The title is one of Camilla Cavendish whose article is linked, but it is a sentiment I share.
The secrecy in the family courts does not protect the children it protects the system and those who operate it.
I have written a response to Munby's published judgment (the publishing of which we need to thank him for), but it may be published elsewhere first.
Although I don't agree with the judgment it is good that it is published and we must thank him for this. If other judges published their judgments this would be a step forward (and perhaps they would recognise that their judgments are not generally supported).
The secrecy in the family courts does not protect the children it protects the system and those who operate it.
I have written a response to Munby's published judgment (the publishing of which we need to thank him for), but it may be published elsewhere first.
Although I don't agree with the judgment it is good that it is published and we must thank him for this. If other judges published their judgments this would be a step forward (and perhaps they would recognise that their judgments are not generally supported).
Comments
After all what are the lie detector tests there for if they are not going to be used to help a case or person in the first place.