Author Archives: Sarah Phillimore

Time for Climate Change in the Family Justice System

The Family Justice Council held its annual Bridget Lindley Memorial Lecture and conference in Bristol on April 6th 2022. Helen Adam gave the keynote address. She is a mediator and Chair of the Family Solutions Working Group who published in October 2020 ‘What about Me? Reframing Support for Families following Parental Separation, capturing a range of interventions for separating parents in one coherent document, in recognition that many cases would be better served outside the court arena. Helen expanded on that theme in her presentation – ‘Time for Climate Change in the Family Justice System’.

She set out her vision for a more humane system that supports families. She recognised that for most, ‘conscious uncoupling’ is unrealistic and the law can’t make people discard emotions. Helen drew a comparison between the Family Justice System and the climate change movement, where there were similar tensions between long established systems and a growing body of evidence that challenges these systems. The message is simple – we cannot go on as we are – but it is also unwelcome as changes will be hard and cost money. But evidence is real and growing that the adversarial system is harmful and is has become impossible to ignore

The Ministry of Justice Risk of Harm Report in June 2020 found that adversarial process often worsened conflict between parents and had damaging impacts on victims of abuse and children. Under conditions of extreme stress even ordinarily robust people can project intense emotions and feel the the other side to be malicious, even dangerous. Family separation is always stressful for children but what drives long term negative impacts is the level of conflict witnessed before, during and after. Reducing parenting conflict is associated with long term positive outcomes.

Ultimately this is harmful to all society and we need a different, gentler, more humane approach. But the problem seems too huge and difficult to overcome and we end up in state of depressed helplessness. Helen identified possible solutions

political support that crosses party lines and co-ordination.
public education programme to correct wrong language and wrong attitudes which are outdated.
authoritative website – a go to place with clear information for parents and children.
Resourcing ‘touchpoints’ – GPs, schools – to provide information and signposting about separation
direct support for children – voice of child is key component, but giving a child a ‘right’ to be heard doesn’t help if it can’t be exercised.
Mediation – but this needs triaging as some cases involving abuse just aren’t suitable.

Helen considers that a real benefit of mediation is in allowing a person to explain their situation, gather information about options and have an opportunity to ‘reframe’ family separation and see though the lens of the future. There are many resources out there, such as the Separated Parents Information Plan, but we need a national body of such programmes that meet high standards.

Lawyers have vital role to play in a ‘precourt’ space but parental separation is not primarily a legal issue, as it encompasses issues of safety, emotional states, child consultation, parenting and financial considerations. Parents need models that are supportive and problem solving and judges need training about issues that go beyond law. Without co-ordination what we have currently is just a ‘hotch potch’. But no change can be brought into effect without political intervention.

Language is critical part of any reframing. Helen queried the use of ‘Family Justice System’ – If that is what is said on the tin, that is what people expect, to play out rights and wrongs, to ‘win’ or to exact retribution. David Norgrove said our system is about ‘least worst outcomes’. If we renamed the FJS as ‘least worst outcome system’ would so many people want to go through it? If we don’t want families to go to war, we need to offer them something else.

Family law is completely different to all other forms of law which is retrospective, correcting past wrongs. We should be forward looking and wanting best outcomes, not just one parent’s concept of justice. Kate Stanley explained that where a system exists with a power dynamic, everyone embraces the language of the most powerful. Change has to come from the top – judges, magistrates and lawyers. We need the paradigm shift that the climate change movement has seen. We are 30 years on from the Children Act. Are we leaving green footprint in lives of families we work with? How is our work impacting families?

Then Ellen Lefley of JUSTICE spoke about improving access to justice for Separting/ed Parents – the full report is due out in July 2022. Access to justice needs understanding as broad concept, about just procedures and just outcomes. There are many barriers to access to justice – institutional, physical, mental, financial. For private family law, its not about increasing access to courts but to the most appropriate resources to resolve problems. The financial vulnerabilities of parents in such cases often means they can’t pay for more creative solutions. We have to ask – what is going on? What intervention is most suitable? How will they access it? Other jurisdictions show that the family court can be at forefront of initial non adversarial triage system which can have encouraging outcomes – less delay, people weren’t trying and failing. However, high conflict situations were better off going straight to court. This triage resulted in higher settlements and lower rates of return to court.

Then we heard about recent research regarding ‘Profile of parents within the Family Court’ from Dr Linda Cusworth and Jude Eyre, Associate Director of the Nuffield Family Justice Observatory. The research indicated the heightened vulnerability of adults in private law proceedings in the year preceding the court action, i.e. it was not going to court that initiated the problems. Parents in private law proceedings had higher rates of mental health distress, including anxiety and depression when compared to the general population. There were higher rates of self harm and exposure to domestic abuse as either victim or perpetrator.

What does this mean? And what can we do next? The research confirms domestic abuse is a mainstream not minority issue for the FJS. We need to think of the ‘mental model’ of the person for whom we are designing systems. whatever we do, in or out of court, these circumstances of vulnerability are present and real. All services need to be alive and actively screening and thinking about routes though. If parents are vulnerable rather than vexed, how do we engage to minimise anxiety? How can we bring learning about power dynamics into the court hearing? Can we address information gaps for litigants? How can we widen range of services the court can signpost to? Much lies beyond court and legal responsibilities, we need to look outwards to local safeguarding partnerships, clinical commissioning groups and third sector with rich experience.

We then heard about the experiences of parents and children in the FJS. One parent had benefitted from mediation but another could not, because of safety issues. She made a very strong point that she and her children needed the protection of the family court, which had ‘saved her life’. The voices of children have been gathered together ‘In Our Shoes’ – contact [email protected] to get free copy, the President confirming that this should be compulsory reading for everyone in the system.

Some comments

It’s impossible to disagree with anything that was said by the speakers. The adversarial system is clearly the last place any stressed and anxious parents need to be. Cases that drag on for years – as many do – are clearly going to cause children life long emotional damage. We can all see how easily and quickly situations become polarised and how the children suffer the most when caught in the middle.

All the speakers appeared to have arrived at the same solution – we must identify better solutions for families than simply funnelling them through an adversarial system which appears to achieve little and does it very slowly. But equally, all noted that the barriers to such triage are significant. To be blunt, there is often very little on offer or it requires significant financial resources to obtain. The money wasted on a bloated adversarial court system could be redirected to provide more focused and effective interventions – but it’s going to require a political will and co-ordination that I frankly do not think I will see in my lifetime. The Children Act 1989 was the last great piece of legislation to reform a fragmented system within 30 years, that crossed political lines and united everyone.

We may now have reached a similar crisis point but the political landscape now appears to be have shifted; politicians work with sound bites, quick fixes and policies that will play well with the electorate. Reforming the FJS isn’t ‘sexy’ – but it is essential.

But what is also essential is recognising the powerful statement of the women who said the family courts saved her life. The elephant in the room is the 10% of estimated cases that will be impervious to mediation, support or ‘re-framing’ – those cases which involve men and women who are truly damaged and dangerous and who require a robust court structure to minimise the harm they do. I welcome the proposals for more effective triage – just so long as we do retain the option for judicial control over those cases which need it.

Transparency as a way to correct a false narrative

Mohammed bin Rashid al-Maktoum v Princess Haya [2022] EWFC 16

This is an interesting case. Although it is clearly ‘highly unusual’ for the family courts to find themselves dealing with foreign princes this case represents further exploration of how an individual’s wish to correct a false narrative can be used to argue against the default position that publicity is the exception in family cases. It also demonstrates that although the legal context for determining ‘family publication’ cases is now settled and uncontroversial, the specific facts of each case are going to continue to require detailed examination.

On 9^th March the President of the Family Division handed down judgment in this case. The question for the court was whether the final welfare judgment of December 2021 should be published. This concerned the conclusion of long running wardships proceedings involving the parties two children aged 14 and 10. A total of 15 substantive judgments had already been published, with great media attention given that this case was ‘highly unusual’, involving the children of internationally known parents, one of whom is the Head of Government of a ‘prominent and powerful State’.

The President decided that the full judgment should be published, with some redaction. The key issue here was the publication of a welfare judgment concerning two clearly identified and publicly known children. Therefore the principles and themes developed in the recent Transparency Review did not have any direct resonance to the present unusual circumstances. The court had to find a ’bespoke’ solution by considering the particular facts and the individual needs of the two children balanced against the now firmly – and rightly – entrenched position in favour of anonymity for children in family proceedings.

Initially, the mother argued that the welfare judgment, in common with each preceeding judgment, should be published in full. The father and Children’s Guardian preferred publication to be restricted to a summary of the key elements of the decision. All agreed that in light of the degree of publicity already given to these proceedings, at least some form of summary of the welfare decision should be published.

Following submissions in February 2022 the Children’s Guardian changed her position in light of a further statement from the mother and meeting with the children. The father did not actively oppose the Guardian’s revised position to publish a full judgment with redactions but did urge the court to consider that both the children’s and the public interest was better served by the publication of a ‘coherent and accessible summary’.

The President found this a difficult decision. He had not written the welfare judgment with a view to future publication but rather to reflect the need to express his concluded views frankly and in detail so that the parents and in due course the children, could understand the court’s reasoning. He noted that it was ‘highly unusual’ for the court to publish a welfare judgment when the identity of the children was fully and widely known and that none of the legal teams had been able to identify any such previous publication in such circumstances. This issue took on even greater significance knowing that the family are public figures in their own right in Dubai and elsewhere.

The parties sought to rely upon the recent transparency review ‘Confidence and Confidentiality: Transparency in the Family Courts’ 29^th October 2021 but the President was clear that this Report was ‘wholly irrelevant’ to the issue that currently fell for determination. The Report was clear that greater openness in Family Court Proceedings is not to be at the expense of the children and family concerned. In the unusual circumstances of the present case, the President was required to provide a ‘bespoke’ solution, informed by the specific facts of the case and the needs of the children.

The overall legal context to determine publication of judgments in family cases was held to now be well settled and not controversial, relying on the need to strike a balance between competing ECHR rights and the statutory limits on identifying children. This case did not fit the ‘paradigm’ of a publicity application which usually focuses on Article 10 rights to free expression. Here the arguments in support of publication were geared towards the rights of the children and their mother to have their ‘story’ accurately available for public scrutiny to avoid the father being able to promote a false narrative. In particular, as the father was not being afforded direct contact with the children and his exercise of parental responsibility had been limited, it was important that third parties knew not to share information with him about the children that might put them at risk. The mother noted that the father had already been attempting to push a false narrative via social media that he had been reunited with his son.

The President noted that the Court of Appeal had recently in Griffiths v Tickle [2021] EWCA Civ 1882 upheld a decision to publish findings of fact against Mr Griffiths, in part upon the established right of an individual to ‘tell their story’. The Children’s Guardian in this case had also concluded that publication was in the welfare interests of the child.

In the present case the Children’s Guardian found the decision was ‘finely balanced’ but had decided in favour of publication on the basis of the wishes and feelings of the children and the mother’s own views. The court gave considerable weight to the mother’s statement, which was not challenged. This had to be balanced against the firmly entrenched default position in favour of confidentiality. Little weight was placed on the fact that previous judgments had been published; the welfare judgment was in a separate category and requires a bespoke evaluation.

Cases involving Domestic Abuse – how should the court handle this?

This is the text of a presentation given at the Bristol Civil Justice Centre on 19th January 2022, considering how the Court of Appeal’s guidance in Re H-N has been working out ‘on the ground’ We are left with the distinct impression that its not possible to resolve the tension between two competing principles – undertake a sensitive and detailed analysis of patterns of behaviour in a relationship AND take up less of the court’s time. But the need for early and robust findings of fact is clear.

We first met to discuss this in May 2021 and we thought it would be helpful to meet again to see how the guidance was working on the ground. I am going to remind you of the Court of Appeal guidance and consider how it was applied in the case of A Child (Application of PD12J : No.2 – Findings of Fact) [2022] EWFC 2 (12 January 2022)

Re H-N and Others (children) (domestic abuse: finding of fact hearings)

Neutral Citation Number: [2021] EWCA Civ 448

In March 2021 the Court of Appeal handed down its judgment in four conjoined appeals. A number of intervenors were involved, including the Association of Lawyers for Children and Families Need Fathers. The Court of Appeal was clear that PD12J was ‘fit for purpose’ – the issue was how it was being implemented in proceedings.

The first 77 paragraphs deal with some general guidance. The fundamental issue was, where domestic abuse is alleged in children cases, should the focus be on patterns of behaviour rather than specific incidents?

Summary of guidance

The Court of Appeal will expect to see recognition of the following issues in cases involving allegations of domestic abuse.

Do we need a finding of fact hearing?

At the earliest stage, consider the detailed guidance in PD12J about the need for a finding of fact.
Remember that PD12J is focused on child arrangement orders – it does not establish a free-standing jurisdiction to determine domestic abuse allegations that are not relevant to child welfare issues.
Fact finding hearings are to provide a factual basis for assessments or orders/interventions
Only allegations that are necessary for assessment purposes or particular orders should be considered
Does the fact finding need to be a separate hearing, or can it be bundled up with the final hearing?

CAFCASS made the very sensible suggestion that it would help to have more input from their officers at an earlier stage to help answer these questions and the Court of Appeal agreed this was a good idea worthy of more consideration – I am not sure how this is playing out on the ground.

Awareness of ‘patterns of behaviour’ means we have to consider the limitations of a Scott Schedule as a means of pleading a case

In every case where domestic abuse is alleged, both parents should be asked to describe in short terms (either in a written statement or orally at a preliminary hearing) the overall experience of being in a relationship with each other
Where one or both parents assert that a pattern of coercive and/or controlling behaviour existed, and a fact-finding is necessary, that assertion should be the primary issue for determination at the fact- finding hearing.
Any other, more specific, factual allegations should be selected for trial because of their potential probative relevance to the alleged pattern of behaviour, and not otherwise, unless any particular factual allegation is so serious that it justifies determination irrespective of any alleged pattern of coercive and/or controlling behaviour (a likely example being an allegation of rape).

BUT how do we square the circle between increased focus on pattens of behaviour and a need to save court time and scarce resources?

In essence, decisions about fact findings must be made at an early stage and any interim arrangements for contact must be safe for the child. The key words are ‘proportionality’ and ‘necessity’. We have to keep in mind the ‘overriding objective’ to deal with cases efficiently and recognise that resources are finite and need to be allocated to other cases than just our own.

As the President’s Guidance ‘The Road Ahead’ (June 2020) set out:

‘if the Family Court is to have any chance of delivering on the needs of children or adults who need protection from abuse, or of their families for a timely determination of applications, there will need to be a very radical reduction in the amount of time that the court affords to each hearing. Parties appearing before the court should expect the issues to be limited only to those which it is necessary to determine to dispose of the case, and for oral evidence or oral submissions to be cut down only to that which it is necessary for the court to hear.’

But the Court of Appeal at para 54 were alert to the immediate tension that exists, between dealing with matters efficiently and doing justice to allegations of ‘patterns of behaviour’. I have certainly never experienced two week finding of fact in a private law case – I consider myself very lucky if I can get a day within a reasonable timescale.

In promoting the need for courts to prioritise consideration of whether a pattern of coercive and/or controlling behaviour is established over and above the determination of any specific factual allegations, there is the potential that this additional layer of evaluation may add to an already lengthy forensic evaluative process. By example, the fact-finding hearing that had been listed in Re B-B (one of the four appeal cases before the court) was planned to last five days (that is 25 court hours) in order to consider five factual allegations.

How to meet the need to evaluate the existence, or otherwise, of a pattern of coercive and/or controlling behaviour without significantly increasing the scale and length of private law proceedings is therefore a most important, and not altogether straight- forward, question.

A number of suggestions were made by the parties in submissions including;

a ‘threshold’ type document, similar to that used in public law proceedings,
formal pleadings by way of particulars of claim as seen in civil proceedings and
a narrative statement in prescribed form.

A recent case is a useful illustration of the difficulties of trying to ‘square the circle’

A Child (Application of PD12J) [2021] EWFC B59 (6 October 2021) sets out the tension so often apparent in private law cases – either one party is a victim of domestic abuse, including sexual abuse and controlling and coercive behaviour, with the children being exposed to this abuse or one party has laid a trail of false and/or exaggerated allegations to justify removal of the children from their family home or refusal to permit contact with the other party.

On 30^th September 2021 HHJ Dancey gave permission to appeal to the mother of three children, aged 10, 8 and 5 from an order made by a district judge three days earlier that she return the children from the North of England to Dorset and for shared time with their father. In default of return the district judge had made a transfer of ‘residence’ order. The mother alleged significant abusive behaviour from the father, including that he had lied about being HIV positive and had repeatedly raped her.

One ground of appeal was that the judge failed to address PD12J at any point in his judgment and failed therefore to consider the harm the mother and/or the children would suffer if he made the orders sought, the level of supervision required, the risk to the children and the impact domestic abuse could have on their emotional well-being and the safety of the mother. He treated it effectively as a summary return in a relocation case.

The Judge found the district judge was entitled to take a critical view of the mother’s position and weigh that in the balance. He was also entitled to expect a rational explanation for a move of such distance and to consider the proportionality of the mother’s decision-making. But he was not entitled to dismiss the mother’s allegations summarily, ignore CAFCASS recommendations and fail to properly consider PD12J.

It’s worth reading the submissions in full as they set out the huge difficulties of these kind of cases.

Judge commented at para 120

The acutely difficult question the present appeal poses is the balance to be struck by the court between (a) the potential harm identified by PD12J of making orders that may place children at risk of the consequences of domestic abuse and (b) the emotional harm and potential relationship damage that may be caused by unilateral removal a considerable distance away from the family home and cessation of contact.

These are decisions that have to be made on an urgent basis, often with limited and untested information. Get it wrong and the court risks placing children at risk of harm either way. This is a welfare analysis that requires caution, balance and proportionality – often not easy to achieve at an interim stage.

Para 122 he endorses the framework of analysis proposed by Peter Jackson LJ in the different context of public law care and placement orders in Re F (A Child) (Placement Order: Proportionality) [2018] EWCA Civ 2761 :

a) What is the type of harm that might arise (for present purposes, putting the mother’s case at its highest)?

b) What is the likelihood of it arising?

c) What would be the consequences in terms of severity of harm if it happened?

d) Can the risks of harm happening be reduced or mitigated so that they are manageable (including in this case by the making of protective measures)?

e) What does a comparative evaluation of the advantages and disadvantages of each option (here, return or not, contact or not) say about the best interests of the children, having regard also to the need to protect a parent vulnerable to abuse?

f) Is the outcome proposed proportionate?

At para 124 the judge comments that the court is not bound to simply accept whatever a party says without some kind of critical analysis but at an interim stage is required to consider the circumstances around the allegations, including:

a) the seriousness of the allegations and the harm that might result;

b) whether there is already evidence from other sources which supports or undermines the allegations;

c) the consistency or otherwise of the allegations (making allowance for the fact that it is in the nature of domestic abuse that accounts are often given piecemeal and incrementally, especially in relation to allegations of sexual abuse which may be delayed because of embarrassment, shame or simply thinking ‘I won’t be believed’);

d) possible motivations for making allegations;

e) how the children are presenting and what they are saying.

His last comment at para 139 is interesting

I should add that the current practice, driven by resource demands, of Cafcass not interviewing both parents for the purpose of preparation of the safeguarding letter has contributed to the sense that the Cafcass recommendations were based solely on what the mother told them. At the moment Cafcass are leaving it until the FHDRA before speaking to the parties at court. I am concerned that interviewing parents in this pressured environment rather than independently away from court risks safety issues being missed. In this case of course the hearings were on non-Cafcass days and there was no opportunity to speak to both parents even at court. The father was not spoken to by Cafcass at all until after the decision under appeal.

The finding of fact was then heard in December, court reminding itself that Section 63 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, which came into force on 1 October 2021, requires amendment of the Family Procedure Rules to ensure that, where a person is, or is at risk of being, a victim of domestic abuse carried out by another party, or relative of another party or witness, it is to be assumed that the quality of their evidence and, where they are a party, their participation in the proceedings, are likely to be diminished by reason of vulnerability.

The following special measures were therefore put in place

a) separate waiting areas were arranged for the mother;

b) in court the father was screened from sight by the mother and arrangements were made when going in and out of court and during adjournments to ensure she would not see the father;

c) the mother was screened from the father while giving her evidence from the witness box;

d) breaks were taken during the mother’s evidence which spanned the afternoon of the first day of the hearing and the morning of the second and took some 5 hours;

e) additional opportunities for breaks were offered to the mother at points when she appeared to find questions about intimate matters particularly difficult, although in fact the mother opted to carry on;

f) given that there were some long pauses before the mother was able to answer some questions, I ensured that adequate time was given to the mother to answer questions fully before moving on to the next.

The difficulty for the court was that one of the parties had to be lying. Their starkly different accounts could not be resolved. The Judge was clearly alive to the difficulties In assessing the evidence of victims of trauma – at para 180 he said

This has been a troubling and difficult case. Experience shows that victims of domestic abuse, who are by definition vulnerable witnesses, sometimes find it difficult to talk about intimate and highly personal information, particularly allegations of sexual abuse. Because victims live in a state of fear, with patterns of abusively controlling behaviour, it is not uncommon for dates and incidents to become confused. Lived experiences are revealed over sometimes lengthy periods, including during court proceedings and, in my recent experience, in the course of giving evidence. Sometimes this iterative process is a matter of victims gaining the independence and courage to talk about their experience. Sometimes something is said which triggers a victim to be able to speak.

However on a careful analysis of the evidence he found that the mother had fabricated allegations against the father to justify her departure from an unhappy marriage. Although the father’s failure to disclose his HIV status was ‘abhorrent and abusive’ it did not create a risk to mother or children and therefore was not a matter to be relied upon to restrict contact.

What this case clearly underscores is the need for careful analysis of all the factors set out in PD12J at an interim stage, followed by swift and robust findings of fact. The only way to do this is I am afraid by taking up court time. I can’t see any other way to square the circle.

Transparency – where now?

This is a post by Sarah Phillimore. TL:DR – there is clearly a need for a shift in culture and an attempt to better balance the need for children’s privacy against the need for public trust and confidence in the system. This shift will only occur however if is properly resourced – simple exhortations to do better will achieve nothing. We will also need to keep an eye out for the operation of the Law of Unintended Consequences, and the likely satellite litigation that will follow attempts to withhold certain documents from journalists.

On 28th October 2021 the President of the Family Division released the review of progress of increased transparency in the family justice system; Confidence and Confidentiality: Transparency in the Family Courts in the Family Courts, noting that the pace of change to date had been ‘glacial’, owing in part to the tensions between two fundamental principles

…the need to enhance public confidence in the Family Court and, on the other, the need to maintain confidentiality by safeguarding the privacy of those who turn to the court for protection or for the resolution of intimate disputes.

A quick google of the title brings the first result, depressingly, a very similar named Government paper from 2006 which supports the President’s disappointment with the pace of change. We seem to have all been agreeing for decades that our current methods of wrangling the tension between these two principles are failing, and that this risks a serious impact on public trust and confidence in the system. So what now? Is anything actually going to change this time?

The President is clear that things must change and he will take responsibility for making this change. He sets out at para 5 why this is an important issue – the caseload of the FJS is immense – 224,902 cases in 2020 alone. So a lot of people have a direct interest in knowing how judges exercise their discretion in these cases. ‘Open Justice’ is also ‘a fundamental constitutional imperative’. Without public scrutiny, how are judges held to account for the decisions they make?

But of course the arguments against increased publicity are also strong and well known; primarily the impact on children who may not want the intimate and distressing details of their family life to be public knowledge.

A current stumbling block is section 12 the Administration of Justice Act 1960, which I have written about here. This is poorly understood legislation which has undoubtedly had a chilling impact on what may or may not be discussed about cases in the family courts. So even though the rules were changed to allow accredited media representatives and legal bloggers to attend private Family Court hearing as of right (r 27.11), they are still covered by AJA 1960, s 12 which prevents publication of information relating to proceedings if they concern children – thus removing much of the point of being there at all.

The reporting that IS done is often based on ‘anonymous accounts of negative experiences’ to which the system cannot respond, leading to (para 27):

thoroughly unsatisfactory state of affairs, with the drip-drip of concerning stories, that are neither answered nor explained by publication of a judgment, inevitably eroding public confidence in the Family justice system.

The President states that the way of reconciling two potentially competing needs of open justice and protecting children, is not to fall into the trap of thinking this is a simple binary – open the courts, yes/no. The President comments that the work of National Family Justice Observatory, The Transparency Project and the success of the CoP Open Justice Project, run by Professor Celia Kitzinger, has shown that it is possible to produce commentary and information about the system, without compromising privacy. So how do we move this work forward to a larger stage?

A major shift is required in culture and process to increase transparency

The President notes that previous efforts to effect this shift have not worked. Journalists don’t attend court hearings – and why would they! They are worried about being found in contempt of court. Judges are not publishing enough judgments – unsurprisingly when they do not have the time to prepare anonymised judgments.

The suggestions to achieve the shift are as follows. This will start with a trial run or ‘pilot’ in two local authority areas (one urban and one rural) to ensure that the changes work in an effective way and to deal with any unforeseen issues and problems that may arise before it is rolled out nationally. Some are simple, practical and effective and hopefully can be ‘rolled out’ without too much trouble – others however are going to present more significant challenges, and in particular will need money to make them work.

accredited media representatives and legal bloggers to be able, not only to attend and observe Family Court hearings, but also to report publicly on what they see and hear.
Reporting must be subject to very clear rules to maintain both the anonymity of the children and family members who are before the court, and confidentiality with respect to intimate details of their private lives.
to establish a Transparency Implementation Group [‘TIG’] to support implementation of changes
urgent consideration of Parliament to consider section 12 of the AJA – and while waiting, amend the Family Procedure Rules as far as possible to mitigate its impact
to monitor journalists, both locally and nationally, and, where clear misreporting occurs, for it to be taken up with the relevant editors.
establish links at a national level between the PFD and the Society of Editors, and at a local level between DFJ’s and their local media.
establish a Media Liaison Committee comprised of journalists, media lawyers and judiciary (together with others who may include individuals who are wholly from outside the spheres of Family Justice or the media).establish a forum for discussion between the local and national family judiciary
Further consideration of what documents should be disclosed, giving the judge an over arching discretion to withhold documentation if necessary.
Accredited media representatives and legal bloggers should be added to the list of those to whom a party may communicate information relating to children proceedings under FPR, r 12.75(1), PD12G and PD14E.
In order to ensure that a larger number of judgments are published, all judges to publish anonymised versions of at least 10% of their judgments each year – this may sound low but will be a significant improvement on what is happening now.
press for the establishment of an Anonymisation Unit within HMCTS which, through a combination of human input and/or software, will undertake the task of anonymisation.
DFJ’s to invite local MP’s to the court so that a fuller understanding of the work and approach of the Family Court can, over time, develop.
a scheme of compulsory data collection at the end of each case.
court lists should be made available in advance to journalists/bloggers which identify the general nature of the proceedings, the category of hearing and the time estimate.
a modern online hub to access which will explain the work of the Family Court, how cases are dealt with, what other options exist for dispute resolution and how to make an application. The website could signpost visitors to other potential sources of support or information. It should be the go-to first point of reference for anyone who has a need to engage with the Family Court.
the public to have access to an annual report, which would include data setting out case numbers, categories of proceedings and outcomes. The report would also include an annual audit on the progress of the various initiatives that are now to be launched under the overall umbrella of ‘transparency’.

My comments

I agree that something has to change. I echo all that is said about the dangers of allowing anonymous reports made to partisan journalists being the only public source of information that many have. But I do wonder how simple declarations of intent such as “openness and confidentiality are not irreconcilable and each is achievable. The aim is to enhance public confidence significantly, whilst at the same time firmly protecting continued confidentiality” are really are going to play out in practice.

I have commented about my own ‘journey’ with regard to transparency – from my initial and in hindsight embarrassingly naive world view that all we needed was to embrace open discussion and all would be well – to what I think is a much bleaker, but more realistic view of human nature, our love of stories and our resistance to accepting facts which challenge our narratives. I am afraid I no longer have confidence in journalists to reliably report facts, rather than cherry pick those facts to suit a narrative. The depressing reality is that most journalists only appear to care about the ‘sexy’ stories – the vast and mundane bulk of family cases will not attract their attention. It is not simply fear of contempt of court that has seen them stay away from court rooms. It is rather than 99% of family cases are of absolutely no interest to other than the people directly involved.

I am particularly concerned about the proposals regarding what documentation is to be released. At para 43 the President says:

My preliminary view is that those attending should be allowed to read position statements and witness statements but not medical reports or primary documents such as police disclosure. However, in all cases the judge will have a discretion to withhold documentation if that is necessary on the facts of the case.

This is going to need very careful thought. My own experience of journalists attempting to see documents which provide the ‘meat’ of a case – namely highly sensitive and personally distressing details about mental health conditions etc – has been entirely negative, leading to a raft of ‘satellite litigation’ over what could or couldn’t be disclosed, wasting the time of the courts and causing considerable distress to the lay parties. I am afraid that it is medical and police reports that journalists will want to see, as they are likely to contain the kind of intimate detail to make reporting ‘worthwhile’. I think it is this issue where the simple declaration ‘we can do this!’ is likely to founder and likely to bog down the family courts in further litigation that it simply does not have the capacity to deal with.

Further, it is good to see that the President is clearly alive to the difficulties of asking judges to produce ‘publication ready judgments’ – anonymisation is not simply a matter of stripping out names and replacing with initials. Care must be taken to avoid details that lead to ‘jigsaw identification’. Great detail about the nature and type of abuse suffered by a child is also not appropriate for wider publication. The suggestion is that a dedicated unit is set up to help judges – this would be ideal, but I suggest highly unlikely to ever be achieved, when our daily mantra is ‘there are no resources’ .

Almost as an aside at para 32, the President comments about the importance of data collection, which I think is key. There is a ‘data black hole’ over much of the FJS, and most obviously regarding outcomes; we rarely have feedback about whether or not a ‘final order’ actually brought any longstanding peace to a family. There is work being done by HMCTS across the justice system on collecting and using data, following the report and recommendations of Dr Natalie Byrom “HMCTS: Making the most of HMCTS data October 2020” and I would be very interested to know more about this. Better understanding of who is coming to court, why and what are the outcomes would, in my view, go a long way to improving public confidence in the system without requiring knowledge of intimate details about individual families.

I would also like to see more creative thinking. Judge Wildblood QC the Designated Family Judge for Bristol, has been experimenting for some time with efforts to bring the family justice system to the public with a variety of seminars and plays – his most recent ‘The Shake’ was held on line and about 630 people joined the remote link. There is clearly an enormous appetite for discussion and information and we need to think of other ways we can provide this, rather than simply holding up individual families for scrutiny in the actual court process. For example, I have recently volunteered to be a mentor to school students holding mock Trials, through the ‘Young Citizens’ project – we can think more about how education can be provided via schools to help people grow up to understand their country’s legal systems better.

In essence, what is necessary to achieve confidence in any legal system is quick and affordable access to robust decision making. I have significant doubts that this fundamental aim is going to be helped by encouraging more legal blogging or arguing over whether or not a journalist gets to see a psychiatric report. But, as ever, we will see. I can only hope that this Transparency Review does not join its 2006 iteration in the digital graveyard of lost causes.

Guidance on witness statements in family proceedings

President’s Memorandum: Witness Statements 10 November 2021

1. Too many witness statements are prepared in breach of proper professional standards.

2. It is clear that this problem is not confined to proceedings in the Family Court. It has become so acute in the Business and Property Courts that it has been necessary to pass a highly prescriptive Practice Direction – CPR PD 57AC – to seek to deal with the problem.

3. I do not consider that the Family Court needs an equivalent Practice Direction, at least not at the present time. However, the Family Procedure Rule Committee will have to consider introducing such a measure if the principles in this memorandum are not observed.

The fundamental requirements

5. Witness statements must only contain evidence from the maker of the statement.

4. Witness statements tell the parties and the court what evidence a party intends to rely on at a final hearing. Their use has the key added benefit of promoting the overriding objective by helping the court to deal with cases justly and proportionately, including by helping to put parties on an equal footing, saving time at the final hearing and promoting settlement in advance of the final hearing.

6. The statement must be expressed in the first person using the witness’s own words (PD 22A para 4.1).

7. A witness statement must not: a. quote at any length from any document; b. seek to argue the case; c. take the court through the documents in the case; d. set out a narrative derived from the documents; e. express the opinions of the witness; or f. use rhetoric.

Facts, information and belief

8. A witness statement may only set out matters of fact and matters of information and belief (para 4.3).

9. Matters of fact include past facts (i.e. events which have happened) and future facts (i.e. events which are expected to happen). A statement may state only those matters of fact of which the witness has personal knowledge and which are relevant to the case. The statement must indicate the source of any matters of information and belief. Evidence about proposed child arrangements or, in a financial remedy case, about needs, will be matters of information and belief. Therefore, where such evidence of such information and belief is given, the source or basis for that belief must be stated.

Documents

11 a. The statement must identify in a list appended to it what documents, if any, the witness has referred to, or been referred to, for the purpose of providing the evidence set out in the statement. b. The statement should identify or describe the documents in such a way that they may be located easily at the final hearing. c. Documents disclosed in the proceedings should be listed by disclosure reference (e.g. “reply to questionnaire bundle at page 75”). Such documents must not be annexed to the statement. d. The requirement to identify documents the witness has referred to, or been referred to, does not affect any privilege that may exist in relation to any of those documents. Privileged documents may be identified by category or general description. e. Documents in the list which are not privileged and have not been previously disclosed must be disclosed at the same time that the witness statement is filed and served.

Memory

12. A person involved in preparing the statement of a witness must not, subject to the next paragraph, in any way seek to alter or influence the recollection of the witness. This is a rule of fundamental importance, breach of which will be serious professional misconduct.

13. However, the memory of witnesses may be refreshed by showing them a document which they created, or which they saw while the facts stated in the document were still fresh in their mind. Any such document must be listed under para 11.

14. Parties should understand that the court’s approach to witness evidence based on human memory will be in accordance with CPR PD 57AC, Appendix para 1.3. This states that human memory: a. is not a simple mental record of a witnessed event that is fixed at the time of the experience and fades over time, but b. is a fluid and malleable state of perception concerning an individual’s past experiences, and therefore c. is vulnerable to being altered by a range of influences, such that the individual may or may not be conscious of the alteration. A person involved in preparing a witness statement should keep this very clearly in mind and, therefore, be wary of categorical statements about past events unless those events are corroborated by contemporaneous documents.

Length of the statement

15. A witness statement must be as concise as possible without omitting anything of significance.

16. As a general standard, a witness statement should not exceed 15 pages in length (excluding exhibits). This page limit is a statement of best practice and does not derogate from the limit of 25 pages in PD 27A para 5.2A.1, which should be regarded as a maximum.

Sanctions

17. The court has a power under FPR 22.1(2) to exclude evidence that would otherwise be admissible. The court will consider excluding under this rule a witness statement which materially fails to comply with the standards in this memorandum. The court also has power under CPR 44.11(1)(b) to disallow the costs incurred in preparation of a non-compliant witness statement.

Template for LIPs in non-complex private law welfare cases

18. A useful template for use by Litigants in Person in non-complex private law welfare cases is attached to this memorandum. Its use in such cases is optional, but is strongly encouraged.

19. It should be noted that a guide for LIPs litigating in the Family Court will be prepared in due course.

The silence of the Children’s Commissioners: Part II

This is a post by Sarah Phillimore

In May 2021 I wrote about the strange silence of the Children’s Commissioners about the issues of child safeguarding and welfare, which attracted international attention in the wake of the High Court ruling in Bell v Tavistock.

I could find nothing on the websites of any of the four Commissioners to suggest that this was an issue they were even aware of, let alone discussing. I was contacted by a person who made a FOI request on 7^th January 2021 to the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland for information held on the Keira Bell High Court judgment of 1^st December 2020. This request was refused, went through an appeal process and the refusal was upheld.

I commented back in May that the reasons for refusal were concerning:

I have some sympathy with the need to exempt from disclosure material which represents the necessary ‘to and fro’ as people raise, discuss and refine issues of importance. I also understand the importance of maintaining confidentiality around legal advice. But it is very concerning that an organistion with the status of a Children’s Commissoner is clearly concerned that the nature of the discussion within its organisation and with the other offices may risk contributing to the ‘toxic nature’ of the debate. How could this be possible given that all who work there must be alive to the need ‘to keep the discussion focused on the issues and on the law rather than personalising them’?
I suspect there are two problems here. Given the nature and extent of institutional capture in the UK, individual staff members may have gone way beyond a focus on the law and engaged in moral castigation of those ‘hateful bigots’ who would seek to impede a child’s identification of their ‘authentic selves’. OR there is a realistion that simply commenting on the relevant law will be seen and seized upon by many as a ‘hateful’ ‘bigoted’ attack on the rights of an ‘exceptionally vulnerable’ minority.

I have now had the benefit of reading more fully the reasons for upholding the refusal in ‘Decision Notice 171/2021’

The analysis notes that the withheld information comprises an email chain that originated from a member of staff of one UK Children’s Commissioner to their Commissioner, which was forwarded on. The Scottish Children’s Commissioner refused to disclose that email under sections 30(c) and 36(2) of The Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act [FOISA]. There was also an email from its in-house legal officer which it refused to disclose, citing section 36(1) of FOISA, which exempts disclosure of information which is confidential due to legal privilege.

The applicant argued that the public interest favoured disclosure as it pertained to a significant issue of child safeguarding and the views of the office charged with safeguarding those interests.

The Commissioner recognised the tension between two competing interests; public interest in such a significant area of child safeguarding, but also the interest of the Scottish Children’s Commissioner to receive full and unhindered legal advice to enable it to come to fully formed decisions. It decided that legal privilege outweighed the public interest in this regard.

With regard to the emails, 36(2) of FOISA provides that information is exempt from disclosure if it obtained from another person and disclosure would constitute a breach of confidence. However, it is generally accepted in common law that an obligation of confidence will not be enforced to restrain disclosure of information which is necessary in the public interest.

There are three main requirements to establish if information is given in confidence

the information must have the necessary quality of confidence
the public authority must have received the information in circumstances which imposed on it an obligation to maintain confidentiality
unauthorised disclosure must not be to the detriment of the person who communicated the information.

The Commissioner found that the first two requirements were met as the Children’s Commissioners were sharing information with each other ‘in confidence’ to promote their working relations.

But what about the third? The test of detriment does not require substantial damage, and could follow from mere fact of unauthorised disclosure. And this is where, in my view, it gets very interesting. The Scottish Children’s Commissioner stated that it did not have consent for wider disclosure from the individual who shared the information.

It explained that the issue under discussion was and remained highly contentious, with public opinion being very polarised. In its view, disclosure would cause significant emotional distress to this individual, with a real risk of them being exposed to online harassment and abuse for the opinions they expressed

The Commissioner accepted that the risk of online harassment is credible (but no where do I see any discussion of how it would be possible to disclose the contents of the email and keep the emailer’s identity private) and went on to consider the public interest in disclosing in any event. The Commissioner agreed with the reasons put forward by the Commissioner:

there was no attempt here to cover up any wrongdoing
there was a significant amount of information and commentary already in the public domain
at the time the information was withheld this was a live case still before the Court of Appeal
sharing information between Commissioners was to be encouraged

So what next?

The applicant has a right to appeal, I do not know if she will exercise that right but she has 42 days from the date of the decision. As an analysis of the relevant law it seems unremarkable – but what it throws up about the nature and the quality of discussion around medical transition is very remarkable indeed.

I can only speculate as to the contents of the relevant email and the language used which led to a credible fear of ‘on line harassment’ if it were revealed. The continuing silence of the Children’s Commissioners in expressing any kind of view about the advisability or efficacy of medical transition makes me ponder that the email was supportive of those who claim that any challenge to or discussion of these issues is ‘transphobia’ or other unacceptable bigotry.

But it doesn’t really matter which ‘side’ of the polarised debate the author fell. What is truly shocking is that we have reached a position in 2021, in a secular democracy, where particular views must be shielded from public gaze lest they attract abuse, intimidation and other threats. This is particularly worrying when the organisations who feel they have no choice but to be silent are those charged with statutory obligations to safeguard our children.

I am not aware that any of the Children’s Commissioners have since expressed any public view at all about medical transition. Perhaps they are awaiting the Cass Review? But at some point, and soon, they are going to have to fulfil their statutory obligations and the silence must end.

EDIT

Thanks to a Twitter user who reminded me that it was Anne Longfield as England Children’s Commissioner who remained completely silent (despite many parents and whistleblowers contacting her) right up until the judicial review proceedings.

However, she then she ordered the Care Quality Commission inspection which reported in January 2021 and found the Tavistock to be ‘inadequate’. Longfield was then replaced by Dame Rachel de Souza as Commissioner. I wonder if there is anything interesting in that timing. I guess we will never be allowed to know.

So useful to be reminded that the Children’s Commissioners do have some role to play. But makes it more worrying that we do not know now what they think of it all. To say ‘but there is lots of information in the public domain!’ is no answer at all. Many of us want to know what those with particular statutory obligations, funded by public money, have to say about one of the most serious medical scandals involving treatment of children in recent decades.

‘Interesting Times’

The Speech of Sir Andrew McFarlane President of the Family Division

FLBA National Conference: Manchester 16th October 2021

This is a post by Sarah Phillimore.

It is of course an ancient Chinese curse ‘may you live in interesting times’ and thus an intriguing title for this address, which you can read in full here. I propose to consider some selected highlights of what our President sees for the future of the Family Justice System.

First the President sets out what he wants to achieve over the remaining few years of his term. The following items will always be on his ‘to do list’.

Delivering the implementation of the long-running Digital Reform Programme for Civil, Family and Tribunals
Ensure everyone abides by the recommendations of the Public Law Working Groups.
Move the Family Court out of its silo and work effectively with other jurisdictions.
Protect and enhance the well being of everyone involved in the delivery of family justice.

Two topics however will demand additional time, focus and resources

resolution of private law disputes between parents about caring for their children post separation – this was covered in a previous Key Note address ‘Supporting Families in Conflict: There is a better way’
Transparency – the processes by which the Family Court may be made more open so that the wider public may gain a greater understanding of the work done here. I have undergone a sea change in my own approach to transparency – from actively campaigning for more openness, to now grave concerns about many journalists and parents will seek to use information made publicly available. The President will shortly publish the conclusions of the ‘‘Transparency Review’ that has been undertaken during the past year. Unfortunately this delay in publication meant the President felt it would be premature to consider it now.

Therefore the President turned to consider other matters.

The Future of Remote Hearings.

No national guidance will be issued but each local court centre will be trusted to exercise their discretion on a case by case basis and within broad parameters. The President made some comment about these parameters. It is clear that we will not return to the working practices of February 2020. The courts have now become used to remote working and it should be the formal of choice in appropriate hearings. The central theme is that parties and their lawyers should normally be physically present when an important decision is being taken. A clear negative about remote hearings is the absence of that time ‘at the door of the court’ to focus on issues and possibly settlement. But its clear that remote hearings – ‘for the right case’ – are here to stay.

Well Being

The system is currently running ‘hot’ and at a level above its normal capacity. The backlog of work remains high and is increasing. The President is clear that this level of working is not sustainable in the long run. Judges also need downtime and sympathy for late filing of position statements etc is going to be in short supply. He is concerned that orders are now taking days to draft after hearings and containing an over abundance of recitals – a new and ‘unwelcome’ development. Hopefully a Practice Direction will be issued early next year.

Public Law

The recommendations contained in the main report of the Public Law Working Group under the chairmanship of Mr Justice Keehan were launched in April 2021 with the firm expectation that they should be taken up by every local authority in England and Wales by now. The aim is to ensure that cases only come to court when they need to do so and when they are ready to do so in terms of assessments and all other necessary evidence. The big question of whether there is a case for the abolition, or replacement, of supervision orders has been referred to the Law Commission. The sub-group’s deliberations are focussed upon making supervision orders more robust and effective. A final report on this topic, which is expected by April 2022, will include draft Best Practice Guidance. Another sub-group on Adoption has started work with a final report expected later in 2022.

Family Public Law digital programme

The FPL digital programme is now fully operational in 10 of the 43 care centres. Between 10 and 12 further centres will become fully operational next week and it is envisaged that all other centres will join them before the end of the year. Taking up and implementing a substantial new software programme has not been without difficulties, which have been made no easier by doing so during the pandemic when all involved are working beyond their ordinary capacity.

Reform Programme

Looking at the Reform programme more generally, five reformed digital services have now been fully delivered: – Divorce – Financial Remedy Consent – Financial Remedy Contested – Probate – Family Public Law. In addition some 60% of all private law applications are now made online. Over ½ million digital applications have now been made using these services and the level of performance has been transferred: 9 – Divorce now takes 20 weeks from start to finish – Financial remedy consents are dealt with in 3 weeks – C100 applications are going to gatekeeping teams within 2 days of receipt – The FPL provides fully digital files for the judiciary.

Conclusion

The President concluded with words of praise

May I conclude by saying what I have now said on very many occasions. The record of achievement of the Family Court from the very first day of the first Lockdown has been profoundly impressive. Every single individual, be they lawyers, court staff, social workers or judges and magistrates, did their utmost to keep the system going and available for those who turn to us for protection or the resolution of intractable disputes. What has been achieved makes me proud to be part of the Family justice system and one of your number.

It certainly looks as if great strides have been made to embrace new technology and move away from a paper based service which hopefully will not only increase efficiency and but reduce costs. I am certainly pleased that remote hearings are here to stay when it comes to the shorter more administrative hearings. The joys of leaving the house at 5.30am to attend a 20 minutes directions hearing in Plymouth certainly diminished over the years – if those days are gone, I am very glad.

But of most interest to me is what the President wasn’t able to speak about – the Transparency Review and what it will mean for not only how we work in the Family Courts, but how others will be able to discuss how we work. I wish I could say I was filled with delighted anticipation for the forthcoming Review and how it will usher in a new golden dawn of shared information and understanding. Sadly, events of the last few years – most notably the woefully imbalanced ‘Dispatches’ report that could apparently find not a single father to interview – have made me much more pessimistic.

But as ever, I am always happy to be proved wrong. It is clear to me that trust and confidence in the system will not come from simply improved ease of access and IT improvements, but rather that people can be helped to understand the nature of the work that is done and most importantly the inevitable limitations of any system of law to mend broken relationships and emotional dysfunction.

‘The Shake’

On Thursday 4^th November 2021 at 7 p.m. we will be presenting by Microsoft Teams a play about a young baby who gets shaken and badly injured whilst in the care of her parents. The family portrayed in the play are involved in care proceedings. The play shows the social circumstances, so frequently encountered in criminal and Family proceedings, which lead to this sort of injury.

The play is graphic, and some may find it distressing. It lasts for about 40 minutes. We show it as an acted play-reading. It has been written be HHJ Wildblood QC. There is no charge for attendance.

After the play, there will be a short talk by Dr Imelda Bennett, Consultant Paediatrician explaining the nature of injuries that are often encountered when a baby is shaken. That will be followed by a short talk by DCI Kristina Windsor about the criminal procedures that may arise and the charging options that may need to be considered. Finally, HHJ Wildblood QC will speak about Family Court procedures and the need for communication between the Family and Criminal proceedings. There will be a chance to send in questions using the Team’s ‘chat’ function.

We estimate that the event will last a total of about 1 ½ – 2 hours. The intention is to improve our understanding of how these distressing injuries can occur and the consequences that may arise for everyone involved. Those attending are asked to turn off their microphones and cameras when joining the Teams link.

The Teams link is here. If you have difficulty joining on the night, please email HHJ Wildblood QC on his email address: [email protected]

If you are attending, please could you send a brief email to Stephen on the above email address so that we have some idea of numbers.

Microsoft Teams meeting

Join on your computer or mobile app

Click here to join the meeting

Join with a video conferencing device

[email protected]

Video Conference ID: 124 901 523 8

Alternate VTC instructions

Or call in (audio only)

+44 20 3443 8791,,967692441# United Kingdom, London

Phone Conference ID: 967 692 441#

Find a local number | Reset PIN

Learn More | Meeting options

Children’s Consent to Medical Transition

The Court of Appeal decision in the Bell v Tavistock case.

This is a post by Sarah Phillimore. I will be discussing these issues at a webinar organised by EBSWA on September 30th. Please join us.

https://m.facebook.com/chegender/photos/a.933845336653629/3805107706194030/?type=3&source=54

Summary

Over recent years, considerable debate has arisen over the consequences of medical intervention which aims to allow ‘gender dysphoric’ children to ‘transition’ from the body into which they were born, to better reflect their perceived ‘gender identity’. There are serious concerns that this kind of intervention is experimental, with no clear evidence base and carries significant risks for the child.

The debate culminated in 2020 with the challenge of Keira Bell by judicial review, against the lawfulness of the decision by the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust (‘the Tavistock’) to agree that she could offer valid consent to medical transition, aged 16. The High Court determined that such cases should be brought to court for a ‘best interests’ decision, emphasising how unlikely it was for children under 16 to be ‘Gillick competent’ and therefore able to offer informed consent to medical transition, by way of puberty blockers and cross sex hormones.

The Tavistock appealed in June 2021 and the judgment was published today, September 17th 2021.

In brief, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, considering that the High Court had made findings on controversial and disputed facts, which was not the purpose of a judicial review and which is was not entitled to make. The court noted the real danger in situations involving ethical questions coming before the court on disputed evidence which is not capable of resolution in this arena. The court may attempt “to enunciate propositions of principle without full appreciation of the implications that these will have in practice, throwing into confusion those who feel obliged to attempt to apply those principles in practice.” (para 77). The decision about treatment must be made by the clinicians, child and parents. However, the Court of Appeal sounded a clear note of warning at paras 92 and 93 – clinicians must be aware of their ethical duties when determining a child’s informed consent and failure to do so will carry regulatory or even criminal consequences.

So where do we go from here?

The necessary debate about the implications of medical transition for children – particularly as the huge recent surge in referrals of teenage girls strongly suggests some kind of social contagion rather than pressing medical need – has been gravely hampered by a toxic and polarised atmosphere, whereby legitimate concerns about the welfare of children have been actively rejected as ‘bigotry’ or ‘transphobia’. However, in the run up to the first hearing in Bell and immediately afterwards, consideration of the welfare issues for children began to get more serious exposure.

Current NHS advice with regard to puberty blockers and cross sex hormones states that little is known about the long-term side effects of either treatment. Although some claim that puberty blockers are a physically reversible treatment, the psychological effects are not known. There are concerns about potential impact on the brain or bones. For boys, ‘pausing’ puberty may mean they do not develop enough penile or scrotal tissue to undergo later construction of a neo-vagina. Cross sex hormones may cause irreversible changes to the body – such as breast growth or deepening of the voice and temporary or permanent sterility.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) (see ‘further reading’ below) has concluded that any potential benefits of gender-affirming hormones must be weighed against the largely unknown long-term safety profile of these treatments in children and adolescents with gender dysphoria. Other jurisdictions, such as Sweden, Finland and Australia are also raising concerns about the quality of the available evidence.

The High Court decision

The High Court held that in order for a child to be competent to give informed consent to puberty blockers, the child would have to understand, retain and weigh the following information:

the immediate consequences of the treatment in physical and psychological terms;
the fact that the vast majority of patients taking puberty blocking drugs proceed to taking cross-sex hormones and are, therefore, on a pathway to much greater medical interventions;
the relationship between taking cross-sex hormones and subsequent surgery, with the implications of such surgery;
the fact that cross-sex hormones may well lead to a loss of fertility;
the impact of cross-sex hormones on sexual function;
the impact that taking this step on this treatment pathway may have on future and life-long relationships;
the unknown physical consequences of taking puberty blocking drugs; and
the fact that the evidence base for this treatment is as yet highly uncertain.

The Court considered that it was ‘highly unlikely’ that a child of 13 years or younger could give informed consent (the youngest patient referred to the Tavistock for puberty blockers was aged 10 years) and ‘doubtful’ whether a child aged 14 or 15 could. Clinicians were advised to consider seeking court authorisation before treating any child, but that position was clarified in AB v CD & Ors [2021] EWHC 741 (Fam). If child, their parents and the clinician all agreed that treatment was the best course of action then court authorisation was not required.

The response of the Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal, comprised of Lord Burnett of Maldon, Sir Geoffrey Vos and Lady Justice King, handed down its judgment on 17th September 2021.

The judgment begins by making it clear that the only issue before the court was the question of whether or not the sanction of the court was needed before puberty blockers or cross sex hormones were prescribed – not whether the treatment itself was lawful. The claimants argued that those under 18 were not capable in law of giving valid consent.

The court notes at para 5 an ‘odd feature’ of the claim – it was not actually the Tavistock who prescribed puberty blockers. It referred children on to either UCH or Leeds which then independently made its own clinical assessment and obtaining valid consent from the child. Neither hospital trust was joined as a party to these proceedings but intervened as it was their prescribing of puberty blockers that was ‘under attack’. In reality therefore, the claim was a challenge to the NHS policy of providing treatment for gender dysphoric children – the gender identity service at the Tavistock (GIDS) is provided as part of the NHS Standard Contract and commissioned by the NHS Commissioning Board in accordance with a service specification.

The High Court did not find any illegality in the policy or practice of the Tavistock, UCH or Leeds. Nor did it agree that the information given to children was ‘inadequate’ – but did express concern about the ability of children to understand and weigh it [para 150]. The claim for JR was not however dismissed; the High Court went on to declare precisely what was required by ‘informed consent’.

The Tavistock appealed on 8 grounds (para 12)

Grounds 1 and 2 – the court misapplied the law in Gillick.
Ground 3 – the court’s conclusions were inconsistent with the 1969 Family Law Reform Act.
Grounds 4 and 5 challenge the conclusion that prescription of puberty blockers for gender dysphoria is “experimental” and that their effects are “lifelong” and “life-changing”.
Grounds 6 and 7 – challenge the court’s reliance on expert evidence adduced by the claimants and relying on it to resolve clinical differences of opinion.
Ground 8 – that that the approach of the court discriminates against children with gender dysphoria which cannot be justified

From para 15, the Court of Appeal examined the factual background in more detail. From para 24 it sets out the history of the use of puberty blockers.

How did the High Court deal with the law?

The Court of Appeal examined this from para 39. The High Court had concluded that apart from ‘life saving’ treatment, there could be no more profound intervention in a child’s life and therefore it was appropriate for the court to sanction this type of treatment. But the Court of Appeal responded to remind itself that it should be wary of “becoming too involved in highly complex moral and ethical issues on a generalised, rather than case specific basis.” Neither the service specifications nor the standard operating procedures of the Tavistock were unlawful. The House of Lords in Gillick had been very clear that it was for the clinician to decide if a child under 16 could give informed consent to medical treatment. It was unwise for the courts to attempt to put judicial limits on this – the rights of the patients were better protected by the professional standards of the treating clinicians.

How did the High Court deal with the evidence?

The Court of Appeal were unhappy with how the High Court dealt with disputed evidence.

Even from within the evidence filed on behalf of Tavistock, there is an apparent disconnect between the international experience that 1.6% of children who started puberty blockers did not go on to cross-sex hormones and the figures which arose from the random sample, namely that of 49 referred to the Trusts only 27 were approved for or accessed cross-sex hormones. This is one example of the difficulty in drawing conclusions from statistics which are not fully explained or explored in an evidential context where they were peripheral to the legal dispute before the Divisional Court and where any apparent differences were not capable of being tested forensically.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the stated approach of the High Court that a judicial review was not the correct arena for making findings of fact (para 31) or attempting to choose between disputed expert evidence but considered that despite these statements of intent, the High Court had made some factual determinations. See from para 33:

It was unusual for a child to be refused puberty blockers because s/he could not consent; instead ‘more information’ was offered.
Once a child started puberty blockers they were on a clear pathway to cross sex hormones
This treatment was rightly described as ‘experimental’
This treatment may support the persistence of gender dysphoria, which would otherwise have resolved

The Court of Appeal were unhappy that the status of the claimant’s evidence had not been resolved by the High Court- it had been adduced without permission and some of it was ‘argumentative and controversial’. A judicial review is simply not the arena to resolved disputed expert evidence and normally the defendant’s evidence would be taken at face value.

There was further discussion of this from para 61. The High Court found the treatment was ‘experimental’ on the basis that there was ‘real uncertainty over the short and long-term consequences of the treatment with very limited evidence as to its efficacy’ – but the Court of Appeal found it would have been better to avoid those kind of ‘controversial’ findings. The same criticisms were levelled at the finding that the overwhelming majority of children would move from puberty blockers to cross sex hormones. The declaration “turns expressions of judicial opinion into a statement of law itself. In addition, it states facts as law which are both controversial and capable of change” (para 80).

As the Court of Appeal made clear at para 64

The point, however, is that these judicial review proceedings did not provide a forum for the resolution of contested issues of fact, causation and clinical judgement….As will appear from what we say in the next section of this judgment, we have concluded that the declaration implied factual findings that the Divisional Court was not equipped to make.

Was the High Court right to make declarations about the nature of the treatment?

Short answer: No. The Court of Appeal examined this issue from para 66, noting that it was the heart of the appeal: the Tavistock arguing that the court “intruded into the realm of decisions agreed upon by doctors, patients and their parents, where the court had not previously gone.” Nor could the Court of Appeal find any example of declaratory relief being granted in a judicial review where the challenge with regard to the law had failed.

At para 70 the Court of Appeal criticised the High Court’s declarations as attempting an exhaustive list of factual circumstances that must be evaluated in seeking consent from a child. But some of the factors identified beg questions to which different clinicians would give different answers. At para 75 the Court of Appeal said:

The evidence of Tavistock and the Trusts was that the treatment was safe, internationally endorsed, reversible and subject to a rigorous assessment process at each stage. It was supported by the service specification, the WPATH guidelines, the Endrocrine Society Clinical Guidelines and explained in the witness statements of Dr Carmichael and Dr Alvi. As we have seen, and as these proceedings have illuminated, there are strongly held contrary views. The declaration would require the clinicians to suspend or at least to temper their clinical judgement and defer to what amounts to the clinical judgement of the court on which key features should inform an assessment of Gillick competence, influenced by the views of other clinicians who take a different view and in circumstances where Mr Hyam accepts that the service specification, which sets out criteria for referring a child for puberty blockers, is not unlawful.

Both Lords Scarman and Fraser had in Gillick made detailed observations about what they would expect to see from doctors assessing informed consent. But to have turned these into declarations of law would have been inappropriate (para 81).

Was the High Court right to have given guidance that these matters should come before the court?

Short answer: no. The Court of Appeal noted at para 86 that requiring the decision about this treatment to be sanctioned by the court “placed patients, parents and clinicians in a very difficult position”. The guidance would in practice have the effect of denying treatment as many wouldn’t have the resources to make an application and there would be inevitable delay through court involvement. In addition, where child, parents and clinicians agree treatment is in the best interests of the child, it would be inconsistent with the conclusion of the Supreme Court in An NHS Trust (discussed at [49]) to bring the matter to court.

Having made these decisions, the Court of Appeal did not need to consider the issues around discrimination in the final ground of appeal.

Where next?

I do not doubt that gender dysphoria is a ‘real thing’ and causes great suffering. However, I do very strongly doubt that it is as common as current referal rates or social media activity suggests. The majority of children expressing ‘gender variance’ will not wish to ‘change sex’ if left to go through puberty unmedicated.

The Court of Appeal was clear at para 92 that the pre-Bell landscape has shifted and sounds a warning note for clinicians and their insurers.

We should not finish this judgment without recognising the difficulties and complexities associated with the question of whether children are competent to consent to the prescription of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones. They raise all the deep issues identified in Gillick, and more. Clinicians will inevitably take great care before recommending treatment to a child and be astute to ensure that the consent obtained from both child and parents is properly informed by the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed course of treatment and in the light of evolving research and understanding of the implications and long-term consequences of such treatment. Great care is needed to ensure that the necessary consents are properly obtained. As Gillick itself made clear, clinicians will be alive to the possibility of regulatory or civil action where, in individual cases, the issue can be tested.
And at para 93:
But it is for the clinicians to exercise their judgement knowing how important it is that consent is properly obtained according to the particular individual circumstances, as envisaged by Gillick itself, and by reference to developing understanding in this difficult and controversial area. The clinicians are subject to professional regulation and oversight.

Keira Bell’s judicial review has failed but she has performed a great service for not only the welfare of children but also the integrity of the medical and scientific community. The High Court blew the lid off the lack of proper evidence in this field alongside the bizarre cementing of an ‘affirmation path’ which confined children on a route to really serious medical intervention, for the rest of their lives. I hope that the discussion generated by both the High Court and the Court of Appeal will finally bring an end to this dangerous climate of fear, where necessary discussion is shut down as ‘transphobia’.

While I am disappointed that there is little reference by the Court of Appeal to the ancient powers of protection that the court exercises over children I can understand the limitations of the judicial review process and the difficulty of trying to determine disputed and controversial evidence within it. I also hope that the medical profession will undertake their duties to properly assess the informed consent of their child patients, without bowing to pressure from political lobby groups.

The signs are hopeful now of more general willingness and openness to discuss these very important issues. The Cass Review was commissioned in 2020 to carry out an independent review into gender identity services for young people. Its terms of reference focus on the assessment, diagnosis and care of children with gender incongruence and will be wide ranging in scope.

I will await the outcome of the Cass Review with great interest. I hope it is going to show that all patients, but particularly children, need services that are insulated from political ideology. ‘Talking therapies’ must assume a greater importance than simply a model of affirmation. This will no doubt place an even greater strain on the existing specialist facilities for ‘gender diverse’ children but the long term impacts on children are too serious to ignore and we must make investment in our children’s mental health a priority.

First – Do No Harm.

Online comment

The variety and disparity of the online comment immediately generated, underscores for me the need for Parliament to step in and set clear parameters for the age limits for this treatment.

Transgender Trend response

Andrew Tettenborn, Salisbury Review

Court overturns ‘cruel ruling’ Pink News

Gendered Intelligence blog

When Facts Don’t Matter

This is a post by Sarah Phillimore

Am I a ‘troll’ or a ‘leading professional’? The answer seems to depend on whether or not I am agreeing with someone’s particular narrative at a particular time, rather than on the quality of my arguments and the state of my evidence.

I have been distracted from the child protection system of late by ever increasing terror at the state of the ‘debate’ over issues of sex and gender and our rights to speak about them. But I haven’t strayed too far from this arena. And there are many similarities; here I find exactly the same kind of damaging rejection of facts in pursuit of what appears to be a religious fever that corrupts meaningful discussion. There is the exact same pushing of a precooked and preconceived narrative to achieve a campaigning end – truth, facts and the welfare of children be damned.

So what’s happened now to provoke an irritated blog post? There has been a clear build up over several years now of a campaign to persuade law and policy makers that the family court system is a tool of misogynistic oppression, which is designed to ‘hand over’ children to violent men and punish women who dare allege that they have been abused. The campaigners scored a considerable victory with the Ministry of Justice ‘Harm Report’ in June 2020. I have set out my concerns about this report and its conclusions here; in brief it was argued on the basis of self selected ‘lived experience’ that the ‘pro contact culture’ of the family courts meant that children were not protected from the invariably male domestic abusers.

However, the Court of Appeal put the brakes on with their decision Re H-N and Others (children) (domestic abuse: finding of fact hearings) [2021] EWCA Civ 448 which I wrote about here. Many campaigners appeared to be expecting a wholesale demolition of the family court system and recognition that judges simply couldn’t be trusted to even identify domestic abuse, let alone be aware of case law and practice directions about how to deal with it. But the Court of Appeal concluded:

We are therefore of the view that PD12J is and remains, fit for the purpose for which it was designed namely to provide the courts with a structure enabling the court first to recognise all forms of domestic abuse and thereafter on how to approach such allegations when made in private law proceedings. As was also recognised by The Harm Panel, we are satisfied that the structure properly reflects modern concepts and understanding of domestic abuse

But the campaigners weren’t daunted. They came back fighting with a Dispatches documentary ‘Torn Apart’ which aired on July 20th 2021. It’s basic message seemed to be that ‘parental alienation’ wasn’t a real thing, but rather a strategy of vile abusing men to ensure that children were ‘torn apart’ from their loving mothers, at the behest of the criminally incompetent and dysfunctional family court system.

‘Parental alienation’ is a phrase to describe what happens when a child is effectively brainwashed by one parent to refuse contact with the other. It’s a real thing, that sadly men and women do to their children, it causes immense emotional harm and there is a wealth of case law about it. I have written about it here and here if you want to read more. In the minority of really intractable cases the court may order the children to be removed from the alienating parent, either into foster care or to live with the other parent. This is done because the court’s primary duty is to secure the welfare of the child, not to ‘punish’ or ‘reward’ either parent.

If you haven’t seen the documentary, watch and make up your own mind. I will just share a few of the comments I received via email after it aired, from lawyers, psychologists and parent campaigners.

My main complaint is the imbalanced reporting. Orders for transfer of living arrangements are not common and usually made only at the end of years of litigation, expert and guardian involvement and probably multiple ‘second chances’ for mum (using the example in the documentary). It was not made clear WHY the Judge had felt a transfer of living arrangements to be in these children’s best interests.

For me it was the failure to acknowledge that PA is actually a real thing. It is not a gendered issue. Mother’s were represented but not as targeted parents. Father’s were not represented at all. Grown up children who were alienated as youngsters were not represented. A balance of expertise was not represented. It erased the experience of a whole cohort of children, parents and extended families, for whom PA is real, and that was utterly devastating

It’s all very well to use actors in re-enactments, but it was far from clear as to what was real and what was not in this film. And to use such highly emotive language, tone and even screams with no indication of how much of each is just an artist’s impression rather than an accurate representation of what actually happened. Even mum crying about her babies is unlikely to have been filmed at the time, so the whole thing – and it is the emotional impact that is the issue under consideration – could be entirely misleading. This is a far cry from a voiceover to maintain anonymity. Were the kids even real? Surely if they were, this would be breaking the disclosure law? Surely too they could have mocked up dad’s side a little too? What about giving some indication as to why the judge made the decision in the first place – not exactly a common decision… This is all way outside any public broadcasting, balanced reporting and truth exposé characteristics previously associated with C4. Fake news/nudge territory here. Not even creative!

There was also extensive coverage in newspapers and on social media. I will just highlight one of the articles, written by one of the contributors to Dispatches, a Dr Charlotte Proudman. What makes Proudman’s contribution all the more remarkable is that she is a family law barrister. Yet she felt able to say this, writing in the Guardian on 21st July 2021 under the headline Our family courts are allowing perpetrators to use the bogus idea of ‘parental alienation’ to gain access to their victims.

I have watched, horrified, as parental alienation has become the go-to litigation tactic, often used by domestic abusers to discredit allegations made against them by their ex-partner. Although parental alienation can be raised by either parent, overwhelmingly I see it being deployed as a counter-allegation by fathers when mothers try to prove they or their children have been subjected to abuse.

That may be Proudman’s experience. It certainly isn’t mine, nor that of the many others who have expressed their views via email. I would like to have discussed this with Proudman, but she has blocked my Twitter account, even when she relies on me as a ‘leading professional’ later in the article.

I suspect I am only a ‘leading professional’ because she wishes to cite a letter I wrote to the President of the Family Division about the need to change the rules to prevent unregulated experts from giving evidence in children cases. This is particularly important in cases of parental alienation as often the choices for children are very bleak; leave them to suffer emotional harm or try to remove them and risk a different kind of harm. So its important that we can trust the experts who offer the court their expert opinion. I do not trust any expert who choses not to be subject to external regulation.

I unfairly criticised Proudman for saying the President had refused to consider it; I had hoped that it was simply on the back burner until COVID was over. But she was right, the Family Procedure Rules Committee refused to take action on 8th February 2021 and no one had the courtesy to even let me know. I think this is a mistake and an example of where the family justice system doesn’t help itself. But it does not justify or explain Proudman’s comment that then followed, that this refusal left ‘victims – primarily mothers – and children at risk.’ Unregulated experts are a risk to us all. This isn’t a men versus women situation.

Nor do I accept that the concept of parental alienation is ‘bogus’ or ‘junk science’ as Proudman asserts – I have seen it too often over 20 years.

The article ends in unhelpful hyperbole

The dangerous label of parental alienation is now the single biggest threat to the credibility of victims of domestic abuse, and to the voices of children. It gives validation, power and control to perpetrators. Any court that countenances unevidenced allegations of parental alienation is potentially sanctioning abuse. Sadly, it may take a tragedy before anyone will actually listen.

I suggest that the single biggest threat to the credibility of victims of domestic abuse are the enthusiastic attempts by campaigners like Proudman to remove certain behaviours from scrutiny. Mothers are just as capable of hurting their children as fathers and a failure to recognise this or even actively deny it, promotes giving moral authority to child abusers – something I have argued that the ‘DV Sector’ seem particularly keen to do.

No court should countenance ‘unevidenced’ allegations of parental abuse. Every case where I have dealt with allegations of parental alienation these were anxiously scrutinised over far too many months, leadings to the bitterly ironic situation where the alienation became further entrenched and the harm to the child even greater. Proudman is a barrister. She ought to understand above all the importance and the centrality of evidence in family cases. She ought not to be an enthusiastic proponent of a false narrative that paints the family court system as a frankly insane circus.

There is a great deal wrong with the family court system. It is in crisis. Of that there is no doubt, and I have considered it here, here, and here.

But what it does understand is evidence. Ours is a system which puts ‘proof of facts at its heart’. Children are not ripped from the arms of loving mothers on a whim or to punish them for daring to alleged the father is abusive. The court operates to protect the welfare of the child as its paramount consideration. And often it fails. But this is not because of deliberate misogyny or ignoring evidence. It is for the same dreary, unsexy reasons that many systems fail – because it is the wrong system for the problem at hand. Many family disputes revolve almost entirely around issues which are beyond the court’s reach – the psychological dysfunction of the parents, their emotional pain, their fear, their poverty, their substance abuse, their lack of employment or housing. There are simply not enough judges to make sure that cases are heard quickly enough to prevent nascent alienation hardening into full blown significant emotional harm to a child. And this situation has been made even worse by the backlog caused during lockdown.

So what’s the solution? I don’t know. We really need to rip it up and start again. The system is not serving either parents or children. But it is never, ever any solution to allow single issue campaigners to bend the ear of law and policy makers to promote the banging of their own particular drum. We have to look at the facts, not promote one ideology over another.

So until this is done, I will remain Schrodinger’s barrister – simultaneously both a ‘troll’ and a ‘leading professional’, depending on who is listening. But it is not my views that change, only the extent to which some are prepared to accept challenge to a preconceived narrative. I can only hope for better things.