Spotlight
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...
Spotlight
Latest articles
Practical aspects to assessing competence in children
Rebecca Stevens, Partner, Royds Withy KingThis is an article regarding the practical aspects to assessing competence in children. The article explores a range of practicalities, such as meeting a...
Scrumping the crop of recent pension decisions
Rhys Taylor, 36 Family and 30 Park PlaceJonathan Galbraith, Mathieson Consulting2020 has thus far proved to be a memorable year for all the wrong reasons, but nonetheless it remains an interesting one...
Conduct in financial remedies – when is it now a relevant consideration?
Rachel Gillman, 1 GC/Family LawThis article provides an overview of all aspects of financial misconduct following the recent decision of Mostyn J in OG v AG [2020] EWFC 52, wherein all aspects of...
The treatment of RSUs/Stock Options in light of XW v XH
Peter Mitchell QC, 29 Bedford RowStock Options and Restricted Stock Units (RSUs) are frequently encountered by the Family Court when dividing property on divorce or dissolution of a Civil Partnership....
Hundreds of thousands of companies worldwide fall victims to hackers every year. Is your firm one of them?
SPONSORED CONTENT Image source: Information is beautifulYou and other lawyers and legal assistants in your firm likely have accounts on the hacked websites listed in the image above. If a hacker...
View all articles
Authors

PUBLICITY: Z County Council v TS, DES, ES and A (By His Children's Guardian) [2008] EWHC 1773 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 16:13 PM
Slug : z-county-council-v-ts-des-es-and-a-by-his-children-s-guardian-2008-ewhc-1773-fam
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jul 25, 2008, 04:21 AM
Article ID : 85065

(Family Division; Hedley J; 25 July 2008)

In a case in which, highly unusually, the court had granted permission for care hearings to be heard in public, subject to a schedule of anonymisation, and which had been the subject of a documentary in which the anonymisation requirements had been scrupulously observed, the judge refused the mother's application to relax some of the anonymisation provisions. Disclosing the identity of any family member would be highly likely to lead to the identification of the child; identifying the local authority would raise a serious possibility that the child would be identified; and identifying the social worker criticised by judge in a previous judgment would create a reasonable possibility that the child would be identified. It was relevant that the child, who suffered from significant learning difficulties, lived in a rural community, and was therefore more likely to be identifiable than if he lived in a massive conurbation.

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