I’ve written another piece for the New Statesman, about the divergence of judicial views on transparency in financial remedy proceedings.
Why can’t we be clear about transparency in the family court?
Lawyer v AI [2025] PT (Fam) – Some thoughts for litigants in person on the risks of using AI in your Family Court case
If I had a quid for every email that comes into my inbox about the use of AI in law, I’d be retiring. Horror stories...
Fathers are routinely discriminated in the family court. Any survey of fathers will tell you that. There is institutional discrimination against fathers. Most of the legal profession, the solicitors, barristers, judges CAFCASS, social workers, NYAS and the rest are feminists. Every time there is a family dispute with couples arguing, all the experts in every case only see 1 scenario. They see the husband/father as a perpetrator of violence and the wife/mother as the victim. Many findings of guilt against fathers of violence in the family court are based simply on the word of the mother against the word of the father and no other evidence is needed. That is sufficient for a court to prove its case and so remove a father absolutely and permanently from an innocent child’s life. My suggestion is to open up the secret and discriminatory courts to public inspection and to have a jury of men and women to determine guilt or innocence. Judges who are feminists can not be trusted to make impartial decisions.
Well, I’m a feminist but it doesn’t make me incapable of thinking outside the stereotypes or of making an evidence based decision. In spite of the fact that I’m only a woman.
This goes on a bit, but it seeks to answer Mostyn J – does it work? – https://dbfamilylaw.wordpress.com/2015/09/22/mostyn-j-and-the-open-justice-principle/. I do hope I can show that Mostyn J is treading on very thin ice. I’m thinking of applying to see the documents in the DL v ML case; and when he refuses to appeal to the Ct of App – keep me out of mischief for a bit… (That blog will be my draft skele.)