info@transparencyproject.org.uk
  • Facebook
  • X
  • Facebook
  • X
The Transparency Project
  • Legal Blogging
  • Posts
  • Projects
  • Events
  • About
  • Who
  • Dictionary
  • Resources
  • Media
  • More search options
Select Page
OUR TREATMENT OF THE VULNERABLE – CHALLENGES FOR THE FAMILY JUSTICE SYSTEM

OUR TREATMENT OF THE VULNERABLE – CHALLENGES FOR THE FAMILY JUSTICE SYSTEM

by Guest Post | Mar 17, 2021 | Comment, FCReportingWatch

This is the text of a paper by Sir James Munby (lately President of the Family Division) delivered at the Royal Holloway University of London Symposium : ‘Inequality and Rights – Contemporary Challenges in the Child Protection and Family Justice Systems before and...
Privatisation of children’s services is bad for children and bad for taxpayers

Privatisation of children’s services is bad for children and bad for taxpayers

by Guest Post | Feb 17, 2021 | Comment

This is a guest post by Martin Barrow, journalist and local authority foster carer.  Martin tweets as @MartinBarrow When the Care Review was formally announced in January, one of the first actions of its chair, Josh MacAlister, was to ask the Competition and...
PD12J & Scott Schedules – Rearranging a Spider’s web

PD12J & Scott Schedules – Rearranging a Spider’s web

by Guest Post | Jan 30, 2021 | Analysis, Cases, Comment, FCReportingWatch

This is a guest post from solicitor Jeremy Ford. Jeremy is a partner, mediator and children’s arbitrator at Cambridge Family Law Practice LLP. He tweets as @headofroy. It was originally published on LinkedIn. Sir Andrew McFarlane, the president of the family division,...
W (Children): judge’s recusal does not indicate bias

W (Children): judge’s recusal does not indicate bias

by Guest Post | Dec 18, 2020 | Cases, Comment, Explanation

This is a guest post by John Bolch, reproduced with kind permission from his Family Lore blog. Reading the case name W (Children: Reopening/recusal) I assumed that this would be another of those applications by a party, invariably the father, for the recusal of...
CHALLENGING ADOPTION REVISITED: RE C AND REVOCATION OF PLACEMENT ORDERS

CHALLENGING ADOPTION REVISITED: RE C AND REVOCATION OF PLACEMENT ORDERS

by Guest Post | Dec 6, 2020 | Analysis, Cases, Comment, FCReportingWatch

This is a guest post by Mark Senior. Mark was a Solicitor specialising in family law for 9 years before moving to the Bar in 2002. He is based in Liverpool at St Johns Buildings Chambers. He tweets as @grumpyoldbrief. At the end of October a friend and colleague...
« Older Entries
Next Entries »

Subscribe to our posts

Recent Comments

  • Julie Doughty on Can a court make a journalist reveal their source of information about a family court hearing?
  • Celia Kitzinger on Can a court make a journalist reveal their source of information about a family court hearing?
  • anonymous on Hair strand testing – pitfalls and limitations
  • Jennie on Completing care proceedings in less than 26 weeks
  • DAVID EGGINS on Where’s me DAPPs? (the end of perpetrators’ programmes)

Search for something in particular

More search options

June 2025
M T W T F S S
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30  
« May    
  • Analysis
  • Cases
  • Comment
  • Consultations
  • Court of Protection
  • Dictionary
  • Events
  • Explanation
  • FCReportingWatch
  • FOI
  • Guidance Note
  • Legal blogging
  • Notorious
  • Open Reporting
  • Project
  • Reporting Pilot
  • Resources
  • Transparency News
  • Trends
  • Uncategorized

access to courts data adoption Adoption targets alienation anonymisation Article 8 Article 10 assisted dying Cafcass child protection committal contempt of court correctionrequests court of protection covid COVID-19 CPConf2016 divorce domestic abuse domesticabuse domestic violence Expert Evidence. experts finances financial remedy FLJ forced adoption guidancenote Human Rights Act 1998 judgments law courts legal aid legalbloggingpilot mckenzie friends misconduct Multi-disciplinary conference open justice parental alienation privacy injunctions psychologists publication remotejustice Section 20 agreements social work transparency

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