O<\/span><\/span>n average around 4,300 cases a week are heard in the family courts in England and Wales \u2013 adding up to\u00a0a total of 224,902 last year<\/a>. It is estimated that 62% of cases<\/a> involve allegations of domestic abuse. Almost a\u00a0quarter are disputes between separating or separated\u00a0couples, usually over their children. For the past three years, the number of applications for children to be taken into council care has been around\u00a013,000<\/a>; the number in care now stands at a record 80,000<\/a>, up from 65,000 a decade ago.<\/span><\/p>\n Yet despite such startling figures, and the strong public interest in understanding the societal issues that underlie them, remarkably little is known by most\u00a0people about what goes on in family courts. What\u00a0is known is more likely to be anecdotal, via word\u00a0of mouth or personal experience, than by a formal public channel such as the press or other media. That\u2019s because since 1960 there has been a presumption of secrecy in all cases involving children. Journalists and legal bloggers have the right to attend court, but not to report on what goes on there.<\/p>\n In recent years there have been several attempts<\/a> to open up the courts to increased scrutiny, while continuing to respect confidentiality so that children are never publicly identified. But the transparency review<\/a> published last week by the president of the high court\u2019s family division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, should ensure that real change at last takes place. Having convened a panel and taken evidence, Sir Andrew has come down emphatically on the side of journalists and open justice campaigners. His report says that the pace of change so far has been \u201cglacial\u201d, and calls for a \u201cmajor shift in culture and process\u201d so that openness becomes \u201cthe new norm\u201d.<\/p>\n Specifically, journalists will be allowed to report on what goes on in family courts as of right,\u00a0subject\u00a0to anonymisation, and family members will be allowed to speak to reporters. Judges will be instructed to publish 10% of their judgments in anonymised form. More details of cases will be included on court lists, and there will\u00a0be an annual\u00a0report. Sir Andrew also wants to build a relationship of trust between the judiciary and the\u00a0media, starting with a pilot reporting scheme in\u00a0two areas. <\/p>\n Sensitive questions remain. These include which documents reporters will have access to, particularly when these include descriptions of abuse. There are also resource considerations, both on the courts\u2019 and on the press\u2019s side. With the court service already under enormous pressure due to legal aid and other cuts, and rising poverty and the withdrawal of support services leading to higher caseloads<\/a>, it is not clear how the anonymising of thousands of judgments will be accomplished. It remains to be seen what use news organisations will make of the increased access, at a time when coverage of the criminal courts has been reduced.<\/p>\n But these are caveats. The overarching purpose, as Sir Andrew sets out, is not merely to reveal what goes in the family courts but to learn from it. More data, and the accountability that follows from increased scrutiny, should be expected to lead to improved practice. Family judges hold immense power, and society as a whole would benefit from an\u00a0increased understanding of what they do, why they do it, and how this alters the course of hundreds of thousands of lives every year.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/dominiclevent.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/litigation-300x225.jpg\")
<\/a>