Law Articles

Transparency in the Family Court 06/11/2025

Transparency within the family justice system has been a topic of considerable debate for many years. Family courts in England and Wales operate in an area of law that is both deeply personal and vitally important to public confidence in the judicial process. Decisions made in the family court can fundamentally affect a person’s relationship with their children, their home, and their future. For that reason, the public must be able to trust that the system is fair, balanced, and accountable. At the same time, the matters dealt with in family courts often concern children, victims of abuse, or individuals in emotional distress - people who require protection and confidentiality.

Finding the right balance between openness and privacy is therefore a complex legal and ethical challenge. This article explores how the family justice system is evolving in response to critiques of secrecy, the legal principles underpinning transparency, and the implications of recent reforms such as the family court transparency reporting pilot.

Why the Family Court has traditionally been private

Unlike most criminal or civil proceedings, family hearings have historically taken place in private. This approach developed to shield children and vulnerable individuals from harm, particularly emotional harm that could arise from having their personal circumstances exposed and potentially sensationalised.

However, over recent decades concerns have emerged that excessive privacy may create the impression of secrecy. When decisions that profoundly affect families occur behind closed doors, it can foster mistrust. Campaigners, journalists, and even some judges have expressed concern that insufficient transparency risks undermining public confidence and obscuring potential shortcomings in the system, including resource pressures, inconsistent local authority practice, or misunderstandings around judicial reasoning.

This tension was acknowledged in Tooley v Tooley, where the court recognised that although proceedings were private, transparency remains a relevant principle that must be considered wherever possible.

The shift

In response to these concerns, the courts and government have gradually been introducing reforms to improve public understanding of family justice. The most significant recent development is the transparency reporting pilot, which allows accredited journalists and legal bloggers to attend hearings and report on them, subject to strict safeguarding conditions. Initially introduced in selected courts, this pilot has now been extended nationally from January 2025.

The aim of the pilot is not to open the doors universally or indiscriminately. Instead, it seeks to provide the public with a clearer picture of how decisions are reached, while maintaining the privacy and dignity of the individuals involved, particularly children.

Under the pilot, reporters may publish details of what they observe, but identifying information such as names, addresses, schools, or photographs remains prohibited unless specifically permitted by the court. This model is designed to strike a careful balance between accountability and protection.

Human rights principles in tension

The legal and ethical framework surrounding transparency is underpinned by fundamental human rights. The principle of open justice, often summarised as “justice must be seen to be done”, supports public access to the workings of the courts. This principle is important because transparency promotes accountability, encourages high standards in decision-making, and helps the public understand how the law is applied.

Conversely, the right to respect for private and family life protects individuals from unnecessary intrusion into matters that are intimate and deeply personal. Family proceedings may involve allegations of abuse, mental health challenges, substance misuse, or relationship difficulties. The exposure of such details may cause distress, stigma, or even physical danger.

A third important principle is the right to freedom of expression, which includes the ability of journalists to report on matters of public interest. Balancing these rights - open justice, privacy, and freedom of expression - forms the heart of the transparency debate.

Judicial decisions

Several key judicial decisions have shaped how transparency is applied in practice.

In Re J (Reporting Restriction: Internet: Video) [2013] EWHC 2694 (Fam), Sir James Munby emphasised the “pressing need” for greater transparency in care and adoption cases. He highlighted the importance of allowing the public to understand how decisions concerning children are made to maintain trust in the system.

In X and another v The British Broadcasting Corporation [2005] EWCA Civ 265, the Court of Appeal clarified that transparency should improve understanding of judicial reasoning rather than expose deeply personal details that are not necessary to the public interest. This case reinforced the idea that transparency must remain purposeful and proportionate.

In RC v FP [2023] EWFC, the court extended a reporting restriction to protect a child's anonymity until adulthood, demonstrating how transparency must sometimes yield where a child’s welfare would otherwise be at risk.

Together, these cases illustrate the courts’ consistent approach: transparency is vital, but not at the expense of children’s wellbeing.

The practical challenges

While the transparency reporting pilot marks an important move toward greater openness, it brings practical challenges. Lawyers and judges must now consider issues of transparency at the beginning of hearings, clarify how information can be shared, and when necessary, draft orders setting out reporting limitations.

This adds an additional layer to proceedings that are already complex and emotionally charged. There are also resource considerations: preparing judgments in a form suitable for publication can require extra judicial time, and ensuring anonymity requires care and precision.

Furthermore, there is an ongoing concern about how media reporting may influence public perception. While most legal reporters approach family cases with sensitivity, the risk of sensational treatment, especially in online spaces, cannot be ignored. Clear and responsible communication will therefore remain essential.

A system evolving

The move toward greater transparency in family justice reflects an evolving legal culture. The direction of travel is toward openness, but not without safeguards. The law continues to recognise that family court participants are often at their most vulnerable. Protecting children remains central.

At the same time, the public has a legitimate interest in understanding how decisions are made and why. A system that is transparent is one that can be held accountable, learned from, and trusted.

The changes now underway seek to ensure that justice in the family court is not only done, but seen to be done, while ensuring that the dignity and welfare of those involved are preserved.

For further information and advice on this issue, and other family law issues, please contact us for a free initial consultation.