WH19P000120 - [2025] EWHC 801 (Fam)

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. In September 2023, HHJ Baker made findings that mother had been the victim of serious domestic abuse including rape perpetrated against her by the father, Mr F. He went on to make welfare orders that there shall be no contact between C and his father and revoked Mr F’s parental responsibility. He also made a costs order against the father. However, the findings of HHJ Baker only followed a successful appeal to the High Court against an earlier decision of HHJ Dodd in which no findings had been made.

Ms M asserts that given the history of this case it is immediately one which is 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 including the approach of the child’s guardian at the time of the proceedings before HHJ Dodd (not the current guardian Ms Kelly) to Ms M’s allegation of rape. The case is one in which there has already been publication of information and some media interest.

The re-hearing of the finding of fact before HHJ Baker was attended by accredited media representatives and a transparency order was made permitting them to publish information about the case pursuant to the transparency pilot then in operation in that area. The confidentiality of the identity of the child and their parents are secured by that order. It is understood that this was one of the first private law children’s cases in which a transparency order was made. Media articles have been published in the Guardian, the Observer and the TBIJ.

There have also been a number of anonymised judgments published during the course of the proceedings: the fact-finding and welfare judgments of HHJ Baker have both been published, as has the judgment of Morgan J dealing with the appeal. Knowles J has ordered that the judgment of HHJ Dodd should also be published but it is unclear why that has not progressed.

Under the standard terms of the transparency order made by HHJ Baker, Ms M and Mr F are permitted to speak to accredited journalists and provide direct quotes regarding the case. Ms M has done so. They are not however permitted to write or speak directly about their own experiences of the family justice system. It is that ongoing restriction on the right of victims within family proceedings to speak directly about their experiences that Ms M seeks to challenge. Ms M seeks an order in the following terms:

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. Ms M clearly has an invaluable contribution to make to current debates about domestic abuse, parental alienation and contact with children within the family justice system.