Today's @UKSupremeCourt judgments in ABC and XY hold lessons beyond the refusal of the appeals (for which see para 51): sibling relationships, access to records, and the centrality of the child's interests and views (disclosure: I acted for LM, the child in one case) (1:7)

First, it's a resounding victory for @clanchildlaw's long campaign to get SW and hearings to put far more importance on keeping siblings together so far as possible; see paras 1, 3, and 52-53 which repay reading as if they were a separate judgment (2:7)

Second, the practice of giving all parties total access to the child's records is incompatible w the child's privacy rights. Paras 48-50 touch on it, but don't fully deal with the point; peripheral in these cases, but of wide importance (indeed, beyond the hearing system) (3:7)

GDPR structure should be imposed on rights of access to private info in court. This set of issues will need to be taken further in another case, and one or two may be on the way. Today's decision is just an intro to the arguments (4:7)

Third, although MT v Gerry 2015 SC 359 isn't even mentioned let alone expressly overruled, in truth the approach of UKSC to the rights of the child and the centrality of ECHR A8 is inconsistent. (a) the child's best interests are paramount at all procedural stages, and (5:7)

the child's views must always be taken into account, even on procedural matters. S27 of the 2011 Act means what it says and CF 2017 SLT 945 at para 7 (which was obiter) is correct. This would change common practice. (6:7)

There's more. The decision's at https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2019-0063-judgment.pdf and for background https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2019-0134.html . It's a shame the written arguments aren't published; far more there than was said in court (7:7)