Family Law Awards 2020
Shortlist announced - time to place your vote!
Court of Protection Practice 2020
'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...
Latest articles
CB v EB [2020] EWFC 72
(Family Court, Mostyn J, 16 November 2020)Financial Remedies – Consent order – Application for set aside – Property values left husband with lower sums than anticipated – FPR...
No right (as yet) to be married legally in a humanist ceremony: R (on the application of Harrison and others) v Secretary of State for Justice [2020] EWHC 2096 (Admin)
Mary Welstead, CAP Fellow, Harvard Law School, Visiting Professor in Family Law, University of BuckinghamIn July 2020, six humanist couples brought an application for judicial review on the...
Controlling and coercive behaviour is gender and colour blind but how are courts meeting the challenge to protect victims
Maryam Syed, 7BRExamining the most recent caselaw in both family and criminal law jurisdictions this article discusses the prominent and still newly emerging issue of controlling and coercive domestic...
Roma families face disadvantage in child protection proceedings
Mary Marvel, Law for LifeWe have all become familiar with the discussion about structural racism in the UK, thanks to the excellent work of the Black Lives Matter movement. But it is less recognised...
The ‘Bank of Mum and Dad’ – obligations and scope for change
Helen Brander, Pump Court ChambersQuite unusually, two judgments of the High Court in 2020 have considered financial provision for adult children and when and how applications can be made. They come...
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