A High Court judge has ruled that expert reports used in private family law proceedings should be disclosed to a journalist, while confirming that strict limits on publication are necessary to protect the anonymity of the families and children involved.
The decision follows an application by journalist Jessica Bradley, who sought access to documents from four private family law cases heard between 2020 and 2025. The request covered expert psychological reports, Cafcass reports, and final orders and judgments, as well as permission to report on their contents.
Mr Justice Poole said the application went beyond what is ordinarily anticipated under the recently introduced Family Procedure Rules Practice Direction 12R, which provides journalists with limited access to court documents and allows reporting subject to restrictions on identification.
However, the judge concluded that granting access to the expert reports was both necessary and proportionate, provided that publication of their contents remained restricted. He emphasised that disclosure of documents did not amount to unrestricted reporting.
The court noted that all four mothers involved supported the application. While none wished to speak publicly about their individual cases, they expressed strong views that transparency around the use of expert evidence in family proceedings was in the public interest.
Mr Justice Poole also considered the views of the children involved who were able to express an opinion. Those children were either supportive of, or did not oppose, the application, on the condition that their anonymity was fully preserved.
In granting the application, the judge said there was significant public interest in understanding how the family courts address issues such as alleged alienating behaviour and cases involving strong resistance by children to spending time with a parent following separation.
He added that the use of expert psychological evidence in such cases was a matter of considerable public importance and that transparency was necessary to ensure accountability within the family justice system.
The judge concluded that open justice would be served by allowing access to the reports and orders, which are to be provided in suitably anonymised form. Restrictions on identification will remain in place to safeguard the welfare and privacy of the children and families involved.
