By Gabriel Princewill-
Family courts across England and Wales have for years occupied a difficult and often controversial space in the justice system: they make some of the most profound decisions a person can ever face, yet the public understanding of what happens inside them remains limited.
Decisions about where children live, whether parents can maintain relationships with them, and whether state authorities should intervene in family life are made every day behind doors that many families describe as difficult to access and difficult to understand. Now, a new initiative is attempting to change that landscape by connecting people involved in family court proceedings with journalists who are willing and able to report on their cases.
AD: Capeesh Restaurant
The project, launched by The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, aims to create a bridge between families seeking independent scrutiny and reporters looking for meaningful stories from one of the least-covered areas of the justice system. The initiative, known as Courting Coverage, has been designed around a simple problem. This is that many people involved in family court proceedings want their experiences to be heard, while many journalists want to report on family justice but struggle to find cases that can be responsibly covered. By creating a network linking the two groups, organisers hope to remove one of the biggest barriers preventing greater public understanding of family courts.
Under the scheme, journalists in England and Wales who are interested in covering family court cases will be listed on an interactive map. People currently involved in court proceedings will be able to use the map to identify reporters operating near the court where their case is being heard. The project comes at a time when questions about openness, transparency and accountability in family courts are increasingly being debated. Although reforms have attempted to make the family justice system more accessible to journalists, campaigners argue that a large gap remains between the principle of transparency and the reality of what the public actually sees. Family courts are not the same as criminal courts. They do not deal with crimes and punishments, but with intensely personal matters involving children, relationships and private family circumstances. Because of the sensitive nature of the cases, restrictions have traditionally limited what can be reported. The intention behind those restrictions has been to protect children and vulnerable people, but critics argue that excessive secrecy can also prevent legitimate scrutiny.
The result, campaigners say, is a system where decisions affecting children’s lives can take place with very little independent observation. Recent debates about family courts have highlighted concerns that children’s voices are sometimes not adequately heard within proceedings. Some families and campaign groups have argued that children can feel excluded from decisions that directly shape their futures, while others have raised concerns that the complexity and confidentiality of the system can make it difficult for children’s experiences to reach the public conversation.
AD: Oysterian Sea Food Restaurant And Bar
The issue of children being “silenced” within family courts has become a recurring theme in many family courts Crit\ics argue that while confidentiality is important, a system designed to protect children must also ensure that their views, experiences and concerns, are properly considered. Supporters of greater transparency say that responsible journalism can provide an additional layer of accountability, helping reveal where the system works, and where improvements are needed.
The Bureau of Investigative Journalism says that while significant progress has been made towards improving transparency, only a very small number of family court cases are currently reported. Gareth Davies, the project lead at the organisation, said the vast majority of decisions made by family courts still happen without meaningful journalistic scrutiny.
“Family courts across England and Wales make life-changing decisions every day, but the vast majority are made in the absence of journalistic scrutiny,” he said.The introduction of transparency measures has given journalists greater access to court documents and expanded their ability to report on proceedings.
However, Davies said that access alone does not solve the problem if reporters do not know which cases are taking place or how to identify matters that are in the public interest., Unlike criminal courts, where journalists can often review court lists and identify cases involving significant issues, family courts operate differently. Reporters cannot simply scan a public list of hearings and decide which cases require attention. Instead, they often have little information about what is happening until they are already present.
A journalist attending a family court for an entire day without knowing whether a significant case is taking place can be difficult, particularly for freelance reporters working with limited time and resources. Davies said this lack of connection between journalists and families is one of the biggest barriers to greater reporting. “Unlike other parts of the justice system, reporters aren’t able to check court listings to determine what a case involves and whether it’s worth their time,” he said. “Additionally, it’s not feasible for a reporter to spend the day in a family court on the chance of finding a newsworthy case.”
Courting Coverage is intended to address that gap by creating a practical route for communication. Families who believe their cases raise issues of public importance will be able to contact journalists who have chosen to cover family justice. The project does not guarantee that a case will be reported.
Journalists will still make independent decisions based on public interest, legal considerations, safeguarding concerns and professional standards. However, organisers hope the scheme will create more opportunities for responsible reporting. The initiative has received support from figures within the family justice community who believe greater openness could improve confidence in the system.
Julie Doughty, of the Transparency Project, a charity focused on increasing public understanding of family courts, described the scheme as a significant development in improving awareness of family justice. She said open reporting was essential in addressing the widespread perception that family courts are closed and secretive. Although the presence of a journalist does not change the legal outcome of a case, Doughty said some parents had told the organisation that they felt hearings were fairer when an independent observer was present.
That perception matters because trust is central to any justice system. For many families, entering a family court is one of the most stressful experiences they will ever encounter. They may be dealing with the possibility of losing contact with their children, disagreements over living arrangements, or decisions involving social services.
Julie Doughty
A lack of understanding about what happens inside the courtroom can increase feelings of powerlessness. Supporters of greater reporting argue that independent journalism can help explain the process, challenge misconceptions and identify areas where reform may be needed. Barrister Lucy Reed KC also welcomed the initiative, saying it could make a significant difference for parents who want reassurance that their cases are being observed independently.
She said many parents, whether represented by lawyers or navigating the system without legal assistance, would feel safer if an independent observer was present. At present, she argued, most parents who want that reassurance are unable to obtain it. The debate around family court transparency reflects a wider question facing modern justice system.
How can courts protect privacy while also ensuring accountability Family courts deal with some of the most sensitive information imaginable. The identities of children, details of family breakdowns and allegations involving vulnerable people all require careful protection. But campaigners say confidentiality should not become a reason for avoiding scrutiny altogether.
The challenge is finding a balance between protecting those who need protection and allowing enough openness for the public to understand how decisions are made. Courting Coverage represents an attempt to move that balance towards greater transparency by making it easier for journalists and families to find one another.
The initiative will initially focus on building a network of accredited journalists across England and Wales. Both staff journalists and freelance reporters will be able to participate. The organisers expect the project to officially launch later in the year once the first group of reporters has joined the network. T
A spokesperson for The project offers the possibility that their experiences may receive wider attention. For journalists, it offers a route into a complex area of law that has historically been difficult to cover But supporters say the wider significance goes beyond individual cases. They argue that better reporting could help the public understand how family courts operate, challenge misinformation and ensure that the decisions affecting children and families receive the scrutiny they deserve.
At the heart of the initiative is the belief that justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done. In family courts, where decisions can shape the course of a child’s life, supporters argue that visibility and accountability are not optional extras — they are essential parts of public confidence.
AD: Heritage And Restaurant Lounge Bar