Bristol family courts open their doors to the press
A BRISTOL judge hailed a "momentous day for the press" as family courts across the country were opened to the media for the very first time.
His Honour Judge Paul Barclay made the comments before the first open family case at Bristol Guildhall.
But campaign group New Fathers 4 Justice, an offshoot of the original campaign group for fathers' rights, threatened to "storm family court hearings" in the city unless they are made "completely open".
At the Guildhall yesterday, both parties in the child care case were asked if they objected to a Post reporter being present, before the hearing started with Judge Barclay reminding the court that "no reporting of any proceedings should in any way identify the child or any other lay persons in the case".
Although rules have been changed to allow reporters to attend many more family court hearings, reporting restrictions mean that it is very difficult for journalists to write a meaningful report of what they see and hear.
In addition, the new rules contain a number of provisions which will allow courts to exclude journalists.
At yesterday's hearing, ushers, clerks, lawyers and Judge Barclay were very accommodating – but it is ultimately up to individual courts and judges if they accept reporters.
The judge even called a hotline run by industry body The Newspaper Society to confirm that the Post reporter was a bona fide newsgatherer.
Ushers pointed the Post in the direction of courts allowing reporting, limited to just two yesterday – a private custody case, and a child care case.
The care case involved two foreign boys, aged one and two, whose mother had abandoned them.
There had been plans for the mother, who has mental health problems, to take her children back to their native country but she had gone missing.
The boys have since been in the care of Gloucestershire social services but there has been a delay in adoption proceedings. The case was adjourned until Friday.
Campaign groups said more still needs to be done to ensure that courts are totally open. Nigel Ace, Bristol co-ordinator of New Fathers 4 Justice, said: "Pressure from New F4J is building up regarding Jack Straw's 'open courts'. They are only being opened to selective media on selected cases. We want them to be 100 per cent open as per the crown and magistrates' courts."
Bristol City Council yesterday welcomed the new rules, and said it would help public understanding.
The spokeswoman said: "We welcome the move to allow reporters into family courts and hope that it will help improve general understanding of the role of social workers and the complexity of issues involving the care of children."
Campaign group Families Need Fathers (FNF) is disappointed at the new rules.
Spokesperson Jon Davies said: "Whileit is vital to protect the identities of the children we cannot understand why reporters will be forbidden to read court documents or judgements."
5 Comments
by Stuart Britton, Bristol
Monday, September 06 2010, 10:48AM
“I am currently involved in a case where Judge Paul Barclay is residing, This Judge is more Bent than a right angle. He allows Social Services to Lie on the stand, because Professionals dont lie, or so he thinks, although I have a recorded transcript of them lying.”
by Chris Hawkins, Bristol
Tuesday, April 28 2009, 4:43PM
“As a frequent witness to the lies and misinformation used to block contact for children or to justify taking children into care it is essential that all cases should be open not only to the press but also to the public.
In my capacity as a McKenzie over ten years I have found that there is no risk to the children involved if any reporting does not indicate who they are and it is time that the pretence that secrecy is in the childs best interests is exposed as the method that the system uses to hide the injustice of barring a hundred children a day from having contact with their biological parents.
I urge readers to join organisations like CAPA in the fight for proper reform of the family courts and the abolition of CAFCASS in its present form..In addition they should write to their MPs protesting of how the courts are not enforcing the recent government legislation to open up the courts and are still refusing to impose sanctions on parents who break contact orders.”
by nigel, clevedon
Tuesday, April 28 2009, 11:52AM
“This is far from being an "open court". We need the family courts to be "open" as they hide behind closed doors. They heavily favour the Mother in the cases and have demonstrated flagrant disregard for fathers who want to see and support their kids.
In my case, I fought for 2 1/2 years to get to see my daughter. A case which I eventually won. The mother constantly threw false accusations into the hat in order to delay contact with me seeing my daughter.
It transpired later that she was advised by her solicitors to "tell tales" in order to achieve this!!!!! This I believe wouldn't happen so much in an "open court".
If it wasn't for New Fathers 4 Justice then I would still be fighting now.
Change the law.
Dads just want to see, love and support their kids.”
by roy booth, bristol
Tuesday, April 28 2009, 10:02AM
“All paries should remain anonymous. The press should be allowed to report on what it sees which is a system that is biased and unfaif and weighs in favour of the social services and Cafcass and the so called experts. I beleive that the whole system is built on deceit and that the judge relys to heavily on the social services and Cafcass.Barristers for the respondents who have no idea how to question the experts and ajudge who Rubber stamps everything.
Judge Barcley? well I did get his sentence yes sentence on my boys overtuned in the appeal court and my boys returned to me.”
by ianjosephs, monaco
Tuesday, April 28 2009, 7:28AM
“The so called reforms are just a joke !How can parents and their teenage children still be gagged in the name of protecting their own privacy? Why should parents wishing to protest against a perceived injustice be jailed to shut their mouths?
How can parents feeling that the family courts have taken their children unjustly protest peacefully against what they believe to be unfair or even illegal proceedings.Allegedly unfair court proceedings must be open to public criticism otherwise they deserve all the stick that they get !
Leave to appeal is rarely granted and legal aid even rarer for appeals, so surely in any democracy the right to protest peacefully but publicly should never be suppressed; "Vulnerable children" rarely seek privacy,On the contrary the majority would probably wish to exercise their privileges under the United Nations Convention on children's rights to be heard in proceedings that concern them and to oppose forcible seperation from parents and relatives they love !
Newborn babies taken at birth for "risk of emotional abuse" ( now the most frequent cause for removal !) cannot speak for themselves but should their mothers really be jailed for daring to speak for them?
No jury would agree to such outrages and the sooner the final verdicts in cases of permanent parental deprivation are give by juries instead of compliant establishment judges the sooner the injustices will be rectified!All gags on parents whose children have been taken by social services should be lifted immediately.Then and only then could the family courts be said to have been effectively reformed!”