We’re back! Sort of…
Apparently, Pink Tape is fixed….but I have been distracted this weekend by…well… by having a weekend off. Like a normal person. Have cleaned house, cooked a roast, crocheted some crochet and contemplated buying some Christmas presents. All very normal and yet alarmingly unfamiliar (apart from the crochet bit).
So, exciting posts about legal executives, the death of jury trial* and assorted other things vaguely law related will have to wait until the stars align so that I have both time and motivation. They seem rarely to coincide these days.
We put Christmas music on today. Felt like it was time, even though it is still technically November. Kids and cousins watched The Snowman (Startin’ early cos we are going on holiday on Boxing Day). I am warming up / winding down to a proper break before 2026 starts properly.
Anyway, if this works, it will arrive cheerily in your inbox tomorrow morning. So – sorry for the anticlimax and all, but may I be the first to say Happy Christmas! It’s legit now. It’s December. #SorryNotSorry
*Like Pink Tape, reports of it’s death have hopefully been greatly exaggerated, but if I’m honest, I’m unlikely to write about jury trials, not least because there are so many others better qualified than me to do so…
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
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...
Instructions to download a Whatsapp chat thread
For various reasons its been challenging to find time to blog lately, but I thought this little how to guide would be quick to pop up, and that it might be of use to family lawyers and litigants who need to produce evidence of exchanges on WhatsApp. It can be very...
End of days…
It is a time of changing seasons...the summer is drawing to a blustery, wet end. And everything has changed overnight with the passing of the Queen and the silent passing of the crown to her son, King Charles III. How strange it is to type: King Charles III. I have an...
Book Review : Challenging Parental Alienation
This is a book review of Challenging Parental Alienation - New Directions for Professionals and Parents, edited by Jean Mercer and Margaret Drew and published by Routledge. It is £23.99 in paperback or ebook. This has been a challenging book review to prepare...
The Family Court without a Lawyer – may the 4th be with you (soon)
Finally...it's here. Well, nearly... The fourth edition of my book The Family Court without a Lawyer - A Handbook for Litigants in Person is available to pre-order now. At the moment, if you order it directly from the publishers you get the digital edition free!...
When imperfect is the enemy of the people
I had plans for a proper blog post. But I just can't. It's too hot. And I'm tired. Tired of waiting for things that are ultimately a disappointment. Like the cool air conditioned train I shall be eagerly waiting to catch on Tuesday morning, but which I know, with a...
Take your time, we’ve got all decade…
I have been writing and talking about the need for a prohibition on cross examination in the family court since at least 2016 (see here and here). 2016 was the year that the Prison and Courts Bill contained almost identical provisions to those eventually passed in...
Logically speaking
This blog post is a logic experiment. It’s not about individual cases. It’s just an attempt to work through some possible consequences of our shifts in practice over the last few years in cases involving domestic abuse, and what that might – must? – mean when you work...
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.