T (A Child) (No.2) (Transparency: Publication of the Party’s Names), Re
[2024] EWHC 161 (Fam)
T (Children: Publication of Judgment), Re
21 June 2024
[2024] EWCA Civ 697
Court of Appeal
A family court case about publishing details of a long, messy custody battle was appealed. The judge wanted to reveal parents' names later to show the problems of a parent alienating children. But, the appeals court said this could hurt the kids too much and won't allow the publication until the kids are older and can make the decision themselves.
Key Facts
- •Lengthy child arrangements proceedings (2013-2024) involving 26 judges and over 70 hearings.
- •Case concerns publication of a Family Division judgment regarding contact arrangements for a 15-year-old child, T, and his relationship with his father.
- •Judge found the mother to be devious and dishonest, manipulating the children against the father.
- •Judge ordered contact until T turns 16, with a s.91(14) order until 18.
- •Judge initially proposed publishing the judgment with names, then ordered anonymised publication with parents' names released in 2026.
- •Mother appealed the publication order.
- •Children opposed publication at any time.
Legal Principles
Balancing of Article 8 (right to private and family life) and Article 10 (freedom of expression) rights.
ECHR
Open justice principle.
Common law
Children's best interests are paramount.
Children Act 1989
Weight to be given to children's wishes and feelings.
Children Act 1989
Section 97 CA 1989: prohibits identifying a child unless their welfare requires it.
Children Act 1989, s.97
Presidential Guidance on publication of judgments (Sir James Munby and Sir Andrew McFarlane).
Practice Guidance, Transparency in the Family Courts
Appeal will succeed if judge erred in principle or reached a conclusion outside a reasonable range.
PNM v Times Newspapers Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 1132
Outcomes
Appeal allowed; publication order set aside.
The court found that the judge did not adequately assess the potential harm to the children from delayed publication, and that several factors supporting publication were weak. The court was not able to predict the effects on the children in 2026.
New order substituted: father granted liberty to apply for publication after T's 18th birthday.
This allows the father to assert his Article 10 rights while acknowledging potential opposition from the children.