Cambridge Family Law Practice

The mother of a younger child has been granted permission to write and discuss her experiences in the family court, despite the restrictions that normally apply to such cases.

The woman in question had a very troubled relationship with the father of her child. In September 2023, following a successful appeal by the mother’s legal team, a judge ruled that she had experienced both serious domestic abuse and sexual assault at the father’s hands. This was a so-called ‘finding of fact’ hearing, in which a family court judge assesses evidence and makes a civil ruling on whether or not contested events took place. Such rulings do not usually result in criminal charges.

The Judge at the hearing revoked the father’s parental responsibility – and specified that he should be allowed be no further contact with the child, referred to as ‘C’.

Later, the mother, ‘Ms M’, applied to the High Court, seeking permission to anonymously publish articles describing her legal experiences. In her ruling on the application, Ms Justice Harris DBE explained:

“[The] mother submits that as a victim of rape and serious domestic abuse, she has been let down by the family justice system. She seeks to share her experiences in public…She seeks permission to be able to:

i) Publish media articles about her experiences of the family court system and the domestic abuse she suffered at the hands of the father, using an alias; and

ii) Speak at events facilitated by organisations such as Cafcass, women’s right groups and children’s rights groups, using an alias.”

Ms M insisted that her story was:

“…of public interest, involving as it does contested allegations of rape, domestic abuse and parental alienation. The case brings under scrutiny the workings of the family courts…”

The Judge noted that the finding of fact hearing before His Honour Mr Justice Baker had been one of the very first family court hearings to be made the subject of a ‘transparency order’ enabling journalists in attendance to report on the proceedings, providing the identities of the mother and her child were both protected.

The transparency order had enabled Ms F to respond to accredited journalists and provide quotes for their stories, but not to directly write or speak about her experiences in the family courts. She now sought to challenge this restriction.

Ms Justice Harris stressed that:

“The Court wishes to make clear before embarking on its analysis of the legal arguments that it is profoundly sympathetic to Ms M’s position. The Court fully appreciates that the inability to be able to speak openly about how, as a victim of rape and domestic abuse she was dealt with by the family justice system, compounds the trauma she has suffered, and is experienced as a further means of coercion and control.”

The Judge proceeded to rule in the mother’s favour. The Family Procedure Rules, which set operating principles for the family courts, did not provide the necessary jurisdiction to grant the mother’s request, she concluded, and use of the Administration of Justice Act would have required the creation of new legislation.

However, Ms Justice Harris continued, the inherent legal authority (‘jurisdiction’) of the High Court did allow her to grant Miss F the permission she sought, although it was a finely balanced decision. She granted the mother permission to “publish media articles” and speak at events held by Cafcass and women’s rights groups, using an alias.

Read the judgement here.