Family courts open up to journalists

When did the rules change?
On April 27 there was "a quiet revolution in the way society deals with families when they go wrong", according to the Independent, when journalists were sent to report on family court hearings for the first time. On the day, however, there was confusion over the new rules, with judges holding up cases, asking for special applications from newspapers and barring reporters from mentioning all but the most general details of the hearings. "Lots of journalists suddenly running about makes us nervous," said one lawyer. Others questioned whether the entry of the press, which has the support of the Justice Secretary, Jack Straw, would upset a delicate system.

Why is it delicate?
The approximately 200,000 family court hearings held each year in the UK often deal with difficult and tragic family crises. They include "public law" cases in which the state intervenes in the family in various ways, from imposing supervision orders to adoption. The courts also hear thousands of "private law" cases, normally disagreements between parents or relatives over, for example, the custody of children. About 10 per cent of families that break up settle the fate of the children in court, according to the Ministry of Justice. Since the Family Court Division of the High Court was formed in 1971, these hearings have been kept private on the grounds that children needed to be protected from the public gaze and that adults had the right to privacy in their personal lives.

Don't they still?
Yes, but campaigners say that completely private proceedings have denied some parties a fair hearing. Scrutiny of social workers, and how experts make decisions – both issues in the Baby P case – have often been stymied by "family privacy", which allows everyone involved to remain anonymous. During a three-year campaign for access to family courts, the Times received hundreds of letters from people who had been gagged and were unable to challenge court decisions publicly. If the courts were opened up, the argument goes, it would make judges, child protection workers and expert witnesses more accountable. This is especially important, campaigners argue, given the draconian powers the family courts wield.

What sort of powers?
Since the abolition of capital punishment, taking a child away from its parents is considered by many judges the heaviest responsibility left in their hands. And critics of family courts say this decision can be taken too easily. In criminal courts, defendants are innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. A family court, however, can decide on the "balance of probability" that a child is suffering significant harm. Cases often come down to one unhappy individual's word against another's, and hinge on terms like "emotional abuse", which, although it has no definition under the law, accounts for 21 per cent of all children registered as needing protection. Procedure in family courts is made even more important by the momentous nature of some decisions, such as forcible adoption.

What can go wrong?
Social workers and experts can make serious mistakes. In its campaign, the Times told the stories of a grandfather imprisoned for 20 months for having contact with his step-grandson, who repeatedly ran away from care to seek his