Recently there has been a significant change in the legalities involved with reporting family court proceedings with the aim to improve transparency. The latest pilot trial scheme has taken off in England and Wales, permitting journalists to report on family court proceedings, provided they maintain the anonymity of families involved. This is a considerably controversial shift, as since 1960, there has been a presumption of secrecy in all cases involving children, and although reporting must continue to be anonymous, it is a dramatic shift opening the court up to allowing reporting on cases as it breaks some element of this. It seems like the transparency in family courts is moving more and more towards the same immense level that is evident in criminal courts, and it is this transition that has been met with substantial criticism.
So, should family court proceedings be treated with a similar level of transparency to criminal court proceedings? This question has very much focused the debate around broadcasting family proceedings, as the main aim of transparency is to improve public understanding of the court process and confidence in the court system. It is true to say that unless we have experienced it ourselves, what goes on in a family court room is very much a mystery; this shouldn’t be the case, and the picture is certainly very different for criminal proceedings, with the majority of the public very clear of the process. It is therefore evident that the lack of transparency in our family court system is an issue. Criminal cases are freely attended as well as regularly and liberally reported on. Whereas, it could be argued that family cases should have this same level of transparency, as although arguably “private”, these cases often are of the highest level of public interest, as they involve issues of the placement of children on secure accommodation, child protection and the power of the state to remove children from their parents. All of which are issues that society wants to be dealt with justly, and by reporting on these judgements and proceedings, we can ensure this is the case.
Altering the culture of our family courts to create a new norm of transparency, openness and awareness also has place in our society, as now more than ever, we challenge and scrutinise judicial decisions. Yes, it would certainly be feasible to argue that the majority of these cases involve vulnerable and innocent children, and therefore shouldn’t be made visible to every eye in the world. However, this argument, which forms the bulk of those opposing the change’s criticism, is flawed in two ways. Firstly, children themselves are not made visible to “every eye in the world” as their anonymity is protected, as well as abstaining from sharing details from extreme circumstance and secondly the fact that they involve vulnerable children should mean that we should improve the transparency by reporting on cases, to ensure appropriate decisions are being made and processes followed, to protect the weakest in our society. Without opening the door to the family court room, none of us can go to bed satisfied that these children are being adequately protected by the law, as we are blindfolded and potentially misled.
For journalists, these changes have come with a wave of utter relief. Before these changes, reporting on family court cases was a strenuous task. Picture this: you’re a journalist wanting to report on family court proceedings pre- 2023. The lines are blurred, and in reality you can’t, but you try. As a journalist, you can attend most family court proceedings at the high court, so you do. You get out of the court room ready to open the eyes of the world to your findings, but you find yourself unable to do so, as you are only permitted to report on the general gist of the hearing. Reporting beyond the “general gist” is something very very dangerous, and something that could lead to a court case costing you millions, and your reputation even more. So, afraid of misinterpreting the vague area of the “general gist”, you abstain from reporting anything at all. So, with not only the vagueness of the strict restrictions themselves, but also the utmost fear of breaking them and finding themselves in their own court room, there is no wonder that family court cases were under reported, and remained a mystery. However, now, there is hope that this trial scheme will be a success and that the transparency in our family courts will only progress in an upwards trajectory.