Medway Council v Root (4) [2018] EWHC 1298 (Fam) (15 March 2018)

Medway Council v Root (4) [2018] EWHC 1298 (Fam) (15 March 2018)

The court held that the continuation of the injunction prohibiting publication of information relating to the care proceedings is justified and proportionate, given the clear and consistent evidence of distress and emotional harm to the children caused by the respondent's repeated and unrestricted publication of personal and sensitive information. The respondent's Article 10 rights do not outweigh the children's Article 8 rights in these circumstances, especially as the respondent has shown no willingness to limit her publications. The court also found that a non-molestation order is justified in respect of the elder child, who supported the application, but not for the younger child who...

Citation
[2018] EWHC 1298 (Fam)
Parties
Applicant: Medway Council; Respondent: Sara Jayne Root
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 March 2018
Procedural Posture
Family Law Injunction and Non Molestation Applications / Final Judgment on Applications for Continuation/discharge of Injunctions, Non Molestation Orders, and Reporting Restrictions
Outcome
Injunction continued as amended; non-molestation order granted for elder child only; reporting restrictions order continued; application for non-molestation order for younger child refused.
Legal Topics
Injunctions, Non Molestation Orders, Reporting Restrictions, Freedom of Expression, Right to Privacy, Care Proceedings, Contempt of Court
Family Law Human Rights Law Injunctions Non Molestation Orders Reporting Restrictions Freedom of Expression Right to Privacy Care Proceedings +1 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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Medway Council

Applicant

Sara Jayne Root

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Law Injunction and Non Molestation Applications / Final Judgment on Applications for Continuation/discharge of Injunctions, Non Molestation Orders, and Reporting Restrictions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the injunction prohibiting publication of information relating to care proceedings should continue beyond the children's 18th birthdays
  2. 2 Whether non-molestation orders should be made to prevent the mother from publishing personal information about her children
  3. 3 Whether reporting restrictions should be imposed in relation to committal proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the continuation of the injunction prohibiting publication of information relating to the care proceedings is justified and proportionate, given the clear and consistent evidence of distress and emotional harm to the children caused by the respondent's repeated and unrestricted publication of personal and sensitive information. The respondent's Article 10 rights do not outweigh the children's Article 8 rights in these circumstances, especially as the respondent has shown no willingness to limit her publications. The court also found that a non-molestation order is justified in respect of the elder child, who supported the application, but not for the younger child who...

Court Disposition

Injunction continued as amended; non-molestation order granted for elder child only; reporting restrictions order continued; application for non-molestation order for younger child refused.

Orders

  • The injunction prohibiting publication of information relating to the care proceedings is continued as amended to include all relevant case numbers.
  • A non-molestation order is made in respect of the elder child, prohibiting the respondent from publishing personal information about her.