claire martin

NHS psychologist with older people. @Assoc_CAT therapist. @OpenJusticeCoP core member. Knits. Views can never truly be your ‘own’, can they? Rtw =\= endorsement

[Daniel Clark @DanielClark132]

Tomorrow the Court of Appeal will be asked to consider whether the open justice principle is applicable to the Court of Protection.

You can watch it via a live stream on YouTube - and you should. If the court answers in the negative, there will be huge implications

[Open Justice Court of Protection Project @OpenJusticeCoP]

**
TODAY - 10.30am - Court of Appeal to decide whether open justice applies to the Court of Protection:

CA-2025-001953 Re Gardner (Deceased)

Live stream link here: https://t.co/BAkLUWPhtz

https://t.co/Tbifm5srx5 via @OpenJusticeCoP

[claire martin @DocCMartin]

TODAY: DOES OPEN JUSTICE APPLY IN THE COP - Ruth Cowles (the mother of Carl Gardner, whose case this was initially regarding) is the appellant in this case & argues that it doesn’t. Celia Kitzinger & Sarah Castle (the OS) are intervenors.

Live streamed

https://t.co/FZnYiA6ESO

[Open Justice Court of Protection Project @OpenJusticeCoP]

Court of Appeal to decide whether open justice applies to the Court of Protection: Briefing for CA-2025-001953 Re Gardner https://t.co/Tbifm5srx5 via @OpenJusticeCoP

[claire martin @DocCMartin]

@OpenJusticeCoP Family member: “The Court of Protection needs more openness, not less. People need to understand what is going on & when there is injustice it needs to be exposed”

The court *already* has the powers to make hearings private & withhold disclosure when necessary. Parties can apply

[claire martin @DocCMartin]

Family member: “The Court of Protection needs more openness, not less. People need to understand what is going on and when there is injustice it needs to be exposed.”

https://t.co/x7pgcSCk7I

[Open Justice Court of Protection Project @OpenJusticeCoP]

**
Now with a "Reply" from the mother of a protected party in another case. Scroll down to the end!

Open justice matters to families!

Court of Appeal to decide whether open justice applies to the Court of Protection

https://t.co/Tbifm5srx5 via @OpenJusticeCoP

[Lily Craven @TheAttagirls]

Woman of the Day feminist and author Caroline Norton born OTD in 1808 in London whose intense lobbying of Parliament and Queen Victoria was instrumental in the passing of three Acts of Parliament that gave married women long overdue legal rights for the first time.

It was the beginning of the end of coverture, the common law principle imported by those robbing Normans in 1066: that a married woman was no more than a chattel of her husband. Property. And property cannot own property.

Caroline married at 19. Her family, though well-connected, was penniless. It was a mistake. George Norton was happy to use his wife’s social connections to gain advancement but failed to earn money as a barrister. Hardly surprising. He was a nightmare: jealous, possessive, violent, abusive and a drunk. She left him when she 28, and managed to support herself and her children for a while by writing books and poems, but in those days, a woman’s earnings belonged to her husband. She was just a chattel, remember.

He confiscated Caroline’s income, leaving her in poverty. She fought back: running up bills in his name, and when creditors came to collect, telling them to go after him. He retaliated by kidnapping their three sons, hiding them with relatives in Scotland, and refusing to tell her where they were.

Children then were the legal property of their father and there was nothing Caroline could do to regain custody. A woman’s voice carried no weight. (You might think that’s still the case today but I couldn’t possibly comment).

Norton accused her of an affair with the Prime Minister, Lord Melbourne, and tried to blackmail Melbourne for £10,000 (£1.3 million in today’s money) to avoid scandal. The PM refused to pay so Norton took him to court. At the end of a nine-day trial, the jury threw out Norton’s claim, siding with Melbourne, but the publicity almost brought down the government.

The scandal eventually died, but Caroline’s reputation was ruined.

He still refused to let her see her sons and blocked her from divorcing him. When one of their sons died in an avoidable accident, he relented and let Caroline see her other children, but still refused her custody. She had no redress. He had complete power over her.

Parliament finally debated divorce reform in 1855 and Caroline submitted a detailed account of her own marriage to MPs, describing the obstacles faced by women as the result of existing laws.

An English wife may not leave her husband's house. Not only can he sue her for restitution of "conjugal rights," but he has a right to enter the house of any friend or relation with whom she may take refuge...and carry her away by force...”

“If her husband take proceedings for a divorce, she is not, in the first instance, allowed to defend herself...She is not represented by attorney, nor permitted to be considered a party to the suit between him and her supposed lover, for "damages."

“If an English wife be guilty of infidelity, her husband can divorce her so as to marry again; but she cannot divorce the husband ‘a vinculo’, however profligate he may be.”

Largely through Caroline’s intense campaigning, including writing to Queen Victoria, Parliament passed the Custody of Infants Act 1839, the Matrimonial Causes Act 1857, and the Married Women’s Property Act 1870.

Although Caroline did not herself benefit, those Acts gave married women - for the first time ever - a right to their own children and a law allowing divorce. By virtue of the Married Women's Property Act 1870, married women finally had the right to inherit property and take court action on their own behalf. It also granted married women, for the first time, a separate legal identity from their husbands.

Caroline was finally free of Norton when he died in 1875. She remarried in 1877 but died just three months later at the age of 69. I hope she found some peace and contentment in that too brief time.

“Those dear children, the loss of whose pattering steps and sweet occasional voices made the silence of my new home intolerable as the anguish of death...what I suffered respecting those children. God knows…under the evil law which suffered any man, for vengeance or for interest, to take baby children from their mother.”

Coverture, a Norman legacy, was finally knocked on the head in 1990 when married women were finally taxed independently on their own incomes and given their own personal allowances.

1990. It only took 924 years.

[claire martin @DocCMartin]

Did you watch Dirty Business? They're putting profit before public health - it’s a scandal and the Government MUST take action! Sick of sewage? Add your name to the petition today: https://t.co/Expmnk5PhP via @38degrees

[claire martin @DocCMartin]

@ZoeJames2024 Such a viscerally powerful poem, Zoe. I am truly sorry about your experience and terror. This is not how it should be. We with power should be humble and always ask ourselves ‘what if I’m wrong?’ I do hope the recent outcome can help you to feel more secure.

[Open Justice Court of Protection Project @OpenJusticeCoP]

The gulf between theory and practice: Open justice in the Court of Appeal https://t.co/IxRXcEiyh2 via @OpenJusticeCoP

[claire martin @DocCMartin]

Still time to sign up for this webinar with the brilliant Celia Kitzinger and Gill Loomes-Quinn.

Email the project and we will send you the link!

[Elissa Noves @ElissaNoves]

Outside of the work of @OpenJusticeCoP decisions made in the Court of Protection take place with very little public reporting or scrutiny. When decisions about contact and care are made out of view, poor practice by care providers or local authorities can be hidden.

[Sanchia Berg @Sanchia7]

Important decision by the most senior judge in the Family Court - a teenage boy is allowed to return to his mother, overturning a "draconian" decision made by lower court 6 years before. A psychologist claimed the mother had alienated the children from their father. They then had to live with him....https://t.co/Uw84XitI26

[claire martin @DocCMartin]

"I don’t think the judges, lawyers or public bodies involved have any idea of the impact it has had, & is still having"

An excellent blog by my colleague @AmandaAPHill

A step-by-step guide to ask court to change your freedom of expression restrictions

https://t.co/VPsSMIcNjb

[Celia Kitzinger @KitzingerCelia]

@bysianharrison Court reporting in the Court of Protection is flourishing and more active now than it's ever been!

https://t.co/MpDqKbar4g

[Open Justice Court of Protection Project @OpenJusticeCoP]

This case is back in court at 2pm tomorrow (Monday 11th February 2026).

See our homepage for details on how to observe: https://t.co/Lf3Fn7KTql

https://t.co/mMDa0hoU13

[Celia Kitzinger @KitzingerCelia]

@OpenJusticeCoP @DocCMartin I see non-compliance with court orders *very frequently*.

It's business-as-usual to find that public bodies simply haven't done what the judge ordered them to do (a capacity test, BI assessment, placement search etc) & P suffers.

Good to see it called out occasionally.

[Open Justice Court of Protection Project @OpenJusticeCoP]

“This cannot be allowed to carry on”: A non-compliance hearing with NHS Humber and North Yorkshire ICB
By @DocCMartin

https://t.co/XgMTK5eCJn via @OpenJusticeCoP

[Open Justice Court of Protection Project @OpenJusticeCoP]

P removed to residential care due to father’s non-compliance with orders for renal dialysis
By @DocCMartin

https://t.co/OoR9su8erc via @OpenJusticeCoP