The Court of Appeal live streamed a hearing for a case called M(A child) today, which looked specifically at what kind of access journalists can have to family law cases.
This is what the Judiciary page said about the case:
4 March 2021
NOTE: THIS IS A LIVE STREAM OF A FULLY REMOTE HEARING BEING HEARD ON MICROSOFT TEAMS
By Appellant’s Notice filed on 21 August 2020, Melanie Newman, in her capacity as a public interest journalist, applies for permission to appeal the order of Mrs Justice Roberts sitting at the Family Division at the Royal Courts of Justice dated 31 July 2020 whereby she refused her application to be provided with permission to access court documents in relation to public law proceedings concerning a child which concluded in October 2018 save for a limited number of documents.
Background:
The child was made the subject of a placement order by HHJ Hess when she was 4 years old. The Court of Appeal quashed the order on 20 February 2018 with the judgment of the Court holding that the judge had failed adequately to engage with the central allegation advanced by the local authority namely that the child was at risk of physical or emotional harm in her mother’s care. The matter was remitted to the Family Court but no retrial took place. Instead, the local authority no longer sought orders separating the child from her mother and with the result that the child returned to live with her mother where she remains to date.
The Appellant is seeking to investigate the case and in particular to look at how events unfolded which led to a local authority seeking permanently to separate a young child from her mother by way of a placement order, but who, a year later following the quashing of the placement order by the Court of Appeal, withdrew its application for a placement order and allowed the child to return to the care of her mother where she remains.
The hearing was streamed here.
You can see the list of cases being live streamed by the Court of Appeal, here.
You can also look at data on the Court of Appeal’s Civil Division, here.
We are aware of the notice not to screenshot the proceedings, however there are no children or family members in the footage or any elements in the hearing which could reasonably lead to the prohibition of taking screen shots of this hearing, so we are adding a screen shot below. If the judiciary takes issue with it, we’ll respond swiftly.
Researching Reform 
Has anyone watched it ?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Watching it now. The judges are saying that the appellant needs to show that the law was wrongly applied, rather than criticising the balancing exercise’s outcome. The appellant says the outcome is wrong in law, because the balance has been struck unlawfully as the court has failed to give proper weight to the parent’s views.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Natasha,
I hate to say this but it would fit perfectly with the discussions that we had earlier this week concerning Adoption cases. Inevitably one is left to wonder just how many, if any, other cases would lead to the same outcome if parents were to be willing and able to challenge with, I assume excellent legal advice and support.
Thanks for highlighting and for your relentless efforts bringing these matters to a wider audience – something National media seems to afford little or no attention.
Thank you,
Ed xxxx
From: Researching Reform
Reply to: Researching Reform
Date: Thursday, 4 March 2021 at 12:25
To: Ed Nixon
Subject: [New post] The Court of Appeal is live streaming family cases – watch now
Natasha posted: ” The Court of Appeal is currently live streaming a case called M(A child) which looks specifically at what kind of access journalists can have to family law cases. This is what the Judiciary page says about the case: 4 March 2021 NOTE: THIS”
LikeLike
Thank you for your reply, Ed, and for your ongoing support, it’s really appreciated. And I know you work tirelessly to support and assist families and children who have experienced our savage care system. It looks like the appellant is not going to win this case, that’s my prediction. The outcome would have been very different if Lady Hale was still around.
LikeLike
…. ‘ It looks like the appellant is not going to win this case, that’s my prediction…..’
I’ve thought the same.
S 12 re administration of justice is interesting concerning restrictions with live Cases and adopted children where how can this apply in circumstances where there is no solid proof of an actual adoption (forced) taking place. Surely then this is kidnap whether an alleged adoptive parent(s) was fully aware or not Xxxx
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, and in essence that is what this appeal is turning on: whether a court can complain there was no thorough investigation of the facts and then disable a mechanism that could effectively provide a full investigation. So while it’s not up to journalists to investigate these cases for LAs, there is a compelling argument for allowing them to do so, at least as part of the remit around transparency, at a time when the system simply cannot do that for itself.
LikeLiked by 1 person
‘We are aware of the notice not to screenshot the proceedings, however there are no children or family members in the footage or any elements in the hearing which could reasonably lead to the prohibition of taking screen shots of this hearing, so we are adding a screen shot below. If the judiciary take issue with it, we will respond swiftly.’
My same thoughts exactly 😘😉
In Court 71.
Xxxx
LikeLiked by 1 person
xxxxxx
LikeLiked by 1 person
Bout time courts looked in to cases especially where social services remove children and also get adopted.they should also not be allowed to uses people disabilities against them ect and also social workers lieing .my youngest child is adopted and my other 3 remain in care all cos I went through domestic violence I’m still in and out of court trying to get my 3 boys home .
LikeLiked by 1 person
Risk assessments on parents should be BANNED as noone can forsee the future .These judges and social workers are like fortune tellers but they alas have no crystal balls or tarot cards to help them guess the future ;After all how many of these so called “experts” predicted Covid,or Brexit ? If these judges were any good at predicting the future accurately, based on past occurrences they would all be down at the betting shops………………..
LikeLiked by 2 people
Exactly, the same combination said “P being removed from Family to achieve Autonomy {Privare Life} supersedes P’s Right to live a Family Life while, P has gone on to become Obese, A Thief, A Dangerous Sexual Predator {got arrested}, now subjected to DOLS and has no Family Contact. How can that make any sense??
LikeLike
Wow yes indeed where do we start. The unanswered communication from over fifteen years would be a good start. To be honest the lack of honesty and transparency in this industry is crippling it . Why would you promote someone in your organisation for telling lies in family court and steeling from the public? This is a complete nonsense. and promotes no trust bending the truth. How can a court be granted the only recording privileges and loose vital recordings? Do you think we do not listen to what you said its etched in our memory? There are not a day goes by that I don’t worry about my daughter and what horrific life she is leading There simply needs to be complete reform. How can a regulator not regulate when it learns of this behavior? Its simply covering for corruption and local authorities on all their watches allow children to be part of their evil commerce. The Looked After Children payments are scandalous and huge and need to stop if these people are better at looking after children why do they not generally have their own and why do they require state payment if they are so great? I haven’t forgotten the Oxfam scandal which strangely just disappeared this just a puff of smoke too. As for contacting her yes, I am happy to fill anyone’s mailbox. It will be interesting then will you as new commissioner will do what posters says above or actually bring change?
LikeLiked by 1 person
this link doesn’t seem to work – well not for me anyway – You can see the list of cases being live-streamed by the Court of Appeal, here.
LikeLike
Live Streaming and journalists allowed does NOT stop Judges and LA’s from abusing their powers
LikeLiked by 1 person
They seem to slap a section 12 on you when the system has failed to act. Especially when parents do ask and do report issuies. I think these cases need to be brought to court. They lie alot and they do this to meet the thresh holds. Once in court kids are already in a ico and they go about like nothing happened and use the terms “what we need to do to move forward” they breach the children’s human rights and compromise civil rights using deformation of character. But no professionals are ever punished or investigated and they get away with it. Meanwhile they are the cause of neglect and emotional harm. Who judges the judges ? When parents are then silenced and suppressed completely isolated from reaching out , how many cases have then been lead to suicide? Although I do support the need for social services i do feel and aggrree if courts was to be public everyone has a chance to over see that local authorities provide the public fair and justified decisions. Too many mistakes are often made and this leads to very damming circumstances.
LikeLiked by 2 people