I see a “Family Assistance Order” case flit across my screen, and have to look it up because they are orders that rarely involve case law, and there’s a lot of vagueness about them still.
Imagine my surprise when I see that this is a Falkland Islands case.
http://www.familylaw.co.uk/articles/family-assistance-order-re-c-family-assistance-order
In further surprise, there are a lot of similar terms in this case to ones used in the mainland (I wonder if, like the Isle of Man, the Falkland Islanders refer to themselves as the mainland, and the UK as “that island)
There are social workers, private fostering, guardians, wardship…
There are also criticisms by the Court of systemic failures in social work and legal practice and understanding. The more things change, the more they stay the same, eh?
I also find that this, according to Bailii *, is the second reported case ever from the Falklands, the last being 1864. That might explain why the social workers and lawyers were a bit rusty on their court skills. It also means that if you do happen to be a monthly subscriber to “Falkland Island Law Reports” you are about to get a bit of action. You probably forgot what that direct debit was for, after 150 years of silence.
I can’t wait to see the full judgment now, because I am (a) sad (b) easily pleased and (c) hoping that one of the anonymous referrers might be a penguin. “Place your right fin on this book and squawk after me…”
I do wonder how the whole President’s notion of transparency would work in the Falklands, where the population is just under 3,000 people. I imagine these people might be able to work out from the one published case every 150 years who it might be about.
I also want to know from the author of that article whether she just read this report online, or whether she flew out to Goose Green Magistrates Court to hear the historic moment for herself.
*Bailii might be wrong, and the Falkland Island courts may be a hotbed of activity, but it suits my purpose more to believe that they are right
suesspiciousminds 
You seem touch manic in this blog. Perhaps you should take a break.
Not trying to be rude its just that this blog post seems…strange. I get the low population and 150yrs between publishing of judgements, also the difficultly of keeping the people involved anonymous when everyone knows everyone else. The tone and penguin is what seems off-kilter to me.
I thought it was an interesting post, it made me wonder who was practising public law on the falklands if anyone at all.
so I had a look, three barristers from England and Wales travelled to the falklands.
http://www.trinitychambers.co.uk/News/11-09-13/Family-Barrister-in-Falkland-Islands-Child-Care-Proceedings.aspx
http://www.1gc.com/index.aspx?p=115&intId=260
I hadn’t even thought of that aspect Ben (I recall of course that a lot of English barristers went over to the Guernsey child protection enquiry). That must have been an interesting travel claim to submit. (Can you imagine if they all got over to the Falklands, only for the Court to say “We’re adjourning this for six weeks to get a report”?)
yes, and would not be surprised if that had happened.
Pingback: P-p-p pick up a penguin | Children In Law | Sco...