TV Scope: Woman's Hour: Transparency in the Family Courts, BBC Radio 4, Wednesday, 10am.
Groups campaigning for the rights of fathers in custody cases have demanded that the workings of the family law courts be made transparent. But does mistrust of the media make that development unlikely?
That seems to be the case in Britain judging by this Woman's Hour item which reported a U-turn on the issue by the British government.
One way to make the workings of family courts transparent is to open them to reporting by the media on condition that the anonymity of those involved be respected as it is in the reporting of the Children's Court and rape cases.
Campaigners paint a picture of men being unable to obtain justice in the family courts, though a report last year by Dr Carol Coulter for the Courts Service found that 90 per cent of divorces and judicial separations are settled without going into court. Campaigners argue this is because men believe they will get a raw deal in court - an assertion impossible to test without more information.
Last summer the British government said it favoured greater transparency including the admission of the media to family courts and it began a consultation process on the issue.
The courts in question are those which deal with applications to take children into care rather than those which adjudicate on custody in marital disputes. But the opening of these courts to the media would have marked a major new step forward in transparency and, in time, might have translated into even wider access.
To the dismay of some observers, however, last week the British government dropped the idea, following its consultation process. Not only did it decide against allowing greater media access to the family courts but it proposes to restrict the existing access to family cases in the magistrates courts.
When the justice secretary, Lord Falconer, was interviewed about this on Woman's Hour he gave two reasons for the government's change of approach. Firstly, in consultations with almost 200 children, it became clear that children did not believe the media should have such access. These included children who had been involved in care proceedings. Secondly, bodies working on behalf of children - such as the NSPCC - were also opposed.
Instead, judges are to be encouraged to issue summaries of their judgments, or their full judgments, in significant cases. Whether they will issue such judgments is another matter - it is hard to see why a busy judge would do so.
It is an outcome which will hardly help those advocating media access to the family law courts here despite the Irish media's excellent record in respecting the anonymity of persons involved in the children's courts and in rape cases.