. The parties have apparently spent a combined total of £6.5m in legal fees.
Local Government Lawyer reported that Judge orders adjournment of fact-finding hearing for third time following information sharing failures (15 Oct 2026). This was about a case involving suspect injuries to two young children and the problems fixing a fact finding hearing, which is supposed to be done within 26 weeks but was eventually listed to commence in week 100. In Medway Council v MA & Ors [2026] EWFC 293 Michael Jones KC sitting as a deputy High Court judge said ‘In circumstances where there is a failure of a local authority to notify the court and parties of the fact that a child in its care who has suffered allegedly inflicted injuries is being investigated for a further, potentially highly relevant, medical condition, then this will inevitably impact upon the Article 6 rights of the adult parties and the children, particularly given the possible implications that adverse findings could have upon their future.’ (Article 6 protects the right to a fair trial within a reasonable time.) Among the reasons for the delay was the inadequacy of a report from an expert, referred to only as ‘Professsor G’, requiring the instruction of another expert, named as Professor Saggar. In all there had been (so far) 15 hearings between seven different judges, in the same proceedings.
The Times reported on Celebrity in secrecy battle over sexual assault allegations (16 Oct 2026). This was about a case in which a ‘well known man’ referred to only as PPT sought an injunction to prevent his identification in proceedings in which he is accused of ‘years of wrongdoing including a sexual assault’. He is apparently at risk of harm to his mental health and/or suicide. Three women, anonymised as CA, CB and CC, have made allegations against him. Mr Justice Nicklin ruled they should not be named at this stage as they had the potential to pursue criminal proceedings, for which they would be automatically entitled to anonymity. These are not those criminal proceedings but a claim by PPT for an injunction, on human rights grounds, to prevent media parties including ITN and The Guardian from publicly naming him in connection with a news story. The judge made an interim injunction pending a substantive hearing later in the month. A further report in The Times covered that hearing: Celebrity in secrecy battle ‘abused power to exploit young women’ (27 Oct 2026) and another in The Guardian covered its second day: Guardian and ITN have ‘duty to public and sources’ to publish sexual allegations against well-known figure, court hears (28 Oct 2026). Judgment has now been reserved.
Marie Claire had an article, Their Children Were Taken Into Care. Who Was Looking After the Mothers? (18 Oct 2026) investigating what happens to mothers after their children have been taken into care. It said ‘women who experience care proceedings are 21 times more likely to die within a decade of giving birth’ – according to new research published last month by University College London (UCL). ‘While the findings don’t establish that care proceedings caused these deaths, they expose the vulnerability of women who come into contact with the family court system’. The research, led by Dr Matthew Jay (UCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health and the Family Law & Health Research Group) and published in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, used anonymised data from NHS hospitals in England, the Office for National Statistics and Cafcass, relating to 2.7 million mothers with a first live birth between 2007 and 2017.
The Bureau of Investigative Journalism (TBIJ) reported that Family legal aid ‘on the verge of collapse’ ahead of government crisis talks (20 Oct 2026) according to the warning from Leslie Samuels KC, the head of the Family Law Bar Association (FLBA) in advance of an urgent meeting with government ministers Sarah Sackman KC and Jake Richards. Not only had legal aid fees been frozen, but a fee structure based on time spent in the courtroom had failed to evolve to account for changes to the volume and nature of the work. It quoted Lucy Reed KC, vice chair of the FLBA, saying this means preparatory work undertaken outside the courtroom is at a record high, often without being paid. ‘Junior barristers are being worked to the bone’, she said, and in consequence ‘Many are making exit plans while those who stay cannot absorb any more’.
The Law Gazette reported (20 Oct 2026) on a judgment by Ms Justice Henke: Judge calls for change after two year wait to resolve child care case. Proceedings in Re Q & M (Care Proceedings: Unconscionable Delay) [2026] EWFC 292 that should have concluded by 26 weeks had been ongoing for two years, with 12 case management hearings. There had been a lack of focus on the issues and on the evidence for the court and disclosed to others; failures on the part of the local authority to ensure all parties had relevant disclosure in time; and a social worker who was ill-prepared and needed further time to prepare to give evidence.
The Times reported that Nearly one in ten adults are victims of domestic abuse (22 Oct 2026), referring to Crime Survey for England and Wales 2026 published by the Office for National Statistics (ONS). ‘One of Labour’s key manifesto pledges was to halve violence against women and girls in the next decade. But Refuge, a charity that supports women and children experiencing domestic violence, said the latest figures told a “troubling story”.’ The article goes on to report on a particular case of domestic abuse, and then pivots to a different aspect of the statistics, namely the continuing overall fall in levels of violent crime in recent years. It reads as though the newspaper had two different articles and decided to put them together, leading with the bad news.
The Financial Times reported that Many care services in England have never been inspected by regulator (25 Oct 2026), saying the Care Quality Commission (CQC) ‘has failed to inspect or update ratings for nearly 70 per cent of residential care homes and 83.5 per cent of home care and other non-residential social care services and sites since 2022 or earlier, according to analysis by trade body the Homecare Association.’ This, says the article, ‘calls into question Andy Burnham’s vow to fix a “broken” care system’, after promising to create a National Care Service, on ‘NHS principles’. Former Health Secretary Wes Streeting had called the CQC ‘not fit for purpose’ back in 2024, yet its remit was set to expand, with ministers saying it should also have oversight of the booming private market for ADHD and autism assessments.
Today’s Family Lawyer reported that Mother ordered to pay £27k after ‘unreasonably’ pursuing abuse allegations (26 Oct 2026) This cautionary tale was about the decision of Mr Justice Poole in FAZ v MAZ & Anor (Costs) [2026] EWFC 301 when awarding costs following a fact-finding hearing which established that ‘the mother had “embellished evidence” relating to the allegations and at times been “dishonest” while continuing to pursue a case which was “not supported by the evidence”.’ He ordered the mother to pay £27,109.75 in contributions to legal costs owed by the father. A feature of the judgment omitted from media coverage was that the judge had allowed only about half the father’s total costs as the amount he claimed was excessive.
The Guardian reported that Parents inflicted fatal physical and sexual abuse on their baby, Warwick court hears (27 Oct 2026). This was about the trial of Michal Stasiak, 28, and Kinga Wydrzynska, 26, at Warwick crown court, where they have pleaded not guilty to 11 counts related to the death of their daughter, Isabella Stasiak. The mother was charged with her murder, while both she and the father were charged with one count of causing or allowing the death of a child, four counts of causing or allowing serious physical harm to a child, two counts related to the sexual assault of a child, and three counts of child cruelty. Both parents were apparently known to social services and the police, and the baby had spent some time in foster care before being returned to the parents some nine months before her death. The mother had earlier reported the father to the police, then tried to withdraw the report, while the father was placed on police bail and prohibited from contacting the mother or visiting the family home, so he was absent at the time of the baby’s death.
The Times had an op ed by Sonia Sodha, Creaking courts can’t take much more pain (30 Oct 2026) commenting on the practice of Chancellors of the Exchequer, which John Healy in the latest budget appears to have adopted, of promising to cut public spending during later years in the spending cycle, and its likely effect on the already impoverished justice system. ‘The fundamental problem is there is no fat to trim from departments whose spending was hit hard by austerity. One of the worst affected was justice: the courts and tribunal system has been badly undermined by sustained underfunding.’ She lists the problems with the state of court buildings generally, the backlog in the criminal courts and employment tribunals and warns about the risk of doing justice on the cheap.
BROADCAST & AUDIO COVERAGE
BBC File on 4 investigated Forced Adoption: Is it happening today? (06 Oct 2026) looking at the number of babies taken into care before their first birthday and questioning the level of support for birth families, which might avoid the need to take children into care and, eventually, adoption without their birth parents’ consent. The programme hears about one project in Salford which has been praised for the support it gives to birth families, cutting the number of children going into care and being adopted. A related news report highlights the Rise in babies in care proceedings raises fears of unnecessary adoptions, experts tell BBC
BBC Three broadcast a documentary by Stacey Dooley, Fallen Women (9 Oct 2026) featuring the work of Louise Tickle investigating the the deaths of women who have fallen from high buildings. Stacey meets bereaved families, survivors, detectives, lawyers and campaigners, she explores how coercive control can shape women’s lives long before a fatal incident, and whether those histories are given sufficient weight when deaths are investigated. Tickle is quoted in this extract, saying more needs to be done to examine what might have led up to these tragedies, in particular what type of abuse they might have suffered and what psychological pressures they might have been under.
AI AND TRANSPARENCY
The Judiciary published its Position Statement on the Judicial use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) (9 Oct 2026) setting out how AI is used, how it is governed, what safeguards are in place, and how the approach is kept under review. It complements, and does not overlap with, the judiciary’s published AI Guidance (latest update October 2025). The position statement was given by Sir Colin Birss, as the President of the Business and Property Division (formerly known as the Chancery Division) and Lead Judge for Artificial Intelligence. However, he is soon to take up a new role, or roll, as Master of the Rolls.
The National Audit Office (NAO) published a case study, Productivity improvement: The Justice Transcribe AI‑enabled transcription tool (14 Oct 2026). This was about a transcription tool, Justice Transcribe, developed for the use of probation officers in meetings, by which the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) and HM Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) sought to improve their productivity. The case study provided insights into the decisions, governance arrangements, testing approaches, implementation activities and evaluation methods that supported delivery of Justice Transcribe. It also highlighted key lessons from each stage of implementation as a practical example for civil servants and public sector leaders considering productivity initiatives.
LEGAL BLOGGING
In Lowering the temperature: a shared care order (18 Oct 2026) legal bloggers Paul Magrath and Harriet Humberstone both attended a final hearing before Recorder McAllister concerning the welfare arrangements for a two year old girl whose parents had separated and were living in different households. There was an issue about the expert evidence of a court-appointed independent social worker, and whether the court should also hear from the local authority’s own social work team, but in the end the judge was able to decide the case on the basis of the ISW’s evidence, as well as that of the two parents, concluding that the child’s interests were best served by making a shared care order.
RECENT COMMENTARY
Jude Eyre, associate director at Nuffield Family Justice Observatory, explained Why child participation in court proceedings matters, in the Law Society Gazette (15 Oct 2026). She said the structure of family court proceedings came from an era when the value of children having a voice was less evidenced and less understood. Although the Children Act 1989 was clear that the court needed to consider children’s wishes and feelings when making welfare-based decisions, until the roll out of Child Focused Courts, only around half of children involved in proceedings participated in them, and even among secondary school aged children, the figure was still less than 60%. Many children describe feeling ‘left in the dark about decisions made about them’. She says that ‘for children to receive the benefits of participation, we need to think about how to make the experience positive and meaningful’.
NEW JUDGMENTS OF INTEREST
Other than mentioned above:
Leyla Soner Sophia Antoniou v Westley Nathan Morgan [2026] EWCA Civ 1363
This Court of Appeal judgment resolved an issue that had arisen in two judgments concerning the child support obligations of a professional footballer, Wes Morgan, in respect of children with different mothers. Each of them was claiming more than £137,000 in arrears; Mr Morgan claimed to be receiving no income since his retirement and argued that subsequent ‘top-ups’ by the CMS had cancelled out earlier calculations. The Court confirmed that the original calculations remained in place. The hearing had been picked up by The Sun in July: Ex-Prem ace Wes Morgan ‘hid assets and income to avoid paying two mums child support’.
This case is on a dispute between local authorities about a disabled child who is being brought up by her grandparents as special guardians. The child’s mother had been murdered by her partner, the child’s father, at a point in time in 2024 when the child was living with the grandparents informally in Milton Keynes. The SGO was made earlier this year 2026 and a SGO support plan approved by Milton Keynes court. Milton Keynes council was now applying for the responsibility to be transferred to the London Borough of Ealing. The child had been born, very premature at 24 weeks, in Ealing. Milton Keynes asked for a declaration that Ealing should have issued proceedings following the death of the mother; that Ealing would have been the designated authority in care proceedings; and that Ealing is financially responsible for the child. including financial support under the SGO. Ealing council was arguing that the child had never been ‘looked after’.
The judgment from Ms Justice Henke is quite complex but might be helpful to consult in any similar cases. She concluded that the child became ‘looked after’ by Ealing on the date of her mother’s death because no one else held parental responsibility for her. Declarations were therefore not required – Ealing was responsible under the SG regulations. The judge was critical of both local authorities in not reaching an agreement, and having added to the emotional burden on the grieving grandparents by resorting to court.
London Borough of Enfield v The Mother & Ors [2026] EWHC 2473 (Fam)
This is an example of a case where there are separate ‘open’ and ‘closed’ parts of court proceedings. The local authority had applied for forced marriage protection orders in respect of two adolescent brothers. The orders were made by a family court and some of the evidence was withheld from the parents, in accordance with the relevant rules. A couple of months later, the local authority applied for care orders. The children moved to foster care. The Cafcass guardian was applying for certain information to remain withheld from the parents in the care case. The judge went through the relevant law and concluded that the information should remain withheld from the parents for a short period because of the risk of harm that was posed to an individual. There was a plan under which the parents would shortly be made aware of the information but in view of an immediate risk, it was contained in a ‘closed’ appendix to this judgment.
B v G (Test for Appeal) [2026] EWHC 2668 (Fam)
In mid-August, a judge in Horsham Family Court had ordered that a nine-year old boy be removed from this mother to live with his father ‘forthwith’. The mother appealed, and this was eventually heard by Mrs Justice Lieven in late September, so the order hadn’t been put into effect. There’d been an order in December 2023 for the boy to live with his mother and have fortnightly contact with his mother. In September 2025, the father applied to enforce that order because contact wasn’t happening. Lieven J listed nine grounds of appeal argued by the mother; none of these were successful and the judge’s decision had not been wrong. Although the local authority had recommended a transition plan toward a transfer of residence, the mother rejected this and the judge had been faced with no choice because of the harm the child would suffer if he didn’t move. The order for transfer had been made at the FHDRA stage, but it was intended to be a temporary transfer, pending future hearings. Lieven J made a transfer order on the day of the appeal hearing, to be reviewed by the Family Court in six weeks time. Contact with the mother was also ordered.
Interestingly, Lieven J stated that it was not compulsory for the judge to have referred to the FJC guidance when neither barrister before him had done so and she commented:
I have been given extensive reference to other decisions on “parental alienation”. In my view these judgments are of very limited assistance, because each case in this very emotionally fraught area necessarily turns on its own facts. These cases require an intense focus on the needs and best interests of the particular child. Extrapolating from one child and family dynamic onto another is not a very helpful exercise. In every case the Judge’s task is to consider the welfare checklist in s.1 Children Act 1989 and to try to determine what is in that child’s best interests. [22]
Re Ellana (A Child: Fact finding: Head injury) [2026] EWFC 272 (B)
This was described by the judge in Swindon Family Court as ‘a single issue case’ because there were no other concerns about parenting, although the child had suffered a head injury while in the care of her mother. After examining considerable medical evidence, the judge did not find that either parent had caused the harm and therefore the local authority hadn’t reached the threshold for a care order. Unusually in these circumstances, the child hadn’t been removed from her parents under an interim care order but the family had been subject to 24 hour supervision. The judge empathised with their experience but added that the local authority and guardian had been right to investigate.
Re Alfie (A Child: Welfare) [2026] EWFC 178 (B)
This is another judgment from HHJ Case in Swindon – this one concludes with care and placement orders. We’re including it because a letter the judge wrote for ‘Alfie’ (now aged three) in later life is appended to his judgment. It’s useful to see examples of this practice.
The Applicant Adopters v The Local Authority & Ors [2026] EWFC 285 (B)
This is an unusual case in that a three-year-old had spent most of his life with foster carers who had a year before this hearing applied to adopt him. Meanwhile, his three siblings were being placed together for adoption by approved adopters. The Cafcass guardian and an independent social worker recommended the child be adopted by his current carers. The judge explained why he was departing from statutory guidance that siblings should normally be placed together. The child had a strong attachment to his carers and a four-sibling placement might prove too challenging for the approved adopters. The applicants were willing to promote regular contact between the child and his three siblings. There had been some procedural problems and delays, described in the judgment, that might be useful reading for anyone involved in situations where foster carers give notice that they want to adopt.
Re C (A Child) (Dismissal at FHDRA: mother in prison) [2026] EWFC 288 (B)
The mother in these private law proceedings was serving a 39-month prison sentence for violent offences against the child’s father, most of which had taken place in the child’s presence. The mother was applying for contact from prison but the father opposed this. The judgment is interesting in demonstrating that family courts do sometimes deal with situations where the usual domestic abuse relationships are reversed; and secondly for the discussion on the conclusion of proceedings at a dispute resolution stage. The proceedings had lasted more than a year and this was a second FHDRA. The district judge didn’t make an order for contact and he indicated that the mother should take a domestic abuse perpetrators course (DAPP) if she were to apply for contact when she leaves prison.
OTHER TRANSPARENCY etc NEWS
The Department for Education (DfE) published its Evaluation of pilots to reduce unnecessary family court delays (24 Sept 2026). These reports evaluated the three pilots, delivered between April 2024 and March 2025, that had been designed to reduce unnecessary family court delays.
- Pilot 1 was the The Designated Family Judge (DFJ) Trailblazers pilot, which aimed to identify local causes of delays and implement targeted interventions in response to the issues identified.
- Pilot 2: Introduced a consistent approach to conducting pre–Case Management Hearing (CMH) meetings, to take place before the first CMH.
- Pilot 3: Introduced a new multi-disciplinary Suspected Inflicted Head Injury Service (SIHIS) in three National Health Service (NHS) Trusts with the aim of providing faster assessments to courts.
Coram Voice welcomed new measures to improve housing outcomes for care leavers (5 Oct 2026) in response to a series of government policy changes aimed at improving housing outcomes for care leavers. They said: ‘We particularly welcome the increased emphasis on joint working between children’s services and housing departments, the recognition that local authorities must have sufficient accommodation options to meet a range of need and the expectation that all care-experienced young people are supported to maintain strong, stable and supportive relationships that can provide emotional security and dependability.’ But they warned that ‘significant challenges remain’.
Women’s Aid responded to the Health Secretary’s announcement taking a public health approach to violence against women and girls (VAWG) (6 Oct 2026) broadly welcoming the announcement and the appointment of the new national Clinical Head of VAWG, but warning that the funding promised might not be sufficient.
The President of the Family Division, Sir Stephen Cobb gave the Keynote address to Legal Wales Conference in Cardiff on 9 October 2026. The subject of the speech was Children’s rights. In it he addressed three connected developments: Wales’s distinctive commitment to embedding children’s rights in public decision-making; the influence of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (‘the UNCRC’) more widely; and the role of children’s rights in the emergence of the Child Focused Court.
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) announced Technology to bolster justice for victims as government responds to Leveson (12 Oct 2026) saying victims would see fewer delays under plans for courts to trial the use of Virtual Remand Hearings, as part of a drive to deliver faster justice. The scheme will mean defendants will attend their first court hearing via a secure video link from a police custody suite – avoiding the need to transport the defendant from police cell to court to jail and ensuring courts can progress more cases. It is part of the government’s response to Lord Leveson’s Independent Review of the Criminal Courts.
The MOJ announced the rollout of Domestic Abuse Protection Notice & Order to all police forces and courts across England and Wales in November 2026. This was the subject of a Domestic Abuse Protection Order (DAPO) Awareness Webinar – South East circulated by HMCTS via Teams on 19 Oct 2026. This follows on from a pilot for DAPNs and DAPOs launched on 27 November 2024, and their current operation in Greater Manchester, three London boroughs (covering Croydon, Bromley and Sutton), Cleveland, North Wales and the British Transport Police in those areas. An FAQ sheet has been circulated and is available, eg from Safe Space Sussex here.
The MOJ published a statistical report on Characteristics of children affected by household imprisonment in Wales (20 Oct 2026) using analysis carried out by the Better Outcomes through Linked Data (BOLD) Partnerships team, based in the MoJ, using anonymised data held in the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage (SAIL) Databank. It found, perhaps unsurprisingly, a higher proportion of children in the study cohort were from larger households, had experienced two or more forms of deprivation, were more likely to be eligible for free school meals, more likely to have special educational needs, and were more likely to have had some interaction with social care services or CAFCASS Cymru.
Toward the end of the month, the MoJ also published (28 October) a policy paper: Child Focused Courts Operating Target Model that we will report on shortly.
FORTHCOMING EVENTS
Family Justice Council 19th Annual Debate:
Central London and via Teams: Wednesday 25 November 2026 at 17.00 to 19.00
The motion for this year’s FJC debate is: Should domestic abuse affect the outcome of financial remedy cases?
The event will be chaired by Sir Stephen Cobb, President of the Family Division and Chair of the Family Justice Council. The debate speakers will be announced shortly. The debate will be followed by a question and answer session. Please complete the registration form to request in-person or online attendance. Registration for the event will close on Friday, 13 November 2026 for in-person attendance, and Friday, 20 November 2026 for online attendance.
TRANSPARENCY PROJECT NEWS
Our trustee Professor Polly Morgan led the development of Norfolk Family Courts Information website, in her capacity as director of University of East Anglia (UEA) Law Clinic. The site was developed by the student law clinic in conjunction with Norfolk Community Law Service (NCLS). With a simple but elegant graphic design and clear jargon-free writing, it presents accessible information on matters such as divorce, child maintenance, child arrangements, finances on divorce, court fees, and domestic protection measures. It also provides practical guidance on attending court, including what to expect at hearings, accessibility adjustments, and available support services. The launch on 24 September was also reported on the ICLR blog.
FAMILY LAW AND TRANSPARENCY IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS
Canada
SLAW, Canada’s online legal magazine, had a piece on The Utility of Mandatory Assistance for Self-Represented Litigants in Alberta (15 Oct 2026) taken from a student paper, completed under the University of Toronto’s Community Research Partnership in Ethics program, and due to be ublished by the National Self-Represented Litigants Project later this year. It explains that since 2005, Alberta’s family justice system has distinguished itself from other jurisdictions by implementing mandatory forms of assistance for SRLs in provincial court. Since its inception, the strategy has reportedly assisted over 69,000 Albertans in accessing pre-court services. Each SRL is required to keep in close contact with a Family Court Counsellor (FCC) throughout the duration of their case. The paper considers the scope and the pros and cons of the initiative, but to a UK reader the big question must be who pays for all this. Neither the paper nor the various court and government websites seem to refer to costs or who pays them.
The Sentencing, Crime and Justice blog reported on a New tort of intimate partner violence recognised by Canadian Supreme Court (19 Oct 2026). This was about the case of Ahluwalia v Ahluwalia [2026] SCC 16, 2026 SCC 16 (CanLII) It arose from a divorce case where it was accepted that the defendant husband had subjected his wife to a ’16-year pattern of coercion and control.’ A criminal offence of coercive control now exists in Canada (as it does in both Ireland, where this blog is published, and in England & Wales), but to sue for the private law counterpart of this offence, the plaintiff in Canada must show that (1) the abusive conduct arose in an intimate partnership or its aftermath; (2) the defendant intentionally engaged in that conduct; and (3) the conduct, on an objective measure, constitutes coercive control (Para 184 of judgment).
Germany
The Independent reported that German police seize robot ‘used to sexually assault teenage girl’ (13 Oct 2026). This was about a humanoid robot which was allegedly used to grope a teenage girl in Germany while the assault was livestreamed on social media, according to the police. The robot’s 16-year-old owner and a 19-year-old man, who reportedly added a graphic commentary to the footage, were under investigation. Police were reportedly looking into whether the robot’s movements were programmed or controlled in real time. The footage went viral on social media and bits of it were (inappropriately) included in a news report by First Post America on YouTube but most newspapers just had pictures of the ‘robot’. The Times report says it ‘appears to have been a Chinese-made 4ft-tall Unitree R1 Air, with red and gold colouring that vaguely resembles the armour of the comic book hero Iron Man’.
United States
Sometimes open justice and transparency can go too far, particularly in cases involving the death penalty. It is one thing for victims or their families to witness the operation of state retribution enacted on their behalf; quite another to make it a public spectacle. The Times was among many sources reporting that Republicans denounce livestream execution plan as ‘beyond disgusting’ (10 Oct 2026). This referred to a suggestion by US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth that the execution of a man convicted of terrorism and subject to the death penalty by way of firing squad should be broadcast to the viewing public. Nidal Hasan, a former army major and psychiatrist, had killed 13 and injured more than 30 in a mass shooting at a military base in Fort Hood, Texas, in 2009. President Trump has approved the first military execution in the US since 1961 and the first by an American military firing squad since the Second World War. Although the president initially appeared supportive of the plan to livestream it, there was widespread outrage at the proposal, even from within his own party, comparing it to the antics of jihadists, and likely to be counterproductive. While the execution may yet take place, plans to livestream it have been dropped, according to the Financial Times: Donald Trump cancels Pete Hegseth’s plan to livestream execution after backlash (15 Oct 2026).
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