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
“Top Judge threatens to down tools rather than allow victims to be quizzed by abusers in his court”

“Top Judge threatens to down tools rather than allow victims to be quizzed by abusers in his court”

by reporting watch team | May 19, 2017 | Cases, Comment, Explanation, FCReportingWatch

…Or so we imagine the headlines may run if and when a member of the press reads as far as the bottom few paragraphs of the unassuming A (A Minor : Fact Finding; Unrepresented Party) [2017] EWHC 1195 (Fam) (19 May 2017), a recent judgment of Mr Justice Anthony...
Dossier claims children unnecessarily removed from parents

Dossier claims children unnecessarily removed from parents

by reporting watch team | Jan 27, 2017 | FCReportingWatch

Children unnecessarily removed from parents, report claims Dossier indicates drive to increase adoptions is punitive for low-income families and alternatives exist This was the headline and strapline last week in the Guardian. The article announces the publication of...

Imaginary judges use imaginary powers to reform imaginary law

by Lucy R | Jan 25, 2017 | FCReportingWatch

UK judges change court rules on child contact for violent fathers Senior judges are taking steps to end the presumption that a father must have contact with a child where there is evidence of domestic abuse that would put the child or mother at risk. WRONG. WRONG....

Domestic violence & family proceedings : Practice direction amendments to protect vulnerable witnesses & children

by David Burrows | Jan 24, 2017 | Comment, Consultations, FCReportingWatch

On 21 January 2017 Sir James Munby, President of the Family Division, published his 16th View from the President’s Chambers ‘Children and vulnerable witnesses – where are we?. This was accompanied by a report from Cobb J (dated 18 November 2016). This report includes...

Women’s Aid answer our queries about their evidence base

by Lucy R | Jan 11, 2017 | Comment, Events

We have been in dialogue with Women’s Aid about assertions made by them that family courts frequently breach PD12J (practice direction in the Family Courts concerning domestic abuse) by allowing victims to be cross examined by their abusers. We wanted to...
« Older Entries
Next Entries »

Subscribe to our posts

Recent Comments

  • 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
  • Rob on Government announces outcome of the review into the family court presumption of involvement of both parents in a child’s life
  • Kirsty on An order for ‘no contact’ at West London Family Court
  • Julie Doughty on How do I make an application to the court to allow me to publish information about family proceedings?
  • terapan on How do I make an application to the court to allow me to publish information about family proceedings?

Search for something in particular

More search options

October 2025
M T W T F S S
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  
« Sep    
  • 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 Article 10 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 drug testing Expert Evidence. experts financial remedy FLJ forced adoption guidancenote Human Rights Act 1998 judgments law courts legal aid legalbloggingpilot misconduct open justice parental alienation privacy injunctions 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.Ok