Opening up the family courts - what happened to children's rights?

The principle of open justice underlies public accessibility to courts and accountability of decision making through publicity and freedom of information. This is modified in family proceedings, especially where children are involved and we shy away from the idea of 'trial as a public spectacle'. In the leading early 20th century case upholding the principle even in matrimonial disputes, matters affecting children were excepted as ?truly private affairs?. However, the law is now in the process of being reformed to bring family courts more into line with other types of courts in England and Wales. The consultation process that led to the changes included commitments to take the views and interests of children and young people into account. Not only do these commitments remain unmet, but the proposed changes pose a number of new challenges to children?s rights and welfare. In December 2008, the Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor, Jack Straw, announced to Parliament that court rules would be changed to allow representatives of the media to attend family court proceedings, as of right, which they had previously been unable to do. This announcement coincided with the publication of Family Justice in View: Ministry of Justice Response to Consultation. The decision on media attendance came as some surprise to observers, because it contradicted an earlier decision in June 2007 against allowing the media into any tier of family court as of right. In accordance with the revised policy in December 2008, court rules were subsequently amended, with effect from 27 April 2009, to allow journalists with press cards the right to attend family court hearings unless the court made a specific decision to exclude them. More far-reaching changes are to be included in a Bill to be introduced in the 2009-2010 Parliamentary session. This will allow the press and broadcasting media a right to publish details of the evidence given, although in anonymised form and still subject to potential veto by the court. The meaning of these changes will be explored in this article. Initially, the obvious question is: what happened between June 2007 and December 2008 to bring about this volte face? This article will argue that both the premise and the consultation process on these reforms have ignored and infringed a range of children?s rights. The background to the proposed reforms will first be explained, and the relationships between concepts of secrecy, privacy, transparency and openness. Drawing on the literature on moral and legal rights to privacy leads to a question as to whether children are or should be accorded a different level of privacy rights than adults. The development of the law that protects privacy in family courts will be set out, followed by the effects of the changes. Analysing the reform process, and the particular nature of cases heard in family courts, it is concluded that children?s rights have been overridden by adult interests

Kay Biesel, Judith Masson, Nigel Parton and Tarja Poso (eds.), Errors and Mistakes in Child Protection: International Discourses, Approaches and Strategies [Book Review]

Academics and practitioners in child protection may feel they already read about errors and mistakes almost daily, but the title of this book should not add to their despair. It is not just a litany of what goes wrong; it is a collection on the development of policy in different jurisdictions in response to discoveries of things that went wrong. Through historical and contemporary analysis, each contributing author attempts to identify best practice and the strategies that may help reduce errors and mistakes, thereby providing an overview of similarities and differences between their countries

The functions of family courts

The functions of family courts in England and Wales in making decisions about children are identified as processing disputes and protecting vulnerable individuals, with latent functions of applying and influencing social policy. The thesis explores why family courts have been singled out for particular criticism in undertaking these functions. Two issues are examined: complaints that family court proceedings are held in secret and that a court is not the appropriate place for resolving disputes about children. The methods used are historical analysis, a comparison with courts in Australia, and applying the theories of Habermas. According to Habermas, when systems are maintained for their own sake without being anchored in people's values and needs, or operate without rational discourse, institutions can lose their legitimacy. The historical analysis shows that as social policy developed over the past 60 years, court structures were trapped in a dual jurisdiction which made it difficult to adapt to changing expectations. Since the 1970s, there have been calls for a unified family court to better meet families‘ requirements. However, a comparison with such a court, the Family Court of Australia, reveals another set of dualities which undermine its legitimacy. The claim that family courts do not function effectively because they are closed and secret is examined. The law is set out in the context of concepts of secrecy, privacy, openness and transparency. It is argued that children have a particular right to privacy which is marginalised in the current debate, and that a recent consultation process undertaken to reform the law on media access to court proceedings was not undertaken in a transparent manner. Attempts to introduce alternative dispute resolution and remove disputes about child care and upbringing to mediation and other non-legal alternatives are also shown as likely to fail unless formulated through rational discourse

Home education for children with additional learning needs – a better choice or the only option?

This paper presents findings from a study undertaken in Wales on the safeguarding of children educated at home. Findings revealed that just under a third of home educators had children with additional learning needs who were removed from school due to what parents reported as negative experiences. These experiences included the suitability of a school system based upon assessment and attainment for children with additional learning needs and a failure to provide adequate support. The decision to home educate was not taken lightly, with parents persevering in attempts to make school work for their children. Similar issues are identified in recent media coverage in England and Wales which has suggested that rises in home education may be due to parents “off-rolling” their children because they feel forced out of schools that are unable or unwilling to promote inclusive practices. Findings showed that it was not school-based education that was rejected intrinsically, but rather the extent to which schools could meet their child’s needs. In the advent of the Additional Learning Needs and Education Tribunal (Wales) Act 2018, these findings suggest that a more nuanced understanding of education is required where home education, either full-time or combined with school attendance, may be in the best interests of the child

Radiation-associated angiosarcoma after autologous breast reconstruction: report of two cases in a plastic surgery unit

Radiation-associated breast angiosarcoma is a rare diagnosis but is commonly reported. Angiosarcoma occurring in non-breast tissue in breasts that have been reconstructed with autologous tissue following mastectomy is extremely rare. In our unit, we have managed two patients with angiosarcoma arising in non-breast tissue autologous reconstructions. Our report emphasises that any tissue treated with radiotherapy—that is, the residual mastectomy skin flaps or non-breast tissue autologous reconstructions—are at a risk of secondary angiosarcoma. We also discuss recommended surgical management, surveillance and genetic testing. Level of Evidence is V, risk study