-
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
The Oxford Mail – We’ve barely commented on media reports of family law since the last Round Up. But Coma Research (and others) did question the language of ‘battle’ in this Oxford Mail report:
There was no battle. Neither was there a fight. The NHS Trust asked a judge to make the order agreed by the parties.He did so. On Monday and a Tuesday of this week, the Supreme Court heard submissions on the procedure to be used in future. Guidance will follow.@seethrujustice
— K (@katiegollop) February 28, 2018
Transparency Positive
The Mirror – Whatever your view, it was unusual to see a tabloid media report calling for proper support for social workers on the ground, in preference to vilification later, after a future child death. The report claimed a discrepancy between (unnamed) new governments ‘stats’ on social worker caseload numbers and what social workers on the ground say. (Ps- we’ve ignored the ‘Worboy’s’ legal aid headline advertised in the middle):
Social workers reveal fears of new Baby P horror amid 'unbearable' workloadshttps://t.co/LMvOJm2g2J pic.twitter.com/shcn9MB2Nv
— Daily Mirror (@DailyMirror) March 3, 2018
Linkless
The Press Association – Reported a legally ‘ordinary’ family court decision from a published judgment, without guiding readers to it or linking to it:
Details of the case emerged from this judgment we think. Published @BAILII by HHJ Lynch to aid public understanding. Here's the link: https://t.co/D5zEM3T1zthttps://t.co/iwStrJIlj0 via @careapps
— transparency project (@seethrujustice) March 5, 2018
NEWLY PUBLISHED CASES FOR EXPLANATION OR COMMENT
X (a child – adoption order) [2018] EWFC (27 February 2018) – Judgment from a legally ‘ordinary’ family court decision, featuring an unusual judicial effort to (also) secure support for a parent after the proceedings ended:
'This mother’s welfare matters too' (para 11) [ on support required after care etc proceedings end for vulnerable parent] : Short judgment from legally 'ordinary' family court decision of HHJ Wildblood: https://t.co/Dm4s6UeMHD
— transparency project (@seethrujustice) February 28, 2018
Kerman v Akhmedova [2018] EWCA Civ 307 (27 February 2018) – Judgment was published from a Court of Appeal decision that a solicitor was not unfairly asked to waive privilege, when a summoned at short notice, to give evidence on administrative arrangements about the assets of his client (a Russian businessman, involved in a £453m divorce). The Gazette reported:
A solicitor has failed to persuade the Court of Appeal that he was unfairly asked to waive privilege as a witness in a £453m divorce case. @MaxWLSG reports. https://t.co/TpYjpmqPL4
— Law Society Gazette (@lawsocgazette) February 28, 2018
IN OTHER TRANSPARENCY NEWS
Crisis in care – crisis in confidence? – Our piece on rising care numbers and trust in care & adoption etc proceedings, was first published at Family Law and is re-posted here with permission and thanks. We also sent it as our submission to the Care Crisis Review. See (just one of many) constructive twitter conversations, and a Pink Tape post (by Lucy Reed also Chair of the Transparency Project) that followed:
Crisis in Care – Crisis in Confidence? by @familoo for @seethrujustice : https://t.co/gpn81lahHP (this was our contribution to the @FamilyRightsGp Care Crisis Review, and was first published in Family Law @LexisUK_Family) pic.twitter.com/ytLnT46a3p
— transparency project (@seethrujustice) March 4, 2018
Essential reading by @familoo Crisis in care – crisis in confidence? https://t.co/SgRwRhFMEq via @seethrujustice
— Sanchia Berg (@Sanchia7) March 5, 2018
Press regulation – The government formally u-turned on holding the second part of Lord Justice Leveson’s Press Inquiry, and pledged (again) to get legislation to incentivise publishers to join an approved press regulator, off the statute book altogether. We explained and analysed in Press regulation: the end of the road for the Leveson reforms:
'Press regulation: the end of the road for Leveson reforms' from @Maggotlaw for @seethrujustice : https://t.co/fEA4SgJxrv [with the link this time] pic.twitter.com/oUcNu1qWBx
— transparency project (@seethrujustice) March 5, 2018
Dealing with sex abuse: How does the Family Court assess risk? – We flagged some key points from the latest Gresham College Lecture, one of a series by Jo Delahunty QC, aimed at making the family court more transparent:
'Dealing with sex abuse: How does the Family Court assess risk?': @Maggotlaw for @seethrujustice summarising some key points from @JoDQC lecture at @GreshamCollege last week: https://t.co/fO8YsO1jxy … pic.twitter.com/Rhb9WHCDax
— transparency project (@seethrujustice) March 5, 2018
Transparency Project raises important and difficult topic of keeping parts of sex abuse judgments private: https://t.co/hdioDVQMtU
— Joshua Rozenberg (@JoshuaRozenberg) March 5, 2018
Whatever happened to the judiciary’s McKenzie Friends consultation? – We examined the lack of response so far to the (long closed) judicial consultation on Mckenzie Friends, and why this matters for families and justice. (See also the short piece on Mckenzie Friends on Inside Out London (9 mins 20 – 18 mins 53):
Whatever happened to the judiciary's mckenzie friend consultation: https://t.co/d0DONaBUJB pic.twitter.com/xghunrFqjH
— transparency project (@seethrujustice) February 28, 2018
New approach to media cases at the Royal Courts of Justice is a welcome development – We re-published an edited version of an article first published at Communications Law journal and PA Media Lawyer. With permission and thanks:
New approach to media cases at the Royal Courts of Justice is a welcome development by @JTownend : https://t.co/FzCZnldJ97 pic.twitter.com/YqcwdsJ2HI
— transparency project (@seethrujustice) February 27, 2018
Guidance on parents recording meetings with social workers – We re-published our recording guidance, with updates (detailed at the foot of the guide). Including for Re B (A Child) [2017] EWCA Civ 1579, in which the President invited the Family Justice Council to consider multi-disciplinary, official guidance. (See Covert Recording: A hot potato lob by the Court of Appeal):
Interesting read. Not sure I have a problem with recording as we should own our practice and conversations. SWs shouldn’t be saying anything they would want to hide anyway. Just sad that people feel they have to record conversations. https://t.co/Qu5WTk9RuW
— Mark Harvey (@Mwharvey) March 4, 2018
It’s a helpful note. Been recorded twice that I know of. After an initial wobble I was fine with it and it worked well. Ideally there would be a more systematic open record to address the power imbalance closed records bring.
— Dan (@dopey_dan) March 3, 2018
New guidance on allocation and transfer of cases in the family court – David Burrows discussed the President’s guidance in What’s the difference between an allocation and a transfer?:
What’s the difference between an allocation and a transfer? @dbfamilylaw looks at that tricky guidance issued yesterday… and teaches you a new word! https://t.co/oMMwEBtcPT pic.twitter.com/RFeq8N2TYQ
— transparency project (@seethrujustice) March 1, 2018
Open Meeting at the Family Justice Council – The FJC invited applications by 29th March, for their open meeting on 23rd April, which will include a (pre submitted questions) Q&A :
Family Justice Council news item today invites applications by 29th March to attend an open meeting on 23rd April, including (pre submitted) Q&A's: https://t.co/pS5f81JsnW
— transparency project (@seethrujustice) February 26, 2018
Feature pic: Courtesy of Flickr Lauri Heikkinenon via Creative Commons licence – with thanks