Mother and stepfather not named in family court case to protect two girls

A judge has decided not to name two adults given suspended jail terms for unlawfully contacting two children embroiled in family court litigation.

Mr Justice Cobb, who is based in the Family Division of the High Court in London, accepted that his decision was unusual, but said anonymity was in the best interests of the children.

The judge analysed issues at a hearing in a family court in Middlesbrough late last year and his ruling has been published on a website.

He said the two children, half-sisters, had been placed with grandparents by a family court judge, and their mother and stepfather had been ordered not to contact them.

Social services bosses at Middlesbrough Borough Council (pictured) said the couple had contacted the children in breach of orders.

Mr Justice Cobb concluded there had been four breaches and ruled that the pair were in contempt of court.

The judge decided that the woman had sent text and Facebook messages, and the couple had given one child a birthday present after approaching her in the street and taken her on a day trip.

He imposed three-month prison terms suspended for a year.

Judicial heads have twice in recent years laid down rules relating to procedures judges must follow when considering applications to commit people to jail for contempt, in a bid to ensure that no-one is jailed in secret.

In March 2015, Lord Thomas, the Lord Chief Justice and the most senior judge in England and Wales, said ”open justice” was a ”fundamental principle”.

He said the general rule was that committal hearings were staged in public, orders were made in public, judgments were given in public and people involved were named.

Lord Thomas said derogations from the general principle could only be justified in “exceptional circumstances” and when “strictly necessary” to “secure the proper administration of justice”.

Mr Justice Cobb said the hearing had “of course” been staged in public in accordance with rules and he said no-one involved had applied for an order limiting what journalists could report.

But he added: “I have nonetheless considered it appropriate to anonymise this judgment in the interests of the two girls; this means that unusually the two adult respondents are not named.”

Two years ago, another High Court judge performed a U-turn after initially deciding that journalists should not be allowed to name a single mother given a seven-day jail term for being in contempt at a hearing in London

Mrs Justice Roberts, also based in the Family Division of the High Court, had jailed the woman at a public hearing after concluding she had not surrendered her passport, or her daughter’s passport, in line with an order.

But the judge barred journalists from revealing the woman’s name, saying she wanted to prevent the child’s identity emerging.

A few days later she lifted the ban. She said she had revisited the issue because it was ”clear” her original reporting restrictions order had been ”too wide”.

_{Copyright (c) Press Association Ltd. 2017, All Rights Reserved.}