Jessica Bradley v CM (C's Mother)

Hearing date: 13 December 2025

This judgment was delivered in private and transparency orders are in force. The judge has given leave for this version of the judgment to be published on condition that (irrespective of what is contained in the judgment) in any published version of the judgment the anonymity of the children and members of their family must be strictly preserved. All persons, including representatives of the media and legal bloggers, must ensure that this condition is strictly complied with. Failure to do so may be a contempt of court.

Introduction

Jessica Bradley is an accredited journalist who has applied for access to documents on the court file in four private family law cases heard on the North East Circuit between 2020 and 2025. Specifically, she requests in each case sight of:

(i) The expert psychological reports of Dr Maria Downs;

(ii) The Cafcass reports;

(iii) All final orders and judgments.

She also seeks permission to publish and communicate the contents of Dr Downs' reports as well as the final orders and judgments, but not the contents of the Cafcass reports.

Initially, Ms Bradley applied by way of email requests to the court in three of the cases. As the then Family Presiding Judge for the North East Circuit I directed that the applications should be listed before me to be heard together. Ms Bradley then added a fourth case to her application. I directed that the parties in the four cases before me should be given notice and have an opportunity to respond. As discussed later in this judgment, this has proved difficult in relation to the children involved but my view has been that, if possible, those children and young persons who were old enough to express a view about the applications, should have an opportunity to do so. I also directed that Dr Downs be joined as a party.

Ms Bradley had attended a hearing in one of the cases but not in the other three. A Transparency Order was made in the case she attended and I have made Transparency Orders in the applications regarding the other three. In consequence, no person may identify any of the children in these cases or members of their families.

Private family law cases are those which concern family breakdown. They do not involve applications by Local Authorities for care or supervision orders. When they involve children, they usually, as here, involve disputes about the arrangements for those children: with whom they should live and whether and under what conditions they should spend time with the parent with whom they do not live. They are heard in private, meaning that members of the public may not attend. A Transparency Order made in a family law case heard in private permits a reporter, being an accredited journalist or legal blogger who attends a hearing, to report on the proceedings subject to the restrictions set out in the order. In accordance with the provisions of Family Procedure Rules (“FPR”) PD12R which came into force in relation to private law proceedings on 27 January 2025 in courts which had previously operated the Reporting Pilot, on 1 May 2025 in all other cases save those heard by lay justices, and on 29 September 2025 in cases heard by lay justices, Transparency Orders will generally also give a reporter access to certain case documents and permission to publish the contents of those documents subject to any prohibitions on identification. However, those documents do not include reports by experts or Cafcass.

No reporters attended three of the cases and the Transparency Order made in the fourth case did not permit access to reports from the case file, or permission to publish from those reports. Ms Bradley's application therefore goes well beyond what the recently introduced FPR PD12R anticipates in terms of access to the court file and permission to publish information about proceedings.

Whilst there are some common aspects, the circumstances of the four cases subject to the present application are all different. It is necessary to introduce the persons involved in the cases and to give a brief summary of each set of proceedings. I shall then consider the legal framework and the positions of each party before setting out my analysis and conclusions.

Persons Involved

Ms Bradley, the Applicant, is an accredited journalist. She has previously published an article in The Tribune, an email newsletter sent out to over 30,000 residents of Sheffield, under the headline, “ The ‘harmful pseudo-science’ infecting Sheffield's Family Courts” on 9 August 2025. In that article she quotes from written evidence given by Dr Maria Downs in a fifth case, not one of those subject to the present application, the case of ‘Lucy’ and her mother ‘Rosie’ in which Dr Downs referred to Lucy as using the “psychological defence of “splitting””, idealising her mother and devaluing her father. In her article, Ms Bradley notes that the Family Justice Council has referred to “parental alienation syndrome” as “a harmful pseudo-science”. She asks why Dr Downs had been using arguments so described by the FJC. Ms Bradley now wishes to explore further the approach taken by Dr Downs and the courts to which she has given her expert evidence when allegations of alienating behaviour are raised.

Dr Maria Downs is a Doctor of Clinical Psychology who has worked with the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture, Sheffield Health and Social Care Trust, the British Red Cross, the Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office and the Ministry of Defence, as well as seeing clients in her private practice and providing expert evidence to the Courts. She has over twenty years' experience of providing psychological assessments as well as providing therapy. She is a current member of the British Psychological Society. She provided expert evidence including written reports in each of the four cases with which I am concerned including psychological assessments of the parents and children in each case.

The parties to case number SE20P00892 are CM and CF, mother and father of C, a girl who is now 12 years old and who had a children's guardian within the proceedings which concluded shortly after the application herein. The guardian has instructed a solicitor and counsel for this application.

In SE20P00879, the mother is GHM and the father GHF. They have two children: GG who is a girl aged 17, and HH who is a boy aged 15 (ages given at the time of the hearing before me). The proceedings concluded some time ago and the children no longer have a children's guardian. GG turned 18 between the hearing before me and the handing down of this judgment.

In LS21P00748, the mother is EFM and the father EFF. Their children are EE a girl aged 17 years 11 month and FF who is aged 13 year and 9 months (ages given at the time of the hearing before me). They have a children's guardian who has instructed a solicitor and Counsel for this application. EE turned 18 between the hearing before me and the handing down of this judgment.

In LS21P01669, the mother is DDM, the father DDF and the child is DD who is a girl aged 5 years 9 months at the hearing before me. She has a children's guardian within the proceedings who has instructed solicitors and Counsel for this application.

Summaries of Each Set of Proceedings

SE20P00892

This is the only one of the four cases in which there is a published judgment: In the matter of C a child [2025] EWFC 47(B) handed down by HHJ Hale on 4 March 2025. He said “In more than 17 years of experience as a fulltime judge … I cannot recall a case as difficult and depressing as this one.” C had been the subject of litigation in the Family Court “practically constantly for nearly nine years.” C's parents never married and they separated when C was three years old. CF has since married. A final child arrangements order was made in 2017 for C to live with her mother and spend time with her father. CM suspended C's family time with her father later that year prompting enforcement proceedings. A further child arrangements order was made in 2018 and the father issued another enforcement application in 2022. CM then made allegations against the father alleging assaults by him and his wife against C as well as allegations of neglect by way of food restriction.

The case was heard by HHJ Trotter-Jackson who gave judgment in January 2023. She received expert evidence from Dr Downs. In the transcript of the judgment with which I have been provided, the Judge said:

“Dr Downs…. has concluded that [C] should live with her father and have contact with her mother, on the basis of her...