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 on The ‘common mistake’ people make when divorcing (10 Feb 2025), saying thousands of people could be losing out in ‘DIY divorces’ by couples with little knowledge on the subject. The common mistake was ‘people believing all assets are automatically split evenly on divorce’. That mistaken belief was expressed by 30% of the respondents to a survey asking ten questions designed to gauge people’s understanding of the current law on financial remedies on divorce. The survey findings were set out in a report, Understanding of the law around finances and property on divorce, by Emma Hitchings, Professor of Family Law at the University of Bristol Law School, and Caroline Bryson, a partner at Bryson Purdon Social Research, as part of the Fair Shares project conducted at Bristol University and funded by the Nuffield Foundation. The report found that ‘Overall, the public’s understanding of the law around finances and property on divorce was patchy and often poor, with a substantial proportion of the public having little awareness of the legal position.’ Nor did the experience of going through a divorce necessarily leave people much better informed: the report found that ‘Divorcees were somewhat more knowledgeable about the law than others – they identified an average of 5.2 statements correctly compared to 4.4 statements among those who had not been through a divorce.’
Family Law Week noted that Revised CAFCASS Domestic Abuse Policy issued (10 Feb 2025) but wasn’t able to say much about it since the amendment made by Cafcass was ‘not accompanied by a Press Release’. It said the revised Domestic abuse practice policy ‘is longer and adds a degree of nuance to the previous version, arguably adding greater clarification as to how Officers should access the key component (at paragraph 5 of the Policy), that: “Practitioners must provide a clear, unequivocal, evidence-informed, and compelling rationale in their reports to court for recommending ‘time with’ or ‘live with’ arrangements with a parent when domestic abuse and harm has been shared with the practitioner by the child or by one or both parents”.’
The BBC reported on Judge’s sperm donor warning over man who ‘fathered 180 children’ (11 Feb 2025) saying ‘A sperm donor who claims to have fathered more than 180 children has been used by a judge to warn of the dangers of unregulated sperm donation’. It said ‘Robert Charles Albon, who calls himself Joe Donor, claims to have fathered children all over the world from China to Australia after advertising online’. But he was only ‘used’ by the judge (HHJ Jonathan Furness KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) in the sense of being identified and made an example of, as a ‘horror story’. The report links to the published judgment in A v B and others; Re D (aged 2) [2023] EWFC 333, which we explained more fully in a separate post: Judgment published to warn women against sperm donor who has “180 kids”
The Law Gazette reported that Criminal court’s ‘inordinate’ delays lead to family court hearing committal application (11 Feb 2025). This was about the case of Lafronte v Johnson [2025] EWFC 20 (B), in the claimant had originally complained to the police about the defendant’s alleged breaches of a non-molestation order, one of which was the subject of a criminal prosecution. But in view of the ‘inability of the criminal court to list a trial within a reasonable time frame’, HHJ Reardon allowed the claimant’s application to the Family Court for committal for contempt of court instead.
The Times (£) reported that Data law ‘not a reason to hide reports on mental health killings’ (12 Feb 2025) after the Information Commissioner said that data protection law was not a barrier to the NHS sharing information about the killings by paranoid schizophrenic Valdo Calocane, who fatally stabbed Barnaby Webber and Grace O’Malley-Kumar, both 19, and Ian Coates, 65, in Nottingham in June 2023. Their families had originally been told they could only see a summary of the NHS’s full report but after the ICO’s intervention they were able to see the full report. NHS England said it would review its policies. (In other new, NHS England has since been abolished by the government, as part of a reorganisation, so presumably some other body will inherit its obligation to be more transparent in future.)
Legal Futures reported that Court rejects divorcing husband’s conflict claim against solicitors (17 Feb 2025) saying the ‘Family Court has rejected a divorcing husband’s claim that his wife’s solicitors are conflicted out of acting for her because of past work they did for the couple. It also deprecated the man’s use of his lawyers to mislead the court.’ It refers to the case of NR v SE [2023] EWFC 336 (B) which Deputy District Judge Michael Horton KC said ‘has featured some of the most destructive behaviour I have seen for many years’.
The Independent reported that INXS’s former manager wins divorce battle after estranged parents secretly ‘gifted’ ex-husband £27.6m (18 Feb 2025). This concerned Maria-Christina Copinger-Symes, who once managed rock superstars INXS, and her divorce from former army major James Copinger-Symes. Although she agreed to a settlement of their financial dispute in 2022, she has now won a ruling overturning the order, after learning her super-rich estranged parents Bobby and Felicite Perez de la Sala have sided with her ex-husband, labelling her a ‘Judas’ and secretly gifting him around £27.6m of family money, whilst at the same time cutting her out. The judgment of HHJ Hess on which this news report is based dates from last May but was only recently published: see Copinger-Symes v Copinger-Symes & Anor [2024] EWFC 415.
The Law Gazette had a piece, Mother asks court’s permission to ‘tell her story’ in legal first (20 Feb 2025). Reporter Catherine Baksi said the case was one of the first in which the court made a transparency order to allow limited media reporting of the case. But while the transparency order allowed the press to report and to obtain quotes from the mother, it did not allow the mother to write or speak about the case herself. She was therefore applying to the court to vary the transparency order to permit her to write media articles under a pseudonym, and to accept an invitation from the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS) to speak at a women’s rights and children’s rights event.
Local Government Lawyer had a piece, The Family Drug and Alcohol Court: time to take the brakes off? (20 Feb 2025), following the Family Drug and Alcohol Court Judges Conference in November 2024, which was helpful in explaining how FDACs work – and included views from a range of practitioners.
Tortoise Media had a report, Judge condemns council over missing boy (20 Feb 2025) in which Louise Tickle described how West Northamptonshire Council social workers summarily removed a boy from his family home, thereby putting him in breach of bail conditions, whereupon Northamptonshire police issued an arrest warrant. Lieven J commented that ‘The left hand doesn’t know what the right hand is doing.’
The Law Gazette published In depth: Cardiff Civil and Family Justice Centre is falling apart (24 Feb 2025), in which reporter John Hyde found ‘Leaky roof, missing tiles, inadequate security… the Cardiff Civil and Family Justice Centre is not fit for purpose’. He says:
‘Lawyers and judges look on with envy at relatively new civil justice centres in the likes of Bristol and Manchester, not to mention the 18-room court building being constructed in London’s Fleet Street. The feeling lingers that Cardiff – and other courts in Wales – fall between the cracks, where both Westminster and Cardiff authorities pass on responsibility for funding a purpose-built new court facility that will be worthy of a capital city.’
We agree that Cardiff is bad (at least Newport has a nice waiting room) but would like to point out that it’s not just a problem in Wales: the court in Swindon is even worse.
The Manchester Evening News also had a piece about the collapsing system, Inside the misunderstood crisis at the heart of UK justice (24 Feb 2025), about the crisis in legal aid, as it affects criminal work, and how much worse in certain parts of the country: ‘There is also a cavernous gulf between the representation available in London and, basically everywhere else. Figures shared with the [Manchester Evening News] by the Law Society show that larger cities like Manchester are astonishingly under-represented compared even to individual London boroughs, never mind the whole city.’
The BBC reported that Abandoned baby Elsa’s progress ‘astonishing’, court told (25 Feb 2025), returning to the story of the baby abandoned in an East London park in January 2024, which we have covered in previous roundups. This report was probably prompted by a further hearing in the case at East London Family Court, where Judge Carol Atkinson was hearing care proceedings: Newham Children’s Services has taken her into care and she is currently in foster care.
The BBC reported that Son loses case against parents over move to Africa (27 Feb 2025) which was actually about a 14-year-old boy being sent to a boarding school in Ghana, in the hope of escaping his exposure to the risk of being ‘groomed’ into criminal activity if he stayed in the UK. The boy complained that he had been mistreated at the new school and the standard of education was worse. He applied to be made a ward of court so it could order his return to the jurisdiction of England and Wales, and go back to his old school; but in his judgment in S v F [2025] EWHC 439 (Fam) Mr Justice Hayden declined to overrule the parents’ decision. He said that he was satisfied that the parents’ wish for their son to move to Ghana was ‘driven by their deep, obvious and unconditional love’, and that the boy was at risk of suffering greater harm returning to the UK. He concluded that the parents’ exercise of parental responsibility had been lawful and that, considering the boy’s welfare in the round, he shared their view of where the boy’s best interests lay. There is also a case comment in Local Government Lawyer.
The Sough and South Bucks Observer reported that Windsor council placed children with non-English speaking carer (1 March 2025) following the decision by a judge that Windsor & Maidenhead council had broken the law by placing three traumatised children with a carer who could not speak English or even remember one of their names. A child psychologist had noted that all three children were ‘delayed in their ability to speak and understand what was being said’ and recommended that they receive ‘reparative parenting’ to address the effects of their trauma, but the foster carer the council had placed the children with did not speak English to the children. According to the report by Charlie Moloney, Judge Emma Nott said ‘the local authority as corporate parent was in breach of part of the Children Act of 1989 which mandates that a local authority must ensure, if a child is disabled, accommodation provided is suitable to their particular needs. She added that two of the children should be placed into compliant foster care until long-term foster carers could be found for them, while the other was ordered to be adopted.’
The Mail Online (in another report from Charlie Moloney) Revealed: Chilling words five-year-old told abusive father after his mother hanged herself following years of domestic abuse. (2 March 2025). This was a grim case from Reading family court in which: ‘A five-year-old boy told his father ‘you make mummy die’, after his mother hanged herself following a relentless campaign of domestic abuse. She died by suicide last year following three years in which the father had threatened her with a knife, punched her in the face, threatened to kill himself and threatened to tell social services to take her children away.’ According to the report the Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead council had asked the judge to remove the three children from the care of the father, who was in prison awaiting trial for serious offences. Judge Nott approved the council’s plan for parental responsibility of one of the three children, a girl, to be stripped from the father and for her to be adopted, but found the other two, who were boys, had been so traumatised that they were not realistic candidates for adoption, so ordered that they be placed in long-term foster care until they become adults.
The Law Gazette reported that Media lawyers overturn ‘secret inquest’ move (4 March 2025), in which freelance reporter Charlie Moloney explained how the Media Lawyers Association had backed him in a judicial review challenge to the decision by Crispin Butler, senior coroner for Buckinghamshire, to hold an inquest ‘in writing’, rather than a public hearing. The coroner had justified the move saying it was ‘to protect the family from any glare of publicity’, but the claimants’ letter before action seems to have persuaded him to relent and provide a record of inquest and ruling to the press. (Presumably the effect may also be to make coroners think twice before exercising their statutory power to hold inquests in writing.)
The Guardian reported that More than 170 mothers killed by their sons in 15 years in UK (5 March 2025) citing a report, 2,000 Women report by the Femicide Census, which says it is ‘the most comprehensive single source of UK information about women who have been killed and the men who have killed them’. The report says ‘mental ill health was a factor in 58% of matricide cases. Women were often left “paying the price” for state failures, said Karen Ingala Smith, a co-founder of the campaign group’. The news report continued:
‘Experts said mental health problems and substance abuse, along with grownup children spending longer living with their parents due to a lack of affordable housing, were some of the key factors behind the killings. Misogyny was also cited, with mothers sometimes considered a “safe space” for children to mete out violence.’
In broader terms, the Femicide Census analysis showed that one woman has been killed every three days in the UK since 2009.
The Times (£) had yet another article saying It’s time for divorce courts to recognise the importance of pets (6 March 2025), this time referring to the recent, suitably anonymised, case of FI v DO [2024] EWFC 384 (B). It said that ‘While pets have previously been viewed as chattels (personal property), in this case the court considered the welfare of a couple’s golden retriever as well as the emotional bond between the dog and the children.’ One of the issues in the case concerned the alleged abduction of the dog. In the end, the wife retained the retriever.
The Law Gazette reported Claim against family law firm over alleged negligence reinstated by High Court (6 March 2025), explaining that a ‘Chancery Lane firm that brought a claim for unpaid invoices totalling £91,000 could now face a potential negligence action after its former client’s counterclaim was reinstated by the High Court’. This related to the case of Evans v Hughes Fowler Carruthers Ltd [2025] EWHC 481 (Ch) and concerned earlier proceedings in which Ms Evans had instructed the law firm Hughes Fowler Carruthers Ltd (HFC) to act for her in divorce proceedings. HFC found itself in a position of conflict when representing Ms Evans before Mr Justice Mostyn, after he disclosed that the firm, as well as leading counsel Charles Howard QC, were also acting for Lady Mostyn in her divorce proceedings against him. No objection was raised initially, but Mostyn J’s judgment was later challenged after it emerged that he had sent emails to Lady Mostyn ‘in which he mad disparaging comments about HFC and Mr Howard QC’. Though his judgment was set aside, a question arose as to HFC’s duty to disclose the judge’s emails to their client, given they also owed a duty of confidentiality to Lady Mostyn. Although a way around the problem was found, using different representation, Ms Evans now claimed she had not been fully informed or advised at the time and had wasted costs on needless additional proceedings. She had other complaints, too, in her counterclaim, which the judge below had summarily dismissed but Mr Justice Adam Johnson now said should be allowed to proceed. (NB. The facts are complicated so this summary is necessarily incomplete.)
The Guardian reported that Apple to appeal against UK government data demand at secret high court hearing (12 March 2025). This referred to a hearing in the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT) in which the tech company Apple was planning to object to the issue by the government of a Technical Capability Notice (TCN) to permit back door access to data held by customers on Apple’s iCloud service, for which it provides a level of encryption for users that even it can’t breach. Apple has already withdrawn its Advanced Data Protection (ADP) feature service from UK customers in response to the government’s edict. A number of privacy organisations, such as Privacy International, were also challenging the government’s blanket approach to defeat encryption. The tribunal took the unusual step of publishing a notification of a closed-door hearing before its president, Lord Rabinder Singh, on the afternoon of 14 March, according to the Guardian. (See also: Privacy International: Our challenge against UK’s secret TCN powers.)
Following on from this, The Guardian later reported that Apple’s UK encryption legal challenge heard behind closed doors (14 March) saying that ‘UK media organisations including the Guardian, the BBC, the Financial Times and Computer Weekly made a submission to the tribunal asking for press access on public interest grounds but they failed to gain entry’.
Yorkshire Live reported that Aristocrat Constance Marten ‘fell asleep on newborn in tragic accident’ (15 March 2025). (For some reason all media reports about the tragic runaway parents and their dead baby seem to be obsessed about the mother’s breeding of the social – rather than maternal – kind.) This report covers their retrial at the Central Criminal Court (Old Bailey) for gross negligence manslaughter for the death of their daughter Victoria, whose body was found abandoned in a Lidl bag-for-life. Ms Marten and her partner Mark Gordon kept the birth of their fifth child a secret and fled on 5 January 2023, after their other four children were taken into care.The couple, of no fixed abode, both denied manslaughter and a second charge of causing or allowing the death of a child between 4 January and 27 February 2023. The lurid headline refers to part of their defence evidence. The report cites an earlier one in the Irish Mirror which focuses on the fact that the ‘Wealthy mum … had pretended to be from a Travelling community and adopted a fake name and Irish accent when she turned up at a hospital in Wales in labour’.
The Times (£) reported that Property boss used sham rental to evade £18m alimony, judge rules (17 March 2025). This related to the high-profile big money divorce case of Michael Fuchs, who was said to have used ‘a complex web of deceit’ to defeat claims for financial relief by his ex in the course of their five-year ‘legal battle’. The property involved in the sham rental was ‘an exclusive Cotswolds estate’. The latest judgment against him is described in the report as ‘stinging’, so whether or not he gives zero, Fuchs may consider himself properly stung.
The Guardian reported that Witness statement by Prince Andrew aide should be made public, court rules (21 March 2025). This relates to the case of the Chinese businessman who had dealings with Prince Andrew but was subsequently accused of being a spy and excluded from the UK, a decision against which he sought a review. An anonymity order was lifted during a hearing at the Special Immigration Appeals Commission on 16 December 2024, allowing him to be identified as Tengbo Yang. Following an application by the Guardian and other media parties, the tribunal has now also rejected a claim by Mr Yang to prevent disclosure of a witness statement by Dominic Hampshire, a close friend of the prince, containing apparently embarrassing or indiscreet comments. The principle of open justice outweighed the fact that ‘in Mr Hampshire’s dealings with the royal family there is an expectation of discretion’ though, the tribunal added, he had not cited any contractual obligations of confidentiality. The tribunal’s judgment has been published: Tengbo Yang (formerly known as H6) v Secretary of State for the Home Department.
LEGAL BLOGGING
Julie Doughty wrote last year about a hearing she attended in Cardiff Family Court, about the necessity for an intermediary to assist a father in a fact-finding hearing. We were therefore interested to see recently listed an appeal against a decision made by a judge in a different court that an intermediary was not necessary to assist a mother in similar circumstances. The case was listed as Re: M (a child) and was live streamed. In her position as a legal blogger, Julie had requested copies of the grounds of appeal and the various skeleton arguments ahead of the hearing, which were useful in understanding the issues and writing about the hearing: Court of Appeal to decide on ‘necessity’ for intermediaries.
We continue to receive requests for legal bloggers to cover hearings identified as being of interest, but we do not always have the resources available to do so. We would welcome inquiries by legally qualified persons to help us cover them.
RECENT CASE COMMENTARY
Joshua Rozenberg, on A Lawyer Writes, did a piece, Inconceivable (20 Feb 2025) discussing the case of Re Z (Unlawful Foreign Surrogacy: Adoption) [2025] EWHC 339 (Fam), in which two women in their late sixties engaged the services of Ukranian surrogate mothers via a clinic in Northern Cyprus, without considering the long term impact of their age on any children for which they would thereby hope to become parents. Twins were born to a two separate surrogate mothers under the unlawful arrangement but the couple ran into administrative problems trying to register themselves as parents. Sir Andrew McFarlane P explained that the only way that the two women could become recognised as parents of the two children would be for the court to make an adoption order. He said his judgment in the case was
‘now being handed down and made public in order to draw attention, in entirely anonymous terms, to the circumstances of the case which are likely to be a matter of public interest and concern, and to offer some advice for those who may, in future, unwisely seek to follow the path taken by the two applicants in this case by engaging in an unlawful, commercial, foreign surrogacy arrangement.’
Moreover, as Rozenberg points out:
‘McFarlane warned would-be parents of any age and any sexual orientation who were contemplating entering into a commercial foreign surrogacy arrangement that the courts of England and Wales might refuse to grant them an adoption order or a parental order. That would mean the “the child that they have caused to be born may be permanently stateless and legally parentless”.’
The Information Rights and Wrongs blog had a piece by Jon Baines, Can a data subject inspect withheld information in court proceedings? (8 March 2025) on the question whether a data subject, when challenging the refusal to disclose personal data held about him on the grounds of an exemption or exemptions, can have access to the withheld information for the purposes of an application to the court for a compliance order under section 167 of the Data Protection Act 2018. The issue arose in recent proceedings – Cole v Marlborough College [2024] EWHC 3575 (KB) – involving a former pupil seeking information through subject access regarding an investigation into a disciplinary matter in his former school. Relying on the earlier case of X -v- The Transcription Agency LLP [2024] 1 WLR 33, the judge held that to allow the claimant sight of the material would defeat the purpose of the legislation, but there was power for the court to inspect the materials, without permitting their disclosure to the claimant, either implied within section 167 and/or in exercise of the court’s inherent jurisdiction.
Joshua Rozenberg, on A Lawyer Writes, did a piece entitled, Secret justice (17 March 2025) discussing the case of W v P [2025] EWCOP 11 (T3) in which Rajah J had refused to give advance notice of a case in the Court of Protection in which the wife of a multimillionaire with severe dementia was asking the court to make tax-saving arrangements for distributing his assets. Although he has now published the judgment, the judge said that giving advance notice of the hearing to the press would have undermined the purpose of the proceedings being in private, since P, whose wife wanted to make a statutory will, was ‘a figure who used to be in the public eye, and in whose affairs there is likely to be natural public curiosity’. He said the risk of his identification ‘substantially outweighs any legitimate public interest in this hearing being in public, even with reporting restrictions, and amounts to a good reason for the matter to be heard in private.’ But Prof Celia Kitzinger, of the Open Justice Court of Protection Project, pointed out that the case concerned
‘statutory wills, which are clearly a matter of legitimate public interest. Many people don’t know that you can write a new will, or change an existing one, in the best interests of someone who lacks the mental capacity to do it for themselves. It’s important for the public to know this is possible and to understand what the court takes into account when there’s disagreement. There are very few published judgments concerning statutory wills.’
She said the judge should have allowed people to attend and watch the proceedings without reporting it.
NEW JUDGMENTS OF INTEREST
Re M (A Child) (Placement Order) [2025] EWCA Civ 214
The Court of Appeal upheld a decision by HHJ Astbury in Leeds Family Court to make care and placement orders for a 18 month old child, rather than pursue a kinship placement with relatives in Pakistan. The judgment may provide helpful guidance for practitioners dealing with similar cases as it sets out the relevant processes and issues about potential delays in systems in Pakistan. There is a comprehensive summary of the judgment at Local Government Lawyer.
Re M (Care Order: Risk: Family Placement) [2025] EWCA Civ 163
This is an unusual instance of the Court of Appeal reaching a different decision to the Family Court judge on the evidence of risk of significant harm in care proceedings. The single issue of risk is that the father has a series of convictions for serious sexual offences against children, complicated by the fact that both parents had lied about this when undertaking IVF – that resulted in the birth of ‘M’ in 2023. The care order made by HHJ Bujega in Wolverhampton Family Court was set aside and replaced by an interim care order while the case was remitted for the local authority to re-consider threshold and whether a supervision order might be proportionate.
KL v BA (Parental responsibility) (Rev1) [2025] EWHC 102 (Fam)
KL had been registered as the father on the birth certificate of a child now aged four, but had since discovered that he was not the child’s biological father. Despite this, KL wanted to continue a parental relationship with the child, but the mother didn’t agree. She was unmarried and the biological father did not participate in proceedings. A number of applications regarding child arrangements were before the court, but the first issue was whether the mistaken birth registration meant that KL had never held legal PR, or whether he had PR unless and until this was removed by a court order. This turned out to be quite a tricky question but Debra Powell KC, deputy High Court judge, concluded that KL had not acquired PR under section 4 Children Act 1989 and there was therefore no need for a welfare analysis of whether his PR should be removed.
Re F (a Minor) (Permission to appeal) [2025] EWHC 638 (Fam)
Mr Justice Hayden has asked that this judgment be put in the public domain because it deals with procedural matters when a party seeks leave to appeal a Family Court decision. In this case, an application by a father for permission to appeal against a fact finding hearing was made ‘out of time’ by five months. However, this delay appears to have arisen because ther was some doubt about when the judgment ha dbeen ‘handed down’ and when the father (a litigant in person) had seen it. Hayden J goes iot a good bit of detail about who has jurisdcotion to hear PTA applicatiosdn and why it’s advisable to take great care in circumstances when a hand-down date can get lost.
Re S & H (Adoption or Long Term Foster Care) [2025] EWFC 18 (B
This judgment by HHJ Hesford in Chester Family Court is helpful in applying the recent Court of Appeal authorities on decisions between adoption and fostering for young children.
Sandwell Children’s Trust v T & Ors [2025] EWFC 51 (B)
This judgment from Birmingham Family Court, just short of 370 paragraphs long, has been posted to TNA without a rubric (the required opening paragraph on privacy restrictions) nor even the name of the judge – although the latter does appear right at the end (District Judge Stephen Parker). The proceedings have been ongoing for six years (the whole of the child’s life) beginning as a private law dispute but eventually leading to the judge directing a local authority investigation and making findings of parental alienation that resulted in a transfer of residence via a period in foster care. On top of all this, the judge has now made a care order, although the local authority had sought only a supervision order to support the child, now resident with the father. A care order was recommended as necessary by the Cafcass guardian and this was accepted by the father.
D Culligan v A Culligan (No.2) (Costs and Anonymity) [2025] EWFC 26
While this is a ‘big money’ case of little relevance to most of us, the judgment by Mr Justice McDonald incudes a helpful summary of the up to date position on naming parties in financial remedy cases. In this one, the wife wanted anonymisation while the husband didn’t mind. The relevant case law and guidance are set out from para 30 onwards.
Re TCY (Children of Deaf Adults) [2025] EWFC 22 (B)
This is a sad case where deaf parents who felt they had ‘experienced a lifetime of feeling discriminated against, left out and misunderstood’ faced all of their children being permanently removed from them. In a detailed and sensitive judgment, HHJ Middleton-Roy concluded that the orders sought by the local authority were not necessary and instead made a range of care (in long term fostering) and supervision orders with requirements for updated support plans. The judgment includes helpful guidance on engaging with deaf parents in the family justice system.
London Borough of Hackney v SF and Ors (Adoption: Separation of siblings) [2024] EWFC 404 (B)
This judgment by HHJ Robertson at Central London Family Court considers a range of options for two young siblings who could not return to their parents but had not lived together. The older child, who had settled well with foster carers, will continue to live with them under special guardianship while the younger child, who was in a separate foster placement, would be subject to care and placement orders. The orders contain recitals setting out agreed future contact arrangements between the children.
OTHER TRANSPARENCY etc NEWS
Voices, a Domestic Abuse Advisory Group launches new ‘Guide to Family Court Proceedings’ (3 Dec 2024) in conjunction with Bristol Local Family Justice Board. The guide was ‘created alongside people who have lived experience and their insights into the system; it is particularly targeted at those who have experienced domestic abuse and are navigating court proceedings without legal representation’. The guide will be available and distributed to courts, the legal profession, councils, statutory and voluntary organisations supporting victims, healthcare services, education settings.
The Ministry of Justice announced Thousands of children to be supported thanks to multi-million expansion of innovation in family courts (3 Feb 2025), which was about the expansion of the Pathfinder Pilot. Published figures demonstrated how the scheme – which works by bringing together local authorities, police and support services to gather and share information on cases as early as possible – ‘is resolving cases faster, with family court backlogs reduced by half in pilot areas’, and announcement said, adding that it ‘saves children and families from having to go through unnecessary and potentially hostile hearings’. As part of delivering on its Plan for Change and mission to halve violence against women and girls, the scheme also provides extra support to victims of domestic abuse. The published figures suggested cases were being resolved 11 weeks quicker, and the backlog of cases reduced by 50 per cent across both Dorset and North Wales. The expansion was reported by the BBC (Family court pilot to support abuse victims expanded) and the Law Gazette (MoJ finds £12.5m to expand ‘less adversarial’ family court pilot) among others.
The Inside HMTCS blog later published a post about it, Transforming justice, giving children a voice in the family courts (14 Feb 2025) in which Peter Curran, Specialist Family Leader for Wales, described his experience of the family Pathfinder pilot which launched in 2022 at his court in Wales. He says the commitment and dedication of the professionals involved in the Pathfinder has reduced the average time to resolve private law applications from 29 weeks in the 12 months to February 2022 to an average of 18 weeks in the 12 months to November 2024 in North Wales which is much better for everyone involved.
The Judiciary published Writing to Children – A Toolkit for Judges (February 2025), a guidance document produced in conjunction with the Family Justice Young People’s Board (part of Cafcass). Introducing the guidance, Sir Andrew McFarlane, President of the Family Division, said ‘The benefit of judges communicating with the child at the centre of proceedings has long been recognised, yet few of us have ever written to a child to explain our decision in their case.’ As with judgments expressed in plain English, judges’ letters can help children to understand their own circumstances as they grow up, but care must be taken if they wish to discuss their case with friends and wider family, lest they unwittingly breach continuing restrictions on publication. (This risk does not appear to have been addressed in the guidance, though.) The development is a positive one, as a further aspect of transparency, as Sir Andrew explained: ‘My hope is that, like many things, once judges have used this toolkit and have written to children in a few cases, doing so will rapidly become the norm and no longer a task to be avoided.’
Sir James Munby, former President of the Family Division, contributed another guest post to this blog on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill presented by Kim Leadbeater MP in the House of Commons last year, and the continuing discussion over judicial involvement in the approval of assisted suicide under its provisions. Assisted dying : what role for the tribunal? Thoughts on the latest proposals (21 Feb 2025) considers the amendments to clause 12 proposed by Ms Leadbeater on 13 February 2025.
The Judiciary also published new guidance from the President on the Citation of Authorities: Judgments of Circuit Judges and District Judges (24 Feb 2025), which we republished on this blog with a contextual explainer about the citation of different kinds of judgment in general, and how this relates to the family court.
The Ministry of Justice published its Review of Civil Legal Aid Data Publication Series: Family deep dive (March 2025). Its purpose is to summarise key descriptive information about solicitors and barristers who do civil legal aid to inform the policy-making emerging from an ongoing review into public funding of the work of the legal professions. The review, launched in 2023, has been considering the civil legal aid system in its entirety, from how services are procured and how well the current system works for users and providers, to how civil legal aid impacts the wider justice system. An Overarching Summary Report was published in January, and a number of individual reports, including ‘deep dive’ reports into different sectors, is now being released. Family Law Week has published a summary listing many of the key findings: Ministry of Justice publishes Deep Dive Report on Family Law which may show aging cohort of practitioners and reduction in number of firms (10 March 2025).
Nuffield Family Observatory had a piece about A pre-birth service offering early, holistic support sees a reduction in babies being separated from their parents (7 March 2025). Jig-So, an innovative joint local authority and health pre-birth service established in 2016, offers expectant parents at risk of care proceedings with their unborn babies holistic, compassionate support early in pregnancy has seen positive outcomes, with fewer babies being removed from their parents’ care. And following the recent introduction of new processes, there has been a reduction of nearly 50% in the number of babies being separated from their parents at birth – falling from 33 in 2022 to 18 in 2024.
The Lords Constitution Committee launched a Rule of law inquiry and published a call for written evidence. It does not specifically mention open justice or court reporting, but suggests addressing a number of general questions about the role of the law in the constitution and economy, including (1) What are the components of the rule of law? And (2) How well is the rule of law understood by politicians and the public? The deadline for written evidence is 5pm on 15 April.
FORTHCOMING EVENTS
Play: Daisy through the looking-glass: Court 6, Royal Courts of Justice: 17 April 2025 from 5:00 PM to 7:30 PM.
A new play written by His Honour Stephen Wildblood KC, charting the messy divorce of Dave and Maggie and its effect on their daughter, Daisy. When Dave and Maggie’s marriage falls apart, the couple have to navigate the family courts — and one of them is unrepresented. The play is hard-hitting: it covers themes of physical, sexual and emotional abuse, and also of suicide.
After the play, the actors will remain in their roles and will answer questions from the audience. — what is the truth about the allegations of domestic abuse? What do they think about the private law system? Then, there will be a discussion with the audience about the play and the issues that it raises.
Tickets, via Support through Court, cost £32.00 for standard admission.
FAMILY LAW IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS
Europe
The Times (£) reported that Divorce more likely if wife is ill — but not when it’s the husband (17 March 2025), citing a recent study by (among others) Giammarco Alderotti, of the University of Florence, of divorce patterns across Europe.
Divorce rates among the over-50s have increased in recent decades. The study, which appeared in the Journal of Marriage and Family, looked at these ‘silver splitters’ and asked what role failing health played in their break-ups. According to The Times, ‘The patterns were most pronounced for couples between the ages of 50 and 64: when the wife had poor health but the husband did not, their marriage was about 60 per cent more likely to end, compared with when both partners were in good health. By contrast, if it was the husband who had health problems, the couple was non more likely to split than if both were healthy.’
The Times did not fully cite, let alone link to, the original study but we think it is this one: Partners’ health and silver splits in Europe: A gendered pattern?
USA
The Guardian reported that Georgia woman who gave birth to someone else’s baby sues IVF clinic (19 Feb 2025), an extraordinary tale of, in effect, ‘swapped before birth’, making the mother effectively a surrogate mother for someone else’s embryo. ‘After undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatments, 38-year-old Krystena Murray gave birth to a “beautiful” baby boy and immediately realized something was wrong. The child was African American. Murray is white and chose a sperm donor with an appearance similar to her own.’ After the child’s biological parents were notified and began custody proceedings, Murray gave up the child. The report goes on to mention other instances of switched embryos in IVF cases, which is concerning.
SLAW, the Canadian online legal magazine, published Book Review: What Roe v Wade Should Have Said: The Nation’s Top Legal Experts Rewrite America’s Most Controversial Decision, from the Canadian Law Library Review (CLLR). The review by Lorissa Kinna, Reference Librarian at the Law Society of Ontario, points out that this revised 2023 edition of What Roe v Wade Should Have Said, originally published in 2005, ‘could not have come at a more pertinent time’. It appeared 50 years after the original 1973 United States Supreme Court decision (legalising abortion), and shortly after the 2022 decision in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization 597 U.S. 215 (2022), SC (US), which overturned Roe v Wade 410 US 113, SC (US). The review concludes that the book ‘is a valuable text for those who want to learn more about the abortion debate in the United States’.
Finally…
We have a small favour to ask!
The Transparency Project is a registered charity in England and Wales run by volunteers who mostly also have full-time jobs. We’re working to secure extra funding so that we can keep making family justice clearer for all who use the court and work in it. We’d be really grateful if you were able to help us by making a small one-off (or regular!) donation through our Just Giving page.