The Council sought to have certain aspects of a care application put into the public domain which would normally have remained private. Application was also made (by the father and the child) for an order restricting the right of the mother to make further applications for a period.
Held: Contact had been offered to the mother but she had declined. The court had twice investigated allegations against the father by the mother of sexual abuse of X. Those allegations had been found to be fabrications by the mother. The mother had persisted and made public her allegations through a Mrs Watson who had then been found guilty of contempt. The guardian, initially opposed to publicity had decided, given the mother’s campaign of misinformation, that the facts should be made public. A document was attached to the judgment for this purpose.
Wall P said: ‘this is a wholly exceptional case. What the child and her father need above all is a period of respite from litigation. The mother recently applied for an emergency protection order. It was dismissed by the local Justices, with an order for costs made against her. It had, however, to be dealt with and no doubt caused considerable disruption. I am, therefore, entirely satisfied that an order under s.91(14) is justified, appropriate and proportionate. The mother is not prevented by it from negotiating contact with the local authority. If she has a reasonable application to be placed before the court, she will be heard. Thus, although the order represents a breach of her ECHR rights, I am satisfied that in the interests of X a respite of litigation is required and the order is proportionate.’
Sir Nicholas Wall P
[2011] EWHC B16 (Fam)
Bailii
Children Act 1989 91
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – In re P (a Child) (Residence Order: A Child’s Welfare) CA 30-Apr-1999
The court considered an appeal against an order under section 91 to restrict further applications without the court’s prior consent. . .
Cited – In re L (A Child: Media Reporting) FD 18-Apr-2011
The local authority had intervened on suspecting physical abuse. L was placed with the maternal grandmother who took L to Ireland before care proceedings were commenced. The Irish court found him to have been wrongfully removed, and orders were made . .
Cited – In re B (Children) (Care Proceedings: Standard of Proof) (CAFCASS intervening) HL 11-Jun-2008
Balance of probabilities remains standard of proof
There had been cross allegations of abuse within the family, and concerns by the authorities for the children. The judge had been unable to decide whether the child had been shown to be ‘likely to suffer significant harm’ as a consequence. Having . .
Cited – Clayton v Clayton CA 27-Jun-2006
The family had been through protracted family law proceedings and had been subject to orders restricting identification. The father now wanted to discuss his experiences and to campaign. He could not do so without his child being identified.
Cited – Re H (Freeing Orders: Publicity) CA 2005
Wall LJ said: ‘Cases involving children are currently heard in private in order to protect the anonymity of the children concerned. However, the exclusion of the public from family courts, and the lack of knowledge about what happens in them, easily . .
Cited – Pelling v Bruce-Williams, Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs intervening CA 5-Jul-2004
The applicant sought an order that his application for a joint residence order should be held in public.
Held: Though there was some attractiveness in the applicant’s arguments, the issue had been fully canvassed by the ECHR. The time had come . .
Cited – B v The United Kingdom; P v The United Kingdom ECHR 2001
The provisions of rule 4.16(7) providing for confidentiality in children proceedings were Convention compliant: ‘such proceedings are prime examples of cases where the exclusion of the press and public may be justified in order to protect the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Children, Media
Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.444730