info@transparencyproject.org.uk
  • Facebook
  • X
  • Facebook
  • X
The Transparency Project
  • Legal Blogging
  • Posts
  • Projects
  • Events
  • About
  • Who
  • Dictionary
  • Resources
  • Media
  • More search options
Select Page
Is there any public interest in naming divorcing couples?

Is there any public interest in naming divorcing couples?

by Julie Doughty | May 17, 2017 | Cases, Comment, FCReportingWatch

In The Times last week, family courts were accused of being ‘secretive’ because they do not advertise the names of people who are getting divorced – under the headline ‘Call to end divorce case secrecy’ (paywall). ‘Secret’...
What to do about ‘parental alienation’: B (change of residence; parental alienation) March 2017

What to do about ‘parental alienation’: B (change of residence; parental alienation) March 2017

by reporting watch team | May 15, 2017 | Analysis, Cases, FCReportingWatch

Re B (change of residence; parental alienation) [2017] EWFC B24 is the recently published judgment from a family court decision that a child had been alienated from her father by her mother and should move to live with her father. One of the aims of the...
Family Court Reporting Watch Roundup

Family Court Reporting Watch Roundup

by reporting watch team | May 14, 2017 | FCReportingWatch

Correcting, clarifying or commenting on media reports of family court cases Explaining or commenting on published Judgments of family court cases Highlighting other transparency news   MEDIA (MIS)REPORTS OF FAMILY COURTS CASES    Notably accurate (or...
A response to the open letter from the “Mothers In Law” Blog

A response to the open letter from the “Mothers In Law” Blog

by Sarah P | May 11, 2017 | Comment, Project

On May 8th 2017 the Mothers in Law Blog published ‘An Open Letter to the Transparency Project’. We are very happy to respond; communication and dialogue about the family justice system is essential to our charitable objectives which we summarise in this...
Accuracy of reporting – not just for journalists

Accuracy of reporting – not just for journalists

by reporting watch team | May 8, 2017 | FCReportingWatch, Transparency News

Here at The Transparency Project, we often politely challenge inaccurate reporting by the press (sometimes we are more polite than others). Everyone gets it wrong sometimes (including us), and some of the errors we’ve flagged have been a matter of simple human...
CAFCASS, Contempt, Complaints and Child Protection

CAFCASS, Contempt, Complaints and Child Protection

by reporting watch team | May 7, 2017 | Analysis, Cases, Explanation, FCReportingWatch

This blog post is about a case which provides a useful discussion point around questions of privacy of information in family cases, and what can and can’t be disclosed about them. It illustrates how unclear things can be. The case is S v SP and CAFCASS [2016]...
Adoption – just how final is it? The Re W appeal

Adoption – just how final is it? The Re W appeal

by reporting watch team | May 6, 2017 | Cases, Explanation, FCReportingWatch

We wrote here about this case, involving a little girl “W” who had been made the subject of a placement order, allowing her to be placed for adoption away from her family. In the meantime, the original decision that had dealt with her and her siblings had...
Family Court Reporting Watch Roundup

Family Court Reporting Watch Roundup

by reporting watch team | May 6, 2017 | FCReportingWatch

Correcting, clarifying or commenting on media reports of family court cases Explaining or commenting on published Judgments of family court cases Highlighting other transparency news   MEDIA (MIS)REPORTS OF FAMILY COURTS CASES  Notably accurate (or otherwise...
Can a love note prove your innocence?

Can a love note prove your innocence?

by reporting watch team | May 6, 2017 | Cases, Explanation, Notorious

The Daily Mail report today that : Loving note tucked away in a photo album proved parents accused of almost killing their baby did NOT violently shake her This is about baby Effie, who spent several long months away from the care of her loving parents whilst concerns...
Risk assessment of contact after findings of domestic abuse

Risk assessment of contact after findings of domestic abuse

by reporting watch team | May 4, 2017 | Cases, Explanation, FCReportingWatch

In MS v MN [2017] EWHC 324 (Fam) Mr Justice Moor allows a mother’s appeal against an order that there should be direct contact between the father and his children, where the court had made quite serious findings of domestic violence against him. The judge had...
« Older Entries
Next Entries »

Subscribe to our posts

Recent Comments

  • Hilary Searing on Sara Sharif -what we now know from the Safeguarding Review
  • Thoughtful on ‘Oh I’m sorry, did I forget to mention you don’t have to agree to this?’ When social workers forget that interventions under ‘Child in Need’ are voluntary
  • Bayes on Trying to report the family courts – a BBC reporter’s experience
  • Diana Jordan on Repealing ‘the presumption” – an explainer
  • Sarah on ‘Oh I’m sorry, did I forget to mention you don’t have to agree to this?’ When social workers forget that interventions under ‘Child in Need’ are voluntary

Search for something in particular

More search options

December 2025
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031  
« Nov    
  • Analysis
  • Cases
  • Comment
  • Consultations
  • Court of Protection
  • Dictionary
  • Events
  • Explanation
  • FCReportingWatch
  • FOI
  • Guidance Note
  • Legal blogging
  • Notorious
  • Open Reporting
  • Project
  • Reporting Pilot
  • Resources
  • Transparency News
  • Trends
  • Uncategorized

access to courts data adoption Adoption targets alienation anonymisation Article 8 assisted dying Cafcass care proceedings child protection children's views committal contempt of court correctionrequests court of protection covid COVID-19 CPConf2016 divorce domestic abuse domesticabuse domestic violence Expert Evidence. experts finances financial remedy FLJ forced adoption guidancenote Human Rights Act 1998 judgments law courts legal aid legalbloggingpilot mckenzie friends misconduct open justice parental alienation privacy psychologists publication remotejustice Section 20 agreements social work transparency

  • Facebook
  • X
The Transparency Project, Charity Number 1161471.
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it.