“Lost childhoods and the excesses of mad officialdom Christopher Booker wrote in the Telegraph on Sunday (pay-wall) about last Fridays apparent family court refusal to make a secure accommodation order in respect of an older child repeatedly running from care to his parents. We hope the judgment will be published, so as to comment in an informed manner on Mr Bookers report. It will fall for publication under Schedule 1 (4) of the Presidents Transparency Guidance, if a written judgment was given or once a transcript is ordered (para 17).
We still await publication of two key judgments from court of protection and committal proceedings so as to comment meaningfully on Mr Booker’s previous piece discussed here: Why the Court of Appeal released a grandmother imprisoned for disobeying orders of the court of protection.
Both are useful reminders that, whilst publication of appropriately anonymised judgments is just one aspect of transparency, it is a crucial one if incorrect or misleading accounts of family court cases are to be identified and alternative narratives to reach the public.
Children unnecessarily removed from parents, report claims The Guardian reported on a report by Legal Action for Women entitled Suffer the Little Children and their mothers: A dossier on the unjust separation of children from their mothers. It was launched at an open meeting at the House of Commons on Wednesday called ‘stopping the forced separation of children from their mothers and the privatization of child protection’. The dossier has provoked discussion of its claims and the limits of research by Professor Andy Bilson quoted within it. The Transparency Project (Family Court Reporting Watch) will comment in detail as soon as possible. (There is a brief summary of the Legal Action for Women report at the Marilyn Stowe blog here). “