Judge refuses to order parents to take down petition over care orders

Mr Justice Macdonald said the parents disputed care orders made by a district judge for their four children aged between 15 and three and had sought to publicise their opposition by an online campaign.

That included a petition addressed to Parliament and the prime minister on the Change.org website and information on the mother’s Facebook page.

Southend sought an injunction prohibiting the parents from publishing information about the proceedings and compelling them to remove material already published, fearing the children could be identified.

The parents agreed to remove material from social media, but not the petition.

In Southend Borough Council v CO & Anor [2017] EWHC 1949 (Fam) Macdonald J said: “I am satisfied that there is very little cogent evidence before the court that each of the children or any of them will suffer embarrassment, much less emotional harm if the petition on the Change.org website remains in place online.

“Within this context, once again, it must be remembered that what the court is examining is whether there is evidence which amounts to a justification for interfering with the cardinal right of freedom of expression for the purposes of Art 10(2).”

He said the local authority's application for an injunction compelling the parents to take down their online petition must be dismissed.

“Balancing the Art 10 right to freedom of expression of the parents…against the Art 8 right of the children to respect for their private and family life…leads me to conclude in this case the Art 10 right to freedom of expression outweighs the Art 8 right to respect for private and family life when it comes to the question of the online petition being taken down.

“Applying the ultimate balancing test of proportionality, in my judgment it cannot be said in this case that compelling the parents to take down their online petition directed at Parliament and Government, or compelling them to remove from the petition the mother's name and the responses which utilise the forenames of the children, represents a proportionate response to the risk to the psychological integrity, personal development, development of social relationships and physical and social identity of the children presented by the limited amount of information concerning the children that the petition now contains.”

Mark Smulian