End of an era?
I’m away at the moment, trying to decompress after another year that can be best described as a mixed bag. Some joy, some loss, much hard work.
But as the clock strikes midnight at the end of 2025 I will shed one hat and put on another. I will stop being the Chair of the Transparency Project, and become (as if by magic) the Vice Chair of the FLBA.
My feelings are mixed about this too. Excitement and trepidation about the FLBA, and sadness and hope about the Transparency Project. It isn’t healthy for any one organisation to have the same leader forever, so I hope that in stepping down from the TP I will also free it up to become something more than ‘Lucy’s pet project’ (it is much more than that, because it has always been very much a team effort, but that is the perception), and something more enduring. I’ll still be involved in TP, but it’s time for others to take it forward.
In the same way, I hope that new hands and eyes at the FLBA will also do that organisation some good – whilst Leslie Samuels and I have been around on the FLBA committee (and Leslie as an officer) for some years, we are both relative newcomers in comparison to the outgoing chair, James Roberts. I don’t think the members of the FLBA fully appreciate the work he has put in on their behalf over the years, and the impact that work has had, so although I am undoubtedly nothing like a clone of James (the mind boggles at such an idea), I do know that whatever Leslie and I are able to achieve during our terms of office will be based upon that solid foundation. We have much to thank James for and a lot to live up to.
Anyway, this is all very worthy. I hope that this short post finds you well, that it will go out on cue at its scheduled time and that it will find its way into your inbox whilst you are sipping a lovely drink on a very squishy sofa – whether that drink is a delightful chablis, a sloe gin, a pina colada or a hot chocolate – and that you will have had some brief respite from the onslaught of time sensitive and emotionally taxing work that we all do.
May 2026 bring you peace and contentment. Look after yourselves x
Can a judge make orders about a child who isn’t a subject of the proceedings?
Nope, say the Court of Appeal in a really interesting judgment delivered this week, in which my super colleague Olivia Pike argued and won the appeal. See E (Section 37 Direction, The Children Act 1989), [2025] EWCA Civ 470. I'm glad this has been cleared up because we all know that every so often a judge makes an order under s37 about a child that isn't the subject of the proceedings. Not that often, but often enough. The only wonder is that it hasn't been appealed and clarified before now. The wording of s37 is undoubtedly tempting for a judge with a legitimate concern about a child she has become aware of that is connected to the family that is before the court, but not actually a part of the case. A provision that appears to apply to 'any child' is an alluring solution to this problem. To my knowledge these orders are made from time to time, and the scenario in the appeal isn't an outlier - the court is often provided with information about other children in a household, who...
Necessity is the mother of intermediaries
Judgment was handed down this morning in Re M (A Child: Intermediaries) [2025] EWCA Civ 440. I had a small non-speaking part (for the FLBA). The judgment is a delightfully streamlined read and brings some welcome clarity to the approach on the appointment of intermediaries. As my - frankly fabulous - post title suggests, necessity is the test, baby. Nothing else will do: Not compelling. Not rare. Not exceptional. Just plain old necessary. Lord Justice Peter Jackson had this to say about the various high court authorities from which these high bar tests have emerged (before going on to politely demolish them): In the three appeals about intermediaries that it has heard since Part 3A came into effect, this court has taken its provisions at face value. Considering that the regulatory framework is recent, it is unpromising ground for a wider exercise in judicial interpretation. So, the various High Court authorities suggesting necessity plus in various flavours can be put to one side,...
Bristol Cable Podcast
The Bristol Cable Podcast interviewed some local girl about transparency recently. No idea who she is, but have a listen if you fancy. https://thebristolcable.org/2025/02/listen-bristol-unpacked-barrister-lucy-reed-opening-secretive-family-courts-to-scrutiny/ Also recommended is BBC Radio 4 short 10 part series 'You do not have to say anything' featuring criminal defence barrister and sausage dog owner Joanna Hardy Susskind, and some other stars of the criminal bar that you will want to hear from (I won't spoil it for you). Really good explanation of how it works (and doesn't). Listen here. Lots more has been happening this week - New Guidance on judges writing letters to children (a big thumbs up on that), a reminder that we shouldn't be 'citing' cases that aren't citable (generally decisions of Circuit Judges and below aren't citable, just interesting!), and covert recording guidance... oh no, wait. Not that last one....
I may have been gone some time…
Posts are getting ever more infrequent around here. Doubtless in part because of my continuing inability to say 'no'. Having been on the verge of being virtually committee-less at the end of last year, I now find myself back on two committees (FLBA, Bar Council). The Transparency Project work continues, and I seem to be forever scrambling to keep on top of that. I am desperate to find some time to do more legal blogging (my last outing in October has been stuck in the mud for reasons I can't tell you about at the moment, so I've nothing to show for my endeavours on that front), and I've been flat out with work since December. On top of all that there has been lots happening at home so there is much to juggle. All excuses of course. I used to manage multiple posts a week whilst wrangling two toddlers and writing a book. I smile weakly whenever someone says to me 'Oh, I don't know how you manage it all', knowing of course that approximately once a week a plate goes careering off its...
Transparency and the Courts – Event
It is a principle of law that justice must be seen to be done - but sometimes for various reasons the court will order reporting restrictions on the proceedings as well as keeping certain matters confidential. The new Lady Chief Justice has set up a committee to examine transparency and the family court has just introduced reforms to make courts more open. Where should the line be drawn? Leading legal commentator Joshua Rozenberg will give a keynote speech at historic No 1 Court at the Old Bailey followed by discussion by an expert panel. There will be a networking drinks in the splendid grand hall. City & Legal Event: Transparency and the Courts Speaker: Joshua Rozenberg KC (Hon) Chair: Alderman & Sheriff Gregory Jones KC; Panel: Sanchia Berg (BBC Senior Correspondent, Nominee Orwell Prize 2023), Lucy Reed KC, Chair of The Transparency Project, author of The Family Court without a Lawyer A Handbook for Litigants in Person, HH Wendy Joseph KC (former Old Bailey Judge and...
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
Pay what you owe or talk to the hand (what’s a Hadkinson order when it’s at home?)
The case of BR v SN provides an unusual example of court proactively controlling litigation about child arrangements against a backdrop of pretty relentless litigation, appeals and a failure to comply with orders made. After many earlier stages in the...
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...
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...
“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...
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...
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...
I have run out of vases
Trigger warning: death. My mum died last week. Her name was Suzanne (never Susan). I realised as I studied her face after it happened that I have never seen a dead body before. Her top lip was taut over her teeth. She looked weirdly waxen. Her forehead was cool...
What my out of office really means…
The other day I put a polite but hopefully firm OOO on my emails, explaining that I am not taking on new work and will deal only with emails relating to existing commitments. This morning I seriously contemplated rewording it to simply read: "For the love of god,...
Two more books, still working on that novel…
Hot on the heels of the second edition of Transparency in the Family Courts, released last week, I received these beauties in the post today. The Public Law Dictionary is a new addition to this family of dictionaries, and I am one of the authors. Other titles include...
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.