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
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...
Welsh Government launches consultation on amendments to adoption regulations
The Welsh Government has launched a consultation on the proposed amendments to the Adoption Agencies (Wales) Regulations 2005 and the Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (Wales) Regulations 2015....
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