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 (£) reported that Murder of pregnant mother leads to call for domestic abuser list (31 Oct 2025). This was about a campaign for a register of violent domestic abusers, launched by Jasmine Yates, the sister of Alana Odysseos, who was stabbed to death by her boyfriend, Shaine Marsh, who was already a convicted murderer. Alana, who was pregnant at the time, was killed by March after refusing his demands to have an abortion. March was convicted for Alana’s murder and was given a life sentence, but he had already been released after serving an earlier life sentence in 2000, and then convicted of violent assault after attacking another pregnant girlfriend. Yates is now campaigning for an ‘Alana’s law’ to alert women if and when they begin a relationship with a convicted abuser. There is already a law called ‘Clare’s Law’ — named after Clare Wood, who was murdered by her ex-partner in 2009 while unaware of his past abusive history — which gives women the right to ask police if a partner has a conviction. The proposed new law would require mandatory checks before such offenders be allowed shared housing or contact with children and automatic disclosure to a woman if their partner has a violent past.
The BBC reported that Son who sued parents must stay at Ghana boarding school, judge rules (4 Nov 2025) which was about the case of a British teenage boy who’d taken his parents to court to try to get back home to London after his parents had tricked him into visiting Ghana in early 2024 where they’d left him, against his wishes, in a boarding school. They had been concerned about his involvement in gangs and knife crime. We covered the original decision and now, following a successful appeal, its rehearing before a different judge: Boy left in Ghana – rehearing.
The Times reported that Possession nine tenths of the paw as lawyers encourage ‘pet-nups’ (2 Nov 2025) saying lawyers were increasingly advising clients to draft agreements for animals in case of break-up, lest the dispute over the future of their animal ‘chattels’ end up in court. Unlike many such stories, this one wasn’t just based on a press release from a solicitors’ firm. It cited an actual case, teasingly titled Fi v Do [2024] EWFC 384 (B), Fam Ct (District Judge Crisp), in which the former husband was arrested after allegedly abducting the family dog. In her judgment, Crisp said ‘At times it seemed to me that I was in the realms of a Children Act application’ which featured the dog when the wife was cross examined about the dog’s welfare and shared care arrangements’. The Times article went on to discuss the need also to provide for pets in the event of death or incapacity.
Under the headline ‘Cuts and bruises’, Private Eye reported that brutal cuts to the Adoption and Special Guardianship Support Fund (ASGSF) announced by the government in April had had an immediately catastrophic impact on children, including mental health issues, suicidal ideation, raised levels of child-on-adult violence and school exclusions’. This had emerged from research conducted by the campaign group Action Against ASGSF Changes with almost 500 families affected. The research was also reported in Community Care, although a later report confirmed that some funding is due to continue in the short term: Government announces one-year extension to Adoption and Special Guardianship Support Fund (8 Sept 2025)
Linked to these issues, The BBC reported that Parents threatened and blamed by authorities as 1,000 adopted children returned to care (28 Nov 2025). The piece examined a number of cases emerging from ‘a six-month investigation into why adoptive families are being broken apart and their children returned to care’. The BBC says it conducted ‘the most extensive Freedom of Information request ever into adoptions that have broken down, finding that more than 1,000 adopted children in the UK have returned to care in the past five years’. The figure is said to be much higher than the one in a recent government report, ‘but the true number is likely to be even larger, as only a third of authorities said they collected this data as standard practice’. It also notes that many parents ‘told the BBC they wanted to speak out, but were prevented from sharing the full details of their cases due to reporting restrictions on Family Court proceedings’. The report includes a quote from Prof Laura Machin of Lancaster University, who runs a research group examining adopters’ experiences, and who said ‘These findings are “shocking” but are only the tip of the iceberg’. Government guidance asks for adoption disruptions to be recorded, but does not mention breakdowns – so children who return to care after the adoption is finalised may not be counted, she says.
The Times reported Sperm donor Facebook groups promise babies — but pose danger (2 Nov 2025) saying ‘Hundreds of groups advertise free donors across the UK and urge women to “get your babydust here”.’ The risks include substandard sperm, but also that women desperate to have a child may be coerced into agreeing to NI (natural insemination, ie having sex with the donor) instead of AI (artificial insemination, via sperm deposited in a receptacle and then inserted manually) as advertised. There also seems to be a lack of regulation with so-called ‘private’ donation. The article refers to the case of MacDougall v SW [2022] EWFC 50 where Lieven J denied parental rights to the donor because he failed to tell recipients he had fragile X syndrome, a genetic neurodevelopmental disorder. The judgment dealt with three separate cases in which the same donor had become involved. Some donors have (or claim to have) fathered many more children than that: in 2023 Robert Albon, who calls himself Joe Donor, unsuccessfully attempted to obtain parental rights over one of the 190 children he claims to have fathered: see A v B; In re D (aged 2) [2023] EWFC 333. Albon has since been in court again: Re CA & Ors (Children of Unregulated Sperm Donor) [2025] EWFC 130. We covered the earlier case here: Judgment published to warn women against sperm donor who has “180 kids”.
The Guardian reported that Bar Council calls for legal aid for all family court cases involving domestic abuse (9 Nov 2025) saying that ‘In a new policy paper, the body, which represents all 18,000 barristers in England and Wales, has set out a package of recommendations to improve the ability of the family justice system. The Bar Council’s policy paper is called Tackling violence against women and girls – why family courts are key (Oct 2025). The article explains that currently, only 15% of families are eligible for legal aid, which, when coupled with difficulties in recruiting and retaining skilled family solicitors, has led to huge swathes of the country becoming ‘legal advice deserts’ and has forced people to represent themselves as ‘litigants in person’.
The Times reported that Greater media access may push divorcing couples away from court (12 Nov 2025) saying (yet again) that ‘The drive for more transparency in family proceedings could encourage people to seek “private justice” such as arbitration or other forms of dispute resolution’. The article is by Toby Atkinson, a partner at the law firm Stewarts, but it isn’t clear whether he thinks alternative dispute resolution is better than fighting a matter in court, nor does he mention that the courts themselves, for all their increasing transparency, are also encouraging litigants to try mediation first, not least to ease the strain on resources.
The BBC was one of many outlets reporting on the release of a report on the Sara Sharif case: Lack of trust and racism concerns: five key failings in Sara Sharif review (13 Nov 2025) summarised its effect as follows: ‘An independent review of the Sara Sharif case has identified multiple failings from agencies before her murder in Surrey in 2023, following two years of abuse. The child safeguarding practice review published on Thursday, said there were “clearly several points in Sara’s life, in particular during the last few months, where different actions could and should have been taken” by the authorities. We covered the report here: Sara Sharif -what we now know from the Safeguarding Review.
There was also commentary from Community Care: Sara Sharif murder: safeguarding failures over many years laid basis for severe abuse, review finds.
The Guardian reported that Domestic abuse victims who flee with children overseas to be criminalised under new law (16 Nov 2025). According to The Guardian, ‘The change is introduced in a proposed amendment to the Crime and Policing bill, backed by fathers’ rights groups and the Reunite International charity. The amendment has not been debated in Parliament, and is now before the House of Lords.’ Critics say making the retention of children a criminal offence under the Child Abduction Act 1984 undermines the Hague Abduction Convention and contradicts the UK’s domestic abuse principles, which prioritise child safety. According to Both Parents Matter, who were quoted, ‘Treating child abduction solely as a civil law matter is often ineffective in ensuring the return of children. Closing the loophole would create an effective deterrent that would reduce the occurrence of child abduction.’
The Times reported that ‘Making my daughter keep name of my rapist is state-sanctioned abuse’ (21 Nov 2025) A mother, ‘who cannot be identified for legal reasons,’ was planning to go all the way to the European Court of Human Rights about a case in which the High Court upheld a lower judge’s decision that her daughter should retain her father’s surname, because it formed an important part of her “identity and paternal heritage”, despite findings that he had raped and threatened to kill the child’s mother. The High Court also extended a non-molestation order against the father for a further two years. The case was reported earlier by the same newspaper: Girl, 5, must keep name of father who raped her mother, judge rules (16 Nov 2025) and noted that ‘Charlotte Proudman, the barrister representing the mother, said: “It just shows that a rapist’s rights are more important than [the] victim’s”.’ Neither report links to the judgment but we think it is: XX v XX [2025] EWHC 2756 (Fam).
Local Government Lawyer reported that Court of Appeal considers definition of ‘father’ under Children Act 1989 and effect of declarations of non-parentage (25 Nov 2025). The issue for determination in the ongoing appeals, according to the Judiciary’s livestream page, was ‘whether the effect of a declaration of non-parentage in respect of a man who is not married to a child’s mother and is named on the child’s birth certificate as the father, but whom subsequent genetic testing shows is not the child’s biological father, is to render his putative acquisition of parental responsibility void, or whether he has and retains parental responsibility that can only be removed by order of the court’.
The Law Society Gazette reported that Family hearing abandoned over father’s death threats to barrister (25 Nov 2025) saying HHJ Robinson had stressed the importance of publishing the judgment in AB v CD [2025] EWFC 398 (B) to show the negative behaviours experienced by all involved in the family law process. A previous hearing this year had been cut short on the second day after the barrister for the father in the case had raised safety concerns with the court’s head of security. These concerns were so serious that the barrister, who was not named in the ruling, had said she could no longer represent her client. The judgment helpfully sets out in the first four paragraphs and in para 168 the judge’s reasons for deciding that publication was in the public interest, including details of the father’s behaviour and its impact on victims and practitioners. In later sections, he describes the father having cross examined the Cafcass officer for 3 1/2 hours as ‘entirely unreasonable’.
The Guardian published an explainer: What has happened since the UK supreme court’s gender ruling? (29 Nov 2025). The judgment has significant ramifications for who can now access women-only services and spaces, such as refuges or toilets, but most public bodies, businesses and other service providers are still waiting for an updated code of practice from the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), which will offer practical guidance on how to apply the ruling. But the draft guidance supplied in September must be approved by the equalities minister, Bridget Phillipson, before it is put before parliament. Regardless of the official advice, there is and may be more litigation over the ruling or its enforcement, including a reference to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.
BROADCAST & AUDIO COVERAGE
BBC File on Four has a programme scheduled for 2 December 2025, currently available on BBC Sounds, called Adoption: The Blame Game about the ‘world of lies and blame within adoption in the UK’ – as revealed in a report from its extensive FOI investigation (see above). The programme ‘explores the scale of the crisis as we hear from parents pushed to the limit, a teenager returned to care and a social worker giving a rare view of the system from the inside’.
LEGAL BLOGGING
In A child’s voice in care proceedings (28 Nov 2025) Julie Doughty attended hearings in a case in Cardiff that highlighted the experiences of children living in fear of their parents’ unpredictable and violent behaviour. It included consideration of a ‘Re W hearing’ where a decision is made about whether a child (referred to as ‘Ben’, aged 13) should give direct evidence. She comments: ‘Ben’s voice really came through to me in those hearings, and I hope he feels that the professionals and the judge were all listening.’ Some complexities relating to kinship placements are also discussed.
RECENT COMMENTARY
Local Government Lawyer (7 Nov 2025) in Judge wrong to make “life-changing orders” with “limited explanation” at conclusion of Issues Resolution Hearing and the Human Rights Blog (10 Nov 2025) Court of Appeal clarifies judicial duties when making final care and placement orders at an IRH both reported on the judgment in D, Re (Threshold Findings and Final Orders at IRH) [2025] EWCA Civ 1362 in which Sir Stephen Cobb in the Court of Appeal had clarified the extent of detail required in explaining the judge’s reasons for making final decisions on adoption at an Issues Resolution Hearing.
Yuan Yi Zhu reviewing Lady Hale’s new book With the Law on Our Side in The Times, Return of the Spider Woman: Lady Hale tours Britain’s courts (17 Oct 2025) did not resist the temptation to sound slightly patronising while praising what he called ‘a charming book, pleasingly old-fashioned and opinionated’ from the former President of the Supreme Court. The book includes a tour by Hale of currently working courts ancient and modern around the country, which prompts the author, a legal academic and a member of Policy Exchange, to confess that he has set foot in very few actual courts, noting that ‘English justice is done in the open, but the age of the court case as public entertainment is long over’. (To be fair, he does make the point that many local courts have closed, and that has impeded the public visibility of justice.) When it comes to lawmaking by the executive, however, it is Hale whom he accuses of having the blind spot: ‘Perhaps a tour of Whitehall, to see how the sausage is made there, would have strengthened her book.’ (Sausages indeed: some sauce!)
In When is a Public Figure not a Public Figure? Findings of Rape Without Public Consequences (13 Nov 2025) journalist Suzanne Martin on her Family Court Chronicles blog discusses a case in which HHJ G Matthews KC at Middlesbrough Family Court refused to allow her to name a father found by the court to have raped and physically abused his former partner, including in the presence of their child. The father’s parental responsibility had been revoked. The mother supported the application to name the father. The child’s guardian did not oppose it. Yet the judge refused, determining that naming the perpetrator was neither necessary nor proportionate, despite the severity of the findings against him. She says ‘the decision sits uncomfortably alongside a growing body of case law where family courts have named perpetrators in the public interest, and raises critical questions about what safeguarding obligations—if any—apply when serious abuse is proven in family proceedings but no criminal conviction follows’.
An earlier piece on the same blog, WHERE ARE THEY NOW? In August 2023 Press Were Excluded by a Family Court in Manchester (8 Nov 2025) looks at what happened later in a case in which Suzanne Martin had initially been excluded altogether from attending a court hearing on the first day and on the second day another journalist Louise Tickle, though allowed to attend, had been prevented from reporting the proceedings at the time, a decision reversed on appeal in Tickle v Father [2023] EWHC 2446 (Fam); [2024] 1 FLR 652. A transcript of the missed first day was also published. (We wrote it up at the time: Transcript reveals what one judge really thinks of transparency). In this post, Suzanne Martin follows up what happened in the case, in which a different judge’s fact-finding judgment ‘systematically vindicated the mother’s account and exposed disturbing patterns of abuse’ by the father. She attributes the change in the mother’s fortunes largely to her having obtained legal representation (previously she had the assistance of a McKenzie Friend). But she also claims some credit for the press scrutiny that ensured the case got the attention it deserved: ‘The transparency battle I fought alongside Tickle helped establish legal precedent for greater accountability in family proceedings — accountability that may well have contributed to ensuring this mother received a fair hearing when her case finally came to trial.’
The Financial Remedies Journal had a post by Graeme Fraser, Parliamentary Debate Reveals Government’s Latest Intentions for Financial Remedies and Cohabitation Law Reform (13 Nov 2025) discussing the government’s plans for what he called a ‘major overhaul of how the law treats relationship breakdown across all types of couples’ as evidenced in a recent statement in the House of Lords by justice minister Baroness Levitt KC. A consultation on matters such as the myth of the common law marriage is intended to ‘bring consistency and fairness across marriage, civil partnerships and cohabitation’, particularly in how assets are dealt with on breakdown.
The Law & Religion UK blog had a piece, “Strong evangelical Christian beliefs” and the capacity to foster children (21 Nov 2025) commenting on the recent case of Smith & Anor v Manchester City Council [2025] EWHC 2987 (KB) in which the claimants, a married couple with strong evangelical Christian beliefs, wanted to foster children, but were prevented by the local authority who thought their beliefs were incompatible with the commitment to diversity which the council considered an integral part of foster care. Their claim was refused by the judge and that decision confirmed on appeal to the High Court.
A new Court of Appeal judgment about naming a professional witness featured on Pink Tape – Publication of adverse findings against professional witnesses – helpful Court of Appeal clarification (2nd Dec). A psychotherapist who had been treating a child of the family was subject to some adverse findings by the High Court judge. The therapist raised some objections to the judgment, including the judge’s intention to publish it without anonymising her. The Court of Appeal agreed with the High Court that she be identified. (The psychotherapist was a ‘witness of fact’ i.e. a professional person called to give evidence on behalf of a party. She was not appointed by the court as an expert witness.) As well as the important transparency question, the post highlights wider issues raised by the Court about whether and how a professional witness can appeal against adverse findings. The case is Re E (a child) [2025] EWCA Civ 1563.
NEW JUDGMENTS OF INTEREST
Other than above.
Re N (A Child: Placement Order: Proportionality) [2025] EWCA Civ 1541
The Court of Appeal (CA) held that, on the evidence before the Family Court, the plan for adoption that had been approved in this case had not been necessary or proportionate, and the decision to make care and placement orders was therefore wrong. The Recorder had followed the Cafcass guardian’s recommendations but the CA concluded that the deficiencies in the parenting that the two year old child was likely to receive from his mother were not of a nature and degree to justify the termination of the parent-child relationship. Matters had moved on, otherwise the CA said they would probably have ended the proceedings by substituting a supervision order. However, the child and his mother had been separated for the first time on the day of the orders, and no contact had taken place for three months. Peter Jackson LJ said it wasn’t possible for the CA to assess how matters stood and the local authority’s applications, if they continued to be the same, had to be reheard. The case was transferred to the Family Division for urgent resolution.
X Local Authority v M & Ors [2025] EWHC 3088 (Fam)
In Liverpool Family Court, HHJ Parker heard applications for a care order and an authorisation of deprivation of liberty regarding a 15 year old girl who was at risk through associating with groups of adult men. The local authority had first received a referral two years earlier and her parents said she was beyond their control, often going missing for days. The police had concerns that she was being groomed and radicalised; four men she was associating with were arrested on child abduction and sexual offences charges. The restrictions placed on the girl in her residential placement were very strict and the judge gave these careful consideration, concluding that there was no safe alternative. The DoL was authorised for 12 months. The judgment contains some observations on the necessity for disclosure of information between agencies in these circumstances.
Re A (A Child) (Mother killed by Father) [2025] EWFC 374
We wrote about this unusual case, heard by HHJ Willans in West London Family Court, where a grandmother, Linda Westcarr, had asked the court to allow her to be identified so that she could continue to publicise a range of complaints of injustice she was making regarding the murder of her daughter by the child’s father. The judgment also removed the father’s parental responsibility and allowed the removal of the father’s surname. Amongst the grandmother’s difficulties was that she couldn’t access legal aid to help protect the grandchild through the family courts. See Court lifts grandmother’s anonymity at her request for details.
Re A (A child) (Care Proceedings: Finding of Fact) [2025] EWFC 406 (B)
The local authority sought a care order for a baby whose father faced a criminal trial following allegations by his step daughter of serious sexual assaults that had begun when she’d been in primary school and continued for three years until she reported them to a teacher. The judge in Cardiff Family Court described attempts by the father to call five of the girl’s friends from that period to give evidence as disproportionate. The primary evidence came from the consistency in the police interviews with the girl and the evidence she gave the court ‘in a calm, dignified and mainly composed manner’. There was also relevant evidence of the step father’s activities on his phone. The judge found the local authority’s threshold of harm statement to be wholly proved.
Re A, B, C and D (no 2) (section 34(4) No contact) [2025] EWFC 394
We think this case citation should end 394 (B) because it’s a judgment from a Circuit Judge, not a High Court judge, in the Family Court. It’s unusual to see a judgment on a section 34(4) application by a local authority to refuse contact, but what had happened here was that there had been previous private law and public law proceedings which were finalised by care orders at the end of 2024. with a plan that the children live with their mother, any contact with the father to be supervised. However, the father’s behaviour continued to harm the children; he had not accepted the serious findings made against him by the court. Although he had done sone online ‘courses on domestic abuse’ this was because his solicitor had advised him to, not because he thought he had done anything wrong. The local authority therefore applied for contact with him to be terminated, and HHJ Vincent agreed that there was no way direct contact could be made safe for the children. As she often does, the judge helpfully sets out a short version of her judgment at the beginning.
Re Reuben (A Child) [2025] EWFC 392 (B)
A nine year old boy had been subject to four sets of family court proceedings, initially an application for a child arrangements order made by his father when his mother had suspended contact. There had been allegations of domestic abuse ten years ago but these had never been investigated in a fact-finding exercise. The district judge in Worthing Family Court considered a transfer of residence from the mother to the father but eventually arrived at a shared ‘lives with’ order as being in the child’s best interests. The time to be spent with each parent and the protocol for communication was set out in close detail by the judge. A section 91(14) barring order was made for 3 ½ years. This is perhaps an unusual outcome – shared residence where there’s been such a history of acrimony between parents and a continuous refusal of contact by a child.
OTHER TRANSPARENCY etc NEWS
The Ministry of Justice announced Better protection for victims at risk of violence as fee scrapped (27 Oct 2025). This refers to Person at Risk of Violence (PARV) Order fees which would be scrapped from November, meaning ‘vulnerable people involved in debt proceedings will no longer have to pay £318 to have their personal details – including name and address – removed from the Insolvency Register and the official public record, the Gazette.’ For women fleeing domestic abuse, the knowledge that their abuser can no longer search public records to find their new address is invaluable but till now the cost had been a barrier to many using the service. The change was presented as part of the Plan for Change to protect victims and restore faith in the justice system.
The President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane gave a keynote speech, Domestic Abuse and the Family Court (14 Nov 2025) at the Association of Lawyers for Children’s annual conference in Manchester on 14 November 2025. ‘Issues of domestic abuse are, sadly but necessarily, too common in all forms of family proceedings including financial remedies proceedings’, he said. ‘A finding, or otherwise, of domestic abuse is likely to have a significant impact on the arrangements for the future safety and welfare of children and vulnerable parents. Yet, the forensic difficulties facing a court in engaging with and determining allegations of domestic abuse are complex.’
The House of Commons Justice Committee held an evidence session on the question of ‘Reform of the Family Court’ on 28 October, featuring the outgoing President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, preceded by a panel of three experts, Lisa Harker of the Nuffield Family Justice Observatory; Nicole Jabobs, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner; and Jacky Tiotto from Cafcass. There was a report on the President’s contribution in the Law Society Gazette: Family Division president’s parting shots (31 Oct 2025). We commented on it here: ‘Reform of the Family Court’ – evidence session for the House of Commons Justice Committee (17 Nov 2025).
The Law Commission finally published its report on Contempt of Court (Part 1) on Liability (Law Com No 4230) (HC 1433) (17 Nov 2025). Having responded to the consultation and taken part in an evidence session we were very interested to see what their proposals were, and pleasantly surprised to find they went further than initially expected, particularly in respect of section 12(1) of the Administration of Justice Act 1960. We summarise the key parts in so far as they affect family law here: An end to secrecy in family courts? Proposed reforms of contempt of court law that could lift the threats to sharing information. A piece by Joshua Rozenberg, What we can be told (18 Nov 2025) focused more on the information that might be shared without prejudicing criminal cases, as well as noting that ‘permitting audio note-taking in court would be “transformational”.’ There is also a summary of the report from the Law Commission.
FAMILY LAW AND TRANSPARENCY IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS
Australia
ABC News reported that Lawyers warn erroneous and costly family court transcripts are impeding justice, prompting calls for change (28 Nov 2025). Justice is being obstructed by inaccurate court transcripts, it says, ‘including some where potentially prejudicial comments by judges were missing’, according to the lawyers they interviewed. The prohibitive cost of obtaining transcripts also meant some appeals were not even being considered. Former New South Wales Court of Appeals judge and chair of the Centre for Public Integrity, Anthony Whealy KC, told ABC that the issue ‘threatened to undermine the administration of justice’. There are now calls for change, the report says, ‘including the cancellation of a lucrative contract with the foreign company that provides the transcripts, and for the raw audio files to be provided to litigants as a matter of course’. The Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) highlighted the call for access to audio files as part of their 2021 report into judicial impartiality.
All of these complaints about the Australian system will be familiar to readers in the UK, where similar problems occur – as will family barrister Charlotte Proudman, who is quoted in the piece, saying parties were entitled to access to their own data.
Canada
SLAW, Canada’s online legal magazine, had a piece on Making Meaningful Participation Real in the BC Family Justice System (14 Nov 2025), about the new Early Intervention Program launched by the Society for Children & Youth of BC (SCYBC). It explained that the Youth Voices initiative (Family Justice Innovation Lab Society) and the Transform the Family Justice System Collaborative were ‘working to align and coordinate complementary efforts, across and beyond the justice sector, to redesign the family justice system so that the voices of children and youth are heard and respected’. The EIP is designed to bring children’s voices into the family law process at an early stage, often before matters proceed to court. The pilot program connects a child with an EIP children’s lawyer, who acts as a form of ‘children’s duty counsel.’
Hungary
The Verfassungsblog had a piece by Tamás Matusik on Doxing Judges (11 Nov 2025) saying that in Hungary, judges are being doxed – their names, addresses, and private data leaked and publicized – for supposed political leanings. They appear to be the key target in a leaked database of supposed users of an online platform linked to a political party. Rather than protecting those targeted, court leaders are alluding to disciplinary or other proceedings against them. It appears to be intended to intimidate them. The post concludes: ‘In a state governed by the rule of law, such chilling effects cannot be tolerated. They demand a clear and immediate response’.
Jersey
The BBC reported that Birth certificate change is ‘gigantic’ for couple (24 Nov 2025) as a new law in Jersey now permits both single-sex parents to be named on the certificate. Previously only one would be on the certificate, meaning they had fewer legal rights than mixed-sex couples. This also applied to couples who went through types of fertility treatments or surrogacy. A follow up piece next day interviewed a different couple about the same change: Couple react to ‘amazing’ birth certificate change (25 Nov 2025).
Northern Ireland
BBC News NI reported that Family court system ‘scary’ and ‘not fit for purpose’, say parents (28 Nov 2025) after interviewing two parents who had been through the system. In one case a mother said the court ordered her to maintain contact between her child and the father, despite her allegations of domestic abuse. The Lady Chief Justice, Dame Siobhan Keegan, was also interviewed. She said she had requested specialist courts with better facilities to allow more time for cases to be dealt with. But ‘The elephant in the room though is the funding of family justice along with other justice areas.’ The piece also refers to transparency, saying ‘a media pilot, which began in November, will allow journalists to report on some cases in Northern Ireland’. We have taken part in a consultation on this pilot: it appears to follow fairly closely what has already been done over the last couple of years in England and Wales, although with an approved panel of journalists.
USA
The City (a New York City newsletter) reported that NYPD Confirms Involvement in FBI Probe Targeting Volunteer Observers in Immigration Court (21 Nov 2025) saying an FBI document had referred to activists at immigration courts as ‘anarchist violent extremist actors’ and cited a ‘sensitive source with excellent access’ to an encrypted chat. The FBI investigation had included surveillance of a private Signal chat of volunteer courtwatchers monitoring ICE activity inside New York City’s immigration courthouses. The story appears to have originated from something in the Guardian, The FBI spied on a Signal group chat of immigration activists, records reveal. It said activist groups had expanded efforts to observe and document courthouse activities in recent months as Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has increasingly been detaining immigrants who have shown up to court for routine hearings.
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 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.