Latest articles
Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust v DV (A Child) [2021] EWHC 1037 (Fam)
(Family Division, Cohen J, 19 April 2021)Medical Treatment – 17-year-old had form of bone cancer and required surgery For comprehensive, judicially approved coverage of every important...
Domestic Abuse Bill
Aaron Gates-Lincoln, Immigration NewsAfter years of development the Domestic Abuse Bill returned to the House of Lords in the UK on the 8th March 2021 to complete its report stage, one of the final...
Coercive control and children’s welfare in Re H-N and Others
When families come to strife, arrangements must be made for the future care of any children. In some circumstances, this means an application to the courts. These ‘private law orders’ can...
Profession: Expert Witness
The value of a family business or business interest is treated as an asset and therefore part of the matrimonial pot to be distributed when it comes to negotiating a financial settlement on divorce or...
How does a jointly held property pass on death?
When meeting with clients to discuss their succession planning, many cannot recall whether their property is held jointly as joint tenants or jointly as tenants in common. The distinction is that with...
View all articles

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 :
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from