The Judgement in question is here: (Neutral Citation is J (A Child) [2013] EWHC 2694) http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/...

I would invite readers to pay particular attention to Paragraph 21 which reads, and I quote directly:
"What may be called the 'automatic restraints' on the publication of information relating to proceedings under the Children Act 1989 are to be found in section 97 of that Act and section 12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960. Section 97 prohibits the publication of "material which is intended, or likely, to identify" the child. But this prohibition comes to an end once the proceedings have been concluded: Clayton v Clayton [2006] EWCA Civ 878, [2006] Fam 83, [2007] 1 FLR 11. Section 12 does not protect the identity of anyone involved in the proceedings, not even the child: see Re B (A Child) (Disclosure) [2004] EWHC 411 (Fam), [2004] 2 FLR 142, para [82], A v Ward [2010] EWHC 16 (Fam), [2010] 1 FLR 1497, para [79], In re X and others (Children) (Morgan and others intervening) [2011] EWHC 1157 (Fam), [2012] 1 WLR 182, sub nom Re X, Y and Z (Expert Witness), [2011] 2 FLR 1437, para [32]. So, just as in the case of experts, there is no statutory protection for the identity of either a local authority or its social workers."

In a nutshell, this means that there is *no* expectation or Statutory provision for the anonymity of those acting in a Public capacity, from bin collectors to Judges to solicitors paid out of the public purse AKA Legal Aid, to social workers, to the Prime Minister - they are all, without exception, public servants.

It seems to me that concealment of public expenditure in specific legal cases by burying the costs in a mountain of "confidential" paperwork is simply a method used by government workers to avoid examination of their activities. Perhaps you should ask a different question by way of enquiry about fee notes or invoices from solicitors, barristers and experts relating to this matter. Can you approach the Court direct for details of costs? Good luck.

It seems a bit odd to me that given at the conclusion of each case, a fully itemised "bill" is sent through to CLA, the topsheet can't be produced in this case?

If I approached the court directly , it then would not be publicly and published . It would be behind closed doors par their usual business dealings . I wanted to do via FOI request.

Stafford social services force adoption on parents by lying and they are very corrupt 4,500 each year are forced adopted and judge mumby has spoke a out