Why transparency, and what it means for families

“There needs to be a major shift in culture and process to increase the transparency of the Family Court, so as to enhance public confidence, whilst at the same time maintaining the anonymity of those families and children who turn to it for protection.” [President’s 2021 Transparency Review]

In recent years the Family Court has tested and expanded controlled reporting by accredited journalists and authorised legal bloggers. The purpose is to explain what happens in court and improve public understanding, without exposing children or families to identification or unnecessary intrusion.

IRAC: Can family court proceedings be reported?

Issue

Whether and how proceedings in the Family Court—traditionally held in private—may be reported to the public.

Rule

• Family hearings are usually in private. [FPR 2010, r.27.10]
• Accredited media representatives may attend most private hearings; attendance can be restricted. [FPR 2010, r.27.11]
• Publishing information about children proceedings is restricted. [Administration of Justice Act 1960, s.12]
• Publishing anything likely to identify a child involved in specified proceedings is prohibited (subject to order). [Children Act 1989, s.97(2)]
• Courts balance Article 8 (privacy) and Article 10 (expression) rights case by case. [Re S (A Child)]

Analysis

The statutory and rules framework preserves privacy while allowing controlled attendance by the press. The President’s 2021 review concluded that openness and confidentiality are compatible when robust anonymity safeguards are in place. In practice, courts enable reporting through bespoke Transparency Orders that specify precisely what may be published and what must remain private. Judges retain full discretion to tailor or refuse reporting to protect children’s welfare, safety, or fair trial rights, consistent with the open justice principles recognised by the appellate courts. [Cape Intermediate Holdings v Dring] [A v Ward]

Conclusion

Reporting can occur where a judge authorises it—commonly by a Transparency Order—allowing accredited reporters to publish anonymised accounts of what happened in court while safeguarding identities and sensitive details. Parties remain restricted from self‑publishing unless expressly permitted by law or court order. [AJA 1960, s.12] [CA 1989, s.97(2)]

Transparency Orders: what they are and how they work

Definition. A Transparency Order (TO) is a court order that sets out exactly what accredited observers may report, with strict anonymity safeguards for children and families. It typically prohibits naming or otherwise identifying parties, children, schools, addresses, or uniquely identifying combinations of facts.

Scope. A TO authorises reporting by accredited journalists and, where applicable, authorised legal bloggers. It does not give parties a right to publish about their own case unless the order says so.

Enforcement. Publishing in breach of a TO or contrary to statute may amount to contempt of court. [AJA 1960, s.12] [CA 1989, s.97(2)]

Who can attend and report?

• Accredited journalists (e.g., holders of a UK Press Card) may attend most private family hearings under the rules. [FPR r.27.11]
• Authorised legal bloggers (lawyers not involved in the case, attending for public legal education) may attend where permitted by the Family Procedure Rules and relevant practice directions. [FPR r.27.11]
• Attendance remains subject to judicial discretion in each case, including exclusion where necessary to protect the interests of a child or the administration of justice. [FPR r.27.11(3)]

What can observers see or access?

Observers may receive limited case materials designed to help them understand the hearing (for example, position statements) if the court so directs. Any wider access to documents remains subject to the court’s permission and the open justice principles articulated by the appellate courts. [Dring]

What can and cannot be published?

• Can: Anonymised accounts of what took place in court, subject to the terms of the TO and any further directions of the judge.
• Cannot: Any information likely to identify a child or family (names, addresses, schools, photos, or unique combinations of facts), or other information barred by statute or order. [AJA 1960, s.12] [CA 1989, s.97(2)] [Re S (A Child)]
• Parties’ own publication: Parties generally may not publish information about their case unless the court clearly permits it. Breach can be contempt or otherwise unlawful.

How judges decide: the balancing exercise

Judges must balance the competing rights engaged by family reporting:

• Article 8 ECHR (respect for private and family life)
• Article 10 ECHR (freedom of expression/public interest in open justice)

The House of Lords provided the framework in Re S (A Child): there is no automatic precedence of one right over the other; courts conduct an intense, fact‑sensitive proportionality analysis. UKHL 47 The Supreme Court has also reaffirmed the broader open justice principle and controlled access to documents. [Dring]

Practical guidance for litigants in person

• Expect accredited observers: Journalists or legal bloggers may be present. If a TO is made, anonymised reporting is likely to follow.
• Check credentials: If approached, ask to see a UK Press Card (journalists) or confirmation of a blogger’s authorisation. Interaction is optional.
• Do not self‑publish: Avoid posting about your case (including on social media) or sharing documents unless the judge expressly allows it. [AJA 1960, s.12] [CA 1989, s.97(2)]
• Raise safety/privacy concerns early: Tell the court if there is a risk of identification (for example, in a small community) so the TO can be tailored.
• Ask for clarity: If unsure what may be reported or shared, ask the judge to spell this out in the TO.

Financial remedy proceedings

Financial remedy cases engage different transparency considerations. Historically, the reporting pilots focused on public/private children proceedings. Publication of compelled financial disclosure is often restricted, and courts exercise caution to avoid unfairness or commercial harm. The precise position may vary with practice guidance and local directions; parties should expect the court to address transparency expressly in such cases, by reference to the same balancing principles. [Re S (A Child)]

Before vs now: a quick comparison

Key legal sources (with links and Bluebook‑style citations)

1. Family Procedure Rules 2010, rr. 27.10–27.11 (Eng. & Wales), available at justice.gov.uk.
2. Administration of Justice Act 1960, 8 & 9 Eliz. 2 c. 65, s.12 (UK), available at legislation.gov.uk.
3. Children Act 1989, c. 41, s.97(2) (UK), available at legislation.gov.uk.
4. Re S (A Child) (Identification: Restrictions on Publication) UKHL 47, 1 A.C. 593 (appeal taken from Eng.), available at BAILII.
5. Sir Andrew McFarlane P., Transparency in the Family Courts: Confidence and Confidentiality (Oct. 2021), Judiciary of England & Wales, available at judiciary.uk.
6. Cape Intermediate Holdings Ltd. v. Dring (Asbestos Victims Support Groups Forum UK) UKSC 38, A.C. 629, available at BAILII.
7. A. v. Ward EWHC 16 (Fam), EMLR 22 (Eng.), available at BAILII.
8. Guidance for media and legal bloggers attending the family courts, HMCTS/Government guidance (practice aid), available at gov.uk.

Note: Transparency reforms have been implemented in stages. Always check the current Family Procedure Rules, relevant practice directions, and any local judicial guidance for the court hearing your case.