A judge has said the family court is “indebted” to the press for helping to locate two children reported missing across two continents, in a case which illustrates the importance of open hearings and transparency in the family courts.
Deputy High Court Judge H Markham KC took the unusual step of publishing a judgment at an interim stage “as a positive reminder of the working co-operation between the Press and the court and the possibility of using all possible avenues, including publishing details in the press to locate children believed to be at risk and to take steps to protect them”.
In DD-v-EE the father (DD) brought a claim for abduction against the mother of his two children, aged eight and four. Both parents are American nationals and the application is for the return of the children to the United States.
The family home is in Orange County, California, but in April 2025 an order was made at the Superior Court of California for the children to live with their mother in New York. She subsequently removed the children, along with her two older children, to Puerto Rico, without the consent of the court or the children’s father.
After the mother failed to comply with orders to disclose her address and recommence contact with the father, the Californian court ordered her to return the children into the father’s care, awarding him sole legal and physical custody of them.
The Orange County District Attorney’s Office Child Abduction Unit has been involved since November. In early December, a Homeland Security agent informed the allocated investigator that the mother and children had flown from Puerto Rico to Paris, with plans to continue to Manchester, England.
The mother was in the company of a British man, referred to by the court as Mr D Junior, a 24-year-old from Lancashire.
In April, the family division heard evidence that Mr D Junior is believed to be in a relationship with the mother of the missing children. This led to several hearings over the next 14 days focused on locating the children and ensuring their safety and the mother’s engagement in the court process.
The hearings were attended by Callum Parke of the Press Association and freelance reporter Danny Halpin.
In mid-April the court was told that the mother was pregnant and expecting Mr D Junior’s child in August. This information increased the risks and the need for urgent safeguards to be in place to locate mother and children.
During this process the press made a request for a transparency order.
Unusually for family court proceedings, the judge gave “serious consideration” to permitting the press to publish details about the missing adults, including their names and photographs.
The judge saw evidence that Mr D Junior and the “mother were doing what they could to evade being located and that they regarded the court processes in both the USA and here in England to be unfavourable to them and to the children.”
He said: “Missing children in cases such as these become a very real concern for the court. Parents who have taken such steps to hide and avoid engagement with professionals have been known to the courts and in some cases with catastrophic outcomes. The balance in working with the press and permitting publication of details about missing adults and the need to ensure confidentiality of proceedings not only for the parties, but for the children, becomes a more acute exercise to undertake when usual steps provide no positive outcomes and the children remain ‘hidden’.”
Judge H Markham KC made a transparency order permitting disclosure of the names and photographs of both the mother and Mr D junior but stayed this on the 24th April. Ordinarily in family court reporting, journalists reporting on judgments cannot include the names of any children or family members involved, places that the children live or go to, dates of birth of any children, and photographs of the adults or the children.
The judge said: “The members of the Press who attended court engaged in the hearings, advocated for permission to publish names and photographs of the adults and prepared press releases ready to go (with permission of the court) were this to be needed. Significantly they engaged in regular communication both with the representative of the father and with the court about whether publicity was necessary and stood down when asked not to publish details.”
The mother’s address was subsequently provided by NHS England and the local social services were able to undertake an immediate welfare check.
The judge said he published this interim judgement because it illustrates the importance of open hearings and of the attendance of the press at court hearings, it demonstrates how important collaboration can be between the press and the court, and it demonstrates the agility of the press and the court in moving between the need for a particular order and the change of circumstance.
He added: “Parents who try to disappear with children should know that they cannot assume that they can hide behind an old-fashioned belief that the courts will not permit publicity about them, the children or their details. Whilst cases in which orders would permit the inclusion of the details of parties, the children and photographs are likely to remain rare, they can and may be used when the risks to the children and locating them outweighs the harm from the limited and focused publicity.
“The courts in England and Wales work in an open and collaborative way with the press. This may to many appear to be a ‘new’ situation, but the basis for this relationship has existed for some time. The press provides a forum to ensure that the public are aware of decisions being taken and also can, in the right situations provide an avenue to assist in locating missing children.”
“In this case the level of collaboration and sensitivity was of a high level. I was indebted to the manner in which the press worked with the court and held at the heart of their decision making the children.”
The case is ongoing and “substantive decisions are yet to be made”. The judge has not ruled out further reporting of the details.
