Journalists have been permitted to attend and observe hearings since 2009 but were previously unable to report without the Court’s permission. In December 2024, Parliament approved an amendment to the Family Procedure Rules 2010 to incorporate the reporting pilot within the Family Procedure Rules. The open reporting provisions in PD12R and PD14G have therefore applied since 27 January 2025.
Accredited journalists and legal bloggers have been able to attend, observe, hear and report on family court cases if a Transparency Order is granted. They can access some documents, quote participants, provided anonymity is preserved unless there are valid reasons for refusal. This follows a successful two-year pilot, leading to a nationwide roll-out at the end of 2024.
Journalists and legal bloggers may also request to speak to, as well as quote, people involved in the proceedings. The new open reporting provisions establish a presumption in favour of granting a Transparency Order, protecting the anonymity of children and their families, unless a legitimate reason exists to refuse it.
These provisions follow the success of the Family Court Reporting Pilot, launched in January 2023 and gradually implemented nationwide over the following two years.
The President of the Family Division Sir Andrew McFarlane [who is due to retire at Easter 2026] has described this as a “watershed moment for family Justice” emphasising the importance of improving public understanding and confidence in the Family Court. In October 2025 the President gave evidence to the house of Commons Parliamentary Justice committee regarding the reform of the Family Court. The President highlighted the significant steps taken towards greater transparency in the family courts:
‘You will know that we have opened up the court, and it is now part of business as usual that journalists can come in and report what goes on, without naming anybody. Being transparent is much more than simply letting journalists in; it is an attitude of mind. I have been prepared to go on the radio and give interviews to journalists in a way that judges probably have not before, because the public have a right to understand what we are doing on their behalf. I think being transparent will continue and continue to be something that needs to be looked at. I hope you all visit your local family courts. I hope I have encouraged all the local judges to ask their individual MPs to come in. I am sure MPs visit the local schools and local hospitals, so why not the local family court? Journalists should come into the local family court, not just to report a story—which of course they can—but to see what goes on and what makes it tick. We were called the secret family justice system or the secret family court, and I do not think that can be applied to us now. We do not want to be secret. That change has been a big one in my time.’
Aims of the key changes in the past year
The President has made clear that greater openness does not compromise privacy. The intention is to explain decisions in a manner that fosters public trust, involving not only the publication of judgments but also efforts to improve the clarity and accessibility of legal language used in those judgments. If a case falls under these provisions, parties will receive a Transparency Order outlining the reporting rules.
The Transparency Order allows for reporting of the case, but prohibits others from publishing information. It sets out what can and cannot be reported, and these rules must be strictly followed. All reported information will be anonymised to prevent identification of families, and sensitive information will remain private. Reporters require the judge’s permission, and only approved reporters may attend and report on hearings.
A reporter is either a journalist with a UK Press Card or a qualified legal blogger—typically a lawyer not involved in the case, belonging to a barristers’ chambers, law firm, or an organisation such as a university or charity, and able to verify their credentials.
Reporters may access certain basic documents such as case outlines, skeleton arguments, or position statements, to assist their understanding. Any request for additional documents must be approved by the judge.
Restrictions on Reporting
Transparency Orders specify what information may or may not be reported. Generally, reporters can describe the case details, documents, and hearing events, but cannot include:
- The names of children or family members involved
- The places where children live or attend school
- The dates of birth of any children
Additional restrictions may be imposed to prevent accidental identification, such as prohibiting the naming of social workers or foster carers. The rules are designed to ensure that even in the event of media coverage, those involved remain protected. Parties are not permitted to publish information about their own cases, including on social media, and must not share or react to media coverage. Breaching these restrictions may amount to an offence.
Judicial Discretion and Decision-Making
There should be a presumption that if a journalist or media blogger is present then Transparency Orders will be made unless there is a compelling reason not to. Parties may voice objections to reporting, but cannot opt out without the judge’s agreement. In making this decision, judges consider all circumstances, balancing specific concerns with the overarching goal of increasing transparency. The judge may:
- Grant the request and prohibit all reporting
- Modify the Transparency Order to further restrict what may be reported
- Maintain the existing Transparency Order
- Photographs of the individuals reported
It is important that parties only communicate with accredited reporters and legal bloggers, verifying credentials as necessary. Participants are not obliged to speak to reporters, and must not share restricted documents.
These reforms aim to make family courts more transparent and accountable without undermining privacy, especially in sensitive cases involving children.
Publication of Anonymised Judgments
Family court judges are now expected to publish anonymised written judgments more often. This increased publication enhances the quest for accountability, further adds to a public record of decision-making, promoting consistency, and helping both practitioners and families better understand how the law is applied in real cases. For my own part I truly welcome this as there still remains mystery and misunderstandings from the general public about how decisions are made and why, which is understandable bearing in mind the legal landscape. Where a journalist or legal blogger attends a hearing, it is good practice to record their name and contact details on the case management order. A template order can be downloaded form the Courts and tribunal Judiciary website.
Recent Case Example
I recently represented a Police Force seeking to vary the terms of a Transparency Order. Care proceedings had finalised. One of the parents was due to stand trial in relation to an allegation of murder of a child.
The court considered Part 12 of The Family Procedure Rule 2010 and Practice Direction 12R, 7.1 – 7.13 when considering whether to depart from the principle of transparency. In deciding on reporting restrictions, the court weighed the family’s rights to a fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the right to private and family life under Article 8 ECHR, and the rights of the press and public under Article 10 ECHR. After balancing these competing interests, the court varied the Transparency Order to allow publication of the name of the parent facing criminal trial and the deceased child therefore adjusting transparency according to the circumstances.
To date, I have encountered journalists primarily in cases allocated to the High Court rather than our local courts. This is understandable, given that the High Court handles more serious and complex matters, which tend to attract greater public interest.
Stella Young
Trinity Chambers
