Legal reforms mean more openness in Family Courts

The first shaft of light to illuminate the dark corners of the civil courts may be disappointing to campaigners, but it is better than no change at all, says Cassandra Jardine.
  Monday 27th April should have been a red letter day in the history of the Family Courts. Years of campaigning by journalists, MPs and concerned professionals had finally paid off. Proceedings affecting thousands of lives would no longer go totally unscrutinised. This would be the beginning of the end to the cries of injustice that I, and many other journalists, have heard from distraught parents whose children’s futures are being determined by unaccountable professionals.

In practice, very little has changed. Journalists may attend Family Courts but only with the approval of a judge who can deny media access on numerous grounds. Nor, if we are present, are we able to report on what we see and here in any useful way. We cannot see or publish crucial documents.

I had planned, for example, to spend the day observing a case in which a boy had run away from a father whom he claimed was abusive. The boy had written a letter to the judge begging not to be sent back. But I couldn’t have gone along to hear the case being argued without making a prior application. Nor could I have read the letter or psychologists’ reports. I certainly couldn’t have written about the case even though I would have changed the names. In fact, I am in exactly the same position that I have been for many years while being deluged by requests from parents to take an interest in heart-rending cases which often involve children being taken into care or adopted.

Most of the cases in which parents claim they are victims of injustice involve social workers who, they say, have not been either rigorous in their investigations or open minded. One common complaint is that a view is taken early on and nothing will alter it. Some parents even claim that social workers are vindictive to those who choose to fight to keep their children.

The evidence of expert witnesses is another bone of contention. No one questions the reality of abuse. But children are being taken from their families on the basis of reports by doctors who appear too ready to identify abuse from ambiguous symptoms. As worrying are the psychologists who make a living from assessments in which they conclude that a child has not been “emotionally harmed”, merely that the child could be at risk of such harm. On that basis babies are taken from mothers who have no chance to prove themselves.

There are concerns too about certain judges who are also thought to rubber stamp social services decisions without giving parents or children a fair hearing.

Under present rules little light will be shed on any of these matters. And it will still be illegal for parents and lawyers to discuss cases, even without mentioning names – a situation which led to solicitor Sarah Harman, Harriet Harman’s sister, being suspended for three months in 2006. “Privacy is necessary to protect families seeking justice,” Harriet Harman herself has said, “but privacy is not necessary to protect the courts, which should have nothing to hide.”

Damp squib though today’s changes may be, but at least they are a start. The opposition to even this level of openness has been immense. Three years ago, I gave a speech to a gathering of lawyers who work in the family courts, arguing for greater openness. I was greeted by barracking. Those lawyers argued that families would be needlessly exposed to the scrutiny of scandal-mongers. Perhaps they were, at heart, protecting themselves but there was no doubt of the strength of their feelings.

Those lawyers, expert witnesses and social workers whose impartiality or professionalism is disputed now have some reason to feel that their decisions could come under examination. Maybe they will be more careful. Perhaps they will also see that no great harm flows to the children whom they seek to protect from this first shaft of light that has been allowed to illuminate the dark corners of the civil courts. When Jack Straw, the Justice Minister, makes good his promise to introduce further reforms and greater openness, the opposition could be less vociferous.

For those currently facing the risk of losing a child, the snail’s pace of change is agonising, but it is better than no change at all.