Spotlight
Family Court Practice, The
Order the 2021 edition due out in May
Court of Protection Practice 2021
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Spotlight
Latest articles
The suspension, during lockdown, of prison visits for children: was it lawful?
Jake Richards, 9 Gough ChambersThis article argues that the suspension on prison visits during this period and the deficiency of measures to mitigate the impact of this on family life and to protect...
Re R (Children) (Control of Court Documents) [2021] EWCA Civ 162
(Court of Appeal (Civil Division), King, Peter Jackson, Elisabeth Laing LJJ, 12 February 2021)Practice and Procedure – Disclosure of court documents – Sexual abuse findings –...
AG v VD [2021] EWFC 9
(Family Court, Cohen J, 04 February 2021) Financial Remedies – Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984, Part III – Russian divorceThe wife was awarded just under £6m...
Become the new General Editor of The Family Court Practice, the definitive word on family law and procedure
The Family Court Practice (‘The Red Book’) is widely acknowledged as the leading court reference work for all family practitioners and the judiciary. We are currently recruiting a...
SCTS releases new simplified divorce and dissolution forms for Scotland
The Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service (SCTS) has released new simplified divorce and dissolution forms of application. As a result of legislation repealing Council Regulation EC 2201/2003, the...
View all articles
Authors

CARE PROCEEDINGS/PUBLICITY: Re B; X Council v B [2008] EWHC 270 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 17:27 PM
Slug : re-b-x-council-v-b-2008-ewhc-270-fam
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Mar 27, 2008, 04:22 AM
Article ID : 86567

(Family Division; Munby J; 5 March 2008)

The care proceedings had been reported, on the basis of strict anonymity, as X Council v B (Emergency Protection Orders) [2005] 1 FLR 341. Subsequently, in Re B; X Council v B [2007] EWHC 1622 (Fam), the judge authorised identification of the local authority involved. Having received letters from two of the children involved, and e-mails from the mother, the judge proceeded on the basis that he was being asked for permission to identify the family publicly as the family involved in the relevant care proceedings. The judge was prepared to amend the standard rubric to allow the three family members to identify themselves directly with the anonymised judgment, influenced by the fact that there was no ongoing state involvement with the family, and by the fact that the eldest child, at almost 16, was of an age at which he was entitled to speak of his own experiences. The application had not concerned the local authority, so the authority had not been consulted. Two other children had made no application, and were not covered by the order. No professionals were to be named. The judge observed that once anonymity had been waived by individual members of the family, those individuals would be unable to control the media's use of information in the public domain, including all the matters in the original judgment, which contained references to a number of private and personal matters.

Categories :
  • Archive
  • Judgments
Tags :
Authors
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from