header-logo header-logo

21 October 2016 / Kate Molan
Issue: 7719 / Categories: Features , Family
printer mail-detail

Keeping mum

nlj_7719_molan

Kate Molan reviews helpful new guidance to protect the anonymity of children in the family courts

  • Agenda exploring transparency in the family court continues.
  • Judgment dealing with applications for reporting restriction orders coincides with draft guidance on the anonymisation of judgments.

The welfare of children has always been at the forefront of the family justice system. In May 2015 Lucy Cummin and I wrote an article in this journal, “Keep it in the family” which was subsequently republished by LexisNexis for circulation at the Resolution conference (see 165 NLJ 7644, p 13).

The article detailed how the President of the Family Division, Sir James Munby, had issued a consultation paper aimed at understanding whether there was a need for the family courts to become more transparent as a way of instilling greater public confidence in the family justice system. The consultation dealt with four main issues, namely the publication of judgments, court listing descriptions, disclosure of confidential documents and hearings in public.

At the time of our article, the Association of Lawyers for

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll