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
Talking in code

Talking in code

by reporting watch team | Jul 19, 2023 | FCReportingWatch, Legal blogging, Reporting Pilot, Transparency News

Some good news. Two bits actually. Firstly, the President has recently announced that the Reporting Pilot will be extended to cover Magistrates from October. Better late than never – the pilot will be ten months into its year long run by that time, so unless the...
New Order Precedents Summarise Privacy Restrictions for Readers

New Order Precedents Summarise Privacy Restrictions for Readers

by reporting watch team | Jun 18, 2023 | FCReportingWatch, Transparency News

Most Family Court orders have some sort of confidentiality warning on them these days., especially in cases about children Typically they warn that the names of the children and family members must not be published. The template orders and precedent libraries that...
Reporting Pilot update and some tips for reporters

Reporting Pilot update and some tips for reporters

by reporting watch team | May 26, 2023 | FCReportingWatch, Legal blogging, Reporting Pilot, Transparency News

On 28 April we reported that the Reporting Pilot was being extended to cover private law cases. That new regime came into play on 15 May. Reporting Pilot extended to private law hearings (and other TIG news) Although the bulletin which announced the extension also set...
The ‘Psychology Service’ for family court cases that nobody seems to know about

The ‘Psychology Service’ for family court cases that nobody seems to know about

by reporting watch team | Apr 23, 2023 | FCReportingWatch, FOI

In March we saw a tweet from someone who had quoted a short extract from this study, which referenced a ‘psychology service’ used by Cafcass in England, and gave some statistics associated with it: namely that : ‘alienation/alienating behaviours was the most selected...
Balancing professionals’ Article 8 claims with parents’ Article 10 claims

Balancing professionals’ Article 8 claims with parents’ Article 10 claims

by reporting watch team | Apr 18, 2023 | Cases, FCReportingWatch, Transparency News

With the progress gradually being made toward more openness in family court proceedings, there’s increasing discussion about who should and who should not be named and identified in judgments and reports. Although there is consensus (and law) that children...
« Older Entries
Next Entries »

Subscribe to our posts

Recent Comments

  • Jolyon Maugham on Censorship by Meta? update on Pringle v Nervo
  • Linda on Sara Sharif -what we now know from the Safeguarding Review
  • Anon on Why doesn’t the family court punish professionals who break the rules?
  • Louisa Biggs on Hair strand testing – pitfalls and limitations
  • Lainie on ‘Oh I’m sorry, did I forget to mention you don’t have to agree to this?’ When social workers forget that interventions under ‘Child in Need’ are voluntary

Search for something in particular

More search options

June 2026
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930  
« 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 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 Expert Evidence. experts finances financial remedy FLJ forced adoption guidancenote Human Rights Act 1998 IPSO journalist judgments legal aid legalbloggingpilot mckenzie friends misconduct open justice parental alienation pathfinder 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.