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 BBC reported the sad story of Woman arrested after baby boy found dead by church (31 March 2025). It said the baby’s body was discovered inside a Marks & Spencer bag outside All Saints’ Church, off Talbot Road, in Notting Hill. At the time of the report, the matter was still being investigated, though the woman, who was believed to be the baby’s mother, had been detained on suspicion of concealing a birth, neglect, and infanticide, according to the Metropolitan Police.
The Times (£) reported that Anti-abortion campaigner in free speech row backed by US pressure group (2 April 2025). This was about Livia Tossici-Bolt, a retired Italian scientist who apparently devotes much of her time to holding demonstrations outside an abortion clinic in the Dorset town of Bournemouth. This consists of standing outside the clinic holding up a notice saying “Here to talk, if you want to”. After she was charged with breaching a protected buffer zone and distressing women in attendance, her case before the magistrates was said to have been ‘propelled into the international spotlight this week’ when the US State Department’s bureau of democracy, human rights and labour (DRL) issued a statement ‘expressing concern’ about the threat to free speech. The reason for this unusual attention turned out to be that Tossici-Bolt was being supported by one of America’s leading conservative Christian pressure groups, the British wing of the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) that was instrumental in overturning Roe v Wade (a case discussed in our Roundup for February-March 2025, which had previously protected the right to abortion in the USA).
The Financial Times (£) reported that UK women’s incomes halve in year following divorce, survey finds (2 April 2025), compared with a 30 per cent decrease for men, according to new UK research. The research was carried out by way of a Legal & General survey, highlighting what the insurer called a ‘divorce gap’ that could persist into retirement. The research also showed, perhaps not very surprisingly, that in 51 per cent of divorces women had been financially reliant on their husbands during their marriage, whereas women were the main breadwinner in 24 per cent of cases. The report noted that
‘Even where the division of assets includes the family home — particularly where children are involved — this does not guarantee financial security, particularly as pension pots are often not included in the settlement, which can mean women experience a longer-lasting drop in living standards.’
The BBC reported on ‘A little miracle’: First baby born in UK to woman with transplanted womb (7 April 2025). This was about a woman, Grace Davidson, who had been born with Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser (MRKH) syndrome, a rare condition where the womb is missing or underdeveloped but with functioning ovaries. She received her sister Amy’s womb by transplant in 2023, in what was then the UK’s only successful womb transplant. Amy and her husband already had two children and did not want any more. Two years after that pioneering operation, Grace gave birth to her first child in February and named the baby girl Amy after her sister. The Times (£) had a follow-up story about an earlier success story in Sweden, where the life-giving surgery had been pioneered a decade ago: The first womb-transplant baby is 10 (and googling himself) (12 April 2025).
LBC reported on Inbreeding fears after man ‘fathers 1,000 children’ by donating sperm, as dozens more mass donors revealed (15 April 2025). This concerned the revelation, also reported in The Times and elsewhere, that ‘at least 85 men may have fathered over 1,000 children between them by exploiting a loophole in the sperm donation system’ in the Netherlands. The most prominent of these men is Jonathan Meijer, who fathered at least 550 men and possibly as many as 1,000, says LBC. His story has been dramatised in a Netflix documentary, under the title The Man with 1000 Kids. (This rather overshadows the efforts of the man in the UK who was the subject of a judicial warning in the case of A v B and others; Re D (aged 2) [2023] EWFC 333, which we mentioned in last month’s roundup and also explained more fully in a separate post: Judgment published to warn women against sperm donor who has “180 kids”.)
The Times (£) reported that Americans moving to Britain could be in for a surprise if they divorce (17 April 2025). It seems that the ‘thousands’ of US citizens moving to the UK to get away from President Trump may be surprised to find that their US-built prenuptial agreements may not be binding if and when they resort to the English divorce courts. In particular ‘punitive financial clauses included in prenups in respect of infidelity or bad behaviour will inevitably be ignored in the UK’ and the courts may make ‘more generous provision to the financially weaker party should “needs” require it’. The article, penned by a solicitor, notes that on the plus side Americans may appreciate the ‘the far more private nature of divorce in England’ with even the option to use an even more ‘private’ family arbitration service. (They may be in for a surprise, though, if The Times gets hold of their ‘big money divorce’ story.)
Local Government Lawyer reported that Family President expresses hope of “very substantial reduction” in number of public law children cases where councils have to cover shortfall in expert fees (16 April 2025). It referred to the case of Re K and Re S (Legal Aid: Experts’ Fees) [2025] EWFC100 in which Sir Andrew McFarlane P had confirmed that, as a matter of general principle, ‘a local authority should not “routinely” be considered as a source of funds to make good any shortfall in the instruction of an expert, unless the court is satisfied, among other things, that there has been “proper exploration” of other experts who may be able to complete the work within the prescribed rates and for the prescribed number of hours’. The problem had occurred in cases where the fees charged by the expert exceeded the amount the Legal Aid Agency was prepared to pay. Proposals had been put forward by the local authority (Barnet LBC) and a group of experts.
The Guardian had a piece entitled Why do they dislike me so much?’: the trials, trolls and triumphs of Britain’s most divisive barrister (24 April 2025) profiling the barrister Dr Charlotte Proudman, who has a new book out: He Said, She Said: Truth, Trauma and the Struggle for Justice in Family Court (Orion, £20). Most readers of this blog will be familiar with Dr Proudman’s prominence as a family barrister, described by one fan as a ‘brave and persistent disruptor’, and will not be surprised to read that, for her, ‘only one opinion matters: that of the women and children she defends in the family courts’. Her comments about lunch in Middle Temple (it’s too stuffy and club-like: ‘a sea of male, pale, stale figures’) and why she prefers the more democratic Pret down the road suggest that we should perhaps now regard the ubiquitous Pret as one of the Inns of Court – at least for ‘dining’ during the ‘short adjournment’ (the male, pale, stale term for lunch) – though the queues in the branches in Chancery Lane (handy for the Upper Tribunal), Fetter Lane (handy for the Rolls Court), and High Holborn (handy for the Central Family Court) are probably shorter than the one in Fleet St opposite the Royal Courts of Justice.
The Times (£) reported that Artist on benefits’ loses divorce battle against millionaire (23 April 2025), which was yet another media story about financial awards on divorce. This one is about Jason Galbraith-Marten KC (who was apparently ‘barrister of the year’ for 2022 on The Lawyer website) and his ‘bitter dispute’ with Catherine de Renée, an Australian painter, ever since their two-and-a-half-year marriage collapsed in 2009. She was claiming that a financial settlement reached in Australia, that had given her £72,500 of marital assets, ‘was insufficient and had reduced her to relying on benefits in Britain’, according to The Times, which made sure it gave readers the full picture by describing her paintings as ‘depictions of the female form — with titles such as Molten Thunder and The Debutante — that she said created a “mood filled with drama, intensity and lingering eroticism”.’ Mr Justice Cobb described their dispute as ‘depressing’ and granted Galbraith-Marten a two-year extension to a civil restraint order that ‘bans [de Renée] from suing him on “vexatious” or “unmeritorious” grounds’.
The Law Gazette reported on Family judge ‘wrong’ about overnight stays following rape finding (23 April 2025). This concerned the case of In V v V & Anor [2025] EWHC 945 (Fam), in which a mother successfully appealed against a child arrangements order which had allowed her child to stay overnight with the father despite a domestic violence finding in 2021. This followed an earlier Gazette report on the case, Mother argues judge was ‘wrong’ to allow overnight stays following findings of rape and assault (11 April 2025) which covered the appeal hearing. (The hearing was also covered in The Guardian on 9 April 2024: Decision to grant abusive partner access to daughter ‘alarming’, UK court hears.) Mr Justice Peel, having heard the appeal, concluded that the judge, recorder Christopher Sharp KC, ‘who gave this case anxious consideration, ultimately was wrong and should have provided for more limited contact on an interim basis.’
The Times (£) reported that Constance Marten says ‘bigoted’ family sent private investigators after her (24 April 2025). This continues the saga of the case involving Marten and her partner Mark Gordon whose retrial at the Central Criminal Court (Old Bailey) for gross negligence manslaughter for the death of their daughter Victoria we covered in the last roundup. The Times continues the practice of always referring to Marten as an ‘aristocrat’ when reporting the trial, which they say ‘continues’. The BBC is also covering the trial and reported (29 April 2025) that Constance Marten denies carrying baby in shopping bag.
The BBC had the news that Virginia Giuffre, Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein accuser, dies (26 April 2025). American-born Giuffre achieved prominence some years ago after alleging that convicted sex offenders Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell had trafficked her when aged 17 for sex with Prince Andrew – which he denied: the case was later settled. After going public with the allegations she became a campaigner for the Me Too movement. She was by then married and living with her husband and children in Australia, where she had recently been involved in a motor accident. Reports suggest she took her own life.
There was a good deal of reporting (and commentary) on the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers [2025] UKSC 16, including:
The Herald (Scotland) reported that For Women Scotland wins Supreme Court case on woman definition (16 April 2025). The Supreme Court has ruled in favour of For Women Scotland in a landmark case on the legal definition of a woman, it said. ‘This means that women and sex in the Equality Act is defined on a biological basis’.
Not everyone was delighted with the result. The Sunday Express reported ‘Disgraceful!’ Fury as women who won Supreme Court gender battle face death threats (20 April 2025) saying ‘the three women who spearheaded the legal battle have been hit by a deluge of abuse in the wake of the decision.
Tory shadow women’s minister Mims Davies said: “The brave women behind For Women Scotland won a landmark victory in the Supreme Court. But instead of being celebrated, they’ve been met with death threats, vile misogynistic abuse, and appalling attacks on their livelihoods. This is an absolute disgrace. No woman should face hatred for defending our sex-based rights”.’
Local Government Lawyer had a helpful report The Supreme Court decision in For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers (25 April 2025) explaining the legal issues with more precision than the mainstream press, and commenting on the result. It also mentioned that four parties had been permitted to intervene (but the exclusion of others might turn out to be problematic: see below).
The Times (£) reported that Doctors call Supreme Court gender ruling ‘scientifically illiterate’ (28 April 2025) – this concerned a vote by resident doctors (formerly known as junior doctors) condemning the court’s interpretation of a statute ‘biologically nonsensical’.
The Guardian reported that UK’s first trans judge appeals to European court of human rights over supreme court ruling (29 April 2025). This was the news that Victoria McCloud, Britain’s ‘first transgender judge’ (she was a Master in the High Court but has since retired and now works as a lawyer) is to refer the UK to the Strasbourg court over the infringement of her human rights, specifically her right to a fair trial under article 6 of the Convention, because the Supreme Court refused her permission to join (presumably as an intervener) or give evidence in the litigation brought by the gender critical campaigners For Women Scotland against the Scottish government. She said the court had ‘refused to hear me, or my evidence, to provide them with information about the impact on those trans people affected by the judgment and failed to give any reasons.’
The BBC reported that it was ‘Unacceptable’ to question Supreme Court gender ruling, says minister (30 April 2025). The minister in question being the Justice Secretary, doing her job of defending the judiciary in its judicial capacity, but the report made it sound as though she were imposing some sort of censorship on legal debate. ‘Speaking to Parliament’s Human Rights Joint Committee, Shabana Mahmood said judges at the UK’s highest court “provided the legal clarity in their legal decision which is exactly their job”. … Mahmood said: “It’s disappointing… that some individuals have sought to question the validity of the Supreme Court or cast aspersions…”.’ No doubt some commentators have been a little too ad hominem. (Or indeed ad homines.)
BROADCAST & AUDIO COVERAGE
BBC Radio 4 had a series of Shadow World called The Willpower Detectives, running from December 2024 to March 2025, in which reporter Sue Mitchell investigated how powers of attorney orders were being used and misused. ‘Giving someone else control of your finances and decisions – through Lasting Power of Attorney – is meant to come with a guarantee that they always act in your best interest’, it explains, but there appears to be a ‘widespread business practice where some people are moved out of their homes and left with no idea what is happening to their money’. The series ‘looks at the loopholes that allow it to happen and the relationship between care homes, social workers and a business taking on a huge number of powers of attorney’.
Charlotte Proudman (see above) was interviewed about her book and her career in BBC Radio 4 ‘Woman’s Hour’ on 2nd May. Although her book is very critical of the family courts. she strongly encouraged young feminist students to consider a career at the Family Law Bar.
LEGAL BLOGGING
In Completing care proceedings in less than 26 weeks (25 April 2025) Julie Doughty on this blog reported her visit to Cardiff Family Court as a legal blogger in two care cases which provided an illustration of how the most recent ‘refocus’ on the Public Law Outline (PLO) 26 weeks time limit is working out in the real world.
RECENT CASE COMMENTARY
In Parental consent to the confinement of younger children – again (3 April 2025) on the Mental Capacity Law and Policy blog, Alex Ruck Keene discusses ‘The vexed question of whether and under what circumstances parents can consent to (or otherwise authorise) the confinement of children under 16’ in relation to a case before HHJ Burrows (sitting as a High Court judge) in QX (Parental Consent for Deprivation of liberty: Children under 16) [2025] EWHC 745 (Fam). While generally following the earlier authority to the effect that parental consent to the child’s arrangements acted to prevent the engagement of Article 5 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR), the judge expressed misgivings because the Court of Appeal had at the time still not published its judgment in a case (Re J: Local Authority Consent to Deprivation of Liberty) in which it had reversed a decision by another judge taking a different approach. So the tide might be changing, but until it did so the judge felt bound to follow the existing line of published authority. (See ‘Judgments’ below, because we have just spotted the appeal in Re J).
In Are young people losing their freedom because of Deprivation of Liberty Orders? (6 April 2025) on this blog, Victoria Butler Cole KC discussed DoL orders in relation to a recent BBC article which contained omissions and inaccuracies, wrongly suggesting that courts might have wider powers than to simply approve (or not) the proposals brought before the court by the local authority and to grant an order which was essentially permissive, not mandatory.
In Re Z: Surrogacy arrangements overseas (25 April 2025) The Law Gazette commented on the case of Re Z (Foreign Surrogacy) [2024] EWFC 304 which it said demonstrated the difficulties encountered by a same-sex couple who had entered into a surrogacy arrangement overseas, spanning several different jurisdictions. (This was the case Joshua Rozenberg commented on in his post, Inconceivable, which we included in our last roundup.)
In Reflections on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Abbasi on the duration of reporting restrictions (25 April 2025) on the Court of Protection Open Justice Project blog, Daniel Clark comments on what he calls ‘a very important judgment that considers when and how freedom of expression can justifiably be limited’, namely: ‘was it right for injunctions that prohibited the identification of medical staff to be extended indefinitely?’ He welcomes the decision of the Supreme Court permitting such identification and the lifting of the temporary stay imposed by the Court of Appeal (pending the appeal). We covered the same case on this blog in: Abbasi – the Supreme Court finally hands down judgment on appeal about injunctions made to protect the identity of hospital staff providing end of life care.
In Hypocrisy and morality (28 April 2025) Joshua Rozenberg on his A Lawyer Writes blog discusses a recent article by Sir James Munby, titled ‘Institutionalised Dishonesty and Hypocrisy: Divorce in the 1920s’, and published in the FLBA journal, about how standards of morality have changed over the years, and in particular about the notorious divorce case of Josiah Wedgwood MP (grandson of the eponymous potter): ‘“For a man to be divorced for adultery,” he writes, “was socially and politically unacceptable. But, in contrast, it was seemingly not beyond the pale for a public figure to admit that he had been willing to manipulate the divorce process and even possibly, on [one judge’s] view, to have committed a criminal offence in doing so”.’
In Fair Shares (30 April 2025) Rozenberg discusses the hearing due to begin that day in the UK Supreme Court in the case of Standish v Standish, which concerned the division of assets following divorce. Rozenberg explained that ‘What the justices must decide is when money brought to the marriage — “non-matrimonial property” — becomes “matrimonial property”. And when it does, how should it be shared on divorce?’ The wife was appealing against a decision of the Court of Appeal ([2024] EWCA Civ 567; [2024] 4 WLR 60; [2024] 2 FLR 966) that she was entitled to £25 million – which sounds a lot but is apparently a reduction of nearly half of what the judge below had awarded her. Regardless of the sums involved, the point of principle is about the sharing principle and the treatment of assets and can therefore apply just as importantly in cases involving lesser sums – at least to the extent that they are worth the costs of such a dispute. The Times (£) also covered the hearing, saying Ex-banker’s £132m divorce case ‘will test boundaries of law’ (30 April 2025).
Commentary from various legal perspectives has been accumulating on the decision of the Supreme Court in For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers [2025] UKSC 16, including:
- Oxford Human Rights Hub: Recognition Without Rights? Reflecting on For Women Scotland and the Future of Legal Sex
- 4-5 Grays Inn Square: The Biological Baseline: Sporting ramifications of the UK Supreme Court ‘s decision in For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers
- 12 King’s Bench Walk: For Women Scotland v Scottish Ministers: four lessons for employers
- Administrative Court Blog: Limits to the UK Supreme Court’s Reach: Northern Ireland, the Windsor Framework and Trans Rights
- Park Square barristers: Beyond the headlines: Court judgment on the definition of a woman within the realms of the Equality Act 2010
- Trans Legal Project: For Women Scotland: a legal critique
NEW JUDGMENTS OF INTEREST
Re E (Section 37 Direction) [2025] EWCA Civ 470
This appeal concerned a novel aspect of the court’s power under section 37 Children Act 1989 to direct a local authority to investigate whether care proceedings need to be brought in respect of children being dealt with in other types of court disputes. In this case of a care application regarding one baby, the judge made a s 37 direction in respect of three other children (her cousins), who were not the subject of the proceedings, and placed them under interim supervision orders. Following the hearing of an appeal brought by the local authority, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set the direction and orders aside. Baker LJ sets out a detailed analysis of the scope of s 37.
J v Bath and North East Somerset Council & Others [2025] EWCA Civ 478
This is an important case about the deprivation of the liberty (DoL) of a severely disabled 14 year old boy who is subject to a care order, with his parents’ consent. A somewhat controversial decision by Lieven J in June last year (Re J ([2024] EWHC 1690 (Fam)), that the boy’s circumstances did not meet the requirements for a DoL authorisation, was found to be in error. The Court of Appeal judges, headed by the President, confirmed previous caselaw that a care order does not provide a local authority with the power to confine a child, and that detention is a breach of ECHR Article 5 that requires a DoL authorisation.
Re M (A Child: Intermediaries) [2025] EWCA Civ 440
We wrote about this appeal decision, that clarifies when an intermediary is necessary in family proceedings, here and here.
LA v M & Others [2025] EWHC 630 (Fam)
This is an interesting High Court decision about the necessity to extend Forced Marriage Protection Orders for three young siblings beyond their 18th birthdays until they each turned 21.
Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust v PP [2025] EWHC 783 (Fam)
This was an urgent application which had apparently attracted media attention and the judge made a Reporting Restriction Order because the hearing was held in public but the family was to be anonymised. The issue was that an expectant mother was likely to be infected by the HIV virus but was refusing to be tested. Doctors gave evidence that it was imperative the baby be investigated for blood-borne viruses urgently after he/she was born. The judge decided that he did not have power to make the orders sought until the baby was born – a postscript adds that the baby was born two days later and an adjourned hearing was held within an hour giving consent to the medical tests required. The court heard evidence that the rate of HIV is significantly higher in Manchester than the national average.
A Local Authority v The Mother & Others [2025] EWHC 810 (Fam)
This care case had begun in August 2023 and was in its 80th week before the court when final orders for three children were made. Mrs Justice Lieven pointed to a number of case management issues including failure to file the threshold document earlier, setting a final hearing before there was an effective issues resolution hearing. There had been a lack of continuity by the series of judges, and lack of proactive challenge by the Guardian.
Kathryn Elizabeth Norman v Michael Ian Norman [2025] EWFC 107 (B)
An interesting point arose about confidentiality in financial remedy proceedings in this judgment, where the wife had placed information about her case on a website called ‘Just Answer’ where it was spotted by the husband’s partner. The judge, District Judge Veal at Bournemouth Financial Remedies Court) observed that this communication was potentially in breach of the court rules and warned of ‘the need to exercise a healthy dose of caution when posting on the internet or in communicating about issues being considered in family proceedings in any other public forum’ [para 193]. He also discussed issues about publishing his judgment and whether the parties should be anonymised.
OTHER TRANSPARENCY etc NEWS
At the end of last month the government published a Private Law Pathfinder delivery update and, on the same day, its Private Law Pathfinder Pilot: process evaluation and financial analysis (27 March 2025) with findings from the process evaluation and exploratory financial analysis of the Pathfinder pilots in Dorset and North Wales family court areas. We have reported on the Pathfinder pilots fairly extensively on this blog. In essence its aims are to improve the experiences of families in child arrangements proceedings, reduce the re-traumatisation of victim-survivors of domestic abuse, reduce the amount of time families spent in court and to improve coordination between agencies. The research found that ‘the Pathfinder model brought about substantial improvements both in terms of the experiences of children and families as well as to system efficiencies’. They identified a number of benefits including: improving information gathering, a more efficient court process, reduced re-traumatisation for both adult and child victim-survivors of domestic abuse during proceedings, a more supportive process and a better court environment, and improved collaboration across agencies and multi-agency working, all assisted by the involvement a Case Progression Officer, a new role created for the scheme.
On the same day, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, Dame Nicole Jacobs, responded to the government’s evaluation of Pathfinder Family Court pilots saying ‘I am delighted that this evaluation shows a vastly improved experience for victims when the Pathfinder approach is taken. Adult and child victims feel better supported, re-traumatisation is reduced, and families are spending less time in court, as cases are resolved more quickly.’ She pointed out that as ‘we’re nearly five years on since the publication of the Harm Panel Report, it has long been clear that urgent change is needed’ and said ‘we owe it to adult and child victims to make this a reality’.
We reported on the Pathfinder in slightly less roseate hues on this blog, in a post entitled Evaluation of the Pathfinder Pilot in Private Law – published (8 April 2025).
The Judiciary published a link, Now available to watch: Family Justice Council Bridget Lindley Memorial Lecture, 12 March 2025. The Bridget Lindley Memorial Lecture (online), was given by Her Honour Judge Khatun Sapnara, Designated Family Judge, as part of the Family Justice Council’s annual interdisciplinary conference, This year’s topic was ‘Diversity and Inclusion in the Family Justice System: Promoting Best Practice in Decision Making’. You can watch a recording of the lecture or download a transcript.
In Book review: Reporting the Courts (Journal of Media Law, 10 April 2025) Judith Townend considers an academic study, Reporting the Courts, by Richard Jones, who is currently Director of Journalism, Politics and Contemporary History at the University of Salford, but relies on his own previous experience of reporting courts and inquiries as well shadowing and interviewing other reporters. The review is generally very favourable, although Townend feels Jones sometimes focuses too much on traditional media reporting at the expense of ‘civic observers (including independent legal bloggers, NGOs and academics) who sit outside the mainstream media’. Subject to that, she strongly recommends the book to ‘anyone seeking a recent and rich history of contemporary court reporting, including those with a broader interest in the sustainability of public interest journalism’, and concludes that ‘Any future inquiry or review of this important topic – as well as those law and policymakers directly working on court transparency – would do well to start with Jones’s excellent account’.
The Judiciary announced the publication of updated judicial guidance on Artificial Intelligence (14 April 2025) saying . ‘The growing accessibility and relevance of AI in the court and tribunal system means it is important that its use by or on behalf of the judiciary is consistent with its overarching obligation to protect the integrity of the administration of justice.’ The refreshed guidance provides updated information on the tools available, including to judges, and advises them to ensure litigants know that they are responsible for any AI-generated information they present to the court/tribunal, just as for any other type of evidence.
In Why I withdrew my challenge to a secret inquest (29 April 2025) freelance reporter Charlie Moloney on his substack explained how a change to the procedure for coroners’ inquests has eroded open justice. The procedure is known as ‘inquests in writing’ (IIW), a post-2022 regime which allows coroners to conclude inquests without a public hearing. The problem is that ‘Because there is no public hearing, the public and the press are totally reliant on the coroner telling them what was decided in the paper inquest. If a coroner refuses to tell a journalist about their ruling in an IIW, then it is de facto a secret inquest.’ He has previously challenged such a decision, successfully, but in a second case he withdrew his challenge after a confidential discussion with the parents of the deceased. But his main point remains, which is that the secret inquest is a denial of open justice.
Government transparency hits new record low – again, according to the substack Democracy for Sale (30 April 2025), where Jenna Corderoy and Peter Geoghegan discuss recent statistics for government responses to FOI requests. Under FOI law, public bodies must respond within 20 working days, but in 2024, only 71% of requests were answered on time – the lowest figure since monitoring began. Whitehall departments and government agencies responded in full to just 29% of Freedom of Information (FOI) requests — down from 34% in 2023, which was itself a record low at the time. Corderoy and Geoghegan say ‘This steep and sustained decline in transparency is part of a broader trend. In 2010, 57% of FOI requests were granted in full. Since then, the figure has dropped or flatlined in 12 of the last 13 years.’ Rather shockingly, given its status and function, The National Archives granted just 11% of requests in full last year — and failed to respond at all to 70% of them. Some departments were not quite so bad. The Department for Culture, Media & Sport (DCMS) responded to fewer than two-thirds of requests on time, while the FCDO met the legal deadline in just half of cases.
Notwithstanding her earlier positivity about the Pathfinder, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner later complained that Thousands of children facing domestic abuse alone as support services risk financial collapse (29 April 2025), citing a new report Victims in their own right? (April 2025) which has just been laid before Parliament. The report ‘examines the current response to children and young people who experience domestic abuse at home or in their family across both the statutory and non-statutory response. It draws on extensive engagement and comprehensive insights to support recommendations across seven key themes. The report evidences current gaps in provision, examples of good practice, and provides constructive solutions for a coordinated approach that makes the improvements needed.’
FAMILY LAW IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS
Australia
The BBC reported that Woman gives birth to stranger’s baby in Australia embryo mix-up (10 April 2025), which was oddly reminiscent of the story we had in our February-March Roundup, about a similar mix-up in Georgia, USA. (In that case the child was African American, whereas the mother was white and had chosen ‘a sperm donor with an appearance similar to her own.’) The mix-up at Monash IVF in Brisbane, Queensland, which resulted in the mother unknowingly giving birth to a stranger’s baby after her fertility clinic accidentally implanted another woman’s embryos into her, has been blamed on human error, according to Australian media reports.
Ireland
The Irish Independent reported on Plans to reform ‘in-camera’ privacy rule in family law cases, Justice Minister says (28 April 2025), saying ‘ A rule that allows family law cases, including domestic violence orders, to be heard in private is set to be reformed under plans unveiled by Jim O’Callaghan today.’ The intention is to make cases more transparent, by releasing more information from ‘opaque courts’ where such cases are generally only reported anonymously or not at all. The proposals, which follow research by Trinity College Dublin and University College Dublin commissioned by the Ministry of Justice, are due to be revealed in a speech at a forum on the family justice system. According to the newspaper report, it will be ‘the first comprehensive system in Ireland for regularly reporting on private family law proceedings, in relation to orders being made’ – which suggests Ireland is some way behind England & Wales in the opening up of the family justice system to public scrutiny.
Ukraine
The Times (£) had a piece, I went to Ukraine to bring my Russian PoW boyfriend home. He said no (23 April 2025) about a scheme whereby Russian soldiers captured by Ukraine could be allowed to stay in the country if their wife or partner came to join them. But in the only example of the offer being taken up, the soldier, Yevgeny, whose partner Krynina had come, refused to consent to such an arrangement. She, however, refused to return to Russia, and has been granted asylum in Ukraine, where she has co-founded an organisation called Our Exit to help Russians find relatives who have been taken prisoner by Ukraine. Meanwhile Yevgeny has said he will wait for a prisoner exchange so he can return home. Putin must be proud of him.
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. Although we’ve now been going for a decade, we’re always 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 can’t do what we do without help from you!
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.