Pupil barrister Robert Sharp summarises a judgment for Family Law Week concerning a journalist's request for access to expert consultant clinical psychologist evidence in 4 private children law disputes.
Background
A journalist who has written on the concept of parental alienation and alienating behaviours applied for access to documents from 4 private child arrangement disputes. In particular she wanted to see the expert reports of consultant clinical psychologist Dr Maria Downs.
Her request went beyond the standard transparency order used in the Family Court following the 2023-2025 transparency pilot. She sought:
- documents for hearings she had not attended, and
- expert reports and CAFCASS reports which had been put in evidence and included quotes from the children and parents who were the subject of proceedings.
Poole J 's judgment is a useful primer for practitioners and journalists on the law governing this area of procedure.
Judgment
Reviewing the statutory provisions, the judge noted that 'the law on what may or may not be communicated or published in Children Act proceedings held in private is not easily stated.'
Section 97 Children Act imposes a general reporting restriction, preventing anything being published that may identify the child in proceedings. Section 97's effect ends when the proceedings conclude. But by the provisions of section 12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960, restrictions in Children Act cases continue.
Though these restrictions may be varied by the court under its inherent jurisdiction. Exercise of that power is governed by the Family Procedure Rules. FPR 29.12 provides that anyone (including a journalist) may apply to see the documents filed in proceedings.
Therefore there was no procedural bar on the application.
Poole J explained that whether to grant any such order was therefore a balancing exercise: the Article 10 rights of the journalist and their audience vs the Article 8 rights of the children on the other.
An essential 1st step was to delineate the extent of the open justice principle. He found that there was the requisite link between the documents sought and scrutiny of the justice system.
And he emphasised that (aside from prohibiting the publication of identities) it is not for the court to editorialise.
Balancing the competing factors, the judge found that there was a strong public interest in understanding how the doctor’s reports were used by the courts. Therefore the application for documents from the cases would succeed.
However, he held that the balance could be met by quoting only from certain aspects of the reports. Republication of parts of the reports dealing with the psychological assessments of individual children and parents would not be allowed.
Read the full summary in Jessica Bradley v CM & Ors [2026] EWHC 125 (Fam) on Family Law Week.