Please type more than three letters in your search query

Family Law Courts Open to Media

divorce solicitor Manchester

The press are now allowed to report from family courts. But is this really the ‘watershed’ moment in family law that it is being hailed to be?

Following a two-year transparency pilot which started with three court centres and grew to cover nearly half of the family courts in England and Wales, it has now been confirmed that from today, 27 January 2025, accredited journalists and legal bloggers can speak to families, quote from court documents, and report on ongoing family law proceedings, providing they protect the anonymity of the families involved. This is a significant change as previously, while journalists could attend hearings, they had no right to report on what goes on behind the closed court doors.

Sir Andrew McFarlane, President of the Family Division, has hailed the open reporting provisions as a ‘watershed moment for family justice,’ underling the importance of this change in ‘improving public understanding and confidence in the Family Courts.’

Why has it been decided to increase transparency in the family court?

This decision follows a more generalised trend towards increased transparency in family law. For example, in December 2024, Mr Justice Williams barred the media from naming the three family court judges who oversaw the care proceedings of Sara Sharif, who was later abused and ultimately killed in her parents’ care, with both of her parents being found guilty of her murder. An appeal was made by a group of media organisations and was granted by the Court of Appeal last week on the grounds that Mr Justice Williams had ‘no jurisdiction to anonymise the historic judges’ and the details of the previous family law proceedings related to Sara have now been published.

Such decisions provide the general public with insight into the family courts, something previously reserved only for the families who unfortunately found themselves involved in proceedings themselves.

Those in support of the change will point to how a greater understanding of family law and its court processes can raise awareness of its fallibilities and the challenges it faces. Sir Andrew McFarlane said the reporting ‘includes coverage of issues affecting some of the most vulnerable people in our society’ which, in turn brings attention to the changes which are needed to protect these people.

During the reporting pilot, the BBC ran a story on a mother they called Bethan who succeeded in preventing her ex-husband, who had been convicted of multiple paedophile offences, from gaining access to their daughter. The story caught the attention of Labour MP Harriet Harman who tabled an amendment to upcoming legislation which would see convicted paedophiles automatically lose access to their children, helping mothers like Bethan who spent £30,000 on legal fees fighting to restrict her ex-husband’s right to see their daughter. Without coverage of the family courts, awareness of issues such as this one is restricted.

Many individuals who consult our firm for the first time are only aware of their potential rights and entitlements through word of mouth and from friends who have been through similar experiences. The general public do not generally have a good understanding of family law or the rights and protections it can offer. Perhaps increased reporting on family law proceedings will allow individuals to see their own experiences reflected in court reports and feel empowered to take action in their own lives.

The flip side to family court transparency

However, family law proceedings, by their very nature, are deeply private and the purpose of proceedings is always to protect the welfare of children and, where relevant, parents and other family members. The thought of the most difficult moments for many families being offered up for public consumption does not sit well with many family law solicitors, whose priority is acting in the best interests of their clients and bringing matters to a resolution to allow families to recover and move on from court proceedings which are, for many, an emotional and difficult time.

Furthermore, there are concerns that having press in court rooms may inhibit families and individuals from disclosing details of their private lives in court, if they have concerns that their personal information could end up in tomorrow’s papers. Even if reports are anonymised and names are omitted, there are surely occasions where enough specific information exists for the public to work out to whom the information relates.

And if, despite efforts to anonymise reports, identities and details are revealed, how will this affect the parties involved? Protecting the anonymity of parties, particularly children, has to be the primary focus moving forward and if it becomes apparent that details are being reported on which allows parties to be identified, what changes are going to be put in place to rectify this?

In addition, family law solicitors and practitioners need to feel empowered to do what is best for their clients and the parties involved without fear of facing a media barrage. Mr Justice Williams made his decision to preserve the anonymity of the family law judges related to the Sara Sharif care proceedings to protect them from the inevitable scrutiny and criticism they would receive. While it is, of course, important to hold judges accountable for decisions made and ensure the integrity of the family courts and the public’s confidence in their decision-making is maintained, is revealing their names and allowing a social media witch hunt to ensue the best way to go about this?

As the family courts open up, as family law solicitors, we will watch on carefully to assess both the positive and negative impacts the increased transparency of the family law courts will have

For specialist advice on any family law related issue contact Maguire Family Law by email: james.maguire@family-law.co.uk or telephone:

Coercive control divorce experts – as featured on the BBC

Contact Us