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

Where’s me DAPPs? (the end of perpetrators’ programmes)

by Lucy R | Sep 11, 2022 | FCReportingWatch

(Excuse the title for this post. The writer is from Bristol.) When a father who is involved in proceedings concerning his child has been found to have perpetrated domestic abuse against the other parent, the family court will generally look to assess the risk...

Remote observation of court hearings – new rules

by Lucy R | Jun 27, 2022 | FCReportingWatch, Transparency News

UPDATE 24 JULY: This post has been amended to further clarify the position in the Court of Protection. From today, Tuesday 28 June 2022, courts will have new powers to allow journalists and members of the public to observe hearings remotely. While many judges will now...
The unintended consequences of law – a postscript

The unintended consequences of law – a postscript

by Lucy R | Jun 21, 2022 | Cases, Comment, FCReportingWatch

Not long ago I wrote a tiresomely long post about what I will call the transparency in financial remedy (FR) cases, a topic about which there has been much recent debate (see Very Much Ancillary). Others may quibble about the use of the term ‘transparency’ but to me...
Another Financial Remedy case where anonymity was refused

Another Financial Remedy case where anonymity was refused

by Lucy R | Jun 20, 2022 | Analysis, Cases, Explanation, FCReportingWatch

The recent judgment in the case of Gallagher v Gallagher (No.1) (Reporting Restrictions) [2022] EWFC 52 is a sequel to the previously anonymised case of XZ v YZ [2022] EWFC 49. As the title suggests, having made an interim anonymity order, Mr Justice Mostyn decided in...
Very much ancillary

Very much ancillary

by Lucy R | May 31, 2022 | Analysis, Cases, Comment, FCReportingWatch, Transparency News

A lot has been written of late about the privacy (or otherwise) of family money cases, and all of it by men with big brains and a lot of words. As someone who hasn’t conducted a money case for some years (not great with numbers, me), I would not dare to offer any view...
« Older Entries
Next Entries »

Subscribe to our posts

Recent Comments

  • Melia E Welch on Hair strand testing – pitfalls and limitations
  • Julie Doughty on Care order or Supervision Order?
  • Julie Doughty on Decision to place a child with prospective adopters is unlawful because unfair
  • Julie Doughty on A failed reunification plan
  • anon on Decision to place a child with prospective adopters is unlawful because unfair

Search for something in particular

More search options

July 2026
M T W T F S S
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  
« Jun    
  • 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 assisted dying Cafcass care proceedings child protection children's views committal contempt of court correctionrequests court of protection covid CPConf2016 divorce domestic abuse domesticabuse domestic violence drug testing Expert Evidence. experts financial remedy FLJ forced adoption guidancenote Human Rights Act 1998 judgments judiciary law courts legal aid legalbloggingpilot misconduct open justice parental alienation pathfinder 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.