Mother wins legal bid to speak out about her family court ordeal

A mother whose rape allegation was dismissed in error by a family court judge has won a high court bid to go public about her ordeal.

The woman, whose case was first reported by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism (TBIJ) in 2023, wants to speak out in order to drive change in the family court system.

“I know there are other mums like me who are victims of abuse and I want to help them advocate for themselves and become better informed about the family court process and the law,” she said in response to the ruling.

Under new rules, piloted in 2023 and rolled out across all family courts in England and Wales in January this year, parents going through proceedings are permitted to give interviews to the press. But the new rules give no legal provision for them to publicise information about their case without risking contempt of court.

In a judgment handed down this week, however, Ms Justice Harris said the rights of the woman to “tell her story in her own words [were] weighty and important”.

“Whilst the media plays an important role in reporting these issues, hearing directly from victims as to how they have experienced the system and the impact the proceedings have had upon both them and the child can be particularly powerful,” she said.

“Those direct voices can often prove invaluable in ensuring informed discussion and debate.”

A judge made findings of rape and domestic abuse against the woman’s ex-partner in September 2023, ruling there should be no contact between the ex-partner – who had made counter-allegations of parental alienation – and their son. The father’s parental responsibility was later revoked and he was ordered to pay costs.

However, those findings came a full two years after an initial decision by Judge Christopher Dodd, who had dismissed the mother’s rape allegation in error. After winning an appeal to have her case reheard, she had to go through the trauma of giving her evidence all over again in order to secure justice.

‘Lack of survivor stories’

Making her application to go public, the mother highlighted in her witness statement “a distinct lack of survivor stories due to the secrecy of [the family justice system]”.

She said: “I have struggled to find any other system where freedom of speech about your own experiences is curtailed in such a way. I genuinely believe that preventing me from speaking out amounts to further coercive and controlling behaviour.

“Silencing me as a victim of rape, from exercising my right to speak, is causing me emotional distress.”

After hearing this week’s judgment, she told TBIJ: “It should feel like I’ve won but to be honest I just feel relieved that I can use my own voice. It was good to hear the judge take a balanced view in her decision-making.

“You feel so alone when you are going through proceedings and searching for people in a similar situation. It will be cathartic to share my story more widely with control over the narrative and in a way that could support others.”

She wants to highlight failures in the system. As well as Judge Dodd, who dismissed her rape allegation, she has criticised Cafcass – the agency that promotes the welfare of children in the family court – for describing the allegation as “historical” in a report that informed Dodd’s decision.

She has since received an apology from the CEO of Cafcass and is now working with the organisation to share her ideas for improvement.

Her barrister, Charlotte Proudman, said in written submissions that while her client had a right to free speech she respects her child’s right to privacy and will take steps to ensure their identities are protected. The court order stipulates that the mother must use a pseudonym when writing or speaking publicly about her case.

Allowing the mother’s application, Judge Harris said: “In this case there is a strong public interest in there being an open and informed debate about the way in which the family justice system approaches disputed allegations of rape, domestic abuse and parental alienation in private law proceedings involving contact with a child.”

Parents speaking out

Under the new transparency rules, the default position is that journalists can report what they see in the family courts as long as they preserve the anonymity of those families involved (unless given permission to identify them).

The restrictions in the transparency orders allow parties involved in a case to be interviewed by the media but not to self-publish or speak out about their case publicly.

Proudman said: “Since the new transparency rules came in, this is thought to be the first case whereby a parent has made a successful application to speak out and publish freely about their case without the need to go through the press,” she said.

She had argued that the existing transparency order could be amended to grant the mother’s application. However, Harris chose a different legal route, noting that permitting a parent to talk directly in the public sphere raises “significant and distinct challenges”.

“Social media allows an almost unlimited audience for parents to disseminate information about family proceedings in which they have been involved,” she said.

“A change to the rules raises the spectre of many more parents being able to continue their litigation battles in the full public glare of social media to the significant detriment of the child.”

The father in the case, who maintains he is the victim of a miscarriage of justice, did not oppose the mother’s application but applied for equal rights to write and speak publicly about his version of events.

Harris rejected his application, highlighting the need to balance his rights against those of the mother and child, as well as his previous use of social media as a tool of harassment.