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 Times (£) had a piece, How my fairytale marriage became a £6.5m nightmare divorce (31 July 2026) about the hard-fought unravelling of Meerna Faraj’s marriage to multimillionaire banking executive Sohail Sultan Ahmad, prompting a Court of Appeal judge to rebuke them saying “The costs, which are extraordinary, reflect the bitterness and distrust between this couple at the end of their marriage.” Her ex-husband denied having hidden £16m of his assets, and claimed he had to borrow from friends and family just to get by. Both parties had appealed against an earlier High Court judgment, as had a bank (in respect of a transaction involving the matrimonial home which was alleged to have been a sham). The Court of Appeal ordered a previous divorce settlement to be reopened and relitigated in the High Court in London, which the newspaper proudly reminded us is the ‘divorce capital of the world’. No judgment is cited, but we assume it must be Faraj v Ahmad [2026] EWCA Civ 962.
The BMJ (British Medical Journal) (£) reported (as did several newspapers and more specialist sources) that Puberty blocker trial to go ahead after legal challenge is rejected (3 Aug 2026). It said campaigners had tried to stop the high profile Pathways trial on the grounds that there were insufficient safeguards in place and that the treatment could cause long term physical and psychological harm to participants, but Mr Justice Chamberlain (sitting in the Administrative court) had ‘rejected their application for a judicial review on the basis that none of the grounds of challenge had a realistic chance of success’. The BBC also reported that Puberty blockers trial can start recruiting children after judge rejects legal challenge (31 July 2026) explaining that the trial, run by researchers at King’s College London (KCL), would start recruiting more than 220 children aged between 11 and 16 years old from 1 August. The study had been commissioned to assess the benefits or risks of puberty blockers, after the 2024 Cass Review into gender services had found the evidence for treating young people with the drugs was ‘remarkably weak’. The judgment is R (Bayswater Support Group) v Health Research Authority [2026] EWHC 2043 (Admin).
The Times reported that Abuser had arrest warrant 18 months before he killed toddler (1 Aug 2026) but police had failed to detain Harrison Simpson, who had just been ‘handed a life sentence and told he must serve at least 28 years in prison’ for the ‘sadistic’ murder of his partner’s two-year-old daughter Isabelle Welsh the previous September. The child’s mother Alexandra Walker, was also convicted of her murder and sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 21 years. Cleveland police admitted that they had failed to carry out the warranted for Simpson’s arrest issued by Teesside magistrates in March 2024, following his failure to attend court for breaching an non-molestation order after threatening a former partner. The report goes on to list a series of failures by various other agencies, prompting a multi-agency rapid review following the toddler’s death.
The Times reported that Pair to pay £100,000 for illegal children’s home in Ofsted crackdown (4 Aug 2026) which was about a care home boss called Davidson Lynch-Shyllon (who is also apparently a musician) and his business partner, Miriam Ekhator, who were fined for illegally running unregistered residential children’s homes in what is apparently the first criminal prosecution for such an offence brought by the regulator Ofsted. Though they received more than £1.8 million for child placements from councils in Kent between 2022 and 2025, they failed to registered their homes as required by law. They are now disqualified from doing so.
The Mirror reported Grieving mum fights back tears describing son’s death as ‘horror movie’ (6 Aug 2026) which was about a campaign to extend ‘Jade’s law’, under which parental responsibility is removed when a person is convicted of killing their partner, to cases where parents cause serious harm to their children. The report says Jo Early, the grieving mum of the title, had lobbied then justice minister Baroness Alison Levitt KC (since replaced) and Victims’ Rights Commissioner Claire Waxman.
The Times reported that Schoolgirls record video of ‘how boys become rapists’ (7 Aug 2026). The viral video, labelled Thin End of the Wedge, highlighted the misogyny, including threats and insults and a ‘rape list’, experienced by girls at a school in the North East from their fellow pupils. It prompted calls by Bridget Phillipson, the minister for women and equalities, to place the need to challenge such attitudes at the forefront of public awareness.
Legal Futures reported that Judge condemns “utter incompetence” of family law firm (13 Aug 2026) in what appears to be a rather exasperated response to some fair inexplicable errors, carelessness, ignorance of the rules etc. The report refers by link to the judgment of Deputy District Judge Hales in the case of Pool v Pool [2026] EWFC 226 (B). It concludes with a stern more-in-sorrow-than-anger warning: ‘I would hope that this judgment leads to those involved reflecting upon their conduct, seeking further training or guidance, and ensuring that their clients receive a significantly improved level of service in the future.’
Social Work World reported that A hospital cleared a children’s ward for one boy who is not being treated there (13 Aug 2026). This was about a deprivation of liberty case, concerning a 15 year old boy who, despite repeated incidents of self-harm and vulnerability to exploitation, had been assessed as not meeting the criteria for Mental Health Act detention. A general hospital in Lancashire had cleared an entire children’s ward so that he could live there with security staff. The judge, HHJ Burrows, sitting as a High Court judge, had joined an NHS trust to the care proceedings and sent his judgment to three Secretaries of State. He also went out of his way to say the social workers and the boy’s mother had done their jobs, the report said. The boy’s confinement was not for the purpose of treating his underlying disorder, merely so that decisions can be made about what happens next: see Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council v AD [2026] EWHC 2148 (Fam).
The BBC reported that Parents pushed to breaking point by Child Maintenance Service, BBC told (17 Aug 2026) after a Panorama investigation heard that their efforts to get the agency tasked with helping to secure financial support for children after separation or divorce to help them is ‘driving them to breaking point’. According to the report ‘One mother said she turned to food banks after the CMS failed to make her ex-partner pay child maintenance, leaving arrears of almost £10,000. Another said she had been forced to skip meals after her abusive ex-partner stopped paying.’ The CMS is currently dealing with more than 800,000 cases in England, Scotland and Wales, an increase of 300,000 over the last five years. More than a million children are affected.
Legal Futures reported that Barrister recorded court hearings and made fun of ex-employee (17 Aug 2026) saying the barrister in question, who had made illicit audio recordings of court hearings in family proceedings, has been disbarred. She also failed to keep the affairs of the client confidential, sending Child Maintenance Service appeal papers to the personal email address of a person she employed to help with the case without first asking them to sign a confidentiality agreement. The report notes that a previous disciplinary hearing in 2021 had found the same barrister, who had been called in 2001 and had switched from criminal to family law, ‘was simply not on top’ of the rules, and had ordered her to shadow an experienced family law practitioner for six months. She does not seem to have learned her lesson. The Law Society Gazette also covered the story: Barrister disbarred over court recordings (13 Aug 2026).
The BBC reported that IVF staff accused of misleading UK parents about sperm and egg donors in northern Cyprus (18 Aug 2026) saying that at least 30 children were feared to have been conceived by IVF treatment in northern Cyprus using the wrong sperm or egg donors. The report points out that European Union laws do not apply in northern Cyprus, which is only legally recognised by Turkey, and the clinics are loosely regulated while promising clients low prices, high success rates, and a wide choice of sperm and egg donors. Although donors are not identified, their characteristics are selected by the clients, who are now concerned that their child’s genetic heritage may not be what they imagined. See also a comment piece by Hannah Barnes in The Times, IVF tourists suffer the ultimate betrayal (22 Aug 2026).
The Times reported that Travelodge boss steps down amid focus on safety after sexual assault (20 Aug 2026). This was about the resignation of Jo Boydell, the chief executive of the budget hotel chain, following incidents in which hotel staff had wrongly allowed abusive male perpetrators access to the rooms of female victims. Reports of guests being handed keys to other people’s rooms continued to come to light.
BBC London Investigations reported that ‘He secretly took intimate photos then used them to control me’ (20 Aug 2026) which was about ‘sextortion’ used not so much as a form of financial blackmail but rather for control and coercion, often of minors, in an abusive relationship. The article focuses on one such case, but discusses the problem in general terms with input from Childline and the NSPCC among others.
The Times reported that ‘We chose not to marry. New laws for couples threaten my financial freedom’ (20 Aug 2026) with some late personal views about the government’s cohabitation law consultation, A fairer end to relationships. The piece (by Helena Kelly, Money News and Investigations Editor) asserts, with evidence from a poll, that ‘Despite the imminent changes, research suggests that there is very little awareness, or enthusiasm, for more rights for cohabiting couples.’ (This rather assumes the consultation will either support the proposed ‘imminent changes’ or be ignored in opposing them, which sounds a bit cynical. But perhaps not unrealistic.)
Sky News reported ‘Don’t rape, sexually assault or make kissing noises’, asylum seekers warned in guidance about living in UK (20 Aug 2026). This referred to a booklet published by the government, entitled Understanding behaviours and expectations in the UK: a guide for asylum seekers, explaining in simple language for the benefit of asylum seekers ‘what is expected of you when living in the UK’. It warned readers not to harass people, that consent was needed for every sexual act and that women were free to go out to work or study and make decisions about their own life. The Sky News report said ‘Men appear to be the primary target for the instructions, although there are also resources for asylum seekers who think they may be victims of illegal behaviour.’ The booklet provoked a good deal of criticism, on the one hand from those who thought the advice should have been obvious and on the other from those who found it patronising and divisive. Responses from other political parties were varied. According to the BBC (Asylum seekers told rape and harassment illegal in UK in new Home Office booklet) ‘The Conservatives said any asylum seekers breaking UK law should be deported’ and Reform said ‘the publication showed the government knows that they are a menace’ while someone from the Green Party called on the Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood to apologise for a ‘grave error of judgement.’ A number of civil society organisations including Asylum Matters published a joint statement, Rights groups condemn divisive and racist ‘behaviours guide’, saying ‘This guide will do nothing to support, inform or empower women. All it will do is fuel suspicion, prejudice, division and harmful myths about the nature and causes of gendered violence.’
The Times had a piece by Harry Wallop on What goes on in employment tribunals? I spent a week finding out (22 Aug 2026) in which the reporter watched a few of the cases from a backlog of 64,000, many of them delayed for years. The expansion of rights under the new Employment Rights Act is only going to increase the backlog, he says. Overall it presents a beak and depressing account of what might be termed front line (lower level) court reporting, much of which could apply to first instance family courts. The state of the court building leaves a lot to be desired, while remote hearings are often blighted by connection problems or extraneous noise. The increasing use of AI bots by unrepresented claimants is another looming problem, as a barrister comments: “The AI is often quite impressive and of course it is plausible, but it often creates intricate, arcane and often irrelevant arguments that [the judge] has to wade through and unpick. In a system that is seriously under pressure and creaking from the weight of cases, this is likely to be the straw that breaks the camel’s back.”
The Law Society Gazette reported that Divorce order finally made after 15 listed hearings (1 Sept 2026). This was about the case of HJ v QY [2026] EWFC 245 (B) in which Recorder Nahal-Macdonald, sitting as a deputy district judge, said there had been ‘systematic non-disclosure’ by the husband, after more than a dozen separate hearings before an array of different judges. The husband’s failure to engage with the process, to the point of being threatened with contempt of court proceedings, had exacerbated and prolonged the process, adding to their cost, for which he ultimately paid more. The judge said: ‘I am grateful to the erudite and earnest assistance of Mr Mouillé, who provided pro bono advocacy through the ‘Advocate’ scheme. For the reasons outlined below, I decided to make a costs order pursuant to s.194 Legal Services Act 2007 and FPR r.28.3(6)–(7), that the respondent pay a sum representative of counsel’s time to the Access to Justice Foundation.’
The Times reported that ‘It was like a witch hunt’: one innocent mother’s battle to keep her son ( 5 Sept 2026). This was a long article by Emily Dugan about a mother subject to a formal child protection investigation under section 47 of the Children Act 1989, and the increasing use of such investigations by some local authorities, which is evidently stressful for the mothers involved, and often leads nowhere, she says. The article quotes research by Lancashire University, led by Prof Andy Bilson, which shows that local authorities that have already introduced the multi-agency safeguarding teams (as currently favoured by the government) are associated with ‘more investigations that ultimately fail to uncover any more children genuinely at risk, or to prevent more serious incidents’, which he blames on a ‘risk-averse culture’ that overwhelms child-protection teams.
The Mirror reported Everything we know as desperate dad appeals to mum to return kids after three months on the run (8 Sept 2026), which was about an American financier who had been awarded full custody of his two young children by a court in Colorado, but whose ex-wife, had failed to return them after a Christmas visit to her in London, as ordered by the US court, and now appeared to have abducted them. The report quotes from the Colorado judgment and says the English High Court has allowed details of the case to be published in an effort to help find the boys. There are similar reports, including photographs of the boys, who are both named, in The Times, The Independent, the Sun, and Sky News.
The Times reported that ‘Micro-managing’ parents clog family courts with trivial disputes (21 Sept 2026) saying parents have been warned against clogging up family courts after applications for Specific Issue Orders (SIOs) have risen substantially over the past decade, according to recent figures from the MOJ. It quotes a judgment by Judge Stephen Wildblood from 2020, which is not very recent, but adds some quotes from a solicitor who mentions another judge commenting on the problem in a more recent case.
Yorkshire Live reported that Bonnie Blue’s latest stunt so ‘deeply disturbing’ there are calls for authorities to intervene (22 Sep 2026). It said a child protection lawyer had called for a safeguarding assessment in response to the decision by Bonnie Blue, described as a ‘controversial adult content creator’ who ‘made headlines by sleeping with 1,057 men in just 12 hours’, to ask fans to suggest a name for her newborn baby, whose birth she had announced ‘in an unconventional video on 30 August, filmed while sitting on a hospital toilet eating toast’. She was subsequently reported to the NSPCC by the Conservative Party for allegedly using her newborn child to promote a sex stunt.
The Times reported that Jehovah’s Witnesses ease ban on blood treatments (21 Sept 2026) after the governing body of the Christian religious denomination based in Warwick, New York, USA, announced that ‘the decision to accept red cells, white cells, plasma or platelets from another person’s blood is a matter of personal conscience. Likewise, each Witness must decide whether or not to donate blood for the clearly expressed purpose of providing components or fractions for use by another person.’ However, the ban on whole blood transfusions remained in place, as this is ‘a core teaching based on the command to ‘abstain from blood’ (Acts 15:20)’. As the report points out, ‘There have been several high profile cases over the past 15 years where courts have granted doctors permission to override a religious refusal to accept blood, usually in cases where parents have refused to allow their children to receive potentially life-saving treatments.’ See also: Law & Religion UK blog, Jehovah’s Witnesses to allow blood products (21 Sept 2026).
Legal Futures reported that Judge allows counsel to record and transcribe proceedings (28 Sept 2026) saying a judge in Southwark Crown Court, Sir Nicholas Rimmer, had allowed six barristers to record proceedings instead of taking manual notes, recognising that the move is ‘something of a leap into uncharted territory’. He explained the decision by pointing out that ‘the Crown Court did not offer “reliable provision of instant daily transcripts to professional court users”, unlike in other countries, like Australia.’ The application was granted under rule 6.9 of the Criminal Procedure Rules, ‘solely for the purpose of trial work and preparation’. Each counsel had to provide an assurance that they were a data processor registered to handle others’ data in compliance with the GDPR, and any transcription should be done off the internet (and definitely not made available to any AI large language models).
The Guardian reported that ‘Just like that, I lost my girls’: the mother who feels betrayed by the family courts (29 Sept 2026). This was a long piece by Hannah Summers exploring a case in which a woman had had her children taken away by reason of parental alienation after being ‘diagnosed’ by unregulated psychologist, Melanie Gill. She questions ‘how one unregulated court expert using a theory that official guidance in England and Wales now says is a “harmful pseudo-science” could wield so much power over her life’. Gill’s recommendations had, the mother said, gone against the view of all the other professionals who had dealt with the family. Adding to her distress over the separation, was the fact of not being allowed to explain to close friends why her children were no longer with her. She was, she says, “effectively gagged”.’ But it transpires that the mother’s case was eventually reversed, in a judgment by Judd J in O v C [2025] EWFC 334 which is fairly scathing about the original judgment and its reliance on Gill’s evidence.
BROADCAST & AUDIO COVERAGE
In an episode of Law Pod UK on Deprivation of Liberty (10 Aug 2026) barrister Rosalind English discusses with Amelia Walker the unanimous decision by the Supreme Court in Reference by the Attorney General for Northern Ireland [2026] UKSC 16 to overturn the rigid “acid test” laid down in the earlier Cheshire West case, which they said wrongly departed from Strasbourg jurisprudence, replacing it with a multifactorial approach weighing restriction type, setting, duration, and effect. Crucially, it held that lacking capacity doesn’t automatically preclude someone from validly consenting to arrangements that would otherwise be a deprivation of liberty. There is also more commentary on the case from the Nuffield Family Justice Observatory in Deprivation of liberty and children and young persons and young people after AGNI (11 Aug 2026), but their focus is on the judgment’s implications for children and young people aged under 18.
The BBC ‘Scams and Scandals’ TV series (now on iPlayer) had an episode The Chemical Killer: Death by Dating (7 Sep 2026) in which Rachel Stonehouse investigated how Richard Scatchard, a man with a history of drugging and sexually assaulting women stretching back decades, and who had been given four life sentences, was able to defy the law again and date someone without her finding out about his criminal past, something her family only discovered after her death. Stonehouse also talks to one of his other victims.
There was more publicity about the Pringle v Nervo case in an episode (30 August 2026) of a Channel 4 series, ‘Love Cheats’, The Millionaire and the Superstar DJ.
Sky News broadcast an investigation on How family courts are failing domestic abuse survivors (22 Sept 2026) which included an interview with the new President of the Family Division, Stephen Cobb, who had said a change in “culture” was needed in the system. A number of mothers spoke about their traumatic experiences of family court proceedings.
A recent Resolution podcast in a series called Talking Family Law featured a longer interview with the President, in which he talked about a collaborative problem-solving approach to family justice. Interestingly, the President denied he was responsible for the name ‘Child Focused Courts’ which the interviewer said was a difficult term to remember. He also mentioned a new Department for Education initiative, the Families First Partnership Programme, which is anticipated to offer early help to families before a crisis leads to court proceedings.
AI AND TRANSPARENCY
The Law Society Gazette had a story, Yorkshire solicitor wins £75,000 grant for pet guardian platform (6 Aug 2026) about winners of the UK Women in Innovation Awards 2025/26. It led with the Yorkshire solicitor’s digital platform for owners to plan ahead for their pet’s future care, but went on to mention a prize won by a former litigant in person, Nimrita Dadlani, whose project, Pivot Technologies Ltd, founded in 2022, helps family lawyers and litigants in person turn ‘chaotic’ evidence into ‘structured, fully cited court-ready’ case files. It has already been adopted by some family law firms.
Writing in The Times, former justice minister Lucy Frazer KC said I’ve seen justice from all angles. This is how tech could speed it up (8 Aug 2026). She says that steps have been taken to use AI to make the administration of justice more efficient, ‘But as a former minister who has seen the scale of the problems, and now as an adviser to a legal AI tech company, it is clear to me that we are merely scratching the surface of what can be done.’ She suggests ‘Deep legal research tools’ (in other words, AI) could be used to replace the advice lost to those in legal aid deserts – but fails to acknowledge the widely reported risks of hallucination and ‘fake citation’ of cases and legislation. Her praise for the online court which she claims has eliminated errors in divorce applications overlooks the massive current backlog in the only probate system.
The Guardian reported that Meta glasses banned from courts in England and Wales (11 Aug 2026) after His Majesty’s Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) made clear that the smart glasses, which can record video, will be confiscated from anyone entering its judicial buildings. A similar ban has been imposed in the courts of New York, and earlier this year a judge in California threated members of Meta’s chief executive, Mark Zuckerberg, with contempt of court proceedings after seeing them wearing the glasses in his court. Filming and photography is generally prohibited in the courts and tribunals managed by HMCTS (with exceptions, eg for remote hearing and live streaming purposes), but there is also a risk of using the smart glasses to coach witnesses: in March the BBC reported that a judge had accused a witness of having been ‘assisted or coached in his replies to questions put to him during cross examination’. Once the glasses were removed, an interpreter was still translating a question when the witness’s mobile phone began broadcasting a voice – which he later blamed on Chat GPT. The judge found his evidence to be ‘unreliable and untruthful’.
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) published a Warning Notice on Misuse of AI (17 Aug 2026). It said the SRA was concerned in particular about two potential problems.
- ‘The first relates to court, or other, documents containing false or incorrect information, including citations, as a result of the misuse of AI.’ A number of examples are given, of recent cases involving hallucinated or fake citations, among other issues.
- The second potential problem is that ‘those we regulate are not fully considering and appropriately mitigating risks to client confidentiality when using AI systems, particularly in relation to clients’ personal data or other confidential information.’
The Law Society Gazette reported that Litigant files 300-page skeleton generated entirely by ChatGPT (18 Sept 2026). The appellant in Hancox v Sutherland [2026] EAT 139 filed a document containing almost 132,000 words and gave the respondents just one day to identify any inaccuracies or incorrect quotations before the hearing the following day. Marcus Pilgerstorfer KC, sitting as a deputy High Court judge in the Employment Appeal Tribunal, refused to look at the AI-generated document. He allowed the appeal to proceed only on the basis of the one ground identified in the appellant’s notice, arguing that the employment tribunal below had unfairly dismissed his claim on the ground that it had been ‘conducted in a scandalous, unreasonable and vexatious manner by conducting a social media campaign on LinkedIn, making a fair trial impossible’. The appeal was dismissed. The judgment contains a warning about the use of AI and the need to comply with procedural requirements.
The Independent reported that Police officer asked AI to write victim statement ‘to make judge weep’ (22 Sept 2026) in what appears to have been a recent sentencing appeal in the Court of Appeal Criminal Division. The court was told that a police officer had prompted Microsoft Copilot to create a personal victim statement to ‘make a judge or reader weep’ and for it to achieve the ‘highest sentence, after the defendant had admitted offences including grievous bodily harm against a police officer. But the Court of Appeal decided the victim statement had not made any difference to the 44-month prison sentence imposed by Nottingham Crown Court, which they said was based on facts and evidence which were not hallucinated.
Nagalro released its Guidance on the Lawful and Responsible Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in social work practice (28 Sept 2026). It covers a number of areas of concerns in relation to the use of AI, but stresses that it is an evolving area and the guidance is not definitive. It highlights three particular risks: First, issues about confidentiality and privacy; secondly, the risk that AI can produce inaccurate or false information; and thirdly, an emerging risk that AI can lead to cybersecurity threats. The hope is that the guidance will help independent social workers meet their particular legal obligations and take advantage of the technology’s capacity to increase efficiency by carrying out time-consuming administrative tasks.
In Need a Good Lawyer? (29 Sept 2026) Joshua Rozenberg blogged on A Lawyer Writes about the risks of consumers relying on an AI assistant to recommend a solicitor. According to a recent report, they risk being directed to firms that have been fined by their regulator or even shut down. The report is AI’s Blind Spot by Blind Justice. Rozenberg has a go asking ChatGPT for some recommendations and gets alarmingly dodgy answers. You have been warned.
LEGAL BLOGGING
In ‘I want the children to have a relationship with their father but he scares me’ (4 Aug 2026) Julie Doughty observed a case in Cardiff Family Court about a father who had experienced a mental health breakdown during the Covid lockdown and his ongoing dispute with the mother over the living arrangements for their three children, and the very positive assistance provided to the unrepresented father by the qualified legal representative (QLR) in this case, which resulted in HHJ Paul Hopkins KC producing a 188 page fact-finding judgment of more than 700 paragraphs.
Julie followed this up with a second post, Part 2: the welfare decision (12 Aug 2026) discussing the welfare judgment and offering some reflections about legal blogging in a case whose various hearings had occurred over a period of months.
In Change of school for a child during care proceedings (4 Sept 2026) Julie attended a hearing about a local authority wanting to move a child under an interim care order to a school nearer where he currently lives, despite his mother’s objections.
In A family damaged by court proceedings? (22 Sept 2026) Julie attended six hearings as a legal blogger over 12 months, mostly by remote link, in a sad case involving child arrangements for a 12 year old boy following his parents’ acrimonious separation. The situation was a tragedy because there were no safeguarding risks to justify a severance of the boy’s relationship with his father and, unless this was resolved, said the judge, he would grow up suffering long-term consequences.
RECENT COMMENTARY
Professor Russell Sandberg on the Law & Religion UK blog had Five suggestions on wedding law reform (7 Sept 2026) in response to the government’s now closed consultation on wedding law report, Tying the Knot: Reforming weddings law in England and Wales. But he says they are ‘mere tweak’s’, adding that ‘The vast majority of the proposals are to be welcome as they stand and represent an improvement on the Law Commission’s already stellar work.’
Rights of Women commented on a case in which Family Court declines to reopen parental alienation findings (14 Sept 2026). This was about the case of Re SB (A Child) (Alienating Behaviour: Application to Reopen Findings)[2026] EWFC 264 in which the court refused a mother’s application to reopen an earlier decision in which findings of parental alienation had been made, on the evidence of a regulated psychologist. The blog points out that previous case law has focused on unregulated experts, whereas in this case the person who had assessed the family was regulated. HHJ Stephen Smith, acting as High Court judge, concluded that the earlier findings should not now be set aside because they were, ‘in broad terms, consistent with the modern approach that is now required in relation to determining allegations of alienating behaviour’.
Rights of Women also commented that the Court of Appeal publishes first judgment on new Child Focused Courts (29 Sept 2026) in a case in which they had intervened to highlight concerns about how the new model is being implemented. The judgment first appeared on the judiciary website . We blogged about this case here: Is the Child Focused Court model allowing time to really focus on children’s welfare? And Joshua Rozenberg commented on his blog in Child-focused courts (30 Sept 2026).
NEW JUDGMENTS OF INTEREST
(Other than discussed above.)
We wrote individual blog posts on these judgments during August and September:
Re C (Child Arrangements Orders; Domestic Abuse; Child Focused Court) [2026] EWCA Civ 1216 – Is the Child Focused Court model allowing time to really focus on children’s welfare?
Re E (Special Guardianship: Public Law Proceedings [2026] EWCA Civ 1167 – Special guardianship orders and threshold of harm
FH v MH (PD12J: Parallel Criminal Proceedings) [2026] EWFC 195 (B) – Domestic abuse findings and a criminal trial
Kent County Council v M & Ors [2026] EWFC 212 (B) – Why isnt DR G named?
PP & Anor v RR (leave to withdraw parental order application) [2026] EWFC 172 – The parent trap: the legal conundrum of surrogacy
In the petition of DM [2026] SC 32
This is a rare thing – a case about children’s welfare reached the Supreme Court. It’s from Scotland but will be binding on the whole of the UK. It was about international child abduction and the scope of the Article 13(b) defence in the Hague Convention. The issue was whether a court can take into account a child’s views as to whether there is a grave risk that their return would expose them to psychological harm or otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation. The court decided that the views of a 14 year old (who was saying he wanted to return to the US) should be taken into account. However, in this case, his own views did not determine the matter. The 13(b) defence had been established by his mother, who was opposing his return.
Re Mustafa (a child) [2026] EWHC 2159 (Fam)
This is possibly the first published case about the deprivation of liberty (DoL) of a child following the significant ‘AGNI’ case (A Reference by the Attorney General for Northern Ireland of a devolution issue under paragraph 34 of Schedule 10 to the Northern Ireland Act 1998[2026] UKSC 16 ) in which the Supreme Court changed its position on the ‘acid test’ for consent to a DoL. The hearing in early August was about a 15 year old boy, subject to a care order, who lived in a specialist residential school, which he liked, and where he was doing well. He is however, locked in and under 1:1 supervision because of his profound disabilities. The judge concluded that under the new test, the boy had given his consent, and there was therefore no DoL and an extension to the former DoL authorisation would not be made.
KM v LN (Appeal: Occupation Order and Interim Child Arrangements) [2026] EWHC 2123 (Fam)
A ‘nesting arrangement’ is when a separated couple agree to alternately living with their children, who stay living in the same home. In this case, the parents’ relationship broke down in 2024 but they all stayed in the same (large) house for about a year, until, unusually, the court made a ‘partial nesting arrangement’ by an order under which each parent would stay at a hotel for some days to allow the other parent time alone with the children. Matters became pretty complicated. In July this year, an occupation order was made excluding the father from the home because the children were suffering from the parental conflict. He would still be able to take them out for ‘spend time with’ contact. The father appealed and the appeal judge, Mr Justice Poole, was struggling to sone extent because (for some reason) there was no transcript or agreed note of the judgment. He concluded that it was not in the children’s welfare for the previous ‘to-ing and fro-ing’ to continue and did not allow the appeal. The father was ordered to leave the house. Children Act 1989 and financial remedies proceedings continue.
F v M (Disclosure to the First Tier Tribunal) [2026] EWHC 2171 (Fam)
This is an interesting case about sharing information from family court proceedings with a different type of court. An eight year old child had been brought to the UK from a Caribbean country without his father’s consent and the father had issued proceedings to try to restore access to his son. The mother was now applying for asylum in the UK for her and their son. She was relying on some allegations that she had made in the family court to challenge a Home Office decision to refuse her asylum. The father argued that the mother was presenting false information about the findings that had been made and applied for disclosure of the family court judgment to the immigration tribunal. The judge concluded that:
there is a powerful public interest in ensuring that the (immigration court and Home Office) are aware that this court, after hearing evidence including from the mother, reached conclusions that bear directly upon parts of the factual narrative relied upon in support of the asylum claims. To withhold that information would risk permitting different parts of the justice system to proceed on materially incomplete information.
R v P (Appeal: Dismissal of Private Law Proceedings at Directions Hearing) [2026] EWHC 2215 (Fam)
Interesting aspects of this private law case include a caring mother who was found to be trying to ‘eradicate the father from the child’s life’ and, on the other hand, a father who was denying responsibility for the domestic abuse findings that had been made against him. A district judge had decided in a one-hour directions hearing, after the fact-finding, to terminate direct contact between the child and her father and made an order for indirect contact. The father appealed on a number of grounds, not all of which were accepted by Harrison J but he did allow the appeal, mainly because the mother had issued separate proceedings for judicial review of a decision that were being made about the father’s immigration status, which the district judge had not taken into account. The case was returned for re-hearing and a Cafcass guardian was appointed.
Re EF (No. 3) (Disclosure to GMC) (Anonymisation and Publication) [2026] EWFC 223 (B)
This was the third judgment in this case published by HHJ Muzaffer at Cardiff Family Court. The earlier judgments included findings of serious physical and emotional abuse and harassment by a medical professional against the mother of their young child. The parents had had quire a brief relationship. The welfare decision regarding their child was that although a declaration of parentage was made in respect of the father, he was refused parental responsibility or contact with the child; non-molestation and section 91(14) barring orders were made to protect the mother and child, and the father was also ordered to pay toward her costs. The third judgment was about whether the court should disclose information about the proceedings regarding the father (who is a hospital doctor) to his regulator, the General Medical Council, and whether the judgments should be published. There is detailed analysis of the position of the respective parties regarding privacy and disclosure and the precautions that should be taken. The judge concluded that it was in the public interest for information to be disclosed to the GMC, who intended to investigate, and for the three judgments to be published.
The Local Authority v D [2026] EWFC 242 (B)
This is an interesting judgment from HHJ Parker in Newcastle family Court, in which he refuses an application by a biological father who didn’t have parental responsibility to be joined as a party late in care proceedings. The application was opposed by all the other parties on the grounds of the extreme danger the father posed to the mother and child. The judge concluded that the proceedings could not be made safe if the father was permitted to participate.
A Council v Mother & Others [2026] EWFC 217 (B)
The interest in this case in care proceedings lies in the topical subject of whether a father’s parental responsibility (PR) should be removed, or whether a lesser order would be in the child’s welfare, managing his exercise of PR by a prohibited steps order. The child, who had been returned to her mother, had suffered catastrophic injuries caused by an attack by her father, leaving her with serious disabilities. Despite an earlier fact finding hearing where the judge had found that the father was solely responsible, he was still denying this. The judge made a series of orders, including a child arrangements order that the child live with her mother, and a 12 month supervision order to support them. After detailed analysis, she also made orders for the father’s PR to be removed and for the child’s name to be changed, as well as a ten year s 91(14) order.
We noticed a minor error in this judgment: under s 9(6) Children Act 1989, it is not exceptional to make a ‘lives with’ order to last beyond a child’s 16th birthday. ‘Lives with’ (formerly ‘residence’) orders usually last until 18, since an amendment to the Act in 2008.
MN v OP & others [2026] EWFC 207 (B)
The judge, HHJ Robinson BEM, said:
I consider it important that this judgment in private law proceedings be published, in furtherance of transparency in the family courts and to highlight the difficulties that can be faced in seeking discovery of the true voice of the child when that voice may be distorted by other influences or experiences.
The judge found that the views of the child (aged about 12) had been unduly influenced by his father. We’d recommend reading this very clearly expressed judgment in which the judge praises all the professionals involved and also describes how he himself met the child and what was said in that meeting.
CBM v MBS (Choice of Secondary School) [2026] EWFC 265 (B)
This is quite an unusual judgment for publication as it is entirely about a dispute between the separated parents as to whether their ten year old child should go to a small independent school or a state secondary school. The judge said:
Both parents agree that D has additional educational needs, that he finds change and transition difficult, and would benefit from practical and supportive learning. Both schools can provide SEND support.
The dispute is not whether one school is generally ‘better’ than the other, or whether private or state school provision is better, but which school is the better fit for D’s particular needs.
The judge concluded that D’s welfare interests throughout the next five years of his education were best met by attending the state school. She added:
I am not sure of the extent to which D is aware of this application. If requested, I would be happy to write him a letter to explain in language accessible to him my decision and the reasons for it
Re CX (No 2) (Domestic abuse: No contact) [2026] EWFC 230
This is a second judgment by Garrido J in the CX case that we wrote about in May in ‘How the MoD tried to cover up domestic abuse by a special forces soldier’. This is the welfare decision, in which the judge concluded that the ongoing effect of the father’s abuse was so severe that immediately stopping contact between the child and her father was the only way to secure her medium and long term welfare, as any form of contact would prevent her mother recovering from diagnosed trauma
Re A, B & C (Children) (Care and Placement) [2026] EWFC 258 (B)
This is another case indicating a more flexible approach now being taken by the judiciary toward post adoption contact. When making care and placement order with regard to a four year old child, HHJ Willans added [60-61]:
Turning to contact I approve the essential planning of the applicant and in doing so agree with the guardian. The applicant is clear in its planning and is supporting direct identity contact post adoption alongside letterbox contact. I cannot agree with the suggestion of monthly contact proposed by [father to C]. I consider setting a contact expectation at this level would diminish the pool of prospective adopters to an unacceptable level. Whilst I accept the benefit of direct contact this must not be allowed to undermine the establishment of a new lifelong relationship with adopters. I do not intend to make an s26 order as I am satisfied the applicant is committed to this plan. I also agree with the sibling proposals which I consider appropriately meet C’s needs.
I would support consideration of a meeting between any prospective adopters and the parents if they are willing to meet. This may have emotional challenges but it has many important positives including giving the parents some sense of confidence as to C’s future care as well as providing both life history knowledge for adopters and a better sense of the parents. My experience tells me these meetings can have real value for the adults and thus for the child. I consider any adopters should have a fair and balanced profile of the parents. I have seen nothing of note within the evidence to suggest they would act to destabilise any placement. I would expect this judgment to be shared with such adopters to inform them in their decision making.
We’re including this judgment in private law proceedings because the judge begins it with a helpful example of a short child-friendly version. The children involved were three boys who were returning from contact visits with their father in a dysregulated state. Unusually, it’s not clear from the judgment how old they are, but the judge had to consider quite detailed issues such as choice of school, membership of football clubs, and use of mobile phones.
R (On the Application Of FZW) v Bristol City Council [2026] EWHC 1956 (Admin)
Two sisters aged 16 and 19 had presented to the local authority as homeless in 2024. The younger child was supported under Children Act 1989 section 17 provisions rather than section 20, which meant she did not qualify for the entitlements of someone who had been ‘looked-after’. The complication had arisen in an effort to keep the two young women together. This is quite a technical judgment but an important one for anyone working with young people in similar circumstances. The court concluded that the council should have recognised that the child required accommodation under section 20. They had ‘discharged that duty in substance if not in form, with the consequence that the claimant was a looked-after child for the purposes of section 22 and 22A-C and was (and remains) a former relevant child – that is, a care leaver – for the purposes of section 23C. She is entitled to the benefits that flow from that status.’
OTHER TRANSPARENCY etc NEWS
The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill introduced in the House of Commons by Lauren Edwards MP on 17 July 2026 (in substantially the same form as the previous one, which ran out of time in the Lords) was given a Second Reading on 11 September 2026 but was defeated.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights issued a report on Human Rights of Children in the Social Care System in England (27 Aug 2026) warning that ‘Children’s social care system failing to support young adults starting life’ and calling for ‘more to be done to make the system easy to navigate for those in need of support, improved complaint mechanisms and greater focus on the wider legacy of being in the care system’. Beyond concerns around the quality of immediate support provided to children, the report highlights the lifelong consequences for children who have engaged with the social care system.
The Department for Education published a policy paper on Enduring relationships for care-experienced children (4 Sept 2026) saying ‘This paper explains why enduring relationships matter; how we are going to change the care and leaving care systems to prioritise them; and how we will work with the sector to ensure they become the golden thread that runs through every child’s life.’ The DfE said it would achieve this by creating homes for enduring relationships, supporting the transition to early adulthood, and ensuring that inspection and accountability guide the system towards prioritising enduring relationships.
The Ministry of Justice published Updated estimates of children with a parent in prison (10 Sept 2026). It said that, following a Labour Party manifesto commitment and the earlier Prisons Strategy White Paper (2021) and Farmer Review (2017), the government was now taking action with pilots to trial the operational recognition and support of children with a parent in prison, working closely with local authorities.
Then government launched a National Taskforce for Tackling Misogyny (20 Sept 2026). The announcement from the Minister for Women and Equalities, Bridget Phillipson MP said ‘the Government, local leaders and experts will look at misogyny prevention across society – including community and the workplaces – so women and girls no longer need to face harmful attitudes’. Members of the taskforce would include representatives from women’s organisations, academia, and local leaders. It added that the government has also updated statutory relationships, sex and health education guidance for schools, challenging myths about women and relationships that are spread online in the ‘manosphere’.
The Attorney General, Ellie Reeves KC MP announced that CPS to give every domestic abuse victim a dedicated liaison officer nationwide (27 Sept 2026) saying its Universal Service for victims and Enhanced Service for survivors of domestic abuse, tested in pilot areas since 2023, would be made permanent across every CPS Area in England and Wales.
FORTHCOMING EVENTS
YALC Legal Advice Competition 2026
This competition is open to all students in their third year of undergraduate study and above, postgraduate students, CPE/LPC/BPTC students, recent graduates, paralegals, and anyone currently applying for training contracts or pupillage. You do not need to be a member of the Association of Lawyers for Children (ALC) to enter. The winner will receive one year’s free membership to the ALC, a work experience programme with solicitors, barristers and a Judge, and a free place at the Saturday session of the annual Conference on 21 November 2026. Four runners up will receive one year’s free membership to the ALC. The format of the competition will be a written problem question. All details and the terms and conditions can be found here.
Family Law Week Private Children Law Conference 2026
9 October 2026 at the De Vere Grand Connaught Rooms, London, 8.30 am to 4.30 pm.
The programme includes a range of panel discussions built around this year’s theme, The Evolving Landscape, which will explore the changing legal, social and practical realities shaping private children law. There is a large number of speakers, led by HH Stephen Wildblood KC. More details and tickets here.
LAG Community Care Conference 2026
20 October 2026 at 39 Essex Chambers, Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1DD.
Legal Action Group, in collaboration with 39 Essex Chambers, invite you to ‘a whistle-stop tour of the key community care cases over the last 12 months’, as well as a wide range of plenaries and workshops with a brilliant line-up of speakers. For more details and to book, see here.
TRANSPARENCY PROJECT NEWS
In a blog post on the Bar Council blog our trustee and founder, Lucy Reed KC, asked Transparency: Now can you see why it matters? (28 Sept 2026). She explains that transparency is ‘not just opening up the courts to the media and legal bloggers, but to a whole host of other ways of doing family justice that make the system more understandable, more insightful, and more accountable’. The piece was also designed to whet the appetite of delegates to the Bar Conference in November for Lucy’s appearance in a panel session on ‘Sunlight on the system: what next for open justice?’
FAMILY LAW AND TRANSPARENCY IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS
Canada
SLAW, Canada’s online legal magazine, had a piece, Busting Myths About Children’s Capacity to Meaningfully Participate (18 Sept 2026) about a series of research papers on child capacity in the context of children’s participation rights, in which the Society for Children and Youth of British Columbia (SCYBC) challenges certain assumptions and persistent myths. This includes a reminder that ;the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) does not require a child to pass a cognitive test before having a right to be heard. Article 12 requires only that a child be “capable of forming his or her own views”.’
United States
The six-week trial in Massachusetts of Lindsay Clancy for the alleged first degree murder of her three children, in what she says was a fit of post-partum psychosis for which she is not responsible, has not unsurprisingly garnered a good deal of coverage in the media, as well as the usual army of podcast detectives and Tiktok pundits. After one of the twelve jurors declined to agree with the eleven who would have found her not guilty, the judge declared a mistrial. This means the prosecution could restart the trial with a new jury or negotiate a plea agreement, or decide to drop the case. After the jurors were released, and became free under US law to speak about the case (in this country, you are sworn to secrecy for evermore) the lone juror who would not acquit told the press that he had no doubt ‘she knew exactly what she was doing and planned it’. But from what another juror said it appeared he may have had doubts about his lack of doubt. We needn’t go into what some of the armchair detectives have been saying about the case, but it isn’t pretty. Meanwhile her husband, having divorced her, says he forgives her. He was briefly out of the house at the time of the killings, apparently to pick up some food and her medication from the pharmacy.
The trial has undoubtedly focused a good deal of attention on the problem of post-partum depression and psychosis. (We reported in our last roundup about the increasing use of mother and baby units to treat the problem.) The following are some of the BBC’s coverage over the last two months:
- Lindsay Clancy’s trial puts postpartum psychosis in the spotlight
- What happens next after Lindsay Clancy’s murder case ends in a mistrial?
- Lindsay Clancy holdout juror says he had no doubt she deliberately killed her children
- Lindsay Clancy’s ex-husband says he forgave her so he would not be ‘eaten up inside forever’
See also:
- The Times, Lindsay Clancy killed her children. Why are so many mothers on her side? (22 Aug 2026) which provides a full account of the ongoing case from Massachusetts, describing the many supporters who come to the court to watch.
- Financial Times, How TikTok creators are cashing in on the Lindsay Clancy murder trial (21 Sept 2026)
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