Every day, the emails arrive. Over the nine years I’ve reported on family courts, desperate missives from families embroiled in court proceedings have landed in my inbox telling me that the judge is biased, the “guardian” representing their child is corrupt, social workers have lied, pulverising cross-examinations by barristers have traumatised them, poor advice from solicitors has damaged their case, and the family justice system’s delays and decisions have destroyed their family and harmed their child.
I must have read thousands. And some of them are true.
Until a year ago, however, each time I’d attended family court, the presumption, enshrined in law, had been that I was banned from reporting what I saw going on.
Reporters couldn’t describe the dismissive tone in which a judge spoke to a woman trying to prove domestic abuse, or how a social worker had repeatedly breached court orders leading to harmful delay, or how a mother who had just given birth pleaded over Microsoft Teams to keep her baby while milk soaked her T-shirt as she sat in a hospital side room. In short, journalists weren’t able to report what they saw going wrong, or indeed what was going right. Not that is, without applying to the judge. And then you were in a world of pain, involving seemingly endless time, effort, cost, delay and risk.
We are now 12 months into the brave new pilot scheme where journalists can attend hearings in some cities in England and Wales on the basis that they can publish what happens, rather than breaking the law if they do. Initially launched in Cardiff, Carlisle and Leeds, the pilot’s success has led senior judges to decide that it should be extended to 16 more court centres across the country from this week. That’s nearly half of all family courts.
When I say “success”, I mean that the central tenet of the pilot – that families must be able to retain their privacy – has been upheld. Careful anonymisation, which extends beyond simply not reporting parents’ and children’s names, means there have been no reports of families being identified. This was the main concern of those working in family justice, but it is no surprise to me that it has been done well: the media are experienced and expert at anonymising the reporting of rape, sexual assault and youth crime.
But while the extension of the pilot across the country is welcome, as far as scrutiny is concerned – and despite some excellent reporting – the media has barely made a start.
There is no point being allowed to report if journalists don’t go to family courts and publish stories on what they see. But there is equally no point pretending that regional – or even national – news outlets are awash with the kind of resources that would allow an editor to casually send a journalist to attend, say, a two-week care case involving allegations of non-accidental injury to a baby.
The truth is that family cases are typically complex, multi-day hearings, stretching out over months. Occasionally you can publish something useful after a day in court, but several days is more typical. The longest case I’ve followed lasted three years. This is not a trip to the local magistrates court to write 600 words for the next day’s paper.
When someone is criminally prosecuted, we rightly demand that a justice system that can deprive someone of their liberty is open to scrutiny, and is accountable. The possible consequences of a family court case – sometimes losing your children for ever – are seen by many as a fate far worse than imprisonment. So the public interest in journalists reporting on family justice – and investigating when things go wrong – is compelling and immense. Editors need to give journalists the time to report on these cases, which typically involve poverty, homelessness, violence, abuse and addiction afflicting often the most vulnerable people in society.
The biggest transformation I hope to see as a result of the pilot’s expansion is a culture change towards journalists coming to court, based on senior judges’ clear position that transparency is a positive force. This needs to filter down, and fast, to all state authorities – councils, NHS trusts, the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service and experts, along with their lawyers. Barring one exceptionally poor recent experience, most family judges welcome the media. Power exercised in secret is dangerous. We all behave better when someone is watching. And the plight of parents and children who end up in family courts and how the system deals with them needs to be seen – and shouted about.
Louise Tickle co-ordinates The Bureau of Investigative Journalism’s Family Justice project, which provides information on the reporting pilot for media, family members and lawyers
