T (A Child) (No.2) (Transparency: Publication of the Party’s Names), Re
[2024] EWHC 161 (Fam)
A & Ors, Re
9 February 2023
[2024] EWFC 25 (B)
Family Court
A dad wanted a court report about his kids and his ex-wife published to help other parents. His kids and the court-appointed guardian were very upset by this idea because it would be too hurtful, even if their names weren't in it. The judge decided to keep the report private to protect the kids but wrote a separate explanation why that was the right decision, and that explanation *will* be public.
Key Facts
- •Case involves three children (A, B, C) and parents' ongoing dispute.
- •Five-year-long legal battle stemming from parents' separation eight years prior.
- •2021 fact-finding judgment (84 pages) critical of mother's actions impacting children's relationship with father.
- •Father seeks publication of the 2021 judgment, while mother and guardian oppose it.
- •Children express distress at the prospect of publication, despite anonymization.
- •Father argues publication is in public interest, highlighting systemic issues and parental alienation.
- •Mother and guardian emphasize the potential emotional harm to children, especially the eldest child A who plans to study law.
- •Guardian's professional opinion emphasizes significant negative impact on children's well-being.
Legal Principles
Balancing of Article 8 (right to private and family life) and Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Re S (A Child) (Identification: Restrictions on Publication) [2004] UKHL 47, Campbell v MGN Ltd [2004] 2 WLR 1232, FZ (Congo) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] UKSC 74
Best interests of the child are a primary consideration but not paramount in balancing Article 8 and 10.
FZ (Congo) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] UKSC 74
Court should not assume harm from identification of a child in proceedings; objective view of reasonable expectation of privacy.
Clayton v Clayton [2006] 3 WLR 599, Weller v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 1176
Guardian's assessment of impact on child's privacy rights is significant.
Griffiths v Tickle [2021] EWCA Civ 1882
Guidance on publication of family court judgments, distinguishing between 'must' and 'may' publish categories.
Practice Guidance (Transparency) 2014, Practice Guidance on Anonymisation, 2018; Transparency project: a guidance note for families and professionals June 2017
Confidentiality of children in family proceedings.
s97 Children Act 1989
Outcomes
The 2021 fact-finding judgment will not be published.
Balancing Article 8 rights (privacy) of the mother and children against Article 10 rights (freedom of expression) of the father, the court finds compelling reasons not to publish due to the significant emotional harm it would cause the children, particularly A. The potential damage to the father-child relationship is also a major factor. While there is public interest in publishing judgments, this specific case does not warrant overriding the children's welfare.
This judgment (EWFC-B 2024 25) will be published.
This judgment explains the reasoning behind the decision not to publish the fact-finding judgment and falls within the criteria for publication. It contains no identifying details and the information is already known to the children.