Transparency in the Courts

Updated HMCTS guidance confirms that accredited journalists and legal bloggers have a presumptive right to attend most family court and High Court family division hearings.

This is a significant step toward transparency in a system that has operated behind closed doors for too long. But with greater access comes a real responsibility, not just to report what happens in a courtroom, but to help the public understand it.

Three things matter more than ever:

1. Anonymity isn't a technicality it's protection. Family court cases involve children and families at their most vulnerable. Naming, identifying details and even contextual clues can cause lasting harm.

2. Psychological evidence is complex by design. Expert assessments synthesise hours of clinical work, multiple sources of information and professional judgement. A single quote from a judgment rarely reflects the full picture. Responsible reporting should make that clear.

3. Armchair diagnosis helps no one. Commentary that frames complex family dynamics; abuse, trauma responses, attachment, as simple one-word labels does a disservice to families, professionals and the public's understanding of how these cases actually work.

As a clinical psychologist who works in the family courts, I welcome transparency. I'd also encourage anyone reporting on these cases to speak to the professionals involved, understand the frameworks behind the evidence, and resist the pressure to reduce real lives to headlines.