A High Court ruling has confirmed that family judges do not have an absolute right to gag parents who object to care proceedings.
President of the Family Division, Sir James Munby, who handed down the judgment, said that in the interests of open justice courts should balance every child’s right to privacy with people’s right to freedom of expression.
Munby also noted that injunctions preventing the identification of a children’s guardian, council and social workers should only be granted if there were compelling reasons.
The president also made other points in relation to the case involved, which are important for families going through care proceedings in general:
- Family courts cannot prevent parents, the media and websites from identifying social workers once care proceedings have ended
- Video footage or photos posted online by parents are allowed as long as the content does not lead to the identification of any children involved in care proceedings
- In the first instance, reporting restrictions do not apply to councils, social workers and children’s guardians.
Many thanks to Jane Doe for sharing this development with us.
Researching Reform 
Reblogged this on No Punishment without Crime or Bereavement without Death! and commented:
HALLELUJAH!
LikeLiked by 1 person
HALLELUJAH !!! about time those in family courts are SUPPORTED AND FREE TO SPEAK !. So many innocent families are caught in the gestapo attitudes of social workers we wonder what era we live in !!!
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is welcome. For too long, the mantra of ‘putting the child first’ has meant in practice ‘the gagging of everyone else, particularly parents’. Welcome, too, that we can now name (and possibly shame) social workers, once cases have ended. Just as well for me, having named them in my book a couple of years ago. . . . .!!
LikeLiked by 2 people
what is your book title Roger ?
LikeLike
Apologies, I’ve only just now seen your request. See answer in the correspondence ‘The Buzz’, 12th. October.
Rog.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Reblogged this on Musings of a Penpusher and commented:
A momentous step forward and a much needed distancing from the suffocating suppression hitherto regarded as acceptable.
LikeLiked by 1 person
So, why does Judges still gag us? Who has more power? Mr. Munby or the evil Family Court judge who thinks too much of himself/herself and abuses his/her powers? If we can openly publish what we want, surely our Family and loved one’s will be left alone by the evil system. This president is always preaching something different from the Judges practices. I opposed to my VIP’s removal and I am gagged so, what happens now? The system is like the Tories “All over the place”
LikeLike
This fairly well known judgment was passed over four years ago… Has no-one else noticed the date on it?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Reblogged this on World4Justice : NOW! Lobby Forum..
LikeLike
you have to refer to munbys baby j judgement if they try and gag you x
LikeLike
Reblogged this on tummum's Blog and commented:
A High Court ruling has confirmed that family judges do not have an absolute right to gag parents who object to care proceedings.
President of the Family Division, Sir James Munby, who handed down the judgment, said that in the interests of open justice courts should balance every child’s right to privacy with people’s right to freedom of expression.
Munby also noted that injunctions preventing the identification of a children’s guardian, council and social workers should only be granted if there were compelling reasons.
The president also made other points in relation to the case involved, which are important for families going through care proceedings in general:
LikeLike
Pingback: Munby: Parents Who Object To Care Proceedings Should Not Be Gagged | tummum's Blog
Nothing new there because Munby made these points clear in a previous case .But still no free speech ! A mother whose baby is snatched at birth will still be jailed if she complains on the internet that “my baby girl Mary Jones has been snatched by social workers”
Why? Because the baby might be upset for breach of privacy !!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Well isnt that a nice bit of information to know.
keep it coming Mr Munby!
LikeLike
Bullshit! I was jailed for 8 month served 4 for just naming my son by his first name and critisising social workers online! NO ONE CARES ABOUT THIS JUDGEMENT
LikeLike
Thats because most of the people sent to prison for this sort of thing never come to the attention of the public because the press most likely wont touch it for confidentiality reasons. same thing is happening to political opposition leaders getting jailed.
LikeLike