Not all judges (or teachers) are nice people - a very sad tale from the Family Court (warning physical abuse)

[Another2Cats]

There was a hearing in the Family Court where there was a "Transparency Order" made yesterday.

Correspondents from the BBC, the Guardian and the Independent had sought permission to name the parents involved in a case where three boys had been taken into care after being physically abused by their adoptive parents.

The court very narrowly came down on the side of not naming the parents but did allow their professions to be identified due to the nature of those professions.

One is a primary school teacher and the other is a barrister specialising in children work who is also a Deputy District Judge presiding over family proceedings.

The press made the point that the findings made by the court cast doubt on either of them being able to carry out their professional duties in circumstances where they both occupied jobs that involved making decisions about and that involved children. And, as such, there was a compelling public interest to name them.

Incidentally, I must admit that I do very much agree with this point, the Family Court sits in private to protect the anonymity of the children, not to protect the reputation of adults who have had findings made against them, particularly serious findings of abuse of children.

The judge had even put their name to an email dated 15 Dec 2024, from both parents, saying that the family court has “nothing to do” with children’s welfare.

Reading this judgment was very interesting looking at everything that goes into making a decision like this.

Apparently they are both now facing professional complaints procedures so their names may yet become public anyway (the judge mentioned this).
.

But we shouldn't the forget the children involved, this was a very sad story indeed.

The couple had adopted the five children of the teacher's sister (so they were nephews/nieces). It eventually came to light that there was a "harsh and punitive regime in the home" and the Local Authority issued care proceedings for the three youngest children in early 2024.

The court findings included that the children were on occasion refused proper meals and offered only bread and water, while the pantry was padlocked.

The court also found the teacher often became angry when the boys’ household chores were not done to their satisfaction. On one occasion, they threw books from a shelf that hadn’t been tidied sufficiently well. On another, they threw a clothes airer across the kitchen while shouting “I am going to fucking kill this kid”.

During another outburst at the same child, the parent pushed the boy’s head into a toilet and flushed it.

The children were made to remain in the garden while locked out of the family home for extended periods of time. Sometimes they were made to stand outside without shoes.

During a holiday abroad, the teacher carried one child to a water trough and threw him in as a punishment for continuing to talk to his siblings after bedtime.
.

These are just examples, there are very many more examples in an earlier judgment.

So, just remember, not all judges and teachers are nice people.

Latest Judgment concerning Transparency Order

A LA v X & Y and Ors (No 4: Welfare and Reporting of Judgments) [2025] EWFC 126

And this is the judgment from back in December about what had happened:

A LA v X & Y and Others (No 2: Fact-finding) [2024] EWFC 365

Louise Tickle’s article for the Observer on the case.

observer.co.uk/news/national/article/child-abuse-is-never-above-the-law-not-even-if-youre-a-family-court-judge

People who are shocked this can happen have clearly never heard of Dr Harold Shipman.

Yes, as a social worker I found this baffling. Of course no professions are immune from abusers. In fact I thought it was quite commonly known that certain types of abusive people will target professions which give them access to vulnerable people.

Exactly @HarryVanderspeigle
The first cafcass officer I came across made me go into a meeting room with my ex, despite all the documented evidence of abuse and clear guidance that I shouldnt be asked to do that.

He was a very big (tall and well built man) and he spent the time alternating between yelling at me and mocking me
(My ex had done something, deliberately, that could have killed our young son)

I would bet good money on him being an abusive partner /parent

@bombastix Probably not for much longer. Not sure how long the BSB takes to hear cases against barristers, but it will deal with him I think.

If you have the time, you can see all the judgements prior to this week at this page that the press office sent out earlier this week: https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/a-local-authority-v-x-y-and-others/ .

The first document Judgement 4 para 15 mentions their professions.

I'm sure I'm not the only one testing my google skills to discover who they are.

There is a later judgment (No. 5) that gives more detail, I won't repeat it here.

The parents had put an application in at the very last minute and the judge was not at all pleased. At the end of the judgment there was this:

"...I agree with the characterisation on behalf of the Guardian of this being ‘further control of the boys through the misuse of the litigation machinery’. Once again the proper and timely management of this difficult case has been hijacked by the actions of the parents to the detriment of the children."

The parents are not still in their prospective employment and have no intentions of going back to them, but it is public interest to know who they are. It's outlined clearly in this article, the author of which you have previously referenced.

observer.co.uk/news/national/article/child-abuse-is-never-above-the-law-not-even-if-youre-a-family-court-judge

@placemats in the Family Court, the interests of the DC come first. Not the public interest which of course is open for debate. The DC might wish to reunite with these adults in the future. The court cannot control the situation forever. I think it’s pretty clear that the judge thinks the needs of DC are not served by the public knowing names. Not sure anyone else commenting knows better.

@TizerorFizz If you had read the link you would know that journalists very rarely ask for names to be disclosed when it comes to FC settings. This is a legitimate ask and was very close to being allowed.

One of the parents, equally culpable for the horrendous abuse, sat in judgement in Family Courts listening to horrific scenarios that were exactly the same as their own family home life. Not acceptable at all.

There could be children who are in danger now. It's a public interest disclosure that could save lives.

ETA the parents have said they don't wish to see the children again.

Okay well I think they should have been. The case is horrific. I do not think that adults should be allowed to run such a case with directly relevant professional responsibility for children and effectively when it is clear that they will not be exonerated or the children painted as fantasists then say they withdraw and keep their names out of it. I dare say it would affect the perception of the FC, and reasonably so. People in these professions should know their personal conduct and public responsibility are not separate.

I admire Tickle. Good for her. The court has been manipulated by these disgusting people who claim they will not return to their jobs; a claim that none of us will ever know is true. Disgusting people

It’s conjecture to say what might happen in the future and criminal proceedings should start if necessary. Very close to being disclosed is still not being disclosed. The judge decided the needs of dc took precedent. It’s not saying what the parents did was acceptable but this court is a family court, not a criminal court. Judges are there for the children, not the parents or the press. Reported cases show how the case is presented and how decisions are reached. As no one was there because it’s a Family Court, the judge is able to make these decisions about publicity. If there were criminal matters the police and CPS do what they need to do. Did they do anything?

I think the issue about criminal prosecution or other consequences is actually what is so bothersome. You can abuse children in your care, but because you are the parent, the police are not likely to present a case to the CPS. The matter then goes to the FC where the parents defend their reputations and that because dominant.

There is in other words about zero consequence for abusive or neglectful parents, even if they exercise responsibility for other people’s children. This is wrong. In fact it suggests that there should be a much greater level of scrutiny of people who enter into family law and the motives, including psychological experts. This case touches on that element too, where children have escaped abuse are effectively corralled back into contact via family therapy or psychological assessments which don’t deal with the trauma they have experienced. All of it underwritten by the FC.

There is something rotten about this system where abusive people are allowed to run cases where they pick holes in protective actions and face no consequences for their behaviour, particularly when they have extended responsibilities for children in their professional lives.

The FC and the laws it operates under re presumption of contact needs reform. I’m with Charlotte Proudman and Louise Tickle on this, because there seem to be more cases where the nominal interest of the children is weighted far lower than the rights of the parents, and that the consideration and requirements of the parents dominate.

"The judge decided that the needs of the children took precedent."

I disagree and think the final judgment (5) was done solely to protect the parents, counter to the objectives of a FC.

Spot on @bombastix

I'd want to know if my kids teacher was a child abuser, and they should be struck off teaching under 18s.

As for the barrister, well lawyers are not renowned as the kindest most sensitive profession ever. But again if they reside over family law they should be barred from practicing that type of law. As they can't adhere to it.

This one high profile barrister/judge was stalking my family members, and he tried to block his name coming out in the press. It didn't work and he was shamed all over the place.

I think in this case, where it was an in-family adoption, if the names of the abusers come out it wouldn't be hard for that to be directly connected to the children.
And who in 2025 is shocked that abusers come from all walks of life? Sheltered indeed. Sounds like they're going to face professional hearings separately which is as it should be.

For me this is a 'No Shit, Sherlock' situation. I don't mean that flippantly and I appreciate this post, but humans in general can be very very awful to those weaker than them be that a child, disabled person, marginalised member of human society, or other animal. Profession doesn't come into whether the person has that side of human nature at all-all it means is assumptions are made that it is less likely (there are fewer professionals than non-professionals too obviously) and less likely to have been picked up on due to DBS checks etc.
Historically we have always done this. We haven't been on the planet long enough for it to evolve out of us any time soon either.

Having dealt with teachers who I am convinced, at best, are sociopaths lacking any empathy, this does not surprise me.

Yep I’ve worked for them in schools too. Scary people. No empathy or humanity.

@Mareleine That’s exactly the reasoning of the judge. Protecting the children. Of course it would be a stigma for them and publicity. Who needs that in such difficult circumstances? Journalists (obviously) but the rest of us should be more sensible and it would be a witch hunt.

Some people from every profession are abusive arseholes

Not surprised in the slightest my primary school was full of hateful witches, they weren’t physically abusive but most definitely were emotionally abusive and lacked any knowledge of child psychology. They revelled in child humiliation. It’s a power trip for too many.

There shouldn't be any surprise, because the abuse of power is well known, abusers thirst and crave it so enter professions that allow it.

Being a barrister doesn’t get near dc.