Journalist given permission to report details of four child arrangements cases

Cases concerning disputes between parents over arrangements for their children are, of course, heard in private.

But this privacy obviously means that the workings of the Family Court can avoid public and journalistic scrutiny – scrutiny that can be beneficial, both for the public understanding to the family justice system, and to identify problems with the way the courts are operating.

It is, however, possible for a journalist to request the court to lift the veil of privacy, at least in part, and this occurred in a recent case that took place in the High Court.

In the case the journalist applied for access to documents in four family cases that were heard in the North-East between 2020 and 2025, and for permission to publish the contents of most of those documents. In all four cases the children had exhibited negative tendencies towards their fathers, raising the possibility of alienating behaviour by the mothers.

The reason for the application was that the journalist seeks to explore issues surrounding cases involving ‘parental alienation’, and how the courts in the North-East have sought the assistance of a certain expert psychologist when dealing with such cases. This follows an article that she previously wrote on the subject entitled “The ‘harmful pseudo-science’ infecting Sheffield’s family courts”, that referred to a fifth case.

Specifically, the journalist sought access to the following documents in the four cases:

1. The expert reports of the psychologist, who was instructed in all of the cases;

2. The Cafcass reports in the four cases;

3. All final orders and judgments.

The journalist also sought permission to publish and communicate the contents of the psychologist’s reports, as well as the final orders and judgments, but not the contents of the Cafcass reports.

The application was supported by the mothers in all four cases, but opposed by the fathers, at least one of whom felt that the journalist is biased against fathers, and the notion of alienating behaviours.

The application was heard by Mr Justice Poole. He found that the general principle that justice should be open would be best served by allowing the application. He also found that there is a strong public interest in furthering understanding of how courts deal with issues of alienating behaviour, and said that without transparency the Family Court cannot be fully accountable for the decisions its judges make.

Accordingly, he granted the application (subject, of course, to preserving the anonymity of the children), save for some limitations on publication of parts of the psychological reports.

Mr Justice Poole concluded by saying that his decision was not dependent on whether he agreed with the way in which the journalist chooses to investigate or report on the four sets of proceedings, and nor should it be seen as any criticism of the psychologist’s work.

You can read the report of the judgment granting permission, here.

*          *          *

Family Law Cafe gives you the best strategy to achieve the right outcome for you and your family and keeps them informed and in control 24/7 through a unique and secure online portal. Family Law Cafe is your start-point for getting matters sorted with strategy, support and security.

Image: Freeograph / Shutterstock.com