- @UN STOP FAMILY COURT CORRUPTION IN 2025 @UNICEF @Sanchia7
- By Daveyone Sancha Berg + Various
- JUSTICE4CHILDREN:ALWAYS & BBCNEWS
- 01/01/2025 Make a Comment
- Contributed by: Daveyone ( 2 articles in 2025 )
The World Deserves Justice!
Landmark new rules to bring transparency to family courts
Sanchia Berg
BBC News
Published
20 December 2024
Journalists and legal bloggers are to be allowed to report on family court cases across England and Wales from early next year.
Transparency will no longer be restricted to pilot courts and will be permanent.
Journalists will be able to request a transparency order in all family courts to allow them to report what they see and hear, access key documents and speak to families - provided they keep them anonymous.
Previously, journalists and legal bloggers could attend family courts but were limited in what they could report.
A transparency pilot is currently operating in just under half the family courts in England and Wales.
Judges will retain the power to turn down requests but there is a presumption in favour of reporting.
The change has been approved by the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) and will come into force on 27 January 2025.
The rollout will be staggered, and transparency will first apply to public law – care cases – then to private law, where parents are separating, and lastly to magistrates' courts.
They determine whether children should be removed from their parents, or which parent children should live with.
As the recent case of Sara Sharif shows, those decisions can affect people's lives forever. A family court decided to place Sara with her father and stepmother, who were found guilty of her murder.
A High Court Judge decided to release documents covering that family case, but said the judge's name should not be published. Journalists have been granted the right to appeal against that decision, which will be heard in early January.
Over the past two years BBC News has shown how Transparency Orders can work, to reveal important stories of significant public interest, while maintaining the privacy of families.
Early in 2023, the BBC used the orders to report cases in Leeds Family Court.
The drive towards transparency made it easier for the BBC to obtain information in May 2023 about a past family hearing about Finley Boden, the baby returned by Family Magistrates to the parents who murdered him.
Using Transparency, the BBC was able to report in November 2023 how a young mother in Cardiff had to spend £30,000 in the Family Court to protect her young daughter from a convicted paedophile – her ex-husband.
The MP Harriet Harman said the BBC's reporting had revealed a gap in the law that politicians had missed. She set out to change the law and an amendment was in the current King's Speech.
Transparency also allowed us reveal that Baby Elsa, abandoned in a London park on the coldest night of the year, was the third child of the same parents.
Using Transparency Emma Glasbey of the BBC's Look North told the story of an abuse survivor who had her children taken away.
It was also used to report on the Harehills Family case that led to riots in Leeds this July.
Callum Parke of PA Media has reported many family cases using transparency orders.
Hannah Summers of the Bureau of investigative Journalism has used Transparency to report complex private law cases – including one where she successfully argued , external for a husband accused of rape to be identified.
Tortoise Media's Louise Tickle has campaigned for greater transparency for many years. Her reporting using transparency showed some judges resist the drive , external towards greater openness.
Lucy Reed KC is the founder of the Transparency project, a charity set up to improve public understanding of the Family Courts.
She said this expansion was "a great step forward" but "there is still a great deal more cultural and practical change required before the Family Court can say it is operating as transparently as possible".@Keir_Starmer @bbcworldservice @BBCWorld @ShabanaMahmood @NicDakin55 @antonioguterres @MoJGovUK @AlexDaviesJones writetothem.com @Nigel_Farage @reformparty_uk @GBNEWS @raelbrav@EmpowerInnocent @ROG7739 @mark_hoath @JamesTCobbler
@addicted2newz@Earlychildhood @KimberleyJayne4 @Lord_Talbot64 @SoulNtension @AccusedToo
@FamilyLawVictim @NeubergerLaw @dadmatters_uk
Why I'm seizing the chance to scrutinise the family courts
Published
30 January 2023
After decades of calls for greater scrutiny of the family courts, journalists will be able to report proceedings in a pilot scheme from Monday. The BBC's Sanchia Berg reflects on the controversial cases that preceded the move, which is hoped will increase accountability in a crucial area of law.
Short presentational grey line
During the Covid pandemic, Liz Anstey was living with her daughter, teenage son and five-year-old grandson. In early 2021, her daughter gave birth to a new baby who sadly died suddenly, and without apparent cause.
The two other children were taken into care. An inquest showed the baby died of an infection and there had been no sign of neglect or abuse. Liz expected the boys to be returned home, but instead family court proceedings began.
Liz found the court process "very traumatic". She says she did not know who was who, hearings kept being adjourned, and she could not easily follow it.
"I felt like Alice in Wonderland going down the rabbit hole. I really did. It was so surreal," she says.
Family courts handle the most sensitive areas of families' lives - usually involving vulnerable children - which is why cases are heard in private and journalists have not been allowed to report on them.
But there have been publicly-acknowledged miscarriages of justice and many more examples of parents claiming they have been unfairly treated.
It took Liz months to get the boys back - she says having reporters in court would have made a huge difference.
'Significant step'
Over the next 12 months, accredited journalists will be able to report on cases in Leeds, Carlisle and Cardiff, which should enable close scrutiny of the actions of local authorities and the courts themselves. I will be one of them.
The most senior judge in the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, said there was "an absence of confidence" in the courts due to a "vacuum of information". He told me open justice was a principle to be sought and described the pilot as a "very significant" step.
"For decades… this has been put in the too-difficult box because of the need to open up but at the same time keep closed the identity of the family," he said. Why I'm seizing the chance to scrutinise the family courts
The BBC's Sanchia Berg
The BBC's Sanchia Berg has been reporting - and trying to report - family cases since 2009.
Many thousands of people are involved in family cases each year - there are more than 200,000 cases in the family courts annually and record numbers of children in care.
Broadly, cases are divided into disputes between separating parents, known as private law, and applications by local authorities to take children into care, which are public law. The pilot scheme will begin with public law cases and extend to private law within a couple of months. Journalists will be given access to legal documents and allowed to interview families.
Family court judges may also rule on issues like disputes between doctors and parents over treatment for a child, or so-called "deprivation of liberty" cases where local authorities have nowhere safe to place a vulnerable child in care.
Fruitless changes
Demands for greater scrutiny of the courts have been made for decades, thanks in part to some highly-publicised cases.
One example involved Nicky and Mark Webster, In 2005, their three children were adopted - they had been taken into care after one suffered injuries. The court heard these were deliberate, but the couple challenged that successfully and won the right for the media to attend hearings concerning their fourth child. But the oldest children were never returned to them.
Calls to open up the courts grew louder. In 2008, the Times newspaper ran a year-long campaign which led to the then-Justice Secretary Jack Straw changing the rules so journalists were allowed in.
The big day was supposed to be 27 April 2009. I joined a flood of reporters from the national press heading into the Family Division of the High Court at the Royal Courts of Justice. But it was almost fruitless.
The problem was the rules had not been changed enough and it was not clear what journalists could report. Judges were advised we could report the "gist" of the case, without that being defined.
A couple of weeks later, I went to the lower level family court in Holborn, with the brief from my editor at the Today programme to spend "as long as it takes" to tell the story of a case.
I managed to follow the last two weeks of a final hearing where a local authority was applying to take several children from the same family into care.
The judge allowed me to report some of the details - for instance how a young boy had been hit by his father with a shoe. But I could not include the information that would make it a meaningful story, like identify the local authority, or interview any of the family members.
Towards the end of the hearing, as I came out of the building, I saw the mother collapsed, sobbing against the wall - as if it was only then that she had realised all her children would be taken away. It was a reminder of the real impact of these decisions and the importance of reporting them.
Not true open justice
Jack Straw intended to change the law further so more detailed reporting would be possible. But Labour lost the 2010 election and those plans were shelved. Almost all journalists - including me - stopped trying to report court proceedings directly.
Sir James Munby took over the Family Division in 2013 and announced his intention to open up the courts. As a first step, he told judges to publish more of their own final judgments.
At first, the numbers shot up. More stories from the family courts started appearing across media outlets. Brian Farmer of the Press Association news agency was particularly diligent in picking out the most interesting or newsworthy, showing the range of different issues considered by the court - like a teenage girl dying of cancer who wanted to have her body cryogenically preserved. Louise Tickle, for the Guardian, repeatedly tried to get reporting restrictions varied - and tell stories - usually supported by lawyers from the Transparency Project charity.
But mostly, this was a limited form of transparency, where journalists were reliant on the judge's version of events. It was not true open justice.
Another high-profile case captured the headlines. In 2016, Ben Butler was found guilty of murdering his six-year-old daughter Ellie in 2013. A family court had decided she should be returned to her parents the year before, despite warnings from her grandfather who had been caring for her, that Ellie had been frightened to return to her parents.
'Got to get over it'
Parents continued to contact me saying they had suffered miscarriages of justice. I could do very little because under the rules they were not even allowed to contact me about their case, let alone share documents or discuss what happened.
In 2018, I came across the case of a mother who had nearly lost her daughter forever over her use of an Epipen. She had managed to raise funds to appeal the decision, and won. But when the case returned to the lower court, the judge there made an order that made it impossible for us to report the full story of the case.
Both Louise Tickle and I were in court, and when Louise decided to launch an appeal against that decision, the BBC joined. We won, and could report the case, but it took months and many hours of lawyers' time.
If this pilot is successful, the intention is to extend it across England and Wales. It's not clear how many journalists will try to report cases though, and there are still some practical issues to address.
Reporting is permitted thanks to a Transparency Order. Judges will grant these and be able to vary them, determining what can be reported, depending on the individual cases. Preserving the anonymity of children is paramount but local authorities can be named.
While many judges and lawyers support transparency, some in the pilot areas seemed wary of it.
Hannah Markham, KC, chair of the Family Law Bar Association, said it would take time to get used to reporters. "We're used to not having anybody in court, it's just us, it's just our clients. It's closed," she said. "It's something we've got to get over.
@mygracecoach @POTUS @realDonaldTrump @JDVance @foxnewspolitics @realTrumpNewsX
@SarahTaylo89428 @abearze34 @DonaldTenn @VetFather_Bill @Sheffanessea1 @ForEryk @Ex_arv_sgt @DivorceColorado@tylerblanchardx @mikeroady @RobinJacks16957 @RunTheRace78 @SussexroyalU @attyshawn @PamBondi @MarcoRubio @elonmusk
@WarrenStephens @ToddBlanche @RobertF.KennedyJr.
The mother who lost her daughter over an EpiPen
Published
16 February 2019
By Sanchia Berg
BBC News
"Three cars showed up in the early hours of the morning and the police were banging on my door," Anna says.
It was June 2015 when Anna's two-year-old daughter was taken away by social workers from Southampton City Council.
"I didn't know what was going on," she said.
"Then the police said I was being arrested for child neglect."
Anna, not her real name, is originally from Africa and was then a single mother.
Her daughter has allergies and in an incident a few weeks before she was taken away she had been struggling to breathe. Anna called an ambulance and injected the girl with an EpiPen.
It was the second such emergency in seven months.
"It was terrifying with such a little child," she says.
"At the end of the day I had a baby who wasn't breathing, and I had means to help her so I administered it."
But doctors at the hospital said she was wrong to use the EpiPen and suspected she had deliberately made her child ill.
Two days after her daughter had been seized, Southampton Children's Services went to Anna's local family court, in Portsmouth, asking for an interim order allowing them to keep the toddler in their care.
The judge agreed and the little girl was sent to foster parents.
'I felt helpless'
No charges were brought against Anna but social workers were reluctant to return her daughter.
In late 2015, they tried to get the pair to live with other relatives. Then, in 2016 they suggested the girl could live with her father - who had little previous contact with her.
In 2017, when neither solution worked, the local authority decided the little girl - now four - should be adopted.
This also had to go before the family court.
Anna was stunned by the adoption plan.
Her own circumstances had changed. She had married and was more secure than before.
"I was shocked. I just didn't understand. It made me question the family law system or the justice system because what had happened didn't justify for her to be put up for adoption."
She made a counter application to the court: that her daughter come to her new home.
"I felt helpless, completely at somebody else's mercy. I was terrified I would lose my child forever."
Quote box saying: I was told my chances of winning were almost nil
The local authority argued Anna presented a "significant risk of physical harm" to her daughter.
They said she could be overprotective, and use medication inappropriately. They also said Anna was not emotionally attuned to her child.
By this point, mother and child had been living apart for nearly two years.
Anna was astonished when Judge Edward Hess approved the local authority's request.
She said she felt "gaslighted" by the system.
Anna, her new husband, and the child's father raided their savings and liquidated assets to fund legal action.
They got permission to go to the Court of Appeal, which lawyers say is unusual.
"I was told my chances of winning were almost nil. But I thought I've got to try to do my best for my daughter."
Once there, they defied the odds and won the case.
£60,000 legal fees
The three judges said the first court's finding was "based on the slimmest of evidence". They overturned the adoption placement order and said the case should be reheard.
But they said Anna would have to pay her own costs.
The relief was "huge", she says, but it was tempered by the knowledge she'd have to find more money.
By now she was pregnant and worried that her new baby could be taken into care unless she won her daughter back.
After the Court of Appeal judgment Southampton City Council stepped up Anna's contact with her daughter.
And last summer she came home to Anna.
"Euphoria. That's all I can say. I was so happy to have her back," she said.
The family has spent £60,000 in legal fees.
In 2017, Southampton had the highest adoption rates in England for children turning five, the BBC discovered in a joint investigation with the Bureau of Investigative Journalism.
When we asked why, the city council said: "All children who were adopted were subject to rigorous scrutiny by the legal system and the family court".
But we wanted to understand the decisions of the local family court.
Although journalists have been allowed into family courts since 2009, what they can report is limited and sometimes unclear. They routinely try to cover cases, especially in local courts.
Senior legal experts have said greater openness in family courts is essential to counter criticism.
However, while some judges treat this call for transparency as routine, others publish hardly anything.
I could find no adoption or care case judgements from Judge Hess in the Portsmouth Family Court, where Southampton cases are heard.
Court of Appeal judgements are published though, which is how we found the case.
When I went to Portsmouth Family Court in October, for Anna's last hearing, another judge made an order that made reporting the story impossible.
He said if we reported the outcome of the case we couldn't include certain details, even though they were in the Court of Appeal judgment.
The freelance journalist Louise Tickle challenged this ruling, and her legal challenge was later joined by the BBC.
The new President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, allowed the appeal which means the case can now be reported.
He also said he is planning new guidance, which could make it clearer for journalists how they can report family courts, and also help guide judges when they order reporting restrictions.
As for Anna, she says she fears other families could be in a similar position.
She thinks legal aid should be reformed so that others can be helped to challenge decisions. She also believes there must be more accountability, through more openness.
"I feel like it really needs to be scrutinised, a bit more open to the public. Because I don't feel like it protects families; it protects bad practice.
"Because basically they're a law unto themselves and nobody is able to challenge them because it's all done in secrecy."
In a statement, Southampton City Council said it was "pleased that the main issue in this appeal has been settled with the agreement of all parties".
"We also welcome the fact that the President of the Family Division intends to consult and give further guidance as to how courts, practitioners and journalists should approach the reporting of private cases involving children and their families," it added.
@JustinTrudeau @CBCNews @ezralevant @BmptGuardian @patrickbrownont @JennaSudds
@Arif Virani @CBCTheNational
Family court reporting to be allowed for first time
1 December 2022
Family courts have powers to make significant interventions in family life
By Sanchia Berg
BBC News
For the first time, journalists will be able to report what happens in family courts, under a pilot scheme.
Until now, reporters have been able to observe hearings but could only report what was allowed by a judge.
The 12-month pilot, which will not allow journalists to identify families, takes place in Leeds, Cardiff and Carlisle from the end of January.
Family courts have powers to make drastic interventions - such as ordering children be taken into care.
They also decide where children should live when parents cannot agree or where there are allegations of abuse.
The changes being trialled are potentially very significant, affecting a court system which involves at least half a million people every year.
From the end of January, accredited journalists will be able to report what they see and hear as long as they protect the anonymity of families.
Leeds, Cardiff and Carlisle have been chosen as a representative mix of rural and urban communities.
Criticised as 'secretive'
Despite the fact that family courts have the power to make significant interventions in the lives of families, they are often criticised as "secretive" and there is very little reporting of them.
That is because, until now, journalists have been able to observe hearings but only report what is allowed by a judge, unless they go to the Court of Appeal.
Sir Andrew MacFarlane, the president of the family courts, has said "there is a need for greater openness to build public confidence".
Under the pilot, journalists will be able to name local authorities in care proceedings, as well as the director of local children's services. They won't, however, be able to name individual social workers, unless ordered by the court.
They will be allowed to name the lawyers involved, and the court-appointed experts, but not medical professionals treating children or any family member involved in a case.
Journalists will be able to interview families about their cases, as long as they protect their identity.
Reporters will also be allowed to see some of the legal documents in cases, but will not be able to view any expert or medical reports without permission from the courts.
All of this is done through transparency orders, issued by the judge in each case. Judges will retain the right to refuse to issue one of these orders, and restrict reporting.
@AlboMP @9NewsAUS @UNCUT_Australia
Family courts: 'Major overhaul' aims to protect domestic abuse victims
Published
25 June 2020
Four children were killed between 2014 and 2019 by a parent given access to them by a court, BBC research found
By Emma Ailes
BBC News
Domestic abuse victims will get greater protections in an "overhaul of how the family courts deal with the horrific crime", the government has announced.
Under new plans, more victims will have access to separate courtroom entrances, waiting rooms and protective screens to shield them from their alleged abuser.
A number of reforms will be included in the upcoming Domestic Abuse Bill.
It comes after an expert-led review of the family courts' handling domestic abuse, following a BBC investigation.
Research by the Victoria Derbyshire programme found that within five years at least four children were killed by a parent with a known history of domestic abuse after a family court granted access.
The BBC also learned of cases where a parent with convictions for serious crimes relating to domestic abuse - including rape and serious violent offences - were granted unsupervised access to their child.
Voices of children 'lost in family courts'
Call for inquiry into abusive parents' access to children
Remote hearings for family courts 'horribly cruel'
The government review, led by experts from charities, the judiciary, family law practitioners and academia, took the views of more than 1,200 organisations and individuals, including parents and children with experience of the family courts.
It heard concerns about a "pro-contact culture", in which courts placed undue priority on ensuring contact with the non-resident parent, resulting in "systemic minimisation of allegations of domestic abuse".
The panel heard evidence about potential long-term harm to children as a result of courts ordering continued contact with an abusive parent.
It also found that an "adversarial system" in the family courts, including in cases involving child sexual abuse, often worsened conflict between parents and could re-traumatise victims and their children.
"Sweeping reforms" of the system aimed to better protect domestic abuse victims in the family courts, the Ministry of Justice said.
They include:
Automatic entitlement to separate waiting rooms, entrances and screens in court for victims of domestic abuse, to be included in the upcoming Domestic Abuse Bill
More powers for judges in the form of "barring orders" to prevent abusers repeatedly dragging ex-partners back to court and re-traumatising victims
A review of the presumption of "parental involvement" and the balance between risk of harm to children and victims, and the right of the child to have a relationship with both parents
A trial of a new domestic abuse court with a "problem-solving approach" where a judge explores evidence rather than parents presenting their cases against each other
A commitment to improved training for professionals in the family justice system
'Step forward'
Justice minister Alex Chalk said the family courts see some of the most vulnerable in society and the government had a duty "to ensure they are protected and not put in danger".
"This report lays bare many hard truths about long-standing failings, but we are determined to drive the fundamental change necessary to keep victims and their children safe," he said.
Nicki Norman, Acting CEO at the charity Women's Aid, who was a member of the expert panel, said the report marked "a major step forward".
She said that "all too often, survivors and their children experience the family courts as failing to effectively protect them".
"This welcome report must now deliver change."
Domestic Abuse Commissioner Nicole Jacobs and Victims' Commissioner for England and Wales Dame Vera Baird QC also welcomed the reforms.
"This panel of experts has dug deep to understand, and address, the serious harm to domestic abuse victims and their children caused over many years by the presumption of contact, and the intensely adversarial process present in the family courts," Dame Vera said.
Top family court judge in England and Wales, Sir Andrew McFarlance, President of the Family Division, praised the review, and said he hoped parliament would be able to allocate the resources necessary to implement the proposals.
The Domestic Abuse Bill, external is currently at the report stage in the House of Commons. Other measures include prohibiting perpetrators of abuse from cross-examining their victims in person in the family courts in England and Wales.
@chrisluxonmp @TVNZ @Judith Collins TVNZ 1 1News
Call for inquiry into abusive parents' access to children
Published
15 May 2019
Share
01:59
Media caption,
One mother describes how her abusive ex-partner was granted unsupervised access to their children
By Emma Ailes and Jessica Furst
BBC Victoria Derbyshire programme
More than 120 MPs have written to the government asking for an inquiry into how family courts in England and Wales treat victims of domestic violence.
At least four children have been killed by a parent in the past five years after a family court granted access.
Dozens of parents have told the Victoria Derbyshire programme their abusive ex-partners were granted unsupervised contact with their child.
The Ministry of Justice said a child's welfare was always the priority.
"Where there is evidence of domestic abuse, the courts are bound by law to consider potential harm to the child and this overrides any presumption of parental involvement," an MoJ spokesman said.
'Toxic trio'
When parents separate and cannot agree arrangements for their children, a family court judge can make a legally-binding decision on contact - including whether visits to a mother or father should be supervised.
The fundamental presumption in law is that it is in the best interests of the child to have contact with both parents.
But it has led to the courts ordering children to have contact with an alleged or known violent ex-partner - including some convicted of rape, assault and drug offences, the BBC has learned from dozens of affected parents.
Due to legal restrictions the BBC cannot always view family court documents to substantiate the claims made by parents.
However, analysis of serious case reviews for England since 2014, shows four children have been killed during access granted by the family courts.
It indicates that four further children had been sexually abused or seriously injured, or both.
Visualisation of scared child looking at father's clenched fist
Image source,Sam Aitkenhead
In all of the cases, social services had been aware of a history of domestic abuse allegations against the partner. The youngest victim was five months old.
In one incident, a father who went on to kill both of his children was granted unsupervised contact with them in an interim order. The case review found that numerous professionals - including a social worker, a teacher and an official from court support service Cafcass - had been too scared to be left alone with him because of his aggressive behaviour.
Other cases refer to a parent having what is known as a "toxic trio" of addiction, mental illness and a history of violence.
The number of children injured by a parent during court-ordered contact may in reality be much higher, as serious case reviews are generally conducted only in cases of serious harm or death.
They are carried out in order to find ways that local agencies can improve their safeguarding practices.
They do not investigate the family courts, so it is not possible to establish whether the courts' decisions led directly to the deaths.
line
Mary's story
"I was completely naive about the family courts," says Mary - not her real name.
She has spent £130,000 in legal fees to try to protect her children.
Her ex-partner has been awarded regular, unsupervised overnight contact with them.
She says they have since come home with injuries - and she has taken them to A&E.
Mary says her ex had previously been abusive towards her - which began when she was pregnant, "pushing, slapping, throwing me across the room".
After they separated, she called police when he turned up at her home uninvited and was aggressive towards her.
Visualisation of mother taking children to hospital
Image source,Sam Aitkenhead
Image caption,
Mary says she has taken her children to hospital after they came home with injuries
He later applied to the family court for unsupervised contact with the children, which was granted.
He had numerous criminal convictions for violent and drug offences.
"I assumed they'd see that to enable a violent man to have a relationship with his children, contact needed to be supervised," she says, of the family courts.
"But that's not how they see it at all.
"My solicitor told me, 'Unless he's beaten you black and blue, he'll be deemed a good enough father. Don't even bother trying.'"
Mary says her children now "wake up sobbing, and I just reassure them that no-one is expecting them to stand up to their dad".
She adds: "Nobody is saying that a child shouldn't have a relationship with their father. It just it needs to be healthy and safe."
line
The BBC has learned that 123 MPs from seven different parties have now come together to sign a letter to Justice Secretary David Gauke calling for an independent inquiry into the family courts "to establish the extent of the problem and if more fundamental reform is required".
The letter continues: "The lack of transparency in the family courts, while essential in maintaining the privacy of families and children, does not allow scrutiny and masks decisions that are made contrary to the interests of victims of domestic abuse, rape and violence - or their children".
Louise Haigh
Image caption,
Louise Haigh says it is "horrifying" that men are being granted access to their child after being convicted of a violent crime
Labour's shadow policing minister, Louise Haigh MP, said it was "horrifying that even in proven cases of sexual assault, severe domestic abuse, rape, murder in some cases, men are still being encouraged and granted access to their child".
She added: "If they're a known risk to mother or child, then we need to assume that contact probably isn't best for the child and grant it only in certain circumstances."
When there is a court-ordered contact, a parent can be at risk of being fined or going to prison if they fail to send their child on the unsupervised visit.
Barrister Charlotte Proudman, who specialises in cases involving violence against women, told the BBC she had witnessed a perception that mothers were preventing contact with fathers without good reason.
"I've heard judges say, 'Oh, it's just a little bit of domestic violence.' It's minimised rather than seeing the significance of that," she added.
Charlotte Proudman
Image caption,
Charlotte Proudman says she has heard judges "minimise" domestic violence
The Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (Cafcass) said in a statement: "One of our most challenging professional tasks is to assess what level of parental involvement is safe and in the child's best interests, in cases where a parent has a history of domestic abuse.
"We must continue to reduce [the risk of parents harming children] by understanding these cases better and looking wider than the court process."
A spokesperson for the UK judiciary said judges were "required to consider all the evidence put forward and to reconcile any conflicting interests at a time that they know is exceptionally stressful for all those involved."
The Ministry of Justice said: "The welfare of the child is the paramount consideration of the family courts when making decisions about their upbringing".
It added that it would "continue to explore" ways to improve how the justice system deals with domestic abuse.
@vonderleyen @radioeurope @LMontenegropm @RadioPortuga @kmitsotakis @spitalas @Radio_In_Greece @netanyahu @IsraelNewsRadio
How I got my children back'
Published
18 October 2017
Share
John and Archie
Image caption,
John was devastated when his son Archie was taken into care
By Catrin Nye
Victoria Derbyshire programme
When John's son was placed into care at birth he was distraught - his drug abuse had been the cause. But with the help of a family court focused on reuniting children with their parents, his life began to change.
"Not only was I using heroin, I was using crack, I was using prescription drugs, I was using alcohol - and I was homeless."
John, who is 49, is candid when it comes to talking about his past addictions.
He started experimenting around the age of 14, and continued the habit during the birth of his two children - both with women who were also addicts.
It meant he didn't see his first child Daniella for long periods of time - at one stage as much as two years.
He says he and the mother "really tried to do normal life, but it didn't really work.
"It was a combination of the drugs and the lifestyle that went with that. Trying to be a parent, hold down a job - it wasn't doable," he explains.
Archie as a baby
Image source,John
Image caption,
Archie was taken into foster care from birth
When Daniella was 10, John found himself preparing for the birth of another child - his son, Archie, with another addict who had already had several children put into care.
He began looking for a place to live - having been homeless at the time - but failed to tackle the underlying drug problem.
After Archie was born, he was monitored in hospital to see if he had grown dependent on the heroin substitute his mother had taken during pregnancy. Then, he was immediately placed into foster care.
As John recalls this devastating period, he asks for a moment to compose himself, leaving his chair as he wipes away the tears.
Once he's ready to continue, he says it was seeing his son enter the care system that made him realise how out of hand his own life had become.
"That's when I knew this is serious, really serious."
Judge Nicholas Crichton
Image caption,
Judge Crichton founded FDAC in 2008
John was assigned to a type of family court specifically designed to help parents keep their children, known as the Family Drug and Alcohol Court (FDAC).
Its aim is to place parents at the centre of the process - speaking to them directly rather than through lawyers, and having regular two-week sessions with the same judge.
Social workers and psychiatrists, as well as experts in substance misuse, domestic violence, finance and housing, are also available.
Presentational grey line
Watch Catrin Nye's full film about the Family Drug and Alcohol Court on the Victoria Derbyshire website.
Presentational grey line
It was founded in 2008 by Judge Nicholas Crichton after years of seeing families being broken up by court rulings.
"I often think it must be terrifying for a parent to have to come to [a traditional] court knowing at the end of the proceedings they may well lose their children," he says.
FDAC's task can, however, be substantial.
"I have seen mothers who have been heroin addicted from the age of 10, children who sleep on urine-sodden beds, where no-one has bothered to bath them or feed them properly," Judge Crichton explains, running through some of the cases he has seen.
Dr Mike Shaw
Image caption,
Dr Mike Shaw says the effect FDAC can have by reuniting families justifies the cost of the service
For John, this approach made "total sense" - helping him to tackle "the problem that was right at the front".
FDAC helped him to arrange detox classes to combat his addiction, followed by a day programme.
The court is now receiving a further £6.2m of government money over seven years, through a complex financing structure - something called a "social impact bond" or "pay-for-success financing".
Private investors will pay the upfront costs and if the process works they make a profit - being paid back by the local authority and the government.
If it fails, they will not receive that money.
Dr Mike Shaw, a child psychiatrist and co-director of FDAC National Unit, concedes that it makes the process more complex, but says it will ensure the service strives for the best outcome.
But its work does come at an inflated price.
Each intervention costs around £13,000 a year, he suggests, compared to £5,000 for standard care proceedings.
He says, however, that the overall cost of care proceedings might in some cases be as much as £100,000.
Minister for Sport and Civil Society, Tracey Crouch, says the additional FDAC funding will "benefit some of the most vulnerable people in society" and "achieve real results in communities across the country".
John and Daniella
Image source,John
Image caption,
At one stage, John went as long as two years without seeing his daughter Daniella
John's intervention lasted around 16 months - at which point he estimates he had been clean for a year.
His son Archie, now aged eight, lives with him permanently, and he says he's rebuilding his relationship with Daniella - who's now 18.
A 2016 study, external by the University of Lancaster, commissioned by the Department for Education, suggested that others have successful outcomes from FDAC too.
It found 37% of families were reunited or continued to live together at the end of proceedings - compared to 25% of those who go through ordinary family courts.
However, the sample group was relatively small - 240 families in all.
Archie
Image caption,
Archie now lives with John permanently
John says he is now "trying to make up for lost time" with Daniella, who smiles as he says it.
He is grateful for the opportunity.
"I've got two children, I work, I pay my bills, I do lots of fun stuff," he says.
"The way I live my life today is totally different from who I was nearly eight years ago."
@ThePMOPAK @ppfradionetwork
India @narendramodi @airnewsalerts @satyasoochak
@HRAJVANSHI @MLJ_GoI @VishudhaChintan @0t9Ju5I3n277mjZ
@wthiro2
Japan @T02326044@UWZPB7V4wOPy1pl @FuyukiRyokuyou @kishida230 @kirei_giant @japantimes @shokupanman30@IIjOqwZkYy0sjQW @TBrLY7ZRNqQj2Vx@kirei_giant
Singapore
@Tharman_S @mhasingapore @sgcrlive
South America
@hijos_rehenes
@petrogustavo
@RadNalCo
South Africa
@CyrilRamaphosa @SAradiocom @Trevornoah
UN @UNICEF @jon_sparkes @Emma06755796981
@antonioguterres @p_ocallaghan @invendiysnews
@notmyshameuk @JoWheel16434078@bloggerbloke01@Bambootreeorg @Eric4Bowman @joesbra @internationalm
@limitlessmindon@EzuieQuotes @wise_chimp@HorowitzLana
@DrProudman @Stopworkplacebu @ashrafnansari @FightCPS2021
@Miss_Snuffy @davidicke @UNseen_Victims @sammywoodhouse1 @AvonandsomerRob
@CarranzaErin @FitzPlanet @HeartbrokenNan1@UN_WGDAWG @YRUblack
@Natalie55Jones @lilbluebird9 @SplitTheDiffer2
Sanchia Berg
BBC News
Published
20 December 2024
Journalists and legal bloggers are to be allowed to report on family court cases across England and Wales from early next year.
Transparency will no longer be restricted to pilot courts and will be permanent.
Journalists will be able to request a transparency order in all family courts to allow them to report what they see and hear, access key documents and speak to families - provided they keep them anonymous.
Previously, journalists and legal bloggers could attend family courts but were limited in what they could report.
A transparency pilot is currently operating in just under half the family courts in England and Wales.
Judges will retain the power to turn down requests but there is a presumption in favour of reporting.
The change has been approved by the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) and will come into force on 27 January 2025.
The rollout will be staggered, and transparency will first apply to public law – care cases – then to private law, where parents are separating, and lastly to magistrates' courts.
They determine whether children should be removed from their parents, or which parent children should live with.
As the recent case of Sara Sharif shows, those decisions can affect people's lives forever. A family court decided to place Sara with her father and stepmother, who were found guilty of her murder.
A High Court Judge decided to release documents covering that family case, but said the judge's name should not be published. Journalists have been granted the right to appeal against that decision, which will be heard in early January.
Over the past two years BBC News has shown how Transparency Orders can work, to reveal important stories of significant public interest, while maintaining the privacy of families.
Early in 2023, the BBC used the orders to report cases in Leeds Family Court.
The drive towards transparency made it easier for the BBC to obtain information in May 2023 about a past family hearing about Finley Boden, the baby returned by Family Magistrates to the parents who murdered him.
Using Transparency, the BBC was able to report in November 2023 how a young mother in Cardiff had to spend £30,000 in the Family Court to protect her young daughter from a convicted paedophile – her ex-husband.
The MP Harriet Harman said the BBC's reporting had revealed a gap in the law that politicians had missed. She set out to change the law and an amendment was in the current King's Speech.
Transparency also allowed us reveal that Baby Elsa, abandoned in a London park on the coldest night of the year, was the third child of the same parents.
Using Transparency Emma Glasbey of the BBC's Look North told the story of an abuse survivor who had her children taken away.
It was also used to report on the Harehills Family case that led to riots in Leeds this July.
Callum Parke of PA Media has reported many family cases using transparency orders.
Hannah Summers of the Bureau of investigative Journalism has used Transparency to report complex private law cases – including one where she successfully argued , external for a husband accused of rape to be identified.
Tortoise Media's Louise Tickle has campaigned for greater transparency for many years. Her reporting using transparency showed some judges resist the drive , external towards greater openness.
Lucy Reed KC is the founder of the Transparency project, a charity set up to improve public understanding of the Family Courts.
She said this expansion was "a great step forward" but "there is still a great deal more cultural and practical change required before the Family Court can say it is operating as transparently as possible".@Keir_Starmer @bbcworldservice @BBCWorld @ShabanaMahmood @NicDakin55 @antonioguterres @MoJGovUK @AlexDaviesJones writetothem.com @Nigel_Farage @reformparty_uk @GBNEWS @raelbrav@EmpowerInnocent @ROG7739 @mark_hoath @JamesTCobbler
@addicted2newz@Earlychildhood @KimberleyJayne4 @Lord_Talbot64 @SoulNtension @AccusedToo
@FamilyLawVictim @NeubergerLaw @dadmatters_uk
Why I'm seizing the chance to scrutinise the family courts
Published
30 January 2023
After decades of calls for greater scrutiny of the family courts, journalists will be able to report proceedings in a pilot scheme from Monday. The BBC's Sanchia Berg reflects on the controversial cases that preceded the move, which is hoped will increase accountability in a crucial area of law.
Short presentational grey line
During the Covid pandemic, Liz Anstey was living with her daughter, teenage son and five-year-old grandson. In early 2021, her daughter gave birth to a new baby who sadly died suddenly, and without apparent cause.
The two other children were taken into care. An inquest showed the baby died of an infection and there had been no sign of neglect or abuse. Liz expected the boys to be returned home, but instead family court proceedings began.
Liz found the court process "very traumatic". She says she did not know who was who, hearings kept being adjourned, and she could not easily follow it.
"I felt like Alice in Wonderland going down the rabbit hole. I really did. It was so surreal," she says.
Family courts handle the most sensitive areas of families' lives - usually involving vulnerable children - which is why cases are heard in private and journalists have not been allowed to report on them.
But there have been publicly-acknowledged miscarriages of justice and many more examples of parents claiming they have been unfairly treated.
It took Liz months to get the boys back - she says having reporters in court would have made a huge difference.
'Significant step'
Over the next 12 months, accredited journalists will be able to report on cases in Leeds, Carlisle and Cardiff, which should enable close scrutiny of the actions of local authorities and the courts themselves. I will be one of them.
The most senior judge in the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, said there was "an absence of confidence" in the courts due to a "vacuum of information". He told me open justice was a principle to be sought and described the pilot as a "very significant" step.
"For decades… this has been put in the too-difficult box because of the need to open up but at the same time keep closed the identity of the family," he said. Why I'm seizing the chance to scrutinise the family courts
The BBC's Sanchia Berg
The BBC's Sanchia Berg has been reporting - and trying to report - family cases since 2009.
Many thousands of people are involved in family cases each year - there are more than 200,000 cases in the family courts annually and record numbers of children in care.
Broadly, cases are divided into disputes between separating parents, known as private law, and applications by local authorities to take children into care, which are public law. The pilot scheme will begin with public law cases and extend to private law within a couple of months. Journalists will be given access to legal documents and allowed to interview families.
Family court judges may also rule on issues like disputes between doctors and parents over treatment for a child, or so-called "deprivation of liberty" cases where local authorities have nowhere safe to place a vulnerable child in care.
Fruitless changes
Demands for greater scrutiny of the courts have been made for decades, thanks in part to some highly-publicised cases.
One example involved Nicky and Mark Webster, In 2005, their three children were adopted - they had been taken into care after one suffered injuries. The court heard these were deliberate, but the couple challenged that successfully and won the right for the media to attend hearings concerning their fourth child. But the oldest children were never returned to them.
Calls to open up the courts grew louder. In 2008, the Times newspaper ran a year-long campaign which led to the then-Justice Secretary Jack Straw changing the rules so journalists were allowed in.
The big day was supposed to be 27 April 2009. I joined a flood of reporters from the national press heading into the Family Division of the High Court at the Royal Courts of Justice. But it was almost fruitless.
The problem was the rules had not been changed enough and it was not clear what journalists could report. Judges were advised we could report the "gist" of the case, without that being defined.
A couple of weeks later, I went to the lower level family court in Holborn, with the brief from my editor at the Today programme to spend "as long as it takes" to tell the story of a case.
I managed to follow the last two weeks of a final hearing where a local authority was applying to take several children from the same family into care.
The judge allowed me to report some of the details - for instance how a young boy had been hit by his father with a shoe. But I could not include the information that would make it a meaningful story, like identify the local authority, or interview any of the family members.
Towards the end of the hearing, as I came out of the building, I saw the mother collapsed, sobbing against the wall - as if it was only then that she had realised all her children would be taken away. It was a reminder of the real impact of these decisions and the importance of reporting them.
Not true open justice
Jack Straw intended to change the law further so more detailed reporting would be possible. But Labour lost the 2010 election and those plans were shelved. Almost all journalists - including me - stopped trying to report court proceedings directly.
Sir James Munby took over the Family Division in 2013 and announced his intention to open up the courts. As a first step, he told judges to publish more of their own final judgments.
At first, the numbers shot up. More stories from the family courts started appearing across media outlets. Brian Farmer of the Press Association news agency was particularly diligent in picking out the most interesting or newsworthy, showing the range of different issues considered by the court - like a teenage girl dying of cancer who wanted to have her body cryogenically preserved. Louise Tickle, for the Guardian, repeatedly tried to get reporting restrictions varied - and tell stories - usually supported by lawyers from the Transparency Project charity.
But mostly, this was a limited form of transparency, where journalists were reliant on the judge's version of events. It was not true open justice.
Another high-profile case captured the headlines. In 2016, Ben Butler was found guilty of murdering his six-year-old daughter Ellie in 2013. A family court had decided she should be returned to her parents the year before, despite warnings from her grandfather who had been caring for her, that Ellie had been frightened to return to her parents.
'Got to get over it'
Parents continued to contact me saying they had suffered miscarriages of justice. I could do very little because under the rules they were not even allowed to contact me about their case, let alone share documents or discuss what happened.
In 2018, I came across the case of a mother who had nearly lost her daughter forever over her use of an Epipen. She had managed to raise funds to appeal the decision, and won. But when the case returned to the lower court, the judge there made an order that made it impossible for us to report the full story of the case.
Both Louise Tickle and I were in court, and when Louise decided to launch an appeal against that decision, the BBC joined. We won, and could report the case, but it took months and many hours of lawyers' time.
If this pilot is successful, the intention is to extend it across England and Wales. It's not clear how many journalists will try to report cases though, and there are still some practical issues to address.
Reporting is permitted thanks to a Transparency Order. Judges will grant these and be able to vary them, determining what can be reported, depending on the individual cases. Preserving the anonymity of children is paramount but local authorities can be named.
While many judges and lawyers support transparency, some in the pilot areas seemed wary of it.
Hannah Markham, KC, chair of the Family Law Bar Association, said it would take time to get used to reporters. "We're used to not having anybody in court, it's just us, it's just our clients. It's closed," she said. "It's something we've got to get over.
@mygracecoach @POTUS @realDonaldTrump @JDVance @foxnewspolitics @realTrumpNewsX
@SarahTaylo89428 @abearze34 @DonaldTenn @VetFather_Bill @Sheffanessea1 @ForEryk @Ex_arv_sgt @DivorceColorado@tylerblanchardx @mikeroady @RobinJacks16957 @RunTheRace78 @SussexroyalU @attyshawn @PamBondi @MarcoRubio @elonmusk
@WarrenStephens @ToddBlanche @RobertF.KennedyJr.
The mother who lost her daughter over an EpiPen
Published
16 February 2019
By Sanchia Berg
BBC News
"Three cars showed up in the early hours of the morning and the police were banging on my door," Anna says.
It was June 2015 when Anna's two-year-old daughter was taken away by social workers from Southampton City Council.
"I didn't know what was going on," she said.
"Then the police said I was being arrested for child neglect."
Anna, not her real name, is originally from Africa and was then a single mother.
Her daughter has allergies and in an incident a few weeks before she was taken away she had been struggling to breathe. Anna called an ambulance and injected the girl with an EpiPen.
It was the second such emergency in seven months.
"It was terrifying with such a little child," she says.
"At the end of the day I had a baby who wasn't breathing, and I had means to help her so I administered it."
But doctors at the hospital said she was wrong to use the EpiPen and suspected she had deliberately made her child ill.
Two days after her daughter had been seized, Southampton Children's Services went to Anna's local family court, in Portsmouth, asking for an interim order allowing them to keep the toddler in their care.
The judge agreed and the little girl was sent to foster parents.
'I felt helpless'
No charges were brought against Anna but social workers were reluctant to return her daughter.
In late 2015, they tried to get the pair to live with other relatives. Then, in 2016 they suggested the girl could live with her father - who had little previous contact with her.
In 2017, when neither solution worked, the local authority decided the little girl - now four - should be adopted.
This also had to go before the family court.
Anna was stunned by the adoption plan.
Her own circumstances had changed. She had married and was more secure than before.
"I was shocked. I just didn't understand. It made me question the family law system or the justice system because what had happened didn't justify for her to be put up for adoption."
She made a counter application to the court: that her daughter come to her new home.
"I felt helpless, completely at somebody else's mercy. I was terrified I would lose my child forever."
Quote box saying: I was told my chances of winning were almost nil
The local authority argued Anna presented a "significant risk of physical harm" to her daughter.
They said she could be overprotective, and use medication inappropriately. They also said Anna was not emotionally attuned to her child.
By this point, mother and child had been living apart for nearly two years.
Anna was astonished when Judge Edward Hess approved the local authority's request.
She said she felt "gaslighted" by the system.
Anna, her new husband, and the child's father raided their savings and liquidated assets to fund legal action.
They got permission to go to the Court of Appeal, which lawyers say is unusual.
"I was told my chances of winning were almost nil. But I thought I've got to try to do my best for my daughter."
Once there, they defied the odds and won the case.
£60,000 legal fees
The three judges said the first court's finding was "based on the slimmest of evidence". They overturned the adoption placement order and said the case should be reheard.
But they said Anna would have to pay her own costs.
The relief was "huge", she says, but it was tempered by the knowledge she'd have to find more money.
By now she was pregnant and worried that her new baby could be taken into care unless she won her daughter back.
After the Court of Appeal judgment Southampton City Council stepped up Anna's contact with her daughter.
And last summer she came home to Anna.
"Euphoria. That's all I can say. I was so happy to have her back," she said.
The family has spent £60,000 in legal fees.
In 2017, Southampton had the highest adoption rates in England for children turning five, the BBC discovered in a joint investigation with the Bureau of Investigative Journalism.
When we asked why, the city council said: "All children who were adopted were subject to rigorous scrutiny by the legal system and the family court".
But we wanted to understand the decisions of the local family court.
Although journalists have been allowed into family courts since 2009, what they can report is limited and sometimes unclear. They routinely try to cover cases, especially in local courts.
Senior legal experts have said greater openness in family courts is essential to counter criticism.
However, while some judges treat this call for transparency as routine, others publish hardly anything.
I could find no adoption or care case judgements from Judge Hess in the Portsmouth Family Court, where Southampton cases are heard.
Court of Appeal judgements are published though, which is how we found the case.
When I went to Portsmouth Family Court in October, for Anna's last hearing, another judge made an order that made reporting the story impossible.
He said if we reported the outcome of the case we couldn't include certain details, even though they were in the Court of Appeal judgment.
The freelance journalist Louise Tickle challenged this ruling, and her legal challenge was later joined by the BBC.
The new President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, allowed the appeal which means the case can now be reported.
He also said he is planning new guidance, which could make it clearer for journalists how they can report family courts, and also help guide judges when they order reporting restrictions.
As for Anna, she says she fears other families could be in a similar position.
She thinks legal aid should be reformed so that others can be helped to challenge decisions. She also believes there must be more accountability, through more openness.
"I feel like it really needs to be scrutinised, a bit more open to the public. Because I don't feel like it protects families; it protects bad practice.
"Because basically they're a law unto themselves and nobody is able to challenge them because it's all done in secrecy."
In a statement, Southampton City Council said it was "pleased that the main issue in this appeal has been settled with the agreement of all parties".
"We also welcome the fact that the President of the Family Division intends to consult and give further guidance as to how courts, practitioners and journalists should approach the reporting of private cases involving children and their families," it added.
@JustinTrudeau @CBCNews @ezralevant @BmptGuardian @patrickbrownont @JennaSudds
@Arif Virani @CBCTheNational
Family court reporting to be allowed for first time
1 December 2022
Family courts have powers to make significant interventions in family life
By Sanchia Berg
BBC News
For the first time, journalists will be able to report what happens in family courts, under a pilot scheme.
Until now, reporters have been able to observe hearings but could only report what was allowed by a judge.
The 12-month pilot, which will not allow journalists to identify families, takes place in Leeds, Cardiff and Carlisle from the end of January.
Family courts have powers to make drastic interventions - such as ordering children be taken into care.
They also decide where children should live when parents cannot agree or where there are allegations of abuse.
The changes being trialled are potentially very significant, affecting a court system which involves at least half a million people every year.
From the end of January, accredited journalists will be able to report what they see and hear as long as they protect the anonymity of families.
Leeds, Cardiff and Carlisle have been chosen as a representative mix of rural and urban communities.
Criticised as 'secretive'
Despite the fact that family courts have the power to make significant interventions in the lives of families, they are often criticised as "secretive" and there is very little reporting of them.
That is because, until now, journalists have been able to observe hearings but only report what is allowed by a judge, unless they go to the Court of Appeal.
Sir Andrew MacFarlane, the president of the family courts, has said "there is a need for greater openness to build public confidence".
Under the pilot, journalists will be able to name local authorities in care proceedings, as well as the director of local children's services. They won't, however, be able to name individual social workers, unless ordered by the court.
They will be allowed to name the lawyers involved, and the court-appointed experts, but not medical professionals treating children or any family member involved in a case.
Journalists will be able to interview families about their cases, as long as they protect their identity.
Reporters will also be allowed to see some of the legal documents in cases, but will not be able to view any expert or medical reports without permission from the courts.
All of this is done through transparency orders, issued by the judge in each case. Judges will retain the right to refuse to issue one of these orders, and restrict reporting.
@AlboMP @9NewsAUS @UNCUT_Australia
Family courts: 'Major overhaul' aims to protect domestic abuse victims
Published
25 June 2020
Four children were killed between 2014 and 2019 by a parent given access to them by a court, BBC research found
By Emma Ailes
BBC News
Domestic abuse victims will get greater protections in an "overhaul of how the family courts deal with the horrific crime", the government has announced.
Under new plans, more victims will have access to separate courtroom entrances, waiting rooms and protective screens to shield them from their alleged abuser.
A number of reforms will be included in the upcoming Domestic Abuse Bill.
It comes after an expert-led review of the family courts' handling domestic abuse, following a BBC investigation.
Research by the Victoria Derbyshire programme found that within five years at least four children were killed by a parent with a known history of domestic abuse after a family court granted access.
The BBC also learned of cases where a parent with convictions for serious crimes relating to domestic abuse - including rape and serious violent offences - were granted unsupervised access to their child.
Voices of children 'lost in family courts'
Call for inquiry into abusive parents' access to children
Remote hearings for family courts 'horribly cruel'
The government review, led by experts from charities, the judiciary, family law practitioners and academia, took the views of more than 1,200 organisations and individuals, including parents and children with experience of the family courts.
It heard concerns about a "pro-contact culture", in which courts placed undue priority on ensuring contact with the non-resident parent, resulting in "systemic minimisation of allegations of domestic abuse".
The panel heard evidence about potential long-term harm to children as a result of courts ordering continued contact with an abusive parent.
It also found that an "adversarial system" in the family courts, including in cases involving child sexual abuse, often worsened conflict between parents and could re-traumatise victims and their children.
"Sweeping reforms" of the system aimed to better protect domestic abuse victims in the family courts, the Ministry of Justice said.
They include:
Automatic entitlement to separate waiting rooms, entrances and screens in court for victims of domestic abuse, to be included in the upcoming Domestic Abuse Bill
More powers for judges in the form of "barring orders" to prevent abusers repeatedly dragging ex-partners back to court and re-traumatising victims
A review of the presumption of "parental involvement" and the balance between risk of harm to children and victims, and the right of the child to have a relationship with both parents
A trial of a new domestic abuse court with a "problem-solving approach" where a judge explores evidence rather than parents presenting their cases against each other
A commitment to improved training for professionals in the family justice system
'Step forward'
Justice minister Alex Chalk said the family courts see some of the most vulnerable in society and the government had a duty "to ensure they are protected and not put in danger".
"This report lays bare many hard truths about long-standing failings, but we are determined to drive the fundamental change necessary to keep victims and their children safe," he said.
Nicki Norman, Acting CEO at the charity Women's Aid, who was a member of the expert panel, said the report marked "a major step forward".
She said that "all too often, survivors and their children experience the family courts as failing to effectively protect them".
"This welcome report must now deliver change."
Domestic Abuse Commissioner Nicole Jacobs and Victims' Commissioner for England and Wales Dame Vera Baird QC also welcomed the reforms.
"This panel of experts has dug deep to understand, and address, the serious harm to domestic abuse victims and their children caused over many years by the presumption of contact, and the intensely adversarial process present in the family courts," Dame Vera said.
Top family court judge in England and Wales, Sir Andrew McFarlance, President of the Family Division, praised the review, and said he hoped parliament would be able to allocate the resources necessary to implement the proposals.
The Domestic Abuse Bill, external is currently at the report stage in the House of Commons. Other measures include prohibiting perpetrators of abuse from cross-examining their victims in person in the family courts in England and Wales.
@chrisluxonmp @TVNZ @Judith Collins TVNZ 1 1News
Call for inquiry into abusive parents' access to children
Published
15 May 2019
Share
01:59
Media caption,
One mother describes how her abusive ex-partner was granted unsupervised access to their children
By Emma Ailes and Jessica Furst
BBC Victoria Derbyshire programme
More than 120 MPs have written to the government asking for an inquiry into how family courts in England and Wales treat victims of domestic violence.
At least four children have been killed by a parent in the past five years after a family court granted access.
Dozens of parents have told the Victoria Derbyshire programme their abusive ex-partners were granted unsupervised contact with their child.
The Ministry of Justice said a child's welfare was always the priority.
"Where there is evidence of domestic abuse, the courts are bound by law to consider potential harm to the child and this overrides any presumption of parental involvement," an MoJ spokesman said.
'Toxic trio'
When parents separate and cannot agree arrangements for their children, a family court judge can make a legally-binding decision on contact - including whether visits to a mother or father should be supervised.
The fundamental presumption in law is that it is in the best interests of the child to have contact with both parents.
But it has led to the courts ordering children to have contact with an alleged or known violent ex-partner - including some convicted of rape, assault and drug offences, the BBC has learned from dozens of affected parents.
Due to legal restrictions the BBC cannot always view family court documents to substantiate the claims made by parents.
However, analysis of serious case reviews for England since 2014, shows four children have been killed during access granted by the family courts.
It indicates that four further children had been sexually abused or seriously injured, or both.
Visualisation of scared child looking at father's clenched fist
Image source,Sam Aitkenhead
In all of the cases, social services had been aware of a history of domestic abuse allegations against the partner. The youngest victim was five months old.
In one incident, a father who went on to kill both of his children was granted unsupervised contact with them in an interim order. The case review found that numerous professionals - including a social worker, a teacher and an official from court support service Cafcass - had been too scared to be left alone with him because of his aggressive behaviour.
Other cases refer to a parent having what is known as a "toxic trio" of addiction, mental illness and a history of violence.
The number of children injured by a parent during court-ordered contact may in reality be much higher, as serious case reviews are generally conducted only in cases of serious harm or death.
They are carried out in order to find ways that local agencies can improve their safeguarding practices.
They do not investigate the family courts, so it is not possible to establish whether the courts' decisions led directly to the deaths.
line
Mary's story
"I was completely naive about the family courts," says Mary - not her real name.
She has spent £130,000 in legal fees to try to protect her children.
Her ex-partner has been awarded regular, unsupervised overnight contact with them.
She says they have since come home with injuries - and she has taken them to A&E.
Mary says her ex had previously been abusive towards her - which began when she was pregnant, "pushing, slapping, throwing me across the room".
After they separated, she called police when he turned up at her home uninvited and was aggressive towards her.
Visualisation of mother taking children to hospital
Image source,Sam Aitkenhead
Image caption,
Mary says she has taken her children to hospital after they came home with injuries
He later applied to the family court for unsupervised contact with the children, which was granted.
He had numerous criminal convictions for violent and drug offences.
"I assumed they'd see that to enable a violent man to have a relationship with his children, contact needed to be supervised," she says, of the family courts.
"But that's not how they see it at all.
"My solicitor told me, 'Unless he's beaten you black and blue, he'll be deemed a good enough father. Don't even bother trying.'"
Mary says her children now "wake up sobbing, and I just reassure them that no-one is expecting them to stand up to their dad".
She adds: "Nobody is saying that a child shouldn't have a relationship with their father. It just it needs to be healthy and safe."
line
The BBC has learned that 123 MPs from seven different parties have now come together to sign a letter to Justice Secretary David Gauke calling for an independent inquiry into the family courts "to establish the extent of the problem and if more fundamental reform is required".
The letter continues: "The lack of transparency in the family courts, while essential in maintaining the privacy of families and children, does not allow scrutiny and masks decisions that are made contrary to the interests of victims of domestic abuse, rape and violence - or their children".
Louise Haigh
Image caption,
Louise Haigh says it is "horrifying" that men are being granted access to their child after being convicted of a violent crime
Labour's shadow policing minister, Louise Haigh MP, said it was "horrifying that even in proven cases of sexual assault, severe domestic abuse, rape, murder in some cases, men are still being encouraged and granted access to their child".
She added: "If they're a known risk to mother or child, then we need to assume that contact probably isn't best for the child and grant it only in certain circumstances."
When there is a court-ordered contact, a parent can be at risk of being fined or going to prison if they fail to send their child on the unsupervised visit.
Barrister Charlotte Proudman, who specialises in cases involving violence against women, told the BBC she had witnessed a perception that mothers were preventing contact with fathers without good reason.
"I've heard judges say, 'Oh, it's just a little bit of domestic violence.' It's minimised rather than seeing the significance of that," she added.
Charlotte Proudman
Image caption,
Charlotte Proudman says she has heard judges "minimise" domestic violence
The Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (Cafcass) said in a statement: "One of our most challenging professional tasks is to assess what level of parental involvement is safe and in the child's best interests, in cases where a parent has a history of domestic abuse.
"We must continue to reduce [the risk of parents harming children] by understanding these cases better and looking wider than the court process."
A spokesperson for the UK judiciary said judges were "required to consider all the evidence put forward and to reconcile any conflicting interests at a time that they know is exceptionally stressful for all those involved."
The Ministry of Justice said: "The welfare of the child is the paramount consideration of the family courts when making decisions about their upbringing".
It added that it would "continue to explore" ways to improve how the justice system deals with domestic abuse.
@vonderleyen @radioeurope @LMontenegropm @RadioPortuga @kmitsotakis @spitalas @Radio_In_Greece @netanyahu @IsraelNewsRadio
How I got my children back'
Published
18 October 2017
Share
John and Archie
Image caption,
John was devastated when his son Archie was taken into care
By Catrin Nye
Victoria Derbyshire programme
When John's son was placed into care at birth he was distraught - his drug abuse had been the cause. But with the help of a family court focused on reuniting children with their parents, his life began to change.
"Not only was I using heroin, I was using crack, I was using prescription drugs, I was using alcohol - and I was homeless."
John, who is 49, is candid when it comes to talking about his past addictions.
He started experimenting around the age of 14, and continued the habit during the birth of his two children - both with women who were also addicts.
It meant he didn't see his first child Daniella for long periods of time - at one stage as much as two years.
He says he and the mother "really tried to do normal life, but it didn't really work.
"It was a combination of the drugs and the lifestyle that went with that. Trying to be a parent, hold down a job - it wasn't doable," he explains.
Archie as a baby
Image source,John
Image caption,
Archie was taken into foster care from birth
When Daniella was 10, John found himself preparing for the birth of another child - his son, Archie, with another addict who had already had several children put into care.
He began looking for a place to live - having been homeless at the time - but failed to tackle the underlying drug problem.
After Archie was born, he was monitored in hospital to see if he had grown dependent on the heroin substitute his mother had taken during pregnancy. Then, he was immediately placed into foster care.
As John recalls this devastating period, he asks for a moment to compose himself, leaving his chair as he wipes away the tears.
Once he's ready to continue, he says it was seeing his son enter the care system that made him realise how out of hand his own life had become.
"That's when I knew this is serious, really serious."
Judge Nicholas Crichton
Image caption,
Judge Crichton founded FDAC in 2008
John was assigned to a type of family court specifically designed to help parents keep their children, known as the Family Drug and Alcohol Court (FDAC).
Its aim is to place parents at the centre of the process - speaking to them directly rather than through lawyers, and having regular two-week sessions with the same judge.
Social workers and psychiatrists, as well as experts in substance misuse, domestic violence, finance and housing, are also available.
Presentational grey line
Watch Catrin Nye's full film about the Family Drug and Alcohol Court on the Victoria Derbyshire website.
Presentational grey line
It was founded in 2008 by Judge Nicholas Crichton after years of seeing families being broken up by court rulings.
"I often think it must be terrifying for a parent to have to come to [a traditional] court knowing at the end of the proceedings they may well lose their children," he says.
FDAC's task can, however, be substantial.
"I have seen mothers who have been heroin addicted from the age of 10, children who sleep on urine-sodden beds, where no-one has bothered to bath them or feed them properly," Judge Crichton explains, running through some of the cases he has seen.
Dr Mike Shaw
Image caption,
Dr Mike Shaw says the effect FDAC can have by reuniting families justifies the cost of the service
For John, this approach made "total sense" - helping him to tackle "the problem that was right at the front".
FDAC helped him to arrange detox classes to combat his addiction, followed by a day programme.
The court is now receiving a further £6.2m of government money over seven years, through a complex financing structure - something called a "social impact bond" or "pay-for-success financing".
Private investors will pay the upfront costs and if the process works they make a profit - being paid back by the local authority and the government.
If it fails, they will not receive that money.
Dr Mike Shaw, a child psychiatrist and co-director of FDAC National Unit, concedes that it makes the process more complex, but says it will ensure the service strives for the best outcome.
But its work does come at an inflated price.
Each intervention costs around £13,000 a year, he suggests, compared to £5,000 for standard care proceedings.
He says, however, that the overall cost of care proceedings might in some cases be as much as £100,000.
Minister for Sport and Civil Society, Tracey Crouch, says the additional FDAC funding will "benefit some of the most vulnerable people in society" and "achieve real results in communities across the country".
John and Daniella
Image source,John
Image caption,
At one stage, John went as long as two years without seeing his daughter Daniella
John's intervention lasted around 16 months - at which point he estimates he had been clean for a year.
His son Archie, now aged eight, lives with him permanently, and he says he's rebuilding his relationship with Daniella - who's now 18.
A 2016 study, external by the University of Lancaster, commissioned by the Department for Education, suggested that others have successful outcomes from FDAC too.
It found 37% of families were reunited or continued to live together at the end of proceedings - compared to 25% of those who go through ordinary family courts.
However, the sample group was relatively small - 240 families in all.
Archie
Image caption,
Archie now lives with John permanently
John says he is now "trying to make up for lost time" with Daniella, who smiles as he says it.
He is grateful for the opportunity.
"I've got two children, I work, I pay my bills, I do lots of fun stuff," he says.
"The way I live my life today is totally different from who I was nearly eight years ago."
@ThePMOPAK @ppfradionetwork
India @narendramodi @airnewsalerts @satyasoochak
@HRAJVANSHI @MLJ_GoI @VishudhaChintan @0t9Ju5I3n277mjZ
@wthiro2
Japan @T02326044@UWZPB7V4wOPy1pl @FuyukiRyokuyou @kishida230 @kirei_giant @japantimes @shokupanman30@IIjOqwZkYy0sjQW @TBrLY7ZRNqQj2Vx@kirei_giant
Singapore
@Tharman_S @mhasingapore @sgcrlive
South America
@hijos_rehenes
@petrogustavo
@RadNalCo
South Africa
@CyrilRamaphosa @SAradiocom @Trevornoah
UN @UNICEF @jon_sparkes @Emma06755796981
@antonioguterres @p_ocallaghan @invendiysnews
@notmyshameuk @JoWheel16434078@bloggerbloke01@Bambootreeorg @Eric4Bowman @joesbra @internationalm
@limitlessmindon@EzuieQuotes @wise_chimp@HorowitzLana
@DrProudman @Stopworkplacebu @ashrafnansari @FightCPS2021
@Miss_Snuffy @davidicke @UNseen_Victims @sammywoodhouse1 @AvonandsomerRob
@CarranzaErin @FitzPlanet @HeartbrokenNan1@UN_WGDAWG @YRUblack
@Natalie55Jones @lilbluebird9 @SplitTheDiffer2
Source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5yvln142rdo
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