Report comment

Not sure if the learned Judge has through this through carefully enough in exposing an unnecessary minefield of dangers and pitfalls. Notwithstanding, the observations can be objected on two fronts. It is not entirely clear nor healthily I suspect, if the objective is to achieve public scrutinise in essentially private family disputes into a pantomime of Jeremy Kyle, Jerry Springer show- not sure disputing parents, children would welcome this move not least as this cannot be in their best interest to air their linen in public arena undermining the dispute resolution in a hitherto private, civil manner as opposed to one of a theatre.

Second, it is very worrying to open family courts so as to bring public discipline through the media acting as a watchdog, if the recent media expose into public privacy is anything to go by then we have a lot to learn and concerned about. It is entirely at odds to risk the peril through media intrusion at the same maintain confidentiality and respecting private and public life- not sure how the two are exclusive?

Family disputes and resolution is perhaps then a preserve best left for private and discreet court hearings as opposed to the public theatre. The right to privacy, right to private and family life is a fundamental tenant in a civilised society and must not be the preserve or a watch tool for media hysterics. Judges, the court system and through sound public policy debates we all do well achieving respect in family values through sound reform not headlines and exposes.