• 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 COURTS CASES 

Corrections of inaccurate, misleading or distorting information 

The Telegraph corrected Christopher Booker’s column A gifted child in a psychiatric unit is madness [paywall – scroll down], in response to our complaint. We are also in correspondence with the Telegraph over our request for correction of Mr Booker’s second column on the same case, Re H (A Child) (Interim Care Order : fact finding) [2017] EWHC 518 (Fam) and will update soon:

Inaccurate, misleading or distorting information (including headlines) 

The Standard reported the case of ND v SD & Ors [2017] EWHC 1507 (Fam) (21 June 2017), with the headline Woman loses £50m divorce fight after claiming husband ‘set up sham offshore trust. Robust criticism followed in their own comments section. Our same-day comment to the Standard asking their journalists to link to, or inform their readers of, the freely accessible published judgments they report on, was not published:

We explained what the law actually says in response to the alarmist blog claim at Squawkbox that #GRENFELL RESIDENTS MAY LOSE CUSTODY OF CHILDREN IF REJECT DISTANT ACCOMMODATION. Our joint post with @nearlylegal about the housing and family law that applies, Can you lose your kids for rejecting an offer of distant accommodation? is here:

Notably accurate (or otherwise transparency positive) reports

Save for a curious (and probably accidental) inaccuracy about date of publication, the Daily Mail reported the family court case of M & N (Twins: Relinquished Babies: Parentage), Re [2017] EWFC 31 (24 May 2017) with accuracy; quoting the published judgment faithfully and with balance, (albeit short of actually linking to the judgment itself).

Gard v Great Ormond Street Hospital

Allan Norman @CelticKnotTweet commented in Charlie Gard – the case for interim measures to preserve life, on reports of a further procedural hearing in the Supreme Court, in anticipation of extension of the ECHR’s ‘interim measures’. Including on the headline of the Times report: Supreme Court hearing to assess baby Charlie Gard’s right to life:

NEWLY PUBLISHED CASES FOR EXPLANATION OR COMMENT

@_LostDad commented with insight in Self-Reflection, about his own experience in the family courts in Germany, in response to our analysis of   B (A 14 Year Old Boy), Re [2017] EWFC B28 (11 May 2017), an English family court case in which alienation was alleged but found not to have occurred (Parental Alienation- An Alien Concept). A constructive twitter thread followed, pointing out that parental alienation doesn’t need to be recognised as a ‘syndrome’ for consistent, robust, timely, good practice to be achieved:

See also this earlier post from May 2017 where parental alienation was found to have taken place and issues of good and poor practice explored:

IN OTHER TRANSPARENCY NEWS

The Vice-President of the Court of Protection issued The Transparency Pilot: A note from the Vice President of the Court of Protection. It’s available at the judicial office website and consists of a note from the Vice President and a revised Pilot order. We will comment shortly:

The #Pensions Advisory Group confirmed they are drafting guidance on how pensions are dealt with on divorce on behalf of the #Family Justice Council. They are inviting examples of apparent unsatisfactory practice, to inform decisions about guidance priorities, by email to Hilary Woodward at:  WoodwardHD@cardiff.ac.uk See also Family Law here:

Leanne Smith and Emma Hitchings, authors of recent (Bar Council commissioned) research on paid Mckenzie Friends in private family law cases, discussed their research in response to a PinkTape blog about it (by Transparency Project Chair Lucy Reed):

Feature pic: Courtesy of Flickr Lauri Heikkinenon via Creative Commons licence – thanks