- Age of secrecy ends as family courts are opened to media scrutiny
- Frances Gibb With Comments By Camilla Cavendish !!
- The Times
- 28/04/2009 Make a Comment
- Contributed by: Daveyone ( 29 articles in 2009 )
A disturbing case in which a local authority failed to act to take a child into care was able to be revealed yesterday, after the groundbreaking decision to admit the media into the family courts came into effect.
The case, set against a background of alleged sex abuse, revealed how a family had managed to slip through the net of three London councils because they kept moving home and were not known to the social services.
The details are typical of the kind that would have remained unknown but for the opening of such hearings after decades of decisions being taken behind closed doors.
Camilla Cavendish - the campaign
We hear the details of children left in danger. But what of the families of those removed unjustly
Family justice: what we can do to protect our children
A ten-point plan to make our courts system fairer and safeguard it from forces which are largely unaccountable
The historic opening up of the courts was taken by Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, after sustained pressure from families affected by the courts’ decisions and the media, led by The Times.
Under the reforms more than 200,000 hearings involving sensitive and traumatic cases, and with decisions that will have a huge impact on the lives of children and their families, will now be open to media scrutiny.
However, there is still confusion in the courts as to how this reform should operate, although The Times was admitted to most hearings at the six court centres it attended yesterday.
Strict reporting restrictions remain in force, which many – including judges – fear will undermine the reform and dilute its impact. There is also no automatic access to papers that have been laid before the court as evidence.
No identification of parties can take place and there was a mixed message over whether local authorities, often the butt of criticism in care cases, can be named.
The Times attended the above case, at the Barnet Civil and Family Court Centre, in which a council wants to remove a four-year-old child and baby into care.
Judge Marcia Levy revealed in her judgment that a social worker, or “guardian”, had criticised a London council for failing to remove the elder boy three years go.
The case highlights the difficult balancing exercise tackled by the courts, as Judge Levy unravelled the complex family circumstances of the young mother, who was the stepdaughter of a man who became the father of her children.
The council says that without its “intervention” — that is, removal of the children — the children are at significant and continuing risk of harm. The judge decided on the balance of probabilities that the council was right.
In the end, whether the mother can keep her children will depend on whether she can convince the court that she can break off all relations with the father, despite trying and failing to do so, and admitting that she still loves him.
In a fact-finding ruling, Judge Levy held that the children were at risk of suffering harm from the mother’s association with the father. It will be several months, however, before a final hearing to decide if the mother is able to cut off relations from the father, and so keep her children.
It was, lawyers said, an everyday case in the family courts.
Our reporter at Manchester Civil Justice Centre found the detailed case “impenetrable”, with the parties all well aware of the case’s complex history, which was laid out in copious papers before the court. The Times was told that it would have to make oral submissions to see the papers and that a decision would, in all likelihood, be taken by a higher court.
Across the country at courts attended by The Times the low-key tone of the proceedings everywhere belied their nature.
In Bath, the court list said simply: “A minor.” At the heart of the case was the grandmother’s belief that her daughter is not a fit parent. She wants the boy, now living with her, to stay there permanently.
There, the move towards openness was welcomed. Elsewhere, however, lawyers were less enthusiastic: ironically it was in one care case before magistrates in London — hearings that are already open to the media — that a lawyer sought to have The Times removed.
The reforms extend to divorce hearings but at the Principal Registry of the Family Division in London, 11 out of 66 hearings were already marked “not open to the media”. These are likely to involve adoption proceedings, which are not covered by the reform.
The Times gained access to a hearing before the presence of the media led to the judge, Vera Mayer, transferring it to the High Court, to establish what, if anything, could be reported.
Echoing the views of judges and lawyers generally, she said: “I think this is a new field and none of us has any proper guidelines. It has come at a speed that none of us anticipated.”
Mr Straw said yesterday that he wanted to ensure “a change in the culture and practice of all courts towards greater openness” and that the reform was an “important step towards that goal”.
He plans to revise the law on reporting restrictions, but there is no imminent slot to introduce such legislation.
Meanwhile, however, parties in the cases are now freer to disclose information to others, including MPs, to seek help and advice, he said.
He also confirmed that he would not reverse a Court of Appeal ruling, that had previously been indicated, so as to stop parents talking about their case after it is over; and announced a pilot project to put some anonymised judgments on line, to give parties the judgment at the end of the case and look at the practicalites of retaining judgments so that children involved can see them when they are older.
DOING AWAY WITH DISCREPANCIES: THE CHANGES
Accredited media (holders of a United Kingdom press card) may be admitted to family courts that were formally closed until now — county courts and High Courts — removing the discrepancy with the already open magistrates’ courts and Court of Appeal
No bloggers, occasional newsletter writers or foreign media not based in the UK will be given such access
All existing court-reporting restrictions apply, protecting the anonymity of children and preventing mention of names, places and possibly also local authorities where that would identify children
No automatic right to evidence or documents relied on in court
No admittance to adoption proceedings or hearings held for “judicially-assisted conciliation and negotiations”
The case, set against a background of alleged sex abuse, revealed how a family had managed to slip through the net of three London councils because they kept moving home and were not known to the social services.
The details are typical of the kind that would have remained unknown but for the opening of such hearings after decades of decisions being taken behind closed doors.
Camilla Cavendish - the campaign
We hear the details of children left in danger. But what of the families of those removed unjustly
Family justice: what we can do to protect our children
A ten-point plan to make our courts system fairer and safeguard it from forces which are largely unaccountable
The historic opening up of the courts was taken by Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, after sustained pressure from families affected by the courts’ decisions and the media, led by The Times.
Under the reforms more than 200,000 hearings involving sensitive and traumatic cases, and with decisions that will have a huge impact on the lives of children and their families, will now be open to media scrutiny.
However, there is still confusion in the courts as to how this reform should operate, although The Times was admitted to most hearings at the six court centres it attended yesterday.
Strict reporting restrictions remain in force, which many – including judges – fear will undermine the reform and dilute its impact. There is also no automatic access to papers that have been laid before the court as evidence.
No identification of parties can take place and there was a mixed message over whether local authorities, often the butt of criticism in care cases, can be named.
The Times attended the above case, at the Barnet Civil and Family Court Centre, in which a council wants to remove a four-year-old child and baby into care.
Judge Marcia Levy revealed in her judgment that a social worker, or “guardian”, had criticised a London council for failing to remove the elder boy three years go.
The case highlights the difficult balancing exercise tackled by the courts, as Judge Levy unravelled the complex family circumstances of the young mother, who was the stepdaughter of a man who became the father of her children.
The council says that without its “intervention” — that is, removal of the children — the children are at significant and continuing risk of harm. The judge decided on the balance of probabilities that the council was right.
In the end, whether the mother can keep her children will depend on whether she can convince the court that she can break off all relations with the father, despite trying and failing to do so, and admitting that she still loves him.
In a fact-finding ruling, Judge Levy held that the children were at risk of suffering harm from the mother’s association with the father. It will be several months, however, before a final hearing to decide if the mother is able to cut off relations from the father, and so keep her children.
It was, lawyers said, an everyday case in the family courts.
Our reporter at Manchester Civil Justice Centre found the detailed case “impenetrable”, with the parties all well aware of the case’s complex history, which was laid out in copious papers before the court. The Times was told that it would have to make oral submissions to see the papers and that a decision would, in all likelihood, be taken by a higher court.
Across the country at courts attended by The Times the low-key tone of the proceedings everywhere belied their nature.
In Bath, the court list said simply: “A minor.” At the heart of the case was the grandmother’s belief that her daughter is not a fit parent. She wants the boy, now living with her, to stay there permanently.
There, the move towards openness was welcomed. Elsewhere, however, lawyers were less enthusiastic: ironically it was in one care case before magistrates in London — hearings that are already open to the media — that a lawyer sought to have The Times removed.
The reforms extend to divorce hearings but at the Principal Registry of the Family Division in London, 11 out of 66 hearings were already marked “not open to the media”. These are likely to involve adoption proceedings, which are not covered by the reform.
The Times gained access to a hearing before the presence of the media led to the judge, Vera Mayer, transferring it to the High Court, to establish what, if anything, could be reported.
Echoing the views of judges and lawyers generally, she said: “I think this is a new field and none of us has any proper guidelines. It has come at a speed that none of us anticipated.”
Mr Straw said yesterday that he wanted to ensure “a change in the culture and practice of all courts towards greater openness” and that the reform was an “important step towards that goal”.
He plans to revise the law on reporting restrictions, but there is no imminent slot to introduce such legislation.
Meanwhile, however, parties in the cases are now freer to disclose information to others, including MPs, to seek help and advice, he said.
He also confirmed that he would not reverse a Court of Appeal ruling, that had previously been indicated, so as to stop parents talking about their case after it is over; and announced a pilot project to put some anonymised judgments on line, to give parties the judgment at the end of the case and look at the practicalites of retaining judgments so that children involved can see them when they are older.
DOING AWAY WITH DISCREPANCIES: THE CHANGES
Accredited media (holders of a United Kingdom press card) may be admitted to family courts that were formally closed until now — county courts and High Courts — removing the discrepancy with the already open magistrates’ courts and Court of Appeal
No bloggers, occasional newsletter writers or foreign media not based in the UK will be given such access
All existing court-reporting restrictions apply, protecting the anonymity of children and preventing mention of names, places and possibly also local authorities where that would identify children
No automatic right to evidence or documents relied on in court
No admittance to adoption proceedings or hearings held for “judicially-assisted conciliation and negotiations”
Source: https://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article6182314.ece?Submitted=true
1Will not be visible to public.
2Receive notification of other comments posted for this article. To cease notification after having posted click here.
3To make a link clickable in the comments box enclose in link tags - ie.<link>Link</link>.
4To show an image enclose the image URL in tags - ie.. Note: image may be resized if too large
To further have your say, head to our forum Click Here
To contribute a news article Click Here
To view or contribute a Quote Click Here