ALLOCATION of care hearings and arguments over the residency of children – it’s all in a day’s work at the family courts.

A veil of secrecy has been partially lifted as the press are, for the first time, allowed to attend cases previously held in private.

But the publication of much of the proceedings is still prevented as many cases involve children and are subject to existing reporting restrictions unless the court gives specific permission.

There is also no media right to see documents relied on in court.

At the family courts in Bournemouth on Tuesday a list outside one court stated that an adoption hearing was “not open to the media”, but the Echo was able to attend all other cases.

Judges are entitled to exclude the media if any witness or party objects to their attendance.

While we encountered no such requests during our visit, two solicitors voiced their disagreement with the new policy.

“I have no objection, I don’t support or oppose it,” said Kathleen Anderson.

“The difficulty that I have is that I think that the matters that are before the courts are so personal that the addition of the press and the publication of people’s most intimate lives increases the pressure and it’s a tremendous intrusion.

“This is not like a criminal case. The ordinary, everyday person should not have to go through having this on display to the public.

“I think it will increase the antagonism between the parties and increase the bitterness.”

Fellow solicitor Daniel Weintroub was of the same opinion.

“I don’t think it’s appropriate,” he said. “I think the clients and the families go through enough stress and hardship. With it being in the press it would just add to the discord between them.”

Mr Weintroub expressed a concern that the press would be used by both parties for a “slanging match”.

He added: “With digital media, in 30 years’ time kids are going to see that, when they were six, Mum has gone to the press and said Dad’s a rapist or whatever.”

But the initial pressure to open the doors to the family courts came from not only the press, but from the families themselves, who were affected by certain decisions of the courts.

One father involved in a residency case was all in favour of the press’s attendance.

“I think it’s a very good idea,” he said. “I think the courts are too closed, too secret, they like things to be kept behind closed doors. I’ve been in court for five years and I’m getting nowhere.

“I’m a big believer in fathers’ rights and I think it will be a good thing.”

Justice Secretary Jack Straw agreed in December that the press should be allowed into the family courts in the hope that it would stop some of the secrecy many families complained about.

He said he wanted to ensure “a change in the culture and practice of all courts towards greater openness” and that the reform was an “important step towards that goal”.

But Mr Straw agreed the reporting restrictions needed to be addressed, although he could not commit to a timeframe.

“Primary legislation is needed to give effect in a clearer and more consistent reporting restriction framework applicable across all tiers of family courts, which will support the wider objectives of the transparency programme whilst respecting the rights to privacy of parties to proceedings, and children,” he said.

“We will do this as and when parliamentary time allows.”