Concern over barrister-judge found to have caused significant harm to children

[IwantToRetire]

Dear Lord Chancellor, President, Judicial Conduct Investigations Office, and Bar Standards Board,

We write to express our deep concern regarding the case of two parents found to have caused significant harm to children [2025] EWFC 126 (9 May 2025), one of whom is a barrister-judge who currently remains anonymous by order of the court. Our concerns fall into three key areas:

1. Anonymisation: The justification for anonymising the parents in this case has been fundamentally undermined by a publicly available disciplinary statement that identifies one of them. Their names are already circulating online. We believe they should now be formally identified.
2. Professional Accountability: One parent is a judge and barrister who was found by a family court to have caused significant harm to their adopted children. Despite this, there is no indication they have been suspended, removed from office, or disbarred. Moreover, the current published disciplinary statement is misleading and omits the serious findings from the family court.
3. Review and Public Confidence: In light of these findings and the individual’s conduct during proceedings, previous cases presided over by this judge should be reviewed. Without such a review, public confidence in the safety and credibility of the family justice system will be significantly undermined.

We outline our concerns in further detail below. Go to https://righttoequality.org/letter-regarding-barrister-judge-found-to-have-caused-significant-harm-to-children/

(I dont know anything about this, but it came up on my facebook feed. If there was an earlier thread about this please do post link - thanks!)

This is awful, but why weren't they charged with child abuse. 🤨
As for not being disbarred, words fail me. 🤬

I know.

How is it possible to have faith in the justice system if those dispensing this justice as not only guilty of crimes, but their colleagues cover up for them.

This happens in other areas of work of course, but for anyone who presumes to be competent to be a judge, just unacceptable.

The other parent is a teacher, that's even more sickening.🤮

Is the teacher still teaching?

I just read the full judgment and it is worth reading it before jumping to kneejerk conclusions. The judgment says that neither parent is still working in their previous jobs/roles and the regulatory body for the barrister (which would be the Bar Standards Board) has been involved.

I think part of the point is, anyone in any other profession would not have had the luxury of not being exposed.

I sort or assumed, but maybe wrong, that this is part of the long going battle to ensure that the Family Courts can not conceal from the public facts that should be made known.

I rmember there was an earlier thread about this.

I cant find the thread but this is what I was referring to https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5yvln142rdo

Could they have not been made public so as not to connect the case to the children?

The judge explains why (unusually) they are not being made public in the judgment, and yes it is to protect the children’s privacy.

This is what I thought. If their names are exposed it will probably make the identities of the children/victims obvious.

They’re not being kept anonymous to protect their identities, or professional reputations. Theyre being kept anonymous to protect the children’s identity.

The witch hunt that the original link refers to kind of reinforces the point around why this is required - because people have already gone to the effort of hunting down the info on one of the professional standards cases and thus got close to identifying the children.

This behaviour from the public makes the justification stronger rather than weaker.

They are not currently working in their chosen profession but they could right?

Presumably then they would face proceedings by the sector regulators.

I was wondering how this works if for instance either or both want to take up work, paid or volunteer, requires a DBS check.