The English family justice system has long been cloaked in secrecy, with strict reporting restrictions limiting public insight into court decisions that impact thousands of families.
However, a significant shift took place on 27 January 2025, when new rules granting journalists and legal bloggers wider access to report from family courts across England and Wales.
This move follows a successful pilot programme and is praised as a landmark step towards increased transparency. But while advocates see it as a win for accountability and public confidence, others warn of potential risks to privacy and the well-being of vulnerable individuals.
The push for open justice in family courts began with a pilot scheme launched in January 2023 in Leeds, Cardiff and Carlisle. For the first time, accredited journalists were permitted to attend and report on family court cases under a "Transparency Order", ensuring children and families remained anonymous.
Encouraged by positive outcomes, the programme expanded in January 2024 to include 16 more court areas, covering nearly half of England and Wales. Now, with nationwide implementation, the rules allow journalists to:
- Attend family court hearings.
- Report on proceedings, while maintaining anonymity for children and families.
- Request access to certain court documents to improve accuracy.
- Speak to families about their cases and quote from key documents where permitted.
A key principle of the new system is the presumption that transparency orders will be granted unless a judge deems otherwise. However, courts still retain the power to restrict or prohibit reporting if it poses risks to the individuals involved. Sir Andrew McFarlane, the UK’s most senior family judge, described the change as a “watershed” moment for transparency in family courts.
Journalism’s Impact on Justice
One of the most significant cases covered under the pilot scheme was that of "Bethan", a mother who spent £30,000 in legal fees to prevent her ex-husband—a convicted paedophile—from maintaining parental rights (defined in law as ‘parental responsibility’) over their daughter. The Family Court ruled in Bethan’s favour.
Following BBC coverage in late 2023, then-MP Harriet Harman campaigned for a change in the law so that, in the future, parents convicted of the most serious child abuse offences would automatically lose parental rights without needing a court battle. Sir Andrew McFarlane praised the role of journalism in this case, stating:
"If something isn’t working well, then it should be called out... This is a healthy development."
The Impact: Transparency vs. Privacy
While the move is widely welcomed, it sparks an ongoing debate over the balance between openness and safeguarding vulnerable individuals.
Potential Benefits of Open Family Courts
- Greater public understanding – Many people are unaware of how family courts operate. Allowing journalists to report on cases can educate the public about key issues like child protection, adoption, and parental disputes.
- Improved trust in the system – Transparency can help dispel myths about bias in family courts and reassure the public that decisions are made fairly.
- Holding the system accountable – Open reporting allows scrutiny of controversial rulings and systemic issues, ensuring that the family justice system operates justly.
- Encouraging consistency – Knowing that decisions may be reported could lead to more uniformity in rulings across different courts.
Challenges and Risks
- Risk of unintended identification – Even with anonymity rules, contextual details could reveal the identities of families, particularly in small communities.
- Emotional distress for families – Media coverage of traumatic cases might increase stress and anxiety for already vulnerable individuals
- Judicial pressure – Some argue that judges might feel influenced by media attention, impacting their decision-making.
- Selective reporting – Sensational cases may receive disproportionate coverage, overshadowing the broader workings of the system.
The Debate Continues
The expansion of reporting rights has already been tested in high-profile cases, such as that of Sara Sharif, a schoolgirl murdered by her father and stepmother. Legal challenges arose when a court ruling initially anonymised the judges who oversaw the historical child arrangements court proceedings, leading to disputes over whether such anonymity undermines public accountability.
The court has recently reversed that decision and revealed the names of the judges involved in the family proceedings in the interests of transparency and accountability.
For now, the new rules mark a turning point in family court transparency. Whether they strengthen justice or introduce new complications will become clearer as journalists navigate their newfound freedom to report.
If you or someone you know requires assistance with a family matter, please contact our dedicated Family Law team at 01256 844888 or email enquiries@lambbrooks.com.