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

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...

News from the 8th open FJC meeting: getting the covert recording guidance done

by Alice T | Jul 12, 2022 | FCReportingWatch, Transparency News

I registered for the latest Family Justice Council open meeting to find out what was going on, and to ask about the long-promised guidance on covert recording. The covert recording guidance turned out to be on the agenda. But the meeting was generally...
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...

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...

When family members apply to become parties: A hidden and “private” (but not sinister and secret) hearing

by Guest Post | Jun 10, 2022 | Comment, Court of Protection, Transparency News

In the first of two linked guest posts, Celia Kitzinger explains the problem with the confusing and inconsistent way Court of Protection cases are currently listed, making it more difficult for public observers to attend the hearing. (This post is reproduced with...

Why are so many Court of Protection hearings labelled “PRIVATE”?

by Guest Post | Jun 10, 2022 | Comment, Court of Protection, Transparency News

This guest post by Celia Kitzinger is an APPENDIX to her post When family members apply to become parties: A hidden and “private” (but not sinister and secret) hearing Several of my previous blog posts lament the fact that so many Court of Protection hearings are...
« Older Entries
Next Entries »

Subscribe to our posts

Recent Comments

  • 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
  • Julie Doughty on ‘Habitual Residence’ – sloppy explanations of the law about child abduction

Search for something in particular

More search options

May 2026
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031
« Apr    
  • 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 CPConf2016 divorce domestic abuse domesticabuse domestic violence drug testing Expert Evidence. experts financial remedy FLJ forced adoption guidancenote Human Rights Act 1998 IPSO journalist judgments legal aid legalbloggingpilot mckenzie friends misconduct open justice parental alienation parental responsibility 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.