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
Albert Squarely inaccurate

Albert Squarely inaccurate

by reporting watch team | Oct 3, 2022 | Comment, FCReportingWatch

This post is by Delia Minoprio. Delia is a family law barrister at 1 Crown Office Row specialising in all aspects of children work. She tweets as @familylawdm A child protection storyline is no stranger to the scripts of BBC TV’s Eastenders....

Transparency Implementation Group – what’s actually happening?

by reporting watch team | Jul 22, 2022 | FCReportingWatch, Transparency News

We’re increasingly aware of a mistaken impression held by some people interested in family justice transparency that we (The Transparency Project – a charity) are the same thing as the TIG – Transparency Implementation Group (a group set up by the...
The National Archives and Family Court transparency – a temporary glitch?

The National Archives and Family Court transparency – a temporary glitch?

by reporting watch team | Jun 29, 2022 | FCReportingWatch, Transparency News

The drive over the last decade toward greater Family Court transparency has been hugely dependent on the rapid and efficient publication of judgments by BAILII. So when, last year, it was announced that The National Archives would be taking over the primary function...
Transparency in the FRC – The workings of the TIG Sub-Group

Transparency in the FRC – The workings of the TIG Sub-Group

by reporting watch team | Jun 2, 2022 | FCReportingWatch, Transparency News

This post is by HHJ Stuart Farquhar. HHJ Farquhar is a Circuit Judge based in Brighton. He is the Lead Judge in the Financial Remedies Court for Kent, Surrey and Sussex and Chairs the FRC sub-group of the Transparency Implementation Group. It is somewhat ironic, to...
Transparency in the FRC – The workings of the TIG Sub-Group

Something is going on with experts

by reporting watch team | Apr 29, 2022 | Comment, Transparency News

This article was originally published in Family Law ([2022] Fam Law 422) in April 2022, and is reproduced here with kind permission. In October 2021 the President published a memorandum about experts. In it, Sir Andrew reminded us of four key questions to be asked in...
« Older Entries
Next Entries »

Subscribe to our posts

Recent Comments

  • Julie Doughty on Guidance on parents recording meetings with social workers
  • Simon on Guidance on parents recording meetings with social workers
  • Julie Doughty on Sending a mother to prison for contempt of court
  • Celia Kitzinger on Sending a mother to prison for contempt of court
  • Julie Doughty on ‘Parental alienation experts’

Search for something in particular

More search options

September 2025
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930  
« Aug    
  • 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 care proceedings child protection children's views 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 judiciary legal aid legalbloggingpilot misconduct 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