Welcome to the Roundup, where we correct, clarify and comment on media reports of family law, explain and comment on published family court judgments, and highlight other transparency news.
MEDIA COVERAGE OF FAMILY LAW, TRANSPARENCY etc
The Sunday Times (£) kicked off the month with a characteristically silly piece on Prenups and dog hostages: inside the super-rich divorce battles over pets (3 November 2024) dealing with ‘custody of the family pet’ following the divorce of wealthy couples, which it said was ‘at the heart of some of the most fraught negotiations in their legal separation’. The article suggests that ‘While money can buy all the Lamborghinis or Rolexes you want, it can’t buy the joy of waking up at 7am to take the dog out for a walk. … The fact that fewer couples are choosing to have children could be partly to blame for our emotional overreliance on pets.’ But, pace Peta, pets are chattels, not children under the law, and treated as such on divorce, the piece explains. Hence the popularity of, wait for it, ‘petnups’. Cheep at the price if you love your budgie.
The BBC in an article entitled Adopted children to have closer contact with birth families (7 November 2024) covered the ‘seismic’ changes recommended in the report published that day by the judicial Public Law Working Group, Recommendations for best practice in respect of adoption. The report by the PLWG’s adoption sub-group, chaired by Mrs Justice Judd, and with a membership of professionals from across the adoption sector, was the culmination of four year’s work and made a number of recommendations on five key areas: international adoption; consensual adoption; access to adoption records; processes and procedures in court; and contact. Reporting on this for the BBC, Sanchia Berg and Katie Inman pointed out that ‘Adoption is the state’s most powerful intervention in family life’ and that ‘around 3,000 children are adopted in England each year’. While the law had evolved over the years, many families still felt it to be ‘stuck in the past’. Hence the need for what was described as ‘wholesale reform’. The report was also covered by other media, and by Joshua Rozenberg on A Lawyer Writes, in Adapting adopting. We would however add that a judge-led group on good practice has no power to enforce any changes.
The Times (£) had a ‘Thunderer’ comment piece saying Secrecy over trials is eroding trust in our justice system (7 November 2024) arguing (in the context of the Law Commission’s current consultation) for a relaxation of contempt of court rules intended to prevent the prejudicing of criminal trials. Duncan Gardham (a journalist who writes about terrorism) suggests that the ‘serious erosion of trust that occurs when the public are not trusted with the truth’ about a defendant awaiting trial is more harmful than the possible prejudice of their trial, and that juries can and should be trusted to stick to the evidence.
The Bureau of Investigative Journalism reported on Parents ‘losing their children’ over misinterpreted drug tests (9 November 2024) after an open letter was sent by the the charity Birth Companions to the Family Division of the High Court as part of their Taking a Strand campaign. It said the ‘letter, signed by lawyers, academics and campaigners, calls for urgent reform to how results are presented as evidence’. The report added that ‘Paul Hunter, a leading expert in the field of drug testing, told TBIJ that “non-drug users are losing their children” due to the misreporting of hair strand test results’. There was also a report in The Guardian, Children taken away from parents due to misreporting of drug tests, say experts (9 November 2024).
The BBC reported that the Archbishop of Canterbury resigns over Church abuse scandal (12 November) following publication by the Church of England’s National Safeguarding Team (NST) of the Independent Learning Lessons Review into the church’s handling of allegations of serious abuse by the late John Smyth. Keith Makin, the independent reviewer, described the abuse of evangelical boys and young men as ‘prolific and abhorrent.’ According to the Makin report the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, was informed of the abuse in 2013 but failed to act, wrongly assuming the matter could be dealt with by the police. It was more publicly revealed by a Channel 4 News investigation in 2017, yet still nothing was done until, after Smyth’s death in 2018, the Makin review was finally set up in 2019; it has taken till now to report. The Law & Religion UK blog has a full timeline of the scandal.
The Guardian reported that One in five sexual violence victims pressured by police to withdraw claims, survey finds (12 November 2024) saying 75% of respondents to a recent survey of rape and sexual assault survivors said their mental health had been damaged ‘as a direct result of what police did, or failed to do, in their case’ and only 40% said they would report again, according to researchers. Moreover, ‘Only two in five respondents agreed that policing is doing a good job and while one in five said they have been pressured by officers to withdraw, with black and minority ethnic survivors having worse experiences than white respondents’. The survey in question is not cited or linked to, which is unhelpful.
The Financial Times (£) reported that Crackdown launched on child social care profiteering in England (18 November 2024) saying big companies in the children’s social care sector will be required to disclose their financial performance metrics as the government seeks to ‘clamp down on profiteering’ in England. The move is part of wider plans to overhaul the children’s care system (see next item) by giving families more say over where children are housed, and seeking to keep them close together where possible. Welsh government is going further, it says, by bringing in law to ensure that all providers are not-for-profit.
In related news, Community Care had an article, Government to create new type of accommodation for children at risk of deprivation of liberty (20 November 2024) It explained that the new placement type ‘will be for children who may need to be deprived of their liberty at times, but will provide for restrictions to be increased and decreased according to need’. It would not apply to those who need to be placed in secure children’s homes which are specifically designed to restrict children’s liberty. The proposal contained in the government’s social care reform (announced by Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson MP on 18 November) was said to be in response to the huge rise in the number of children made subject to deprivation of liberty (DoL) orders under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court.
The BBC reported on Girl left near death after being drugged by mother (21 November 2024). a case of fabricated or induced illness (FII), described by the NHS as ‘a rare form of child abuse’, where a parent exaggerates or deliberately causes symptoms of illness in a child. Three mothers, ‘who had all stayed with their children at a particular hospital, were accused of making their children ill by administering unprescribed drugs and by deliberately contaminating their feeding lines with faecal material’. One of them was found to have done so, but the other two were not. Although it did not link to it, the report was about the case of BR and others (Three Families: Fabricated or Induced Illness: Findings of Fact) [2023] EWFC 326 (18 May 2023) a judgment of Poole J sitting in the Family Court in Leeds, which had only recently been published via the Judiciary website. A further judgment, dated 06 July 2023 [2023] EWFC 329, dealt with the anonymisation of some parties.
Local Government Lawyer reported that Judge rejects application by local authority for declaration in dispute between council and health board over responsibility for care of 15 year old (25 November 2024). This related to the case of Re SB [2024] EWHC 2964 (Fam) in which Keehan J rejected the local authority’s application for a declaration that, because a vulnerable young person was detainable under the provisions of the Mental Health Act 1983, the court did not have jurisdiction to grant a Deprivation of Liberty (DoL) order pursuant to the inherent jurisdiction. The case was also covered by Andrew Pack on his Suesspicious Minds blog, Ooh, this is a doozy (Court of Protection)
Tortoise media reported on Family courts failing victims of child sexual abuse (26 November 2024), following publication that day of a report by the National Safeguarding Review Panel. Louise Tickle wrote that the National review into child sexual abuse within the family environment had analysed 136 cases of serious familial sex abuse and found over 75 per cent of the children abused were under the age of 12. The report also criticised the police and the criminal justice system, but found that family courts, which exists to protect children from abuse by relatives, had failed to understand the risks they knew about or failed adequately to investigate them. The panel urged the President of the Family Division and Cafcass to improve decision making when children sought the protection of the family justice system.
The Law Society Gazette reported that Judge warns divorcing couple they risk financial ruin (26 November 2024). This concerned the case of LI v FT (Maintenance pending suit: Costs) [2024] EWFC 342 (B) in which District Judge Mark Harrop ‘pleaded with a divorcing couple to rein in their legal spending before they run out of money altogether’. John Hyde reported that the couple had spent more than £40,000 in a month on legal fees disputing an application by the wife for interim payments including more than £22,000 for her to go on holiday with the children. The judge said (at [35]) this suggested ‘a difficulty in approaching the case in a pragmatic and proportionate way’ and ‘the parties should not need reminding that their resources are finite, and every pound they spend fighting each other is a pound that will no longer be available for them and the children’. He refused the application for the holiday costs saying it was not appropriate to ‘gamble this family’s financial security’.
The BBC reported that Mother of child hidden in drawer from birth jailed (26 November 2024). This concerned a case at Chester Crown Court in which ‘A mother who kept her baby daughter hidden in a drawer for the first three years of her life has been jailed for seven years and six months for “extreme neglect”.’ Prosecutors said the girl, who was extremely malnourished, had ‘never known daylight or fresh air’, and was only discovered when a visitor to the house heard her crying. The mother, who had said the child was ‘not part of the family’, admitted four charges of child cruelty. Judge Everett said what the woman did ‘totally defied belief’.
The Times (£) reported that Partner’s ‘campaign of abuse drove young mother to suicide’ (27 November 2024). This reported on the trial of a man at Preston crown court for manslaughter after allegedly subjecting the woman to years of abuse. The trial, which is currently still going on, is also being reported by the BBC: Boyfriend threatened woman with drill, court told (2 December 2024).
The BBC reported that Domestic abuse cases rarely convicted, data shows (27 November 2024) saying ‘Fewer than half of domestic abuse cases in England and Wales end up as police-recorded crimes, and most of these do not lead to a prosecution, government figures suggest’. Pilot schemes for tougher domestic violence orders have been announced, but they won’t work unless unless police and the courts act on them, campaigners have said. The pilots for enhanced domestic abuse protection notices and orders (DAPNs and DAPOs) were legislated for by the previous government in 2021 and will be trialled in Greater Manchester, three London boroughs and the British Transport Police, the BBC said.
The Independent reported that Assisted dying bill passes after vote, paving the way for historic change (30 November 2024) after the House of Commons voted by 330 to 275 in favour of Kim Leadbetter MP’s private member’s bill, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill on its second reading on 29 November 2024. The bill was apparently well supported by the public, more so than MPs, many of whom had reservations, if not about the principle, about some of the practicalities (see The Times (£), Labour MPs waver in support for assisted dying bill) – as did judges (see earlier commentary on this blog). One of the consequences of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s resignation over the John Smyth affair (see above) was its impact on his ability to oppose this bill. That said, the archbishop’s predecessor George Carey appears to have supported it, in principle at least, which provoked an earlier comment piece by Sonia Sodha in The Observer: The assisted dying debate is about so much more than kindness v conservatism.
The BBC reported on the conviction and sentencing (five months imprisonment) of Greg Hazeltine for contempt of court following his assault on HHJ Perusko in Milton Keynes Family Court in November last year. Mr Hazeltine was already serving a three year sentence for the assault causing actual bodily harm. The judgment by Mr Justice Cobb has been published on the Judiciary website.
BROADCAST & AUDIO COVERAGE
BBC Radio 4’s The Law Show had an episode Inside the family courts (13 November 2024) explaining the current Reporting Pilot and its extension to magistrates courts, the experience of litigants in person in court, pathfinder courts, and the existing restrictions preventing parents talking about their own experiences in the family courts. Presenter Dr Joelle Grogan discussed these issues with the BBC’s own reporter Sanchia Berg and Transparency Project chair, Lucy Reed KC.
LEGAL BLOGGING
Julie Doughty covered a case from Newport in ‘Family judge keeps press in the dark about “indefensible” case’ (7 November 2024). The case concerned an application by Louise Tickle and Tortoise Media to lift reporting restrictions preventing the naming of the local authority and the police force involved in a case in which they had been heavily criticised by the judge, HHJ Jonathan Holmes, but the published judgments preserved their anonymity. The result (no, the restrictions remain) was published as Tortoise Media v A Local Authority in Wales & Ors [2024] EWFC 306 and a comment piece by Louise, including an interview with the grandparents is here. The case was also reported in the press, including by Conor Gogarty for Wales Online, in A young boy was thriving in his grandparents’ care. Then an allegation was made against them (7 November 2024).
RECENT CASE COMMENTARY
In Felix and Bella – two judgments following an injury to a baby (Transparency Project, 24 November 2024) new contributor Bernadette Wash explained a recently published judgment in care proceedings by HHJ Vincent, Re Felix (fact finding and welfare) [2024] EWFC 302 (B), dated 8 February 2024, which the judge had asked to be linked to a later judgment in the same case, Re Bella (placement with family members) [2024] EWFC 303 (B), dated 30 September 2024. Both judgments used fictitious names to protect the children’s identity, and include a helpful short section at the beginning summarising the essential points in plain English.
In Non-party access to court documents (Information Rights and Wrongs, 16 November 2024) Jon Baines commented on the Court of Appeal’s decision in Moss v The Upper Tribunal [2024] EWCA Civ 1414, that the president of the Administrative Appeals Chamber of the Upper Tribunal had been wrong to refuse an application for parties’ written submissions from a Freedom of Information Act case. He said it demonstrated that the issue of non-party access to information from court cases, such as parties’ skeleton arguments and other case documents, continued to exercise the courts (and, in this case, tribunals – which were not subject to the CPR, something the court urged the relevant rule committees to consider).
Becket Chambers had an article on Case Law on Covert Recordings (31 October 2024) discussing recent cases on the admissibility of covert recordings and the factors relevant to their use in court. Another chance for us to mention that the Family Justice Council has been working on producing guidance on covert recording for more than six years now. We enquire about this regularly but are told it is still being checked.
The Financial Remedies Journal had a piece on What Financial Remedy Lawyers Need to Know About Emojis (15 November 2024) which discussed the use of the cheeky pictograms in various types of court case, in evidence, in legal documents, in judgments (eg Peter Jackson J in Lancashire County Council v M [2016] EWFC 9) and concluded that it was ‘perfectly conceivable that our case law will develop in TLATA and Financial Remedy cases to determine the context and intention in respect of emojis, depending on which ones are used, and what they are intended to mean’.
In Court denies clinical negligence claimant anonymity after family appeared in media (Law Society Gazette, 27 November 2024) John Hyde explained the refusal of Nicklin J in PMC v A Local Health Board [2024] EWHC 2969 (KB) to grant an anonymity order to a clinical negligence claimant because the individual and his family had already featured extensively in media coverage. The judge said: ‘‘I am absolutely not criticising the claimant’s mother’s decision to share publicly information about them, but the decision to release so much information into the public domain through media reports has an inevitable impact on the extent to which it is possible, years later, whether legally or as a matter of practicality, to secure any meaningful anonymity for the claimant.’ Preparing for the hearing, the judge had also searched the Westlaw databases and found the claimant’s surname, his mother’s full name and the date and brief details of orders made in proceedings. He said the practical consequences of the existing media coverage would undermine any anonymity order. The case has also been covered by Leo Kirby, a pupil in 1 Crown Office Row, in their Quarterly Medical Law Review (QMLR) under the title Anonymity orders: putting the genie back in the bottle? He observes, interestingly, that ‘Nicklin J casts doubt on the Court of Appeal’s decision in JX MX v Dartford & Gravesham NHS Trust [2015] 1 WLR 3647, suggesting it conflicts with principles of open justice [109-114]. He specifically doubts that children and protected parties should have a presumption of anonymity after approval of a settlement. Given PMC only remains anonymised pending appeal and the decision’s wider significance, an appeal seems likely’.
In Both the General Dental Council and Stockport Borough Council in Contempt of Court: the Unlawful Disclosure of Documents Considered (Civil Litigation Brief, 28 November 2024) Gordon Exall discussed a recent case in where documents in the family court had been unlawfully disclosed to the General Dental Council. In General Dental Council v KK & Anor [2024] EWHC 3053 (Fam), Mrs Justice Knowles commented that there had been ‘woeful ignorance’ by the local authority and the GDC in relation to the nature of documents produced by the family court. Consequently both the local authority and the GDC could have been found in contempt of court [in the event, the judge saw no purpose in pursuing them]. Exall commented that ‘There are lessons here for all those advising disciplinary bodies, local authorities and anyone seeking information from the family court’. We would also highlight the somewhat alarming fact that both a regulator and a local authority seem to have been ignorant of the restrictions imposed by s 12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960 (which badly needs reform).
NEW JUDGMENTS OF INTEREST
AB v CD and EF [2024] EWHC 2956 (Fam)
This was an unsuccessful appeal to the High Court against an order in Leeds Family Court for transfer of residence of a ten year old child from her mother to live with her paternal grandparents and her father. The High Court judge, Sir Jonathan Cohen, gave permission to appeal, heard the appeal and dismissed it, all within one day of the family court decision, such was the urgency. The judgment refers to a lengthy and comprehensive judgment in the family court but as that has not been published, it’s difficult to comment. Factors included the mother having made the child use a covert recording device and having refused to undertake a psychological assessment. Sir Jonathan said she had been given advice ‘by some organisation’ to refuse, and that this had been poor advice. Expert evidence about the child (who is diabetic), who had a Cafcass guardian and a barrister, had been given by a paediatrician in the family court.
LA v KA [2024] EWHC 2258 (Fam)
This is another appeal from HHJ Kushner at Luton family Court, heard and allowed by Sir Jonathan Cohen in the High Court. (See AA v BA which we featured in our November Roundup). There had been procedural errors when ‘final’ orders had been made at a dispute resolution appointment with which the mother had not agreed, about issues she had not anticipated were to be disposed of at that point.
AS v London Borough of Waltham Forest & Anor [2024] EWHC 2808 (Fam)
This High Court judgment by Ms Justice Harris contains important guidance about the approach to be taken when assessing the risks of female genital mutilation. Oddly, the case itself related to a prohibited steps order (PSO) restricting travel abroad, made about six years ago, rather than a FGM protection order, although no one could find an actual copy of that order. The family were applying to have the PSO discharged but this was opposed by the local authority.
We’re mentioning this judgment from Sheffield Family Court because the judge, HHJ Pemberton, when making care and placement orders for a four year old child, unusually made a section 26 contact order, for video contact between the child and her father (who lives abroad). The judge also asked the adoption agency to consider post-adoption contact between the child and her mother and that prospective adopters be given copies of his judgment and the recent speech by the President, ‘Adoption in the modern world Part 2’. The speech had been cited by the Cafcass guardian in support of contact orders with both parents, although the judge decided against an order relating to the mother. If an adoptive placement is not found in six months’ time, the effect of the s. 26 order is to be reviewed.
Re X (Children: Alleged physical abuse) [2024] EWFC 305(B)
There’s a good deal of discussion by the judge in this case, HHJ Sharpe at Liverpool Family Court, about the whole purpose of publishing judgments. In this case, the judge stated that he no more wished to identify individual professionals than he did family members, but that publicising criticisms of poor practice he had identified might lead to improvement:
‘despite the legion of errors which are chronicled below I reached the clear view that no one acted in bad faith, that mistakes were borne of ignorance and not intent and what is required now is the highlighting of defective processes as opposed to the spotlighting of individuals or even organisations’ [para 7].
What had happened was that the oldest of three siblings had reported to a school teacher that the children were regularly beaten by their parents. This was denied by the parents and the younger brothers and the judge was unable to find any substantiating evidence. He made a number of criticisms of the evidence-gathering process and the judgment concludes with a list of pointers on good practice in interviewing and recording. The judgment also includes a discussion on the use by professionals of the term ‘disclosure’.
Tom v M & F [2024] EWFC 313 (B)
This was an unusual application by a 13 year old boy to move to live with his father and attend a different school. Tom was represented by an experienced child care barrister and had a Cafcass rule 16.4 guardian. Sadly, he had been involved in litigation between his parents in six cases over the past ten years. The judge in Cardiff Family Court, HHJ Muzaffer, concluded that although Tom had a level of understanding enhanced by his obvious intelligence and sense of conviction, this was superficial and he didn’t truly understand the nature of the issues and the consequences of his choices. His decision was that Tom should remain with his mother and at his current school. The judgment is lengthy but notable for including an abridged version for Tom, setting out the issues and the judge’s reasons for his decision.
F v M & Anor [2024] EWFC 315 (B)
This judgment in private law proceedings in West London Family Court features a complex litigation history and several types of order: child arrangements; prohibited steps; specific issue; non-molestation; recovery; section 91(14); and an order for the child to attend therapy. Two of the expert witnesses are familiar names from other judgments: Dr Willemsen and Ms Berry-Relph. There is also a rule 16.4 guardian from NYAS. We’re including the case here mainly because we noticed the father had asked the district judge to publish the judgment. DJ Saunders observed that publication was supported by the guardian and Dr Willemsen and the mother was neutral; he also considered the consequences of publication on the child. However, he referred to ‘the Transparency Project and President’s Guidance’ when he would have meant the President’s Transparency Review, not us at TP. Interestingly, the judgment was dated January 2024, which gives an idea of how long it takes a district judge to find time to anonymise and publish.
Re B (Disengaged mother) [2024] EWFC 325 (B)
Placement and adoption orders were made in respect of an 18 month old child. The judge at Crewe Family Court, HHJ Hesford, added a letter, to be given to the child in the future to explain why the decision was made.
Nigerian adoption
Coincidentally, two separate High Court judgments about the recognition in the UK of adoption orders made in Nigeria were published in November. These two judgments are very technical but their detailed application of the law should be helpful to anyone involved in similar cases.
In Re G (Recognition of Nigerian Adoption [2024] EWHC 2769 (Fam), Mrs Justice Gwynneth Knowles explained the complexities surrounding such orders made in Nigeria and why a common law test had to be applied in respect of the mother in this case (settled in England) and the ten year old child who was living with maternal cousins in Nigeria. Following detailed consideration, the court was able to recognise the adoption order. The mother had originally met the child as an abandoned baby in an orphanage where she had worked as a volunteer. There was no traceable birth family.
In Re (A Child: Recognition of Nigerian Adoption: Common law test) [2024] EWHC 2888 (Fam), the adoptive mother had adopted her brother’s child, who had always been cared for by the extended paternal family. This case was complicated further by the expert witness’s view that there was some doubt about which Nigerian state the family lived in and whether the child (now aged nine) had been ‘lawfully abandoned’. The judge, David Lock KC, concluded that the adoption should be recognised.
OTHER TRANSPARENCY etc NEWS
The President, Sir Andrew McFarlane gave a speech on Suspected Physical Abuse of Children – Experts in the Family Court to the British Society of Paediatric Radiologists (7 November 2024). He said he wanted to give his audience
“some impression of the road that has been travelled by us all in our developing understanding of the various manifestations of child abuse. I hope that I have also demonstrated that today, just as for me in that courtroom in Birmingham 40 years ago, Roy Astley was the key to unlocking the truth in a case of suspected abuse, so too are you, today, in your work with children and, if it goes there, with the courts.”
As it happens the case he focused on, from early in his career, turned out not to be one of malignant abuse but simple parental ignorance: this child, in the expert’s view, suffered from copper deficiency thereby rendering his bones more brittle than those of a normal infant. Hence the many detected metaphyseal fractures. The mother was advised how better to handle him, avoiding the need for his removal.
Other recent judicial speeches include
- Mr Justice MacDonald, at East London Family Justice Board Conference (6 November 2025) on Why Relationships in Family Justice are Important
- Mr Justice MacDonald, at the Judicial Council, Dublin, Ireland (9 November 2024) on The Challenges in Hearing the Authentic Voice of the Child in Public and Private Family Law Proceeding
- Lord Justice Peter Jackson, at the Association of Lawyers for Children Conference 2024 in Bristol (15 November 2024) on Four inspiring women and one idea whose time has come
Right to Equality began publishing a four part blog post series by journalist Lara Feigel with Day One: A Week in the London Family Courts (12 November 2024) in which, following initial training with Louise Tickle, Lara tested the current Reporting Pilot in East London Family Court. All four posts, which discuss various cases viewed under the pilot, are published on Right to Equality’s Family Court Blog page.
Children’s rights charity Article 39 announced that Charities join forces to defend the human rights of children in care (15 November 2024), reporting its successful joint application with mental health charity Mind for permission to appeal against the decision of Lieven J in J: Local Authority consent to Deprivation of Liberty, Re [2024] EWHC 1690 (Fam); [2024] WLR(D) 355. This was a case involving a care order for a child whose high level of care, supervision and restriction on personal freedom was necessary to prevent him from harming himself, but the judge held that the local authority did not need an order specifically authorising deprivation of the child’s liberty and that the proposed order was already within its statutory powers through its exercise of parental responsibility. Objecting to this decision, the charities contend that it could potentially affect ‘many hundreds of highly vulnerable children each year, removing them from fundamental human rights protection governing what the state can and cannot do to children behind closed doors’.
The Children’s Commissioner for England published a report on Children with complex needs who are deprived of liberty: Interviews with children to understand their experiences of being deprived of their liberty (18 November 2024) saying that thousands of children are deprived of their liberty, and that the Department for Education and NHS England have set up a task and finish group to look at how these children can be better supported. ‘In order to ensure that children’s voices are at the heart of any reforms, my office has spoken to children with experience of deprivation of liberty orders, to understand from them how it feels to live under these conditions, what more they believe could have been done to help them, and what they think needs to change.’ Read the report here.
Women’s Aid drew attention (20 November 2024) to the recently published report, led by Professor Shazia Choudhry, The Family Justice Response to Domestic Abuse (Oxford, 3 October 2024) saying it ‘adds to a rapidly increasing evidence base of what is now confirmed to be deep-rooted, systematic problems in the family justice response to domestic abuse in England and Wales’ (20 November 2024). It goes on to explain that
‘Back in 2017, Women’s Aid partnered with Queen Mary University to explore survivors of domestic abuse’s experiences of the family courts through the lens of human rights. This study formed the preliminary research to this three-year investigation across six countries. Within the new report, judges, lawyers, survivors, and court-appointed experts were consulted in Spain, Italy, France, Bosnia & Herzegovina, and England and Wales to understand the family justice response to domestic abuse.’
Women’s Aid are now making a number of recommendations based on the report, the Harm Report and other research.
The Howard Journal of Crime and Justice had an article, Power in the courtroom: Judicial perspectives on care-experienced girls and women in court, by Claire Fitzpatrick, Katie Hunter, Jo Staines, and Julie Shaw (26 November 2024). It included ‘rarely heard judicial perspectives’ based on interviews with judges and magistrates, and explored the challenges facing care-experienced girls and women in court and the ‘disempowering effects’ of the court process.
But finally…
We have a small favour to ask!
The Transparency Project is a registered charity in England and Wales run by volunteers who mostly also have full-time jobs. We’re working to secure extra funding so that we can keep making family justice clearer for all who use the court and work in it. We’d be really grateful if you were able to help us by making a small one-off (or regular!) donation through our Just Giving page.