Categories:Private Client

The family courts and why Paul McCartney should reveal all

  • Print
  • Comments (3)

Readers' comments (3)

  • Secrecy Does Not Protect Children

    There is an assumption that family court secrecy is necessary to protect children - but rarely will you ever hear how, exactly, children are protected by secrecy.

    In my view, secrecy does not protect children. It makes them more vulnerable.

    Furthermore, when, for example, men are accused of sex crimes (falsely or otherwise) their identities can be publicised everywhere regardless of how this might impact on children.

    Thus, family court secrecy is really about protecting the state, not the children.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • A new family courts pilot scheme poses more questions than it answers.

    We, who deal with this subject on a daily basis can only but hope that when Sir Paul's case is over he will see the need to champion a cause which seeks to preserve family life even after separation or divorce, that the courts might not continue to seek to remove the paternal side from a child's life and deny them the very love they so much need in their formative years. Also to be raised is the reality that perjury in family law is not practised leaving innocent people open to the lack of a fair trial and as such is in clear breach of the Human Rights Act article 6. www.nscfc.com

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Family Court Secrecy in the US

    It is not true, as Katy Dowell wrote, quoting James Stewart, "All family proceedings in the US are held in the public eye". There is an entire arm of the justice system operating as Juvenile Courts that are closed to the public. This system hears all manner of cases involving children, such as guardianship/parentage/some custody issues, abuse, neglect, truancy, criminal matters, etc. that involve the lives of children and the family that they live with. The universal standard in the US when an issue surrounding a child arises is "best interest" of the child. A matter such as Mr. McCartney's would probably be held in open court, since there are no children involved. However, motions to keep the finances sealed (closed to the public) would probably be successful.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

Mandatory Required Fields

Mandatory

Comments that are in breach or potential breach of our terms and conditions in particular clause 8, may not be published or, if published, may subsequently be taken down. In addition we may remove any comment where a complaint is made in respect of it. These actions are at our sole discretion.

  • Print
  • Comments (3)