-
- Correcting, clarifying or commenting on media reports of family court cases
- Explaining or commenting on published Judgments of family court cases
- Highlighting other transparency news
MEDIA (MIS)REPORTS OF FAMILY COURT CASES
Are there other cases like Charlie’s? – We commented on the Guardian report Ten cases like Charlie Gard’s heard in English courts this year and the figures within it, obtained by the Observer from Cafcass:
Are there other cases like Charlie’s? Some thoughts on @guardian’s claim about other apparently similar cases : https://t.co/GGEWnvXd1B
— transparency project (@seethrujustice) August 1, 2017
Update on John Hemming’s claim in the Telegraph that a Judge took a child into care without reasons or judgment – Avoidance and obfuscation characterised the latest twitter exchange . It seems increasingly clear that neither evidence nor acknowledgement is likely to follow. The apparent lack of integrity is of concern. It further undermines Mr Hemming’s credibility with informed readers, and detracts from the occasions when Mr Hemming does make valid criticisms of the family justice system. Accurate reporting of the family justice system (including its mistakes and failures) really matters for families. (The background to this story is here in The Shaggy Dog Story Continues):
So can we conclude that you will not answer @Familoo 's question, and all cease this conversation?
— Julie Doughty (@julie_doughty) August 3, 2017
Mother wins court battle to change child’s ‘tainted’ middle name – John Bolch discussed misreporting in the Telegraph of C (A Child : Removal of forename) [2017], with the Legal Aid scandal that wasn’t:
Opening para judgment shows more 2 this than meets Telegraph's selective eye. Thanks @hjbrander @JerryLonsdale1 : https://t.co/IYTFiCXItc https://t.co/xINHH61mP9
— transparency project (@seethrujustice) July 30, 2017
The legal aid scandal that wasn’t – Marilyn Stowe Blog https://t.co/nSbO0U2mSJ
— transparency project (@seethrujustice) August 2, 2017
Notably accurate (or otherwise transparency positive) reports:
It was encouraging to see the Guardian and the BBC linking readers to the full published judgment from their reports of the Presidents comments in X (A Child) (No 3) [2017] EWHC. We remain optimistic that one day this may become routine practice:
And great to see @guardian linking to the judgment for readers (and some).. https://t.co/LqDTJjXF9P
— transparency project (@seethrujustice) August 3, 2017
Family judge 'ashamed' by support for suicidal girl https://t.co/O7xp4VesNC
— BBC News (UK) (@BBCNews) August 3, 2017
If this becomes habitual, it will be a major victory for the @seethrujustice #transparencyproject.
— C.J. Lee (@_C_J_Lee_) August 3, 2017
NEWLY PUBLISHED CASES FOR EXPLANATION OR COMMENT
X (A Child) (No 3) [2017] EWHC – The President’s judgment was widely reported in mainstream and specialist press alike. @CelticKnotTweet signposted some of the more noteworthy reports in 1/12 A series of tweets and links about the case of Re X “blood on our hands”:
1/12 A series of tweets and links about the case of Re X "blood on our hands"…
— Celtic Knot (@CelticKnotTweet) August 5, 2017
IN OTHER TRANSPARENCY NEWS
Update on Charlie Gard case – The last stage of the litigation: facts and sources – A neutral time-line with primary sources in support of reflection and informed comment:
Update on Charlie Gard case – The last stage of the litigation: facts and sources https://t.co/ndeMi66MAo
— transparency project (@seethrujustice) August 1, 2017
Public and private, the limits of transparency in Charlie Gard’s case – an update – Further analysis, including on transparency and public understanding:
Public and private, the limits of transparency in Charlie Gard’s case – an update from @BarbaraRich_law https://t.co/aBrlNH3ni5
— transparency project (@seethrujustice) August 6, 2017
See also this twitter thread of further reflections compiled by@CelticKnotTweet:
1/18 Thread with links, commentary on later stages of #CharlieGard case
— Celtic Knot (@CelticKnotTweet) August 5, 2017
Joint Research: CAFCASS and Women’s Aid – The ‘joint research‘ has provoked some criticism. We feature the following commentaries below:
- Looking beyond the headlines: By Dr Sue Whitcombe (psychologist working with high conflict family breakdown and parental alienation), re-posted at the Transparency Project having been originally published via Linkedin:
@drsue2014 on @MyCafcass @womensaid research: Looking beyond the headlines: domestic abuse allegations in fam court. https://t.co/EMLv37qJHl
— transparency project (@seethrujustice) August 2, 2017
- Joint Research : CAFCASS and Women’s Aid – A Transparency Project blog post:
Our post about Joint Research on allegations of d.v. by @MyCafcass and @womensaid feat. @drsue2014 : https://t.co/zPWBXllKxv
— transparency project (@seethrujustice) August 4, 2017
- Clarification on the role Womens’ Aid apparently played in the ‘joint’ research, via twitter:
Please could you clarify the role of @womensaid in the research … given this is reported as a joint study. https://t.co/3z2ScUsLS5
— Dr Sue Whitcombe (@drsue2014) August 4, 2017
Towards a Family Justice Observatory: A Scoping Study: Main findings report of the national stakeholder consultation – The report, identifying next steps towards a new organisational structure to improve the use of evidence in the family justice system in England and Wales, is published at a dedicated project website here. The submissions to the consultation are also published in full. Findings from the study are to be presented at a dissemination event at the Nuffield Foundation in January 2018. Research in respect of the care numbers ‘crisis’ has already been identified as a priority. Family Rights Group are facilitating a Nuffield-funded, sector-wide, review of urgent steps required to stem the ‘crisis’ of rising care numbers:
Towards a Family Justice Observatory: messages from initial consultation with stakeholders (England and Wales) https://t.co/4rGqt8fVUE
— Karen Broadhurst (@KarenB_LU) August 2, 2017
@FamilyRightsGp 2 lead sector wide review on tackling care numbers crisishttps://t.co/c73hwDF9hL
— transparency project (@seethrujustice) August 3, 2017
Comments on the proposed new CAFCASS Operating Framework – Twitter responses to publication of our comments about the Cafcass revised operating framework, revealed a lack of awareness that Cafcass had even published a revised framework, let alone invited comment – suggesting more may be required for true transparency:
Our comments on the proposed new @MyCafcass Operating Framework, as sent today (deadline tomorrow) : https://t.co/lE4aOOYpCV
— transparency project (@seethrujustice) July 30, 2017
Not sure how widely this was publicised. I would have missed it if it wasn't brought to my attention yesterday. Could do better @MyCafcass ?
— Dr Sue Whitcombe (@drsue2014) July 31, 2017
Feature pic: Courtesy of Flickr Lauri Heikkinenon via Creative Commons licence – thank