Why Transparency Has Changed

The Family Court in England and Wales has historically operated in private. While journalists could attend hearings, they were often prevented from reporting what they observed.

Sir Andrew McFarlane’s 2021 Transparency Review concluded that the system required cultural reform to enhance public confidence while protecting children and families. The review emphasised that openness and confidentiality are not mutually exclusive.

Following a pilot (2023–2025) and independent evaluation, reporting provisions were extended nationwide from 27 January 2025.

Legal Framework

• Family Procedure Rules 2010, r.27.10–27.11 – hearings in private; media attendance permitted.
• Administration of Justice Act 1960, s.12 – restricts publication of information relating to children proceedings.
• Children Act 1989, s.97(2) – prohibits identifying publication concerning children involved in proceedings.

The new framework operates within these statutory protections.

What Is a Transparency Order (TO)?

A Transparency Order is a court order permitting accredited journalists or authorised legal bloggers to report on a case, subject to strict anonymity provisions.

It sets out:

• What may be reported
• What must not be reported
• How anonymity must be preserved
• Any additional restrictions specific to the case

There is now a presumption in favour of granting a TO — but judges retain discretion.

Who Can Attend and Report?

• Accredited journalists (UK Press Card holders)
• Authorised legal bloggers (lawyers attending for journalistic or educational purposes)

Parties and members of the public do not acquire any new rights to publish.

What Can Be Reported?

Permitted (subject to TO):

• An anonymised account of what happened in court
• The legal issues and judicial reasoning
• Procedural developments

Not permitted:

• Names of children or parents
• Addresses, schools, or identifying details
• Photographs
• Information that could lead to “jigsaw identification”

Breaching anonymity or statutory restrictions may amount to contempt of court.

How Judges Decide

The judge balances:

• Public confidence and transparency
• The child’s welfare
• Privacy rights under Article 8 ECHR
• Risks of jigsaw identification

The pilot evaluation found no notable anonymity breaches, but courts remain cautious — particularly in smaller communities.

Important: What Parties Cannot Do

• No posting on social media
• No sharing documents with journalists
• No online commentary identifying the case

This prohibition remains unchanged.

Financial Remedy Proceedings

The original reporting pilot excluded financial remedy cases. Compelled financial disclosure remains subject to strict confidentiality rules. A separate transparency pathway is evolving for financial proceedings.

Before vs Now (Quick Comparison)

Practical Guidance for Litigants in Person

• Expect accredited observers in some hearings.
• If concerned about safety or identification, raise this early with the judge.
• Verify credentials before speaking to anyone claiming to be media.
• Do not publish anything about your case without permission.

Transparency is about public accountability — not exposing families.