By guest blogger, Rosanne Brady

In recent years dissatisfied mutterings about the secret nature of children hearings have become common place.  Whilst judgments made in such proceedings are sometimes published, the identities of all involved including children, parents and professionals have remained secret.

Some Members of Parliament have raised concerns about the secrecy surrounding the family courts in parliament, including John Hemming, the Liberal Democrat MP.

Mr. Hemming used his parliamentary privilege to name Victoria Haigh as a mother in care proceedings involving Doncaster Council, complaining that Ms Haigh had been unfairly threatened with imprisonment by the council for discussing family law matters at a meeting in Westmister.

Mr Hemming’s comments led to a sympathetic out pouring for Ms Haigh and her situation.  That however changed on 22nd August, when the country’s most senior family law judge Sir Nicholas Wall took the very unusual step of publishing his judgment in the case and the judgments of two previous presiding judges, naming the parents and the council involved (although not the child who would be referred to as X).

The facts of the case were that the mother had accused the father Mr. Tune of sexually abusing their 7 year old daughter.  The court found that the mother knew this to be false but had coached the daughter into making the same allegations.  Two judges had examined the case and found that the father was not a paedophile and had not abused his daughter.  Despite this the mother could not or would not accept the findings of the court and continued to allege that the father had sexually abused the child.  The Local Authority recommended supervised contact between the child and Ms. Haigh, but Ms. Haigh refused and the Local Authority successfully obtained an order allowing it to refuse contact between the child and Ms Haigh.

With the assistance of a private investigator, Ms Haigh then put into the public domain “unwarranted and scandalous allegations about the father and others”.  This included the mother e mailing parents at the child’s school and the father’s work colleagues and repeating the allegations she had made against him.

In order to redress the balance Sir Nicholas Wall held that there was a need to make public the fact that the father had not abused his daughter and the court had decided that it was in his daughter’s best interest to live with him. The Judge ordered that Ms. Haigh should be named and shamed in order for her former partner, Mr. Tune, to be freed from the false smear that he was a child abuser.

Further, Ms. Haigh was prevented from making any further applications in relation to her daughter for the next 2 years and the private investigator received a custodial sentence for contempt of court.

As Sir Nicholas Wall comments in his judgment “It is ironic, of course that the mother has complained about the privacy of the Family Court process and has historically argued for greater openness. Realising that the professionals in the case would be bound by their respect for X’s privacy, the mother has utilised this to promote her own distorted view of the case which she has been able to advance thus far, unopposed by the true facts.”

So the mother had her wish; the case was made public, although we suspect not with the outcome the mother had hoped for.   As Sir Nicholas Wall concluded “Be you never so great, the law is still above you”.

And so goes the age old adage…..be careful what you wish for!

Rosanne Brady is a family law solicitor at Grahame Stowe Bateson solicitors in Leeds, specialising in children matters. Rosanne is a member of resolution and is committed to resolving family and childcare problems in a civil and non-confrontational manner.