Transparency Is Not Accountability
Why Opening the Doors of the Family Courts Is Only the Beginning
"Powerful and challenging stuff to take on the courts… terrific and dogged journalism."
Those words capture an important truth.
Journalism has always played a critical role in holding public institutions to account. Where courts have historically operated behind closed doors, greater transparency offers an opportunity for greater public understanding. The nationwide extension of family court reporting provisions and wider transparency reforms represent one of the most significant shifts in family justice in decades. Journalists and legal bloggers can now report on proceedings, subject to anonymity protections, and the Government is also rolling out Child Focused Courts across England and Wales as part of broader reform. (Courts and Tribunals Judiciary)
But transparency, by itself, is not accountability.
And that distinction matters.
The Public Can Now See More. But Will They See Enough?
For decades, the family courts have been criticised from every direction.
Too secretive.
Too slow.
Too inconsistent.
Too difficult for the public to understand.
The move towards greater transparency seeks to address those concerns by allowing responsible reporting while continuing to protect children and families. It is an important constitutional development. (Courts and Tribunals Judiciary)
Yet visibility alone does not guarantee justice.
Watching a system operate is not the same as knowing whether it is operating well.
A transparent process can still produce inconsistent outcomes.
An open hearing can still overlook coercive control.
A published judgment can still reveal systemic weaknesses.
Transparency shines a light.
It does not, on its own, correct what the light reveals.
Accountability Requires More Than Observation
Every institution welcomes scrutiny in principle.
Few welcome it in practice.
True accountability requires uncomfortable questions.
Were statutory duties discharged?
Was safeguarding effective?
Were vulnerabilities recognised?
Was participation meaningful?
Were patterns of coercive control identified?
Did the system protect the child and the adult victim?
These are not questions that transparency alone can answer.
They require evidence.
Independent analysis.
Institutional learning.
The willingness to acknowledge failure when it occurs.
Journalism Is Not the Enemy of Justice
For too long, scrutiny of the courts has sometimes been portrayed as criticism of judicial independence.
The two are not the same.
Judicial independence is fundamental to the rule of law.
Institutional accountability is fundamental to public confidence.
The strongest institutions are not those that avoid scrutiny.
They are those that improve because of it.
Investigative journalism has repeatedly exposed institutional failures across policing, healthcare, local government and public inquiries.
Family justice should not be immune from thoughtful, evidence-based examination simply because it deals with sensitive issues.
Responsible reporting does not weaken the courts.
It strengthens public trust by demonstrating that justice is capable of scrutiny.
The Next Reform Must Be Institutional Learning
The recent reforms create an opportunity.
Not simply to report more cases.
But to learn from them.
Patterns that were previously hidden may now become visible.
Repeated procedural failures.
Common safeguarding themes.
Barriers faced by litigants in person.
The practical realities of coercive control.
The experience of children.
The effectiveness—or otherwise—of new approaches.
Transparency creates data.
Governance transforms that data into improvement.
Without institutional learning, transparency risks becoming observation without change.
The Question That Matters Most
The success of these reforms should not be measured by the number of journalists in court.
Nor by the number of published reports.
It should be measured by a far more important question.
Are children safer?
Are victims better protected?
Are institutions learning from what is now visible?
If the answer is no, then transparency has become an end in itself rather than a catalyst for reform.
Beyond Transparency: Building a Culture of Accountability
Public confidence is not restored simply because people are allowed to watch.
It is restored when institutions demonstrate that they are willing to examine themselves, learn from mistakes, and improve.
That is the difference between transparency and accountability.
One opens the door.
The other changes what happens inside the room.
As family justice enters a new era of openness, the challenge is no longer whether the public can see the system.
The challenge is whether the system is prepared to learn from what the public now sees.
Because justice should never fear scrutiny.
It should be strengthened by it.
Copyright Notice
© 2026 Samantha Avril-Andreassen. All rights reserved.
SAFECHAINN Ltd (Company No. 12038453).
This publication forms part of the SAFECHAIN™ Global Governance Series™ and the SAFECHAIN™ PRESS REPOSITORY™.
No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, adapted, stored, or transmitted in any form without prior written permission from the copyright holder, except for brief quotations used for academic research, media review, or commentary with full attribution.
SAFECHAIN™, the SAFECHAIN™ Seal of Integrity™, the SAFECHAIN™ Global Governance Series™, and all associated methodologies, frameworks, taxonomies, and governance models are the intellectual property of Samantha Avril-Andreassen and SAFECHAINN Ltd.
© 2026 Samantha Avril-Andreassen. All rights reserved.
SAFECHAINN Ltd (Company No. 12038453)
This article forms part of the SAFECHAIN™ Global Governance Series™ and explores transparency, accountability, institutional learning, safeguarding governance, and family justice reform.