A mother who says she was ‘let down’ by the family justice system as a victim of rape and serious domestic abuse has been allowed to speak out about her case by the family court.

The father, who made the same application as the mother, was refused. His application to commit the mother, referred to as Mrs M in the High Court judgment, for contempt was also refused.

In M v F & Anor  M made an application for permission to vary a transparency order allowing limited media reporting of the case, so that she could publish information regarding the ‘lengthy’ private law proceedings between her and her child’s father, while preserving anonymity. She argued her case is ‘immediately one which is of public interest’.

In 2023 findings were made that the mother had been a victim of ‘serious’ domestic abuse, including rape. F’s parental responsibility over the child was revoked. 

In the latest judgment, Mrs Justice Harris said the court 'is profoundly sympathetic to Ms M’s position'. It 'fully appreciates that the inability to be able to speak openly about how, as a victim of rape and domestic abuse she was dealt with by the family justice system, compounds the trauma she has suffered, and is experienced as a further means of coercion and control.

'Ms M clearly has an invaluable contribution to make to current debates about domestic abuse, parental alienation and contact with children within the family justice system.’

Read more:

The judge found section 12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960 and the Family Procedure Rules 2010 do not provide any power for the court to permit M to publish information about the proceedings which ‘goes beyond that contained within the already published judgments’. However, she was ‘satisfied that whilst it is uncertain how the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court to permit publication survives the intervention of parliament in section 12 of the AJA 1960, the Court of Appeal has confirmed that such jurisdiction endures’.

She added: ‘I am therefore satisfied this court has the jurisdictional basis to consider whether that power should be exercised to permit publication by Ms M, Mr F or both.’

Allowing the mother to tell her story, the judge said M’s rights under articles 10 and 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights ‘are particularly weighty’.

Referring to F’s right to respect for his private and family life, she said: ‘As a perpetrator of rape and domestic abuse, any Article 8 right to maintain the confidentiality of those findings or the court process by which those findings were made, is of limited, if any, importance.

‘In weighing the Article 10 and Article 8 rights of Ms M against the Article 8 rights of Mr F, the balance in these circumstances very clearly comes down in favour of publication.’

Allowing the mother’s application, the judge said the child’s rights and interests ‘will always be a weighty consideration’ but the mother ‘can be trusted to exercise her parental responsibility to uphold and protect C’s rights and interests’. Refusing the father’s application, she said ‘the same cannot be said of Mr F’.

She added: ‘I am satisfied that to permit Mr F to speak publicly about the family proceedings, albeit in an anonymised form, would perpetuate and compound the abuse of Ms M, causing her further significant harm’.