DD v EE

Family courts may permit focused publicity, including the publication of adults’ names and photographs, where necessary to locate missing children and protect their welfare. The court must balance the harm caused by publicity against the risks arising from the children remaining hidden, while protecting the privacy rights of the children and parties. Such orders should be tailored to the circumstances, may be amended or stayed as circumstances change, and are likely to remain rare. Effective collaboration between the court and accredited press can assist both open justice and child protection.

The father sought the summary return of two children to the United States under the Hague Convention 1980. The children had been removed from the United States and could not be located. Several English hearings involved evidence, disclosure orders and Tipstaff orders directed at locating them and securing their welfare.

The court permitted accredited press attendance and made a transparency order. It considered whether the adults’ names and photographs should be released publicly to assist the search. The mother was later located through information supplied by NHS England, and the immediate welfare concerns abated. The substantive return and welfare issues remained outstanding.

1. Transparency and open justice. The family court should work openly with accredited journalists and legal bloggers under transparency orders, while continuing to protect the privacy of children and parties. The order defines what may be reported and what information may be disclosed.
2. Publicity to locate missing children. In an appropriate case, the court may permit publication of adults’ names and photographs where ordinary measures have failed and the risks to the children from remaining hidden outweigh the harm caused by limited and focused publicity. The decision requires a careful balance between the children’s safety, confidentiality and privacy rights, and the press’s rights to report.
3. Fact-sensitive and reversible decision-making. Publicity orders should be adapted to the individual case. They may be amended, stayed or withdrawn when the circumstances change. Here, the court made a transparency order permitting disclosure but stayed it while another avenue for locating the family remained available. When the mother’s address was obtained and a welfare check could be undertaken, the pressing risks abated and the balance of harm changed.
4. The judgment was published as an interim account of the court’s work with the press. The substantive decisions concerning the children had not yet been made.