The rollout of the reporting provisions in the family courts

Since its initial introduction in January 2023, the reporting pilot in the family courts has seen monumental progress and considerable successes, such that, only two years later, the scheme is beginning its national rollout. 

Family law is an area constantly under review, and has varying levels of criticism. Change can be slow to take place, particularly in a volatile political environment. However, in the last few years, we have witnessed significant changes in family law. No-fault divorce (April 2022) was followed by the update to the Family Procedure Rules in April 2024, in a drive to focus on out-of-court dispute resolution. These changes have seen swift implementation, and family law professionals are placing increased focus on keeping matters out of court, where safe to do so, in order that a swift resolution can be sought. Courts have taken their role seriously, ordering cost sanctions in cases of non-disclosure or pursuing foolish arguments, such as in Helliwell v Entwistle [2024]. 

An increase in transparency

It is in-keeping with the ongoing development, then, that the reporting pilot has been implemented with enthusiasm and has been expanded multiple times over the last two years. The importance of accountability and openness in the family justice system (FJS) has increased in prominence and permanence. 

A significant development occurred on 27 January 2025, heralding in a new era of transparency in the FJS, as accredited journalists and legal bloggers now have greater access to court cases and documents under open provision, provided they adhere to the rules of the judge-granted ‘transparency order’. It is presumed that the order will be granted, unless there are legitimate reasons for it not to be. The rules previously confined to pilot courts will now apply nationwide for both private and public law cases. The rollout is being staggered.

President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, has called this a ‘watershed’ moment. He highlighted the progress of the pilot, including the key cases that have been reported on since the pilot’s inception, for example a case involving the removal of parental rights of a convicted paedophile. These cases have previously been shrouded in secrecy, but anonymised reporting has given the public a greater understanding of how family law functions and what its role is in society, which can only be a positive step.

The response

The expansion of the transparency project has been welcomed by many family law professionals. It has also struck a chord with organisations supporting vulnerable adults and victim–survivors of domestic abuse, and the individuals themselves. There has been increased awareness of the issues that family law deals with. It is hoped that it will lead to better social support and understanding of how the law can assist those in difficult circumstances. 

Nevertheless, there remains some uncertainty among professionals, specifically regarding the protection of vulnerable individuals and families going through the system. 

There are naturally concerns around privacy of minor children, and some have argued that even maintaining absolute anonymity, the case reporting itself may allow minor children to be indirectly identified. However, due to the presumption that transparency orders are granted to protect the anonymity of children and families going through the FJS, reassurance can be provided to clients. Judges are there to ensure the adherence of journalists to the order. The pilot recorded no breaches of anonymity during the trial period, and there will be increased focus on this going into the national rollout.

The priority of the FJS and family law professionals is the privacy and wellbeing of clients who are going through some of life’s most traumatic events. Understanding the process is key, as is making the relevant individuals aware that reporting is a possibility as early as possible.

There has also been some resistance from newsrooms that are under financial pressure and are unsure about how much reporting will actually take place. This could limit real transparency. However, Dawn Alford, Executive Director of the Society of Editors, said that the work was vital and would benefit the mainstream media, as well as the FJS.

Conclusion

Despite the valid apprehensions, this is a crucial moment in family law. The family courts are opening up to external scrutiny for the first time, an encouraging step towards real change.

I am hopeful that a more transparent system will mean more accountability, better public understanding and more change. Family law still falls behind the needs of the modern landscape in several areas, but there have been important steps taken in recent years to improve this.