Re T (Children: Publication of Judgment)

This case concerned the arrangements for the publication of a Family Division judgment involving parental alienation and the welfare of children.

TLDR:

• Appeal on the publication of a Family Division judgment.
• Case involved parental alienation and the welfare of children.
• The Court of Appeal set aside the publication order.

The appeal arose from a decision by the High Court's Family Division concerning the publication of a judgment related to child arrangements for T, who was nearly 16 years old. The case had a long history of litigation involving T and his siblings due to the conflict between their parents following their separation.

Between 2013 and 2022, the case saw extensive child arrangements proceedings, including multiple judgments. In July 2022, Mrs Justice Arbuthnot took over the case and delivered a final judgment in January 2024, addressing T's contact with his father. The judgment highlighted the mother's manipulative behavior and the father's lack of insight, ultimately ordering limited contact until T turned 16.

The judge also considered the publication of the judgment, initially proposing anonymization until T turned 18. However, both parents appealed, leading to the present appeal in the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal examined the balance between the public interest in transparency and the children's right to privacy.

The Court of Appeal acknowledged the importance of transparency but emphasized the need to protect the children's privacy. The court found that the potential harm to the children outweighed the benefits of naming the parents in the judgment. The court set aside the publication order and allowed the father to apply for further publication after T's 18th birthday.

The decision highlights the complexities involved in balancing transparency and privacy in family law cases, particularly when children are involved. The case underscores the court's role in safeguarding children's welfare while ensuring public confidence in the family justice system.

Legal representatives: Maria Scotland (instructed pro bono through Advocate) for the Appellant Mother, Michael D. Jones KC and Liam Kelly (instructed pro bono through Advocate) for the Respondent Father.

Judicial Panel: Lady Justice King, Lord Justice Peter Jackson, and Lord Justice Newey.

Case Citation Reference: [2024] EWCA Civ 697