Todays court hearing 8/9/25 !!
🔥 Public-interest note raised in court
The opposing solicitors flagged my website and TikTok. The judge repeatedly asked if I would take the site down. I said I could not discuss it and I am keeping the site up in the public interest, including the emails/documents from the other side. I stated plainly that truth matters more than my freedom; if a pre-emptive charge follows, I will accept that. I referenced the wider public debate (incl. Tommy Robinson) and explained I’ve had calls from people on the brink of suicide—this is why the website stays up.
What happened in court today
- Judge: A Circuit Judge (not a District Judge).
- Issue: Whether I can appeal the Final Order of 27 May 2025, and—if permission is granted—hear the appeal the same day (a rolled-up hearing) listed for 11:30 by CVP.
- Core problem with the May order: It left contact “to be agreed” (no fixed days/times/frequency), so it was not enforceable. When I tried to enforce via C79, the same judge later recorded the order made no specific arrangements for video contact.
My 7 grounds of appeal (as argued)
- Vague / unenforceable order — no specific days, times, frequency or duration; contact left “to be agreed.”
- Restrictions without findings — “engage with domestic-abuse services” was effectively imposed without any fact-finding hearing or findings.
- Safeguarding not addressed — I raised a January 2025 drug-related incident; no directions/testing; not dealt with in the outcome.
- Apparent bias (Cafcass Guardian) — undisclosed social connections raising at least the appearance of bias.
- Fairness around my non-attendance — final orders were made without basic inquiry into my absence.
- No review/progression plan — no review date or pathway to rebuild contact or respond to risks.
- Judicial confirmation of the defect — the 14 July 2025 order expressly records no specific arrangements.
What the opposing solicitors argued (their 8 points)
- Out of time — they claimed my appeal was filed 09/07 and no extension was sought.
- No transcript — they said I breached directions by not obtaining one.
- No real prospect — they said the May order was fine.
- Non-attendance / attempted withdrawal — they said final orders were justified.
- Cafcass adopted — they said the judge could follow the Guardian’s recommendations.
- Service/procedure issues — they raised points like whether the Guardian was served.
- Proportionate welfare/Article 8 analysis — they said there’s nothing to appeal.
- Non-compliance with directions overall.
(My papers answer those: the court itself records the appeal issued on 13.06.25; directions allowed transcript or note (I filed a note on 23.07); and the later order records no specific arrangements.)
Outcome today
- The judge did not proceed to decide permission/appeal today because there wasn’t an approved transcript or formal summary of Judge King’s 27 May judgment on the file in the way he wanted.
- He granted an extension and adjourned to the end of September to allow me to obtain and file that transcript/summary.
- The opposing solicitors did not oppose the adjournment.
- We’re back in court at the end of September, when the judge will decide permission and—if granted—hear the appeal on whether the 27 May order should be set aside so the case can start again, likely with directions towards a full fact-finding hearing.
Outcome was Appeal denied, Judge did not agree the court order was void due to non Pacific's!