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 that Kenyans prove paternity case against UK soldiers (3 Oct 2025). ‘Seven people from Kenya have won a case at the Family Court in London to prove they were fathered by British men working at an army base in their country’. The report goes on to say that ‘commercially available DNA databases were used to identify otherwise unknown fathers. Six had served at the British Army Training Unit in Kenya (Batuk) and one worked as a contractor.’ We’ve not been able to find a published judgment, as yet, but there is a note on the Harcour Chambers website explaining that ‘The President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, today made Declarations of Parentage by consent’ in relation to six out of 15 joined cases. The remaining cases are expected to be considered further at another hearing in December 2025.
The BBC local news from Suffolk had a long piece entitled ‘Nothing short of tragic’: Inside a family court (9 Oct 2025) in which Brian Farmer and Debbie Tubby reported from Ipswich County Court on a case involving allegations of parental alienation. ‘A judge has brought an end to a decade-long legal fight over the custody arrangements for the two youngsters,’ they write, ‘saying the “hostility” between their parents was “nothing short of tragic” for the children.’ The mother, represented by barrister Charlotte Proudman, argued that ‘she was the victim of a “systematic campaign by the father to alienate” the children from her’ on the basis of false claims about the mother’s behaviour. But this appears to have been rejected. The report goes on to discuss wider family proceedings more generally, including delays in the system, Pathfinder courts, and transparency, quoting from our chair, Lucy Reed KC and linking to one of her posts on Pink Tape, discussing last month’s Public Accounts Committee report on family justice. It’s not clear how much any of this has to do with the particular case in Ipswich, or whether it was included for more general public educational purposes.
The Daily Mail reported that Teenage boy takes his parents to court after being enrolled at Ghanaian boarding school over fears he would fall into gang violence in Britain (13 October 2025). This was about the rehearing by Theis J in the Family Division of the High Court of the case about the boy taken to a boarding school in Ghana against his own wishes, because his parents feared he was being drawn into gang activity and knife crime if he remained in school in the UK. In June, the Court of Appeal allowed the boy’s appeal from the original decision of Hayden J in the High Court, on the ground that his evaluation of the case had been flawed: see Re S (Wardship; Renoval to Ghana) [2025] EWCA CIv 1011. (We reported it here as 14 year old boy taken to Ghana – Appeal judgment.) The case was then remitted to a different judge (Theis J) whose rehearing was the subject of the Mail’s story. This essentially rehearsed the arguments from the original hearing, but in the hope of a different evaluation. Theis J’s judgment has now been reported: Re S (Wardship: Removal to Ghana: Rehearing) [2025] EWHC 2836 (Fam). Time has moved on and S himself has grown older and has, says the judge, shown more of an understanding of why his parents acted as they did. ‘The current situation is far from straightforward.’ For a number of reasons (which we will explain in more detail in a separate post) she states that
‘In considering the holistic welfare balance between the two realistic options I have reached the conclusion that S should remain living in Ghana with the aim of setting out a road map and taking the necessary steps for S to return here after completing his GCSEs. Whether that would take place will need to be reviewed nearer the time.’
The Mirror reported that ‘My ex killed our sons – now I’m fighting to change the law’ (15 Oct 2025) recalling the case of Claire Throssell who had appeared on ITV’s This Morning to ‘tell the heartbreaking story of the domestic abuse she faced throughout her 16-year marriage and how she’s campaigned tirelessly to stop unsafe child contact with perpetrators of domestic abuse’. The article explained that she had played a fundamental role in the implementation of the Domestic Abuse Bill, fighting to ensure domestic abuse survivors cannot be cross-examined by their perpetrators in the Family Court. The article appears to have been prompted by the publication, on 9 October, of Throssel’s book, For My Boys (Mirror Books). The book is timely given the government’s long expected announcement, given a few days later (see below), of the repeal of the ‘presumption of parental involvement’ by both parents.
The Times (£) reported that Gen Z divorces complicated by social media and cryptocurrency (16 Oct 2025), saying ‘legal experts highlight specific Gen Z problems when it comes to the division of assets’ in divorce. The article was mostly about analysis of family court figures by the law firm Nockolds, but there were quotes from a couple of other lawyers too. One said that ‘Young couples certainly have a pre-nup as a matter of course’ but another said ‘nuptial agreements themselves can be a source of friction between splitting couples’. The fact that such people might be more likely to hold cryptocurrency was simply one more thing to deal with, when it came to assessing the extent of any matrimonialisation of assets.
The Law Society Gazette reported that Barrister takes family pet campaign to parliament (17 Oct 2025), about Christina Warner from 33 Bedford Row chambers, who was the founder of Ruby’s Law, ‘a campaign set up this year to get the Family Law Act 1996 amended to include pets in non-molestation orders, occupation orders amended to ensure survivors can keep their pets and the Domestic Abuse Act amended to classify pet abuse as coercive control’. She had found that some victims of domestic abuse had stayed in abusive relationships because they did not want to leave their pet. The article was prompted by her forthcoming appearance before the all-party parliamentary dog advisory welfare group.
The Times reported that University wins gagging order in sex case to ‘protect reputation’ (17 Oct 2025) saying that a leading university had applied for and been granted an order to protect its anonymity at an employment tribunal where it faced allegations that a senior professor sexually harassed a female colleague. This was said to be a grave threat to open justice. The tribunal appears to have issued the order without giving reasons or giving media representatives an opportunity to oppose it, which seems procedurally questionable. The article says lawyers for the woman in the university case ‘are planning to challenge the anonymity order and have sought an urgent appeal hearing’, so we await further news. While it seems hard to imagine circumstances in which such an order could be allowed to stand, it might have something to do with a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) as that appears to be quite a popular procedure with universities anxious to protect their reputation and that of their staff: see, for example, this news story from 2019: UK universities pay out £90m on staff ‘gagging orders’ in past two years. However, in 2022 the BBC reported that Universities pledge to stop silencing sex-assault victims. The pledge, backed by the then government, was apparently only supported by six universities. It would be nice to think that none of them, at least, was involved in the present case.
Sky News reported Harvey Willgoose murder: Boy who murdered 15-year-old in school knife attack sentenced – as it happened (22 Oct 2025). This was about the lifting of anonymity of the convicted 15-year-old killer of a fellow schoolboy and his sentencing at Sheffield Crown Court. It reports the reasons given by Mrs Justice Ellenbogen for naming him, as follows:
- Justice should take place in open courts and the press should be able to report proceedings
- The killing of Harvey was a “serious crime” carried out on school property by one student against another, and the public would want to know the identity of such an offender
- Naming Khan now won’t affect his future life prospects as he would’ve been named when he was 18 anyway (in November 2027), and he will still have a “further lengthy period of custody” after that time
- It isn’t clear how Khan’s rehabilitation would be affected “other than in the most general of terms” by naming him
- There is no evidence that identifying the defendant would affect his mental health, as Khan is in a “secure environment” with access to professionals
- While Khan’s parents expressed concern for themselves if he was named, it isn’t the purpose of the law to protect the safety of the defendant’s parents or family members
The BBC also reported the sentencing, As it happened: Killer of schoolboy Harvey Willgoose sentenced to minimum of 16 years
The Guardian had an opinion piece, I’ve seen courts hand children back to their abusers. Today that horror finally ends (22 Oct 2025) in which barrister Charlotte Proudman welcomed the government’s announcement of a ‘groundbreaking legal change that offers hope for children and survivors in family courts’, namely the repeal of the legal presumption in England and Wales that a parent has a right to involvement in their children’s lives. There’s been quite a lot of other comment on this, as well. We had a post explaining the change, which has been a long time coming. On the same day, the BBC added a piece referring to Claire Throssel’s case (see Mirror story above): Mum of killed boys says law change will save lives. The Guardian also covered this, with ‘No more children are going to die like you’: how Sheffield mother kept her promise to boys killed by father 11 years ago (29 Oct 2025)
The Mail reported that Psychologist whose advice led to at least a dozen children being removed from their mothers has evidence thrown out in custody case (26 Oct 2025). This was a report by Hannah Summers on a case in which evidence from Melanie Gill, described as a ‘controversial’ psychologist who had been accused of peddling ‘harmful pseudoscience’ about parental alienation, and ‘whose advice led to at least a dozen children being removed from their mothers’, had been thrown out by Judd J. This followed a ‘crucial ruling by Sir Andrew McFarlane, the President of the Family Division (Re C [2023] EWHC 345 (Fam) ) that parental alienation “is not a syndrome capable of diagnosis” and that instead a judge should look at the facts of the case.’ The report goes on to say that Claire Waxman, the incoming Victims’ Commissioner for England and Wales, had ‘called on Sir Andrew to now review every case where Gill or any other unregulated expert has diagnosed “parental alienation” and where children were subsequently removed from parents’. The Mail report follows Summers’ more in-depth coverage of the case for the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, Mum who lost custody of children has expert’s evidence overturned (23 Oct 2025)
The Guardian reported ‘Dangerously outdated’: high court overturns ruling implying domestic violence would not affect children (28 Oct 2025). This concerned a case in which a lower family court decision, made on the basis that domestic abuse between a father and a mother was “largely historical” and unlikely to pose a risk to their children, had been overturned by a more senior judge who described such reasoning as “dangerously outdated”. The father was on police bail in relation to a number of allegations, and a charging decision from the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) was pending. The father disputed the allegations, and had made counter-allegations that the mother was attempting to alienate the children from him. The father had opposed a fact-finding hearing, which had been denied by the lower court judge; but on the appeal the judge described the lower court’s decision as a “wrong turn” and ordered that a fact-finding hearing take place.
The BBC reported that Character.ai to ban teens from talking to its AI chatbots (29 Oct 2025). This was about a social / emotional chatbot platform founded in 2021, which had faced criticism for allowing vulnerable teenagers to engage with computer-generated fake personalities, and which was facing several lawsuits in the US from parents, including one over the death of a teenager, and which had now decided to restrict the interactions with its platform of under-18 users. The report reveals the weirdly creepy fact that ‘Avatars impersonating British teenagers Brianna Ghey, who was murdered in 2023, and Molly Russell, who took her life at the age of 14 after viewing suicide material online, were discovered on the site in 2024 before being taken down. Later, in 2025, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism (TBIJ) found a chatbot based on paedophile Jeffrey Epstein which had logged more than 3,000 chats with users.’ Earlier, and in not unrelated news, the BBC reported that ChatGPT shares data on how many users exhibit psychosis or suicidal thoughts. It seems ChatGPT is also facing lawsuits over teenage suicides.
BROADCAST & AUDIO COVERAGE
HM Courts and Tribunals Service put out a new episode of their Inside HMCTS podcast, entitled Justice Without Barriers: The Northampton Crown Court Story. (23 Oct 2025) This promises to
‘Go behind the scenes at Northampton Crown Court … where a high-profile murder trial faced extraordinary logistical and human challenges. Discover how a team of justice colleagues, including HMCTS teams, police, and healthcare professionals overcame a previously inaccessible building, complex medical needs, and intense media scrutiny to ensure justice was served. Through creative problem-solving and collaboration, the episode reveals how fairness and dignity can prevail even when the odds seem impossible.’
This is basically about enabling a trial for a defendant with complex mental and physical medical needs and accessibility issues.
LEGAL BLOGGING
In An order for ‘no contact’ at West London Family Court (10 Oct 2025) Julie Doughty blogged about a private law hearing held at West London Family Court in which there were some unusual aspects, including a section 91(14) order in place for more than 15 years and allegations by one party that the judge was biased. The judge was positive about media attendance, although commented that this was not a case where he would publish his judgments because the risk of jigsaw identification was too high.
In Care proceedings and chronic neglect (24 Oct 2025) Julie followed up on a case she’d covered in earlier posts, concerning six children, aged between two and twelve, who were removed from their parents’ care because they had suffered chronic neglect and emotional harm, after court proceedings that had lasted 28 weeks and local authority involvement for 12 years. Earlier posts had covered case management and issues resolution hearings; this post reported on the listed final hearing and outcomes.
RECENT COMMENTARY
Family Law Week commented on the case of K v P (Criminal Solicitor as Court-Appointed QLR) [2025] EWFC 321, saying the judgment, given by the President of the Family Division, ‘provided guidance on the court’s power to terminate the appointment of a court-appointed Qualifying Legal Representative (QLR), particularly where the QLR is also instructed in parallel criminal proceedings concerning domestic abuse’. It concluded that ‘Practitioners contemplating QLR work would be wise to study the statutory framework and guidance with care’.
Local Government Lawyer had a piece, Placement at home under a care order (17 Oct 2025) on the Court of Appeal’s decision in Re A (Care Orders at Home) [2025] EWCA Civ 901, overturning care orders made for placement of five children at home. The article commented that the case ‘is a reminder that care orders for children to remain at home should only be made in rare and exceptional circumstances, and only when supported by a lawful care plan. Robust planning and clarity of roles are essential in such proceedings’.
Inforrm’s blog had a piece by Jonathan Coad, The price we all pay for IPSO’s abject failure as regulator: Part 1 (21 Oct 2025) shortly followed by The price we all pay for IPSO’s abject failure as a Regulator: Part 2 (29 Oct 2025) on the shortcomings of the UK press’s self-regulation club, the so-called Independent Press Standards Organisation, and the problems caused by the public interest defence laid down by the House of Lords in Reynolds v Times Newspapers [1999] UKHL 45; [2001] 2 AC 127, now section 4 Defamation Act 2013.
The inside track on family law blog by family lawyer Jeremy Ford had a post on Repealing the Parental Involvement Presumption: Reform or Redundancy? (23 Oct 2025), saying
‘The Government’s proposal to repeal Section 1(2A) of the Children Act 1989, which presumes that a child’s welfare is best served by the involvement of both parents, has been framed as a progressive step toward safeguarding children in private law proceedings. However, for many practitioners, the question remains: what practical difference will this make, given the existing framework under Practice Direction 12J (PD12J) and the chronic delays in court listings?’
NEW JUDGMENTS OF INTEREST
Re JK (Return Order Under Inherent Jurisdiction) [2025] EWCA Civ 1309
The parents had fled to Thailand when the mother was 24 weeks pregnant, in order to evade local authority involvement. The mother had previously given birth to five children, all of whom had been taken into care. The local authority closed their file but then learnt that the parents had returned to the UK, having left the baby in Thailand with friends. However the child was then moved to an ‘orphanage’. Although the child appeared to be being well looked after there, the local authority was concerned that no one was exercising parental responsibility and believed she was at risk of harm; they applied for her return to the UK through the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court. A return order was made by Mrs Justice Liven. The father appealed, based on the argument that the local authority could not use the inherent jurisdiction as a means to apply for a care order. Baker LJ in the Court of Appeal said that the purpose of the local authority’s application was simply to secure the child’s protection, to which she was entitled as a British national. The fact that they intended to start care proceedings on her return did not invalidate the application.
Re KH (Children) (Care Orders) (Proportionality) [2025] EWCA Civ 1368
Three children had been made subject to final care orders after proceedings in East London Family Court that had lasted 18 months. They’d been living with their grandparents for three years and were doing well. However, the local authority removed them into foster care when the final care orders were made, on the basis of risks posed by two male members of the family. These risks arose from a number of allegations, only three of which had resulted in convictions (of the grandfather as a teenager). In the Court of Appeal, Peter Jackosn LJ substituted supervision orders for the care orders and was very critical of the Family Court judgment and of the local authority removing the children although they were aware this appeal was pending. He emphasised that it is
‘unarguably clear that when the court is assessing risk it must act on the basis of proven facts and inferences that can properly be drawn from them. The submission that the assessment of future risk can be based even in part on unproven facts has been repeatedly rejected’. [para 66]
S v London Borough of Islington (Application to Prevent Vaccination) [2025] EWHC 2780 (Fam)
This is a new judgment on the issue of whether an infant in local authority care should receive routine vaccinations without parental consent. The mother applied under the High Court jurisdiction to stop the local authority taking the eight-month old baby to be vaccinated. She said she had concerns about adverse reactions and a link to autism. Mr Justice MacDonald applied the most recent medical evidence on childhood vaccination and concluded that the mother hadn’t shown that the decision by the local authority to use their powers under Children Act 1989, s 33 to vaccinate was unreasonable, irrational, or otherwise unlawful nor a breach of her or the child’s Article 8 rights.
Local Authority v C & Another [2025] EWHC 2753 (Fam)
We’re including this fairly brief judgment from HHJ Parker in Liverpool because of his comments about the placement that had been found for a boy at risk of suffering further harm of criminal exploitation:
‘the only concerning feature about it is the cost, almost £17,000 a week, which is a staggering cost to the local authority… That cost clearly demonstrates, yet again, that local authorities are at the mercy of the private sector, and I am, time and again presented with cases where a Local Authority have secured provision that can cost anything between £12,000 and £20,000 per week. That is now a regular feature in this sort of case and the concern is that Local Authorities just cannot continue to fund places at that astronomical cost. Local authority resources are finite. There are no alternatives save for unregulated accommodation which often is just as expensive and ineffective. Whilst it is obvious that the issue requires a solution it is not a matter for me, as a judge, to say what that should be. That is a matter for Parliament.’ [para 6]
Re A (A Child) (Non-Notification of Father with PR) [2025] EWHC 2696 (Fam)
This is quite an unusual case where a mother was arguing that the father of her baby should not be notified that care proceedings have been issued and that she was currently going through a parenting assessment. The father has PR and is aware of the existence of his child, so it’s not a situation where a parent is first alerted to the fact they have a child because of local authority and court involvement. The father faces criminal charges of serious violence against the mother who stated that her mental health would seriously deteriorate if he learnt about the proceedings. It appeared that, if the mother was not able to care for the child, options of family placement or adoption would be explored. HHJ Willans in the High Court concluded that the father should be notified. Amongst his reasons was that there was a possibility the father would want to exercise PR in the future, perhaps applying to court for contact. Disclosure of information at this stage was however to be limited in detail.
Re X (A Child) (Disclosure to the NMC) [2025] EWFC 332
Ms Justice Henke had made findings against a father in a judgment in April this year (Now published as Re X (A Child) (Fact-Finding & Welfare) [2025] EWFC 87. The more recent hearing concerned an application by the local authority for that judgment to be disclosed to the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC). The NMC was undertaking a Fitness to Practise investigation into the father, a registered mental health nurse. The findings in care proceedings on the risks posed by the father to his five year old daughter included his having entered into a sexual relationship with a 16 year old girl when he was 22 years older and in a position of trust because the girl was living in foster care with his mother. The judge considered the privacy rights of the father and daughter and concluded that the needs of public safety carried greater weight, and that her judgment should be disclosed to the NMC for its investigative purposes.
The young person in this case (Emi) was 16 years old and had been in the care of West Sussex County Council for 2 ½ years. Although Emi had no complaints about their foster carers, they were anxious to return home to their mother. They felt let down and sidelined by the local authority which was not carrying through its care plan. Emi had a good relationship with their solicitor in the care proceedings and was able to consult her about the lack of progress. The solicitor acted pro bono for the start of the application and the Cafcass guardian represented herself, there being no funding for a separate lawyer. The local authority agreed to amend the care plan to allow Emi to move back to their mother with stronger support in place. The judge, HHJ Earley, was very critical of the local authority although not of any individual social workers. He didn’t discharge the care order but approved the new plan to ensure regular review meetings, continued therapeutic support, and stringent monitoring of the safety plan, to mitigate risks and respond promptly to any safety concerns that may emerge.
Oxfordshire County Council v M & Others [2025] EWFC 354 (B)
We don’t often see judgments that explicitly refer to early permanence (or ‘foster to adopt’) placements. This case is an example of how complex such situations can become. Care proceedings were issued in April 2024 and the baby was placed with the foster carers in October 2024. However, proceedings were ‘extraordinarily protracted’ and continued until care and placement orders were made by HHJ Owens in Oxford Family Court in October this year. The judgment contains details of post-adoption support and contact that has been agreed between the parties and approved by the judge.
London Borough of Barnet v Mother (K) & Another [2025] EWFC 335 (B)
However, here is another recently published judgment where a baby was in an early permanence placement. We’re pleased to see the plain English version for the baby’s mother included at the beginning of the judgment, setting out why the judge, Ms Recorder Piccos, is dispensing with the mother’s consent to placement for adoption. These ‘short reasons’ were explained to her before the judgment was handed down in full.
OTHER TRANSPARENCY etc NEWS
The month began with the swearing in of David Lammy MP, as yet another new Lord Chancellor, after a cabinet mini-shuffle to address the resignation of Angela Rayner MP as deputy prime minister and housing secretary following revelations about her tax affairs. Lammy took over as deputy PM, but Shabana Mahmood MP, moved from the Ministry of Justice to the Home Office, taking over from Yvette Cooper MP, who ended up on the Foreign Office chair when the music stopped. The good thing about Lammy now being in charge of justice was that it should give him a perfect opportunity to implement all the recommendations he made in the Final Report of the Lammy Review into the treatment of, and outcomes for Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic individuals in the criminal justice system in 2017, including the collection of better justice data and publication of all sentencing remarks. Later in the month, BBC reported Lucy Powell was elected Labour’s deputy leader (25 Oct 2025)
The Ministry of Justice announced its reform of weddings law under the banner of it being a ‘Major boost to economy through wedding law reform’ (2 Oct 2025) which reminds me of the old Frank Sinatra song ‘Love and marriage, Love and marriage / they go together like a horse and carriage…’ – only putting the cart before the horse, so to speak. (It’s the economy, stupid.) Sticking to the party line during party conference month (pssst! Don’t forget to mention growth!) the announcement explains how ‘In the biggest overhaul to marriage law since the 19th century, reforms are set to give marrying couples greater freedom and boost the economy by £535 million.’ Under the reforms, ‘couples will be able to marry in a wider range of locations provided venues meet strict standards of being appropriate and dignified’. ‘These changes will mean marriage law reflects modern Britain, making it more straightforward for couples to have legally binding religious ceremonies – including Sikh, Muslim, Buddhist and Hindu weddings – and allow non-religious groups, such as Humanists, to conduct legally binding ceremonies for the first time.’ All this ‘could also open up 12,000 jobs and add over £100 million to the public purse’. To explain how they arrive at the headline figure, they then say: ‘This will also be a significant boost to the economy as it is estimated the reforms could lead to a 3% increase in weddings in England and Wales, adding £535 million to the economy over the next 10 years, supporting 1,800 more businesses and delivering on the Plan for Change to kickstart growth.’ The proposals were basically the government’s response to a report on Weddings Law by the Law Commission.
The Ministry of Justice also announced that Victims freed from silence under NDA reform (20 Oct 2025) but any euphoria for those concerned about family or employment cases would have been short-lived, as it appeared to relate only to criminal cases. The MOJ explained that ‘An amendment to the Victims and Courts Bill will ensure NDAs can no longer legally be used to silence victims or conceal criminal behaviour. The change will guarantee victims and direct witnesses of crime – whether inside or outside the workplace – can share their experiences with anyone, for any purpose, including family, friends, employers and journalists, without fear of legal repercussions.’ However, the use of the words ‘crime’ and ‘criminal’ suggests an evidential burden that might not be achievable in a non-criminal court context.
HM Courts and Tribunals Service announced in their latest email alert (31 Oct 2025) that they had created a video guide on their YouTube channel, entitled Crown Court – Preparing to come to court, designed to reassure and inform people who might be involved in a case. ‘Heading to court for the first time can feel overwhelming. We’ve created a video to help you understand the key roles in the courtroom – from judges and magistrates to ushers and legal representatives – and what to expect when you arrive, including security procedures and where to go.’ However, on looking at the video itself, it appears to have been first shown in January 2022, and carries a warning that it was filmed before the covid lockdown. It has already had 121,196 views. Presumably HMCTS had nothing else to put in their email alert so they have padded it out with old stuff.
The Legal Aid Agency published its Annual Report and Accounts 2024 to 2025 (16 Oct 2025), in which it admitted that the cyber attack revealed in May this year (but occurring some time earlier) had made for a “very challenging time for the agency”, not least because it meant “we have disabled the majority of our digital systems”. They anticipate that “the repercussions will cause considerable disruption throughout the coming year as we move from contingency plans to restore systems and recover our services”. The interruption of payments for legal work has prompted intervention by, among others, the Law Society, whose head of justice, Richard Miller, told practitioners at the Legal Aid Practitioners Group’ conference last month that the Ministry of Justice ‘will have to pay compensation’. See Law Society Gazette, Legal aid lawyers ‘entitled to cyber attack compensation’ (21 Oct 2025). Partial resumption of service has been promised for November, from what we gather, but it may not be comprehensive.
FORTHCOMING EVENTS
Family Justice Council 18th Annual Debate.
Wednesday 3 December 2025, from 5pm to 7pm, London and via Teams.
The motion for this year’s debate is: “Does the term ‘permanence’ help or hinder outcomes for children?”The event will be chaired by Sir Andrew McFarlane, President of the Family Division and Chair of the Family Justice Council. The panel speakers will be announced shortly. To register to attend the event, please complete the registration form.
Celebrating 60 years of the Law Commission
An exhibition to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the Law Commission has opened at the Royal Courts of Justice in London.
Banners on display in the Great Hall explain the history of the Commission and its work to keep the law under review and to recommend reform where needed. The free exhibition runs until Friday 28 November 2025 and is open between 9am and 4pm Monday to Friday.
TRANSPARENCY PROJECT NEWS
We are delighted to announce that our chair, Lucy Reed KC, has been appointed Vice Chair of the Family Law Bar Association, with effect from January 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 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.