A challenge to family court privacy rules in the public interest

by A mother (in the hell) of family proceedings

A challenge to family court privacy rules in the public interest

by A mother (in the hell) of family proceedings
A mother (in the hell) of family proceedings
Case Owner
I am a mother and survivor of domestic abuse. I am challenging the privacy afforded to perpetrators of domestic abuse where serious finding of fact have been made
Funded
on 23rd November 2022
£1,305
pledged of £10,000 stretch target from 24 pledges
A mother (in the hell) of family proceedings
Case Owner
I am a mother and survivor of domestic abuse. I am challenging the privacy afforded to perpetrators of domestic abuse where serious finding of fact have been made

Latest: March 4, 2023

⭐️ Appeal success ⭐️

⭐️ Thank you for all your support.

⭐️ Absolutely delighted to have succeeded. Huge thanks to Dr Proudman. 

 ⭐️ I am still seeking funding to pay my Counsel’s fees 😬

 ⭐️Please chip …

Read more

Dr Charlotte Proudman, a barrister and feminist campaigner, is representing me, a survivor of domestic abuse in an appeal early next year in the High Court. 

                        This case is important as it could be a landmark case.

When findings of domestic abuse are made against a perpetrator should those findings be shown to their employer? 

 It seems to be the first time an appeal court is being asked to disclose findings of fact to a professional body.

The appeal is to consider whether findings of fact of serious domestic abuse should be disclosed to a relevant professional body - especially when it concerns perpetrators working with vulnerable people. 

The current law

When findings of abuse are made in private family courts, in secrecy, they are not disclosed to the perpetrators' professional body without the permission of the court. This case is to challenge the court’s refusal to share a fact-finding judgment with a perpetrator’s professional body. 

Without challenge as it currently stands, people who work with the public eg. the police, doctors, nurses, teachers, care workers can continue in their professional capacity without any scrutiny or investigation, despite findings of domestic abuse having been made against them. 

In deciding to disclose the judgment the court must balance the factors in favour of disclosure on public interest grounds against the welfare interests of the child. 

Who am I? 

I am a survivor of domestic abuse and the respondent in family proceedings. I have self funded years of litigation to protect my child costing me thousands of pounds. Now I need your help to ensure that members of the public, including survivors are protected. 

I believe it’s in the public interest that perpetrators of domestic abuse are held accountable in all aspects of their lives. 

Appeal Fundraising Costs

I’m seeking to raise £10,000 to cover my appeal costs. My team are working at a reduced rate. My barrister has represented me at the permission to appeal stage pro bono (free of charge).

With thanks 

With grateful thanks. Without your kind donations I couldn't afford to fund this appeal. 

All donations will go towards funding this appeal. 



Get updates about this case

Subscribe to receive email updates from the case owner on the latest news about the case.

Recent contributions

Be a promoter

Your share on Facebook could raise £26 for the case

I'll share on Facebook
Update 1

A mother (in the hell) of family proceedings

March 4, 2023

⭐️ Appeal success ⭐️

⭐️ Thank you for all your support.

⭐️ Absolutely delighted to have succeeded. Huge thanks to Dr Proudman. 

 ⭐️ I am still seeking funding to pay my Counsel’s fees 😬

 ⭐️Please chip in if you are able. All monies go directly to Counsel.

To read the Judgment in full 

 https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/fam/2023/447

⭐️ I really hope that this case makes a difference.

⭐️ If you save one life, you save the world. 

Get updates about this case

Subscribe to receive email updates from the case owner on the latest news about the case.

    There are no public comments on this case page.