The Transparency Pilot was extended to children proceedings in addition to financial proceedings, in England and Wales in January of this year. So, where are we now when it comes to private family proceedings being reported by the media?
What can be published?
There is a clear restriction on the publication of financial remedy cases for which the focus is on financial support for a child which is provided by section 12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960. That aside, the open justice principle applies in the Family Court, although there remains judicial divergence of opinion and practice when it comes to what is reported and little consistency. Accredited members of the media and legal bloggers have been entitled to attend court since 2009 and to publish anything they hear in court, unless an anonymity order (sometimes referred to as a reporting restrictions order) has been made in certain proceedings, since January 2023.
These transparency provisions have more recently been extended to all family courts in England and Wales. The open reporting provisions mean that journalists can attend court, speak to and quote people involved, request sight of documents and report on them accordingly, subject to an order (a transparency order) restricting them from doing so being made by the court. Added to this, it is envisaged that most if not all judgments will be published, duly anonymized and incorporate a judicial warning that publicly identifying parties by name may be a contempt of court.
A shift in approach?
On the one hand, we can discern a clear shift towards transparency in our practices and in judgments published by the court. Yet, as recently suggested by Macdonald J in the case of Rosemin-Culligan v Culligan [2025] EWFC 26 and by Mostyn J in his recent article 'Re-multiplied Propagation' in the Financial Remedies Journal (28.05.25), many of the transparency orders currently made in the Family Court may not actually be hitting the mark when it comes to satisfying the requisite statutory basis for such orders being made. The baton has been taken up by HHJ Hess (Lead Judge of the London Financial Remedies Court, Deputy High Court Judge and Deputy National Lead Judge, Financial Remedies Court) in his Chair's Column in the same publication (30.06.25) who concludes that the only way we, and our clients, can understand and apply the rules with a measure of certainty is for there to be imminent guidance on this issue from the Court of Appeal.
Beacon of light
Our faith was restored reading the recent judgment of M and F [2025] EWHC 801 in which Harris J was asked to consider an application by a mother for permission to publish information regarding lengthy private law proceedings between herself and the father of their child. There had been previous proceedings (reported as DK v KB [2024] EWFC 12 and one of the first private law children's cases in which a transparency order was made) whereby it was found that the mother had been the victim of serious domestic abuse by the father. Under the standard terms of the transparency order made, the mother and the father were permitted to speak to accredited journalists and provide direct quotes regarding the case (which the mother had done). They were not permitted to write or speak directly about their own experiences of the family justice system. It was that ongoing restriction on the right of victims within family proceedings to speak directly about their experiences that the mother sought to challenge on appeal, because the serious findings of domestic abuse had been missed first time around and the mother felt let down by the family justice system. The mother was successful and, under the inherent jurisdiction of the court, she was granted permission to publish media articles about her experiences of the family court system and the domestic abuse she suffered at the hands of the father using an alias. She was further granted permission to speak at events facilitated by organizations such as Cafcass, women's right groups and children's rights groups, again using an alias.
The Court made clear before embarking on its analysis of the legal arguments that it was profoundly sympathetic to the mother's position. The Court fully appreciated that the inability to be able to speak openly about how, as a victim of rape and domestic abuse she was dealt with by the family justice system, compounded the trauma she had suffered, and was experienced as a further means of coercion and control. The mother clearly had an invaluable contribution to make to current debates about domestic abuse, parental alienation and contact with children within the family justice system. This case is reassuring and serves as a beacon of light in the sometimes shadowy corners of the family justice system...
'Source' for the goose..?
What remains clear and transparent, following another recent judgment (Louise Tickle v the Father & Ors [2025[ EWFC 160) is that, absent exceptional circumstances, journalists cannot be made to reveal their source of information about family court hearings.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
