-
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
Our posts this week have been geared to flagging or explaining family court judgments.
But see Void, Valid and Very Confusing – What is the Status of Sharia Marriages in the UK? for inaccurate headlines accompanying most reports of Akhter v Khan, including in the Times, BBC News, Daily Mail, Guardian, and Telegraph:
There were some appalling headlines on this High Court case mentioning Sharia Law which then fed into some appalling comments and opinions arising from basic misunderstanding of the case. Anyone who doesn’t know what they’re talking about should read this. https://t.co/ndBhhBqGel
— Lucy Roberts (@LER9879) August 3, 2018
BBCNews – See also twitter responses to this BBC News piece which seemed to slip into inaccuracy by trying to simplify complex law for its readers: Under the Hague Convention, which governs cases of child custody waged across international borders, a child’s base is considered to be the country in which he or she has lived longest:
What a shame that the BBC has had the benefit of soundbites from one of the country's leading Hague solicitors but has failed to report the law accurately #childabduction
BBC News – 'My ex secretly took our child out of the country' https://t.co/ZETXNZtxeC
— Madelaine Hailey (@madelainehailey) August 2, 2018
The Daily Mail and others – Reported an apparent contempt decision from proceedings concerning Akhmedov v Akhmedov. We’ve yet to see a judgment but see Kerman v Akhmedov from a related Court of Appeal decision for links to previous financial settlement decisions.
Transparency Positive
The Daily Mail (You Magazine) – The Mail’s Real Life Story: I felt airbrushed out of my son’s life’: How adoptive parents cope with their children’s reunion with their birth family played a role in informing twitter discussion on some issues affecting adoptive and birth families, including social media training. (Provoked initially by observations that the review of practice in the lead up to Ellie Scully-Hicks murder by her adoptive father, did not extend to learning recommendations about the information sharing with the birth family):
Or there are misunderstandings that as an adopter you are involved with the child’s removal. With social media connections today’s adopters are having to deal with some very tricky situations with no support -see Vicky & Ella https://t.co/t6E7pD9fsE
— Special Guardians and Adopters Together (@SGandAT) August 3, 2018
No mention of any learning around how to work with birth families after tragedy. Elsie's birth mother bravely took part in this review telling the reviewers she was distressed that she only discovered months afterwards her daughter had died. Appalling way to treat a birth family https://t.co/QJACUxeGYO
— Louise Tickle (@louisetickle) August 2, 2018
Linker of the week
Care Appointments – Linked readers (indirectly via their earlier report) to Cardiff and Vale Safeguarding Board’s review of agency and inter-agency practice in the lead up to the murder of Elsie Scully-Hicks by her adoptive father. Also provided a useful time-line:
Thanks @CareApps for linking readers to the Practice Review itself (indirectly at least) from this fuller report with useful time line (via an earlier short report with link):https://t.co/JSD1N6DD8U via @careapps
— transparency project (@seethrujustice) August 4, 2018
NEWLY PUBLISHED CASES FOR EXPLANATION OR COMMENT
Akhter v Khan – We explained the judgment from a High Court decision (to find a Nikah marriage ceremony to be a void marriage) that many, including lawyers, found challenging. See Void, Valid and Very Confusing – What is the Status of Sharia Marriages in the UK?:
Don't read the press reports, read this! https://t.co/UVCd8unGCM
— Nick Langford (@4orseti) August 5, 2018
Brilliant !! clear and concise whilst acknowledging that this is a tricky issue which is not yet settled. especially considering implications for domestic policy (as reported elsewhere) re legal standing of (any) religious marriages.
— John the Scribe (@Olliusperson) August 3, 2018
PS v BP [2018] EWHC 1987 (Fam) (27 July 2018) – We also explained this Judgment from an appeal against unsafe findings of fact, where a family court judge had tried to cross examine the mother on behalf of the father accused of rape. See Judge takes over father’s cross-examination in case involving rape allegations – and it ends up being unfair on everyone involved:
Judge takes over father’s cross-examination in case involving rape allegations – and it ends up being unfair on everyone involved : https://t.co/e9eLcdQJm6 pic.twitter.com/40S8ulKSki
— transparency project (@seethrujustice) July 30, 2018
An NHS Trust v Y – A Supreme Court decision that so long as families and doctors are agreed, after a robust best interests decision process, then an application to court before withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment, is not required. @JennyKitzinger explained for BBC News here. See also this press statement from the Coma and Disorders of Consciousness Centre at Cardiff University:
Clear, straightforward and knowledgable.
Here's a 5-minute discussion on the BBC News with @JennyKitzinger about the Supreme Court judgment on treatment-withdrawal from patients in prolonged disorders of consciousness.https://t.co/gvc0F5dhw8— Celia Kitzinger (@KitzingerCelia) August 2, 2018
The Supreme Court has ruled that legal permission is no longer required for doctors to stop life-prolonging medical treatment for patients in a permanent vegetative state. @AGoodDeath https://t.co/w76drS0FOv pic.twitter.com/OmFYcoRdwa
— RightsInfo (@rights_info) July 30, 2018
IN OTHER TRANSPARENCY NEWS
The Transparency Project will be recruiting a Project Co-ordinator! – Please do share this post to help us reach as many potential applicants as possible. And sign up to our weekly email here for notification once the job advert goes live (around 13th of August):
Transparency Project – some big news! (We’re recruiting!) : https://t.co/JZLXLWVH5Y
— transparency project (@seethrujustice) August 3, 2018
Child Protection Conference 2018: Future risk of emotional harm: UPDATE – Professor Lauren Devine is now confirmed to speak on her important research investigating the reasons for the rise in Care Order applications at the Child Protection Resource 2018 Conference on 15th September. The conference topic more generally is Future Risk of Emotional Harm – How can this justify the removal of children from their parents’ care? @seethrujustice will be launching their Guidance Note on use of experts in family proceedings. Special Guardians and Adopters Together will also be sharing the results of their connections survey. Full details including all the speakers at the TP events page here. Ticket sales at Eventbrite here:
Book your tickets for #CPConf18 now!! One of the few family justice events that welcomes professionals and families and encourages them to engage. Do come – and listen to new perspectives. https://t.co/rHaXopAWr3
— transparency project (@seethrujustice) July 30, 2018
Feature pic: Courtesy of Flickr Lauri Heikkinen via Creative Commons licence – with thanks