Mother barred from seeing daughter loses legal fight to go public about case

A woman who was barred from seeing her daughter by a family court judge 16 years ago has failed in a bid to lift a “gagging order” which prevents her from discussing the case with journalists.

The woman had asked another judge to allow her to take the case to the “court of public opinion”.

She said she did not want to reveal names but wanted to talk about the case anonymously.

But Sir James Munby, the president of the Family Division of the High Court and the most senior family court judge in England and Wales, has refused her request.

Sir James said the woman’s daughter, who is now in her late teens, might suffer if the case was aired in the media.

He has revealed detail of the case in a written ruling, after analysing argument at a private hearing in the Family Division of the High Court in London, and said no-one involved could be identified.

The woman had been embroiled in litigation with her daughter’s father in 2002.

Mr Justice Singer, who was then based in the Family Division of the High Court in London, had analysed evidence at private hearings.

The judge had concluded that the girl should live with her father and barred the woman from having any “direct contact” with her.

Both the woman and the girl’s father had also given undertakings “not to communicate with the media”.

The woman, who has other children, told Sir James that she had undertaken not to discuss the case with journalists at a time when she was “beaten emotionally and mentally”.

“(She seeks) the removal of what she calls the ‘gagging order’ – the undertaking she gave Mr Justice Singer,” said Sir James in his ruling.

“She explains that she wishes to be free to talk, … subject to anonymity, with the media about the proceedings before Mr Justice Singer and more particularly about his findings.

“She says: ‘My driving force is that my children and any family in the future have the chance to make up their own minds about me by reading the whole story’.”

Sir James added: “She wishes to ‘take my case to the court of public opinion’.”

He said he had come to the “clear conclusion” that the woman should not be released from the undertaking she had given to Mr Justice Singer.

“The anonymity measures she proposes are unlikely to be effective and, even if effective vis-a-vis the world at large, will not shield the father and the girl (if she makes the link) from the detrimental effects on them … of being exposed to public discussion of what … is some extremely painful and distressing family history,” said Sir James.

“At the end of the day, in evaluating the impact on (the woman) of not permitting publicity and, in comparison, the impact on (the father and the girl) of permitting publicity, the balance which has to be struck comes down clearly, in my judgment, against permitting (the woman) to do what she would wish.”

He added: “There are cases, and this is one, where the proper forum for exploring and debating such issues is within the privacy of the family rather than under the public gaze.”

_{Copyright (c) Press Association Ltd. 2018, All Rights Reserved. Picture (c) Kate Collins / PA Wire.}