This is another interesting comment article on the appeal against the order re anonymity of judges in the historic family courts' handling of Sara's case:
thecritic.co.uk
'Finally, Williams J had acted with bias against the media. Sir Geoffrey Vos noted the strongly personal line taken against the media with the accusation that The Guardian had inaccurately reported that Williams J had refused permission to appeal when he had, in fact, adjourned the decision. That adjournment had nonetheless led to the appeal to the Court of Appeal. Further, Williams J had complained about a Channel 4 documentary, saying, “Thank goodness that journalists don’t have to operate as the courts do and hear both sides before delivering their verdict!”. This was, according to Sir Geoffrey Vos, an example of the judge getting “carried away” and making “inappropriate and unfair” remarks — a firm rebuke, considering how the Court of Appeal is often restrained when referring to judges in the court below. As such, Sir Geoffrey Vos directed that a different Family Division judge should hear the case in the future.'
Despite being slightly obsessed with this issue I have lost track of what further court hearings there could be!

Judges are not above scrutiny | Tony Dowson | The Critic Magazine
The Court of Appeal last week rightly decided to allow the naming of anonymised judges involved in the Sara Sharif proceedings. It rejected, in no uncertain terms, the idea that judges are entitled to…
'Finally, Williams J had acted with bias against the media. Sir Geoffrey Vos noted the strongly personal line taken against the media with the accusation that The Guardian had inaccurately reported that Williams J had refused permission to appeal when he had, in fact, adjourned the decision. That adjournment had nonetheless led to the appeal to the Court of Appeal. Further, Williams J had complained about a Channel 4 documentary, saying, “Thank goodness that journalists don’t have to operate as the courts do and hear both sides before delivering their verdict!”. This was, according to Sir Geoffrey Vos, an example of the judge getting “carried away” and making “inappropriate and unfair” remarks — a firm rebuke, considering how the Court of Appeal is often restrained when referring to judges in the court below. As such, Sir Geoffrey Vos directed that a different Family Division judge should hear the case in the future.'
Despite being slightly obsessed with this issue I have lost track of what further court hearings there could be!