From Gavel to Headlines: What you can (and can’t) share from family court

They say family matters should stay private but what happens when they end up in court?

Custody battles, divorce drama, allegations, accusations — family law cases often read like a script for reality TV. But while the stories inside family courts are emotional and explosive, reporting on them and publishing their outcome isn’t a free-for-all, even for those involved. The rules around what information can be published in family law are complex, with a balance between ensuring transparency and protecting the rights of individuals, particularly children, to privacy and confidentiality.

I explore this further below with two very recent cases which consider what can and cannot be published from the family court arena.

Non-molestation orders and transparency (Tooley v Cynthia Tooley [2025] EWFC 81 (B))

In Tooley v Cynthia Tooley an application was brought for non-molestation orders under the FLA 1996 between a husband and a wife.

• The parties married in February 2022 and later separated. The husband applied for a non-molestation order on 29 October 2024, alleging the wife threatened to release private information about his previous relationship to damage his reputation and employment.
• The wife applied for a non-molestation order on 4 November 2024, alleging verbal abuse and making a safeguarding report to the husband’s employer about his previous relationship.
• The husband was suspended as Vice Chancellor of the University of Buckingham pending an investigation into the allegations.
• The parties reached an agreement on 10 March 2025, with the husband giving undertakings and the wife withdrawing her application.

However, the husband opposed publication, primarily seeking anonymity or alternatively, restrictions on publishing certain aspects of the proceedings. The wife took a neutral stance, stating that press interest was caused by the husband’s actions and that information was already in the public domain. The media representatives argued for open justice and highlighted the public interest in reporting the case given the husband’s public position.

The court balanced the parties’ rights under Articles 8 (privacy) and 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). It considered factors favouring publication, such as the public interest arising from the husband’s position as well as factors against publication, such as the private nature of some information and the potential impact on the husband’s health. The court found that the starting point was open justice unless restricted, as per Allan v Clibbery [2002] EWCA Civ 45, [2002] 1 FLR 565.

The court decided to impose limited restrictions on publication through a reporting restriction order, prohibiting the identification of third parties or witnesses, and the publication of certain allegations or conduct alleged in the proceedings. Otherwise, it allowed publication, concluding that the balance favoured open justice given the public interest and the information already in the public domain.

Inherent jurisdiction to permit publication (Ms M v Mr F and another [2025] EWHC 801 (Fam))

In Ms M v Mr F and another, an application was brought before the Family Division by the mother, seeking permission to publish information about lengthy private law proceedings between herself and the child’s father, regarding her experiences in the family court system and the domestic abuse she had suffered.

In September 2023, the family court made findings that the mother had been the victim of serious domestic abuse including rape perpetrated against her by the children’s father. The court ordered no contact between the child and the father and revoked the father’s parental responsibility. The findings followed a successful appeal to the High Court against an earlier decision where no findings were made against the father.

Several judgments in the proceedings had been published, with the identities of the child and parents anonymised.

• The mother argued that as a victim of rape and domestic abuse, she should be allowed to speak about her experiences in the family court system, relying on her rights under ECHR, Arts 8 and 10.
• The father sought an equal right to speak and write publicly about the case, claiming he had been a victim of a miscarriage of justice.
• The guardian supported the mother’s application to publish media articles but expressed caution about her speaking at public events due to the risk of identifying the child.

The court carefully balanced the parents’ rights under ECHR, Arts 8 and 10 against the child’s right to privacy.

• The court found that the mother’s interests could be appropriately safeguarded by using an alias and ensuring the child’s anonymity, whereas the father’s application posed a high risk of interference with the child’s and the mother’s ECHR, Art 8 rights based on his past conduct.
• The court held that while it had jurisdiction under its inherent powers to permit publication, any broader change to the rules required careful consideration and consultation.
• The court granted the mother permission to publish media articles and to speak at events using an alias. The court refused the father’s applications.

Conclusion

In summary, the general principle is that court proceedings are open to the public, but specific information in some cases can be restricted. While court documents and proceedings are generally open, the publication of details that could identify children involved is prohibited. Judgments, especially those with significant legal implications, are published online and in law reports. Accredited journalists and legal bloggers may report on what they see and hear in court, but only if a Transparency Order is granted and parties are kept anonymous.

Further guidance of what information you can or cannot share and who you can share it with, can be found in the Family Procedure Rules:

• practice direction 12G
• practice direction 12R
• practice direction 14E
• practice direction 14G
• procedure rule 12.73
• procedure rule 12.73A
• procedure rule 12.75
• procedure rules 14.14 and 14.14A