K (A Child: Wardship: Publicity), Re

K (A Child: Wardship: Publicity), Re

The balance of rights under Articles 8 and 10, the public interest in transparency, and the parents' legitimate interest in telling their story outweigh the risks of distress or identification, provided strict anonymity is maintained for the child and family. The order prohibiting media discussion is discharged effective 1 January 2014, subject to the existing rubric preserving anonymity.

Parties
Applicant/local Authority: Coventry City Council; Respondents/parents: MG and FG (Adoptive Parents); Subject Child: Katie (a child)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 July 2013
Procedural Posture
Wardship/family Law / Application to Discharge Order Restricting Media Discussion
Outcome
Application granted in part; order restricting media discussion discharged with effect from 1 January 2014, subject to anonymity conditions.
Legal Topics
Wardship, Publicity in Family Proceedings, Freedom of Expression, Right to Privacy, Reporting Restrictions, Anonymity, Adoption, Reactive Attachment Disorder (rad)
Family Law Child Law Human Rights Wardship Publicity in Family Proceedings Freedom of Expression Right to Privacy Reporting Restrictions +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Coventry City Council

Applicant/local Authority

MG and FG (Adoptive Parents)

Respondents/parents

Katie (a child)

Subject Child

Procedural Posture

Wardship/family Law / Application to Discharge Order Restricting Media Discussion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to discharge the order prohibiting the parents from discussing the case with the media
  2. 2 Balancing Article 8 (right to privacy) and Article 10 (freedom of expression) rights
  3. 3 Whether the local authority may be identified in media reporting

Ratio Decidendi

The balance of rights under Articles 8 and 10, the public interest in transparency, and the parents' legitimate interest in telling their story outweigh the risks of distress or identification, provided strict anonymity is maintained for the child and family. The order prohibiting media discussion is discharged effective 1 January 2014, subject to the existing rubric preserving anonymity.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part; order restricting media discussion discharged with effect from 1 January 2014, subject to anonymity conditions.

Orders

  • Order of 21 August 2012 prohibiting discussion with the media is discharged effective 1 January 2014.
  • Media reporting must not identify the child, parents, or adoptive sisters by name or location; anonymity must be strictly preserved.