The presumption of parental involvement ten years on
‘Now is the time to reassess presumption of parental involvement’, writes Lea Levine in the April issue of the journal[1]. That’s what the Harm report said in 2020[2], and the Government agreed before commissioning an ‘urgent’ review of the legislative provisions in s1(2A) Children Act. That review has still to be published some four years later[3]. I assumed when I read the title that the article would relate to the review and its strangely slow paced ‘urgency’. But my assumption was incorrect. Levine’s piece isn’t about the history of the statutory presumption, or its impact, nor about the extraordinarily protracted process of its review after less than a decade on the statute books. Instead, the article talks at length about the pro-contact culture, the threshold of ‘cogency’ or ‘compelling reasons’ that is said to apply to ‘no contact’ decisions, and the failure to properly balance the ongoing impact of domestic abuse when making decisions about contact between perpetrators and...
The value of nothing – why is the solution always a committee?
I've spent some time wrangling the weeds and the invasive species in my garden this bank holiday weekend. Digging out a giant bamboo that I once used to fill an inconvenient hole in my border and which has now formed an underground network of shoots that has taken over everything. It looks good, but it has taken over the space where the flowers should be. Too many committees are bad for your health. Also, they are terrible for productivity. The solution to every problem in the family justice world is another flipping committee. Maybe with a subcommittee or three. An invasive species. Do not expect flowers. I'm being facetious. A bit. I've got a case of the grumpy old gits and the seen it all befores. I sometimes feel as if everything I read about fancy new ideas that will divert families or resolve disputes, that will speed up proceedings or reduce harm is something that someone, somewhere suggested and probably piloted 10 or 15 years ago, before their attention was diverted by the...
“Paedophiles to lose parental rights” – but what does that actually mean?
[UPDATE - there is an update at the end of this post] Last week, I found myself unexpectedly recording an episode of BBC Newscast with Sanchia Berg and Harriet Harman MP. The prompt for the episode was a reform to legislation proposed by Harriet Harman, supported by the Lord Chancellor and currently under consideration in Parliament. The amendment came about as a result of coverage of a family court case by Sanchia Berg last year. That coverage had only been made possible by the transparency reforms that were being piloted in family courts, which made it easier for reporters to report private hearings. Ostensibly, I was on the show to discuss those transparency issues, and made clear I wasn’t familiar with the detail of the proposed amendment (and there was no time to research it before the recording), but in fact the discussion was focused primarily on the proposed law reform that it was said would result in ‘paedophiles losing parental rights’. The recording is now available...
Please don’t confuse your ‘usual practice’ with my actual reading of the actual rules
Alright you slackers, it's time for some law. Mainly because I have had a bunch of browser windows open with 'new' judgments open, ready for me to write them up and I can't tick them off my to do list until I do. I could just close the browser windows but that would be cheating. So, here is judgment number 1. In Re T (Adoption Hearing: Involvement of Applicants) [2024] EWCA Civ 189 the Court of Appeal corrected an erroneous practice in Cornwall relating to adoption hearings. The appeal judges thought (and I agree - for what that's worth) that this was probably not confined to Cornwall, much as other creative interpretations of other procedural requirements have turned out to be widespread in other cases (think the Somerset cases about adoption regulations and medicals a few years ago - very much not confined to Somerset, and in fact there were variations on the theme in a number of counties which were revealed and corrected only when others got wind of the Somerset case). Here, the...
What are we doing with our lives?
I've been cautious about posting anything recently. My head is awl of a muddle and I may say something I will later regret. But I've got itchy fingers and am sitting quietly at home with nobody to distract me, so... I should be at work this week. In fact I should be in the middle of week one of three. I am (now) glad that I'm not, but this time last week I was frankly very, very cross. Not cross at anyone in particular, except possibly myself. But really hacked off at the job and the nonsense it involves. I wasn't feeling very rational about it last week, so resisted the urge to do a bit of keyboard warrioring until I'd slept on it. A few times. But there is a rump of residual frustration still with me that I am pretty sure is nothing to do with my current grief induced irrationality. This. Bloody. Job. Sucks. As Dickens almost certainly wrote in Bleak house: it is the best of jobs. And it is the worst of jobs. When mum died I was in the middle of prepping for the 3 week trial. There...
About this blog
“Pink Tape” isn’t just about family law. I post about topics that interest me, which mostly revolve around family law, but also include non-legal family-related topics as well as unrelated subjects. I hope this blog will convince at least one person that not all of us in the legal profession are money-hungry sharks. Some of us are actually quite nice. Additionally, I aim to provide useful information about family law for those working in the field without being too heavy or boring.
The primary goal of the blog is to improve the quality of public information and discussions about legal issues.
I understand that not everyone is a fan of “Pink Tape” or family lawyers in general.
latest
Blog Posts
What I’ve been up to…
Busy couple of weeks. I've been to Cambridge, Brighton, London, Exeter and Cardiff. Packed and unpacked my suitcase a lot. Snoozed on a lot of trains. Earned a bit of money, spent a lot. Was interviewed for a podcast. Did some legal blogging. Did not finish my book...
S91(14) – the sequel
Many, many years ago I wrote a piece for Family Law Week about s91(14) Children Act. It’s still up on the FLW site here (yes, the picture is me in 2011). I have thought about updating it over the years, but until now I have never been sufficiently bored and it has...
Aspirations for Legal Blogging in 2023
I'm starting out with a modest and hopefully achievable goal : 1 Do SOME legal blogging. Not necessarily a lot. Just SOME (By which I mean attending court and observing hearings as a 'legal blogger' ie a lawyer attending in a quasi journalistic role, rather than...
Not even a mouse
Something strange has happened in our house. It's 9.30am on Boxing Day and nothing is stirring, not even a mouse. Well, actually the dog is mooching around going scratchity scratch on the kitchen tiles, and I have been stood thoughtfully with my hands in hypnotically...
Ready for a reset…
As is customary each December, I've had enough of the current year, and am ready to begin a fresh one in the hope that a new number will mean a new beginning. It won't of course, but a change is as good as a rest, or something... Right now I've got the particular 'ump...
Sauce for the goose?
A quick little post to ponder this: I've seen a number of recent posts from lawyers which give anonymised case studies of family court cases concerning children, which (on the face of it) seem to go further than is permitted under Family Court privacy laws (by which I...
Radio silence
There is stuff going on behind the scenes that is taking priority over blogging and what have you. I'll get back to it soon enough, and maybe will write about some of it one day - but for now this is just a note to say I'm prioritising family (Trying for once to...
An Arbitration in a Case Concerning Children
This is a guest post by Nick Marston. Nick is a family arbitrator at St John’s Chambers, Bristol. A few weeks ago I conducted an arbitration in a case concerning permission to remove four children permanently from the jurisdiction. Arbitrations involving issues...
You draft fool
Accuracy matters. Lawyers are supposed to be precise. Contempt of court is serious. It therefore drives me bananas when I see the following at the top of a Children Act order: "The names of the family and the children are not to be disclosed in public without the...
Rules of the blog
Anonymized or fictional
All the information on this blog is anonymized or fictional to avoid causing any trouble for anyone, including myself. I have modified details to prevent the identification of specific cases.
Comments
I won’t approve comments that, in my judgment, breach privacy laws related to family matters. Unless individuals have been identified in a published judgment, I won’t disclose their involvement in any proceedings.
Nothing Defamatory
I will not post anything that I believe could be considered defamatory. Due to time constraints, I can’t fact-check every statement in a comment. Therefore, I must be cautious to prevent potential legal issues or threatening letters. If you’re certain that a comment is not defamatory, you can publish it elsewhere at your own risk.
NOT Legal Advice
The content of this blog is not intended to constitute legal advice, so please don’t interpret it as such. It may seem relevant to your situation, but it likely isn’t. I cannot be held responsible for any reliance you place on its contents.
Accuracy
The information on the blog is as accurate and up to date as possible, considering my other commitments. Pink Tape is a hobby that I work on when time allows. Therefore, I can’t cover all legal changes or update information that becomes outdated.
External Links
I cannot be held responsible for the content of external sites linked from this blog, in terms of their accuracy or the opinions expressed on them
Moderation
I’ve implemented comment moderation on this blog to filter out comments that are repeatedly negative or offensive about lawyers. Rest assured, I won’t block sensible contributions, even if they disagree with me. I will strive to moderate promptly, but occasionally a comment may get lost in spam.
Right of Reply
If a post contains an inaccuracy about you and you’d like it corrected, feel free to comment for a right of reply. Please respect that the content on this blog is my intellectual property, and ask for permission before reposting. If you have any topics or blog post suggestions, feel free to email me at familoo@pinktape.co.uk.
Copyright
All material on this site is copyright of Lucy Reed. Please do not reproduce without permission.