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 Law Society Gazette reported that Parallel family and criminal court proceedings ‘confusing for parties’, judge notes (7 April 2026). Deputy District Judge Nahal-Macdonald, sitting in the family court at Bromley, was dealing with domestic abuse and coercive control accusations in a case already running for 57 weeks. His fact-finding judgment in Re C (Born August 2022) [2026] EWFC 74 (B) dealt with the mother’s allegations of coercive control and physical abuse. But the allegations were also the subject of criminal proceedings, in which the father had elected a Crown Court trial. Otherwise the criminal case ‘would almost certainly have been concluded by now’, said the judge, ‘and of course the family and criminal courts apply different standards of proof’. Hence the confusion.
The Times (£) reported that Church of England to apologise for role in forced adoptions (8 April 2026). This referred to a draft letter, obtained by the BBC, in which the established church revealed its intention to apologise for its role in removing about 185,000 babies from unmarried mothers hidden away from society in its mother and baby homes between the 1940s and the 1970s and arranging for them to be adopted. The apology says the church acknowledges and is deeply sorry for ‘the lifelong impact of these experiences and the part the Church played in a system shaped by attitudes and behaviours that we now recognise as harmful’.
The BBC reported Man jailed for killing abused wife who jumped from bridge (10 April 2026) saying that in the first prosecution of its kind in Scotland, Lee Milne had been convicted of culpable homicide after his wife jumped to her death from a road bridge after suffering significant domestic violence at his hands in the 18 months prior to her death. Police said Kimberly was ‘clearly terrified’ of 40-year-old Milne, and that her death was the result of her taking ‘a course of action to get away from him’. The jury found him responsible for his wife’s death. He was jailed for eight years, and will be supervised in the community for a further three years following his release.
But in a superficially similar case in England, also covered by the BBC, it was reported that Husband cleared of manslaughter over wife’s suicide (22 April 2026). This concerned the trial of Christopher Trybus, who had been accused of abusing his wife Tarryn Baird prior to her taking her own life. This involved similar accusations of a course of abusive behaviour leading to suicide, but at the end of the trial the jury acquitted him of manslaughter, controlling and coercive behaviour, and two counts of rape.
The above two cases were referred to in The Times, Juries don’t understand coercive control, says mother of victim (26 April 2026). Sharon Holland’s daughter Chloe, 23, took her own life in March 2023 after reporting her former partner, Marc Masterton, to police and providing a two-hour video interview as evidence against him. Masterton was convicted of coercive and controlling behaviour and sentenced to only 41 months, a sentence Holland described as ‘disgusting’. She has set up a support group for families affected by the issue and says only five of the 65 families she has been in contact with have secured a criminal conviction of any kind. She said experts should explain coercive control to juries in court so that they can understand why some victims may feel suicide is their only escape. The article goes on to say that, according to the Domestic Homicide Project, 98 people were suspected to have killed themselves after experiencing domestic abuse in the year to March 2024 (the figure is higher for 2025) and 80 people were killed by a partner.
The Bureau of Investigative Journalism (TBIJ) reported that ‘I lost faith in the system’: The teenager who took on the family courts and won (13 April 2026) about a girl, pseudonymised as ‘Florence’, who was taken from her mum aged 10 and who ‘embarked on a five-year battle to reverse court orders’. She even tried writing directly to Sir Andrew McFarlane. ‘Feeling trapped and with nowhere else to turn, she wrote a letter to the president of the family division, the most senior family court judge in England and Wales. “I was desperately seeking help trying to find my own lawyer,” says Florence. She received no response.’ She wrote again on his recent retirement, and his office apologised for not responding. The report says Florence’s story ‘illustrates how an expert introducing the concept of “parental alienation” – the idea one parent can turn a child against the other – can flip a family conflict on its head. Even though the father had findings of abuse against him, it was the mother who was blamed for the issues’. Florence eventually got to be represented by barrister Charlotte Proudman and was granted enough ‘autonomy’ (in Mrs Justice Judd’s words) to decide for herself which parent she would live with, and was able to return to her mother: Florence v F & Anor [2021] EWHC 3846 (Fam).
There was extensive reporting on the Southport Inquiry Report (13 April 2026), in which a number of agencies were criticised for failing to address the killer’s increasingly erratic and violent behaviour, but which also singled out Axel Rudakubana’s own parents for failing to alert those agencies or report their son’s violent tendencies. There was also a response from the Youth Justice Board, saying ‘What the Inquiry shows is not a failure of one agency alone, but a failure of the system to come together around a child who was clearly in need of intervention throughout years of contact with agencies that was all too often, “light touch”.’ See also:
- The Times, Southport killer’s behaviour wrongly dismissed due to autism, inquiry states.
- The BBC, We will name police and social workers unless action taken, lawyer for Southport families says
- and Southport killer’s parents failed in ‘moral duty’ to report son
- Guardian (opinion piece by Gaby Hinsliff), Are Axel Rudakubana’s parents responsible for his terrible crime? It’s a question many families will fear to answer
The BBC had two successive news stories about investigations into bogus asylum claims by migrants either claiming to be gay, Legal advisers help migrants pose as gay to get asylum, undercover BBC investigation finds (15 April 2026); or victims of domestic violence, Migrants making false domestic abuse claims to stay in UK, BBC investigation finds (16 April 2026). The reports asserted that claimants were ’encouraged to fabricate abuse allegations’ by a ‘shadow industry of law firms and advisers’, after an undercover probe managed to find some evidence of this happening. One report included an unevidenced assertion that ‘Some victims have reported their abuse to domestic violence charities and used that as evidence, or sought a non-molestation court order against their partner which can be obtained “ex parte”, meaning without their partner’s notice.’ The lawyer-bashing aspect of the reporting provoked quite a lot of objection from legal commentators, but one of the pieces appears to accept that the ‘legal advisers’ aren’t actually lawyers. Not that that is any sort of excuse.
The Guardian reported that ‘Labels protect us’: Olivia Nervo wants reproductive coercion to be a standalone offence – she is not alone (18 April 2026) in which the paper’s legal affairs correspondent Haroon Siddique reported on the potential for criminalising reproductive coercion, defined as ‘a form of controlling behaviour in which someone interferes with an individual’s ability to make decisions about their own body’. Labour MP Natalie Fleet, who led a debate on it in Parliament, says the concept is ‘something the legal system in England and Wales still struggles to recognise.’ But as the report goes on to say ‘Reproductive coercion is recognised in England and Wales as a form of coercive control under the Serious Crime Act [2015].’ The report cites the Court of Appeal’s judgment in Pringle v Nervo [2026] EWCA Civ 266 in which Nervo’s late-stage request for a fact-finding hearing was rejected in favour of a speedier consensual resolution of the case as a whole, but the punitive order for costs against Pringle (the father) was reversed. There is a report of the case on Family Law Week. We wrote about the transparency aspects of the case here: When ‘transparency’ orders create opacity. In related news, the Good Law Project claims that their Facebook posts about the case have been removed by Meta.
The BBC reported that ‘They told me he was dead’: Children born near army base learn truth about UK soldier dads (20 April 2026). This was about using DNA techniques to determine the paternity of children in Kenya whose fathers may have been British soldiers or contractors at military bases there. In one case the DNA was compared to that of a father’s cousin that had been uploaded to Ancestry.com. ‘Paternity has so far been legally confirmed in 12 of the cases by the UK’s highest Family Court judge, a BBC World Service investigation can reveal.’ It mentions UK solicitor James Netto, working with Kelvin Kubai, a lawyer finding clients on the ground in Kenya, who say there are ‘nearly 100 documented cases of children born near the British Army Training Unit in Kenya (Batuk) to British soldiers. Netto believes there could be many more.’
The BBC reported that Rogue sperm donor who says he’s fathered 180 children won’t be on child’s birth certificate (21 April 2026) which was about Robert Albon, aka Joe Donor, originally from the United States and in his 50s, who advertises on Facebook and Instagram offering sperm donation in several unlicensed ways. He had applied for a declaration of parentage in respect of a child on discovering he was the biological father. But Sir Andrew McFarlane, President of the Family Division, rejected the application, in a judgment that has now been published: Re RN (Paternity: Unregulated Sperm Donor) [2026] EWHC 878 (Fam). The story was covered by Gemma Dunstan and BBC Wales who made a successful application to lift the restriction on naming Albon, citing public interest. (Albon and his antics have been the subject of two previous judgments, which we have covered here, most recently in our November 2025 roundup.) This latest decision was also reported in The Guardian as Prolific unregulated sperm donor loses UK legal fight to be named as child’s father.
The Conservative Woman bucked the left trend (as they might see it) with a piece by Frank Haviland complaining about The hounding of Melanie Gill, the psychologist who refused to toe the feminist line (the URL actually says ‘lynching’ – https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/the-lynching-of-melanie-gill-the-psychologist-who-refused-to-toe-the-feminist-line/) (22 April 2026). The piece notes the ‘righteous vindication’ and ‘selective indignation’ of left-wing and/or feminist reporting, ‘dripping with unrealised irony’, in discussing Gill, ‘a psychologist and expert witness with nearly two decades of experience in complex child custody cases’. However, the costs judgment in The Mother v The Father [2023] EWHC 2078 (Fam) relied on as vindicating her professional standing as an expert may not be quite the ringing endorsement it is held out to be, particularly in the light of subsequent judgments, such as Re Y (Experts and Alienating Behaviour: The Modern Approach)[2026] EWFC 38 (which Lucy Reed KC wrote about here: Experts and Alienating Behaviour: The Modern Approach).
The BBC reported that Supreme Court rejects bid to revoke adoption of sisters (22 April 2026) which was about Re X and Y (Children: Adoption Order: Setting Aside) [2026] UKSC 13, in which the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeal [2025] EWCA Civ 2 that the High Court doesn’t have any power under its inherent jurisdiction to set aside an adoption order that was validly made, on welfare grounds. We have written several posts about this, most recently Supreme Court confirms the permanence of adoption.
The Observer reported that MPs who opposed assisted dying seek to revive bill in face of Lords filibustering (26 April 2026) after The Terminally Ill adults (End of Life) Bill ran out of legislative time. The constitutional implications of this were discussed in a post on the Public Law for Everyone blog (see below). The report suggests that ‘Supporters of assisted dying believe more than 150 MPs are likely to bring back the bill if they are successful in the next private members’ bill ballot’.
The Times reported that ‘We’re basically married’ — cohabiting couples want wedded rights (27 April 2026) on the perennial complaint about people shacking up together and even having children are nevertheless not treated in the same way as officially married or civilly partnershipped couples. A survey commissioned by Forsters law firm from YouGov, involving more than 2,000 people, found that 60 per cent believed that ‘unmarried couples should have the same right as those who marry to leave assets to each other free of inheritance tax’. The government is expected to launch a spring consultation on reforming the law to strengthen cohabitation rights.
BROADCAST & AUDIO COVERAGE
A recording of the 2026 Bridget Lindley Memorial Lecture, given at this year’s Conference by Lisa Harker, Director of the Nuffield Family Justice Observatory, is now available to watch Judicial Office YouTube. We published a link to the transcript via NFJO in last month’s roundup but it is now also available via the Judiciary website: Improving children’s lives: Holding on to what matters during the technology revolution.
RECENT COMMENTARY
In The fall of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill: A constitutional outrage? (24 April 2026) Mark Elliott on the Public Law for Everyone blog discussed the constitutional implications of Leadbeater MP’s private members’ bill on assisted suicide. The bill was effectively killed off by a torrent of amendment debates in the House of Lords, so Elliott says there is now a wider debate about ‘whether it is constitutionally improper for the House of Lords to have blocked the Bill’ and whether the Commons should utilise the Parliament Act 1911 to force its enactment regardless. Against this, there is the complaint that, as a PMB, there was ‘no prior public consultation’, ‘no green paper’, ‘no white paper’ and ‘no international comparison’, and the Lords were therefore justified in giving it the intense scrutiny it required. Its supporters have vowed to revive it. But for now the bill, which was criticised in particular over its ill-considered reliance on judicial supervision and approval, notably by the late Sir James Munby on this blog, may yet live to die another day.
Mental Capacity Law and Policy blog had a Book review: Coercive Control and Vulnerable Adults: Law and Practice in the Court of Protection and the Inherent Jurisdiction of the High Court (20 April 2026). Alex Ruck Keene reviewed the book by Dr Oliver Lewis, which he described as an ‘extraordinarily practical and comprehensive book which should be on the bookshelf of every practitioner who appears before the Court of Protection’. It is also, he says, equally important for social workers and others who are working with victims / survivors of coercive control, outside as well as in court.
Doughty Street Chambers noted that Media organisations successfully challenge anonymity order in unexplained wealth order proceedings (24 April 2026) following publication of the judgment in National Crime Agency v GKC (No 2) [2026] EWHC 929 (Admin). In a case in which an unexplained wealth order (UWO) and interim freezing order (IFO) were granted to the NCA against the (currently unnamed) respondent, Fordham J rejected the respondent’s application for an interim order for anonymity and reporting restrictions, having found that the respondent had failed to demonstrate that the continued derogations from open justice were necessary. The BBC, Times Media Limited, Associated Newspapers Limited and Telegraph Media Group Limited had intervened to oppose the continuation of the order. The Judge confirmed that the established starting point for his analysis should be the principle of open justice, not that of a reasonable expectation of privacy in the fact and details of a state investigation (as derived from ZXC v Bloomberg LP [2022] UKSC 5; [2022] AC 1158). But he granted the Respondent permission to appeal, and the interim order remains in effect pending any appeal.
In a post on LinkedIn (Henke J Letter to DOLs Judges, 27 April 2026), barrister Anna Yarde drew attention continuing problem of the lack of suitable facilities for the secure accommodation of children, which was the subject of damning complaints by Sir James Munby and Sir Andrew McFarlane over the last decade, and earlier this year was the subject of a letter by Mrs Justice Henke providing judges with a list of considerations relevant to applications to deprive young people of their liberty in an unregulated placement.
In Justice at the Back of the Queue (30 April 2026) Richard Moorhead on the Lawyer Watch blog drew attention to a recent paper on the public funding, or lack of it, for justice in general and legal aid. The paper, Fiscal policy and the justice system, by Magdalena Dominguez, Ben Zaranko & Joe Tomlinson, is published in the Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law (28 April 2026). Overall, the study reveals ‘significant and sustained reductions, over the last quarter of a century, in public spending on the justice system’ which is depressing but not surprising.
NEW JUDGMENTS OF INTEREST
Other than above.
Re A Mother (Appeal: Alienating Behaviours: Fair Procedure) [2026] EWHC 783 (Fam)
This was a successful appeal against findings of parental alienation made by Recorder Brannon in Barnet Family Court. Mr Justice Poole found that the correct process hadn’t been applied and some of the findings were based on fundamentally flawed reasoning. The case was sent back to be heard by a different judge.
F v Another v Nottinghamshire CC & Ors [2026] EWHC 931 (Fam)
Two children had been living in a local authority foster placement under care orders for four years. Allegations were made about the male foster carer by a family member. The foster carers applied for an injunction under the Human Rights Act 1998 to stop the LA from removing the children from their care, issued under the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction. This was shortly followed by an application for a special guardianship order. Safety plans were put in place. The law and procedure set out is complex, but the judgment may be helpful reading on this topic. After examining the evidence, the LA decided to end the safety plan and not to proceed to seek any findings against the male carer. Mr Justice McKendrick concluded that the children could safely stay with the foster carers, while a special guardianship assessment was under way. An injunction was no longer needed.
Confidential Prospective Adopters v BM & Ors [2026] EWHC 907 (Fam)
A three year old child had been placed for adoption and the adoption application had been submitted. The birth mother was seeking leave to oppose the adoption. She asked the court for full disclosure of the Annexe A report – this is the report by the adoption agency under the Family Procedure Rules that sets out the applicants’ suitability to adopt and the agency’s recommendations. Part B of this report is about the child and the birth family. It was agreed that Part B could be disclosed but not the rest of the report, but the mother continued to argue for the full report. The adoption agency and CoramBAAF were joined in the case as interveners, because of the wider implications on public policy.
In a long and quite technical judgment, Ms Justice Harris decided that only Part B should be disclosed. She said that although she ‘cannot say disclosure of the full Annex A report will never be granted at the stage of a birth parent’s application for leave to oppose, it would in the Court’s judgment be a highly unusual case where such disclosure was merited’.
A Local Authority v CD and others [2026] EWHC 980 (Fam)
This was an application to withhold the names and identities of various professionals from parents in ongoing care proceedings. The child has been in foster care since last summer and it appears that the parents hadn’t had contact with her since then. Anonymity was sought on the basis that the parents, and an ideological group they belong to (‘sovereign citizens’) posed a risk of serious psychological and physical harm to the relevant professionals. This is obviously an unusual application to be made, as it was made on behalf of the Cafcass guardian, the whole local authority social work team, and the child’s solicitor. The facts are very peculiar but the analysis of the court’s powers to withhold names of professionals is interesting. The judge made what he called a ‘withholding order’ to maintain their anonymity because of the extreme nature of the parents’ beliefs and the father’s conviction and prison sentence for violence against court professionals.
Cheshire West and Cheshire Council v X and others [2025] EWHC 3628 (Fam)
Although this hearing took place in November, the judgment wasn’t published until April. It’s a lengthy judgment mainly concerned with contact between a young teenage boy and his father. There’d been a series of private and public law proceedings since 2012. The child had been subject to a care order since 2021 and living in a children’s home since summer 2024. The main issue in 2025 was that he had become very anxious and unwell because of his father’s continual insistence on contact and interference with local authority attempts to protect him. The judgment includes details of expert evidence that the child should not carry on being asked his wishes and feelings about contact.
Several orders were made by HHJ Pates, sitting as a High Court judge in Chester Family Court, including using the inherent jurisdiction to restrict the father’s parental responsibility and permit the LA to exclude him from their full statutory duties to keep parents of looked-after children informed about them, and not to have to seek the father’s views; a non molestation order to protect the child from the father; and a section 91(14) [of the Children Act 1989] barring order against the father making any further court applications before the child turns 16.
Birmingham City Council v BR and Another [2026] EWFC 87 (B)
This is an interesting judgment where the court allowed an application by a mother with learning disabilities for a community/residential assessment under section 38(6) of the Children Act 1989 and also sets out the judge’s reasons for not allowing the LA permission to appeal.
This judgment is published under a more conventional title on BAILII – A Local Authority v Mother & Ors.
The LA was applying for care and placement orders in relation to sisters aged seven and three. The only options were adoption or long-term foster care, but the judge, HHJ Gordon-Saker, was concerned about the possibility of the children being separated if an adoptive placement for them together couldn’t be found. She also considered that the children would benefit from continuing some future direct contact with their mother. Remarkably, the adoption agency simply reported that they didn’t have any resources to oversee post-adoption contact (although the judge was only suggesting three visits a year). In these unusual circumstances, the judge concluded that long-term fostering would better meet the children’s needs than placement orders.
D v E (Welfare decision following findings of Domestic Abuse) [2026] EWFC 77 (B)
A fact-finding hearing in Swindon Family Court last September has made findings of serious abuse of a mother by a father which had directly affected their child. A section 7 [of the Children Act 1989] report was then directed; this was completed in January and recommended that supervised direct contact with the father should cease until he completed a domestic abuse perpetrators programme and therapy, and could demonstrate hie behaviour had changed. After analysing the evidence, the judge concluded that direct contact orders should end and that any indirect contact be at the mother’s discretion.
Regarding publication of the judgments, the judge said that treatment of domestic abuse issues by courts is a topic of considerable public debate and concern, and it is important that, where possible, information is made available to inform the public. The mother had agreed to publication although the father had objected on the basis of possible reputational damage. The judge didn’t agree this was a strong argument as the judgment would be anonymised in accordance with guidance.
OTHER TRANSPARENCY etc NEWS
The Nearly Legal blog reported on 20 April the sad news that its founder, housing lawyer Giles Peaker, had died following a short illness. There were many lovely tributes to Giles from other legal bloggers, including Colin Yeo on Free Movement: Nearly Legal and Giles Peaker: An Appreciation, and Gordon Exall on Civil Litigation Brief: A Tribute To Giles Peaker: “Nearly Legal” – An Extraordinary Man With Extraordinary Talents. We would like to add our own. Giles was one of the small number of reliable commentators who have been writing about the law and explaining cases in an accessible way since the early days of legal blogging, before and during the decent years of social media, when sensible engagement was still possible. His death will be a huge loss to those who relied on his blog for vital nuggets they would not be able to get elsewhere. The funeral will be at noon on 22 May 2026 at Harwood Park Crematorium.
The Nuffield Family Justice Observatory’s Chart of the Month for April showed the ‘Steepest rise in private law applications in a decade’: see Trends in the Family Justice System in England and Wales in 2025, based on last year’s MOJ data. The increase in cases does not yet appear to have had an impact on the duration of proceedings, which has been decreasing in both public and private law cases, it says, and there may be a number of different factors driving the increase in private law cases (which now outnumber public law applications by more than 3 to 1). One of these is ‘technological change, such as the use of AI chatbots, which can validate feelings and encourage parents to seek court resolution to conflicts as well as support them to make applications’.
The Judiciary published a Message from Mr Justice Nicklin: Update on the Transparency and Open Justice Board (TOJB) (30 April 2026) reporting on the board’s work so far as it marked its second anniversary. Having set its Key Objectives in the light of an initial public consultation, the Board has now entered the implementation phase of its work through the development and delivery of a Change Impact Assessment. (This measures achievement of objectives according to a RAG (red amber green) traffic light schema. The results are not visible in this roundup but perhaps they will be next time?) In the meantime, the main projects have been:
- The Access to Core Documents pilot in the Court of Appeal (Civil Division), which makes material like skeleton arguments and the judgments appealed against accessible to remote observers of public hearings.
- A similar but separate pilot to improve public access to documents entering the public domain in the Commercial Court, London Circuit Commercial Court and the Financial List, via the online filing portal, CE-file.
- Work is also underway to extend broadcasting (but not live streaming) to the Administrative Court (a bit like the scheme that has run somewhat intermittently in the Court of Appeal Criminal Division for the last decade or so, via permissions given to third party terrestrial broadcasters, but not on YouTube or similar on-demand service). Subject to Parliament’s approval, this is expected to progress from early 2027.
- In April 2026, HMCTS introduced regional Open Justice Champions to act as consistent points of contact for judges, staff, the media, and the public, providing practical support on matters such as access to hearings, including remote access.
- Efforts are progressing to improve the publication of tribunal decisions of the First-tier Tribunal Immigration and Asylum Chamber (FtTIAC).
Sir Colin Birss, Chancellor of the High Court gave a speech to The City of London Law Society on Legal professional privilege in the Age of AI (22 April 2026) in which he discussed how judges were now using generative artificial intelligence tools in the writing of their judgments. One of these, interestingly, was to perform and/or check anonymisation of judgments, including not just removing, redacting or pseudonymising names, but also detecting risks of jigsaw identification through other clues in the text. Another use was to generate transcripts, which will have obvious benefits given the delay and expense of the current system (see TOJB item above). The speech went on to discuss the implications for legal professional privilege of a litigant discussing their case with, and uploading information to, a bot such as Chat GPT rather than a professional lawyer. Commenting on the speech in a post entitled Judging AI, Joshua Rozenberg observed drily that ‘We can expect to hear a lot more from the judiciary about the unprecedented impact of AI in the months and years to come.’
The Judiciary announced the Appointment of Sir Stephen Cobb as the new President of the Family Division (23 April 2026), following the retirement of Sir Andrew McFarlane (see ‘Top family judge’ bows out).
FORTHCOMING EVENTS
Family justice 2030: What a child needs
Webinar held by Nuffield Family Justice Observatory will be held online on Wednesday 3 June 2026 at 4.30pm through to 6pm. The purpose of the event is to bring professionals together to reflect and reimagine the future of the family justice system and hear from some of the leading thinkers in this space. Apply here to reserve a place.
TRANSPARENCY PROJECT NEWS
We have filed a complaint to press regulator IPSO about inaccuracies in reporting of a family law case. For more on this, see Inaccurate press reporting on a family court contact dispute. We’ll update on any response in due course.
Finally…
We have a small favour to ask!
TEN YEARS A CHARITY
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 over 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.
Featured image: photo by Lucy Reed