viewpoint We must find a way to report family court cases, says Louise Tickle


Picture isn’t clear if you can’t state facts


T


he Muslim foster care case, first reported in The Times, has prompted harsh criticism of the choices


made by journalists when investigating complaints about social work practice. I make no comment on the writing,


front page positioning, headline or intentions behind the initial article. But the problems raised by what the media cannot report when investigating issues that may have gone wrong for children in care are perfectly illustrated by the toxic fallout from this story. A highly respected journalist and a newspaper have had their reputations shredded and are unable to fully defend themselves. A Guardian leader column in the


days following stated that the first thing a rookie journalist learns is to get all sides of the story. This is true. But the lack of transparency in family law cases means abuses of some of the most intrusive powers the state has – to remove children from their families – are illegal to report in the public interest, even if you do have the facts. At that point, being fair and balanced, as well as accurate, becomes very hard indeed. Family cases are heard in private to ensure the privacy of the children involved. In most cases, journalists are allowed into family courts although, unlike in criminal courts, we are not allowed to give the public a detailed account of the evidence. We can gather the facts in court but can’t report them. In trying to dig deeper, we’re


prevented from even getting the facts. Journalists cannot balance allegations of poor social work practice with the stated views of the local authority involved when there is a reflexive refusal to give


any information at all – unless it is dragged in the glare of publicity – from the children’s services department. A strict adherence to the “no comment” position is unhelpful in terms of enabling an understanding of social work practice – nor is it always necessary. It is possible to give an off the record, non-reportable briefing. In some cases, information could be put in the public domain without any realistic possibility of the child being identified. In an inevitably complex care case


that often involves parents who are desperate, angry and scared, having no access to alternative perspectives means there is little chance for a reporter to extend their understanding of what has gone on, or come to a judgment as to what weight to give the accounts given by all those involved. No responsible journalist or media


“ 8 For all the latest news from the NUJ go to www.nuj.org.uk ” theJournalist | 9


Abuses of some of the most intrusive powers the state has – to remove children from their families – is illegal to report in the public interest, even if you do have the facts


outlet wants to identify and possibly harm a vulnerable child. The loss of trust in public interest journalism if anyone did so would be immense. So now we come to the ethical


dilemma – what do we do? Never investigate or report on care cases?


I fear they are already


mostly put in the “too hard, too risky, too expensive” box. I know that’s where I often put them. People email me all the time about awful things they say have happened to their children when social services have got involved. But, because I am concerned that reporting restrictions mean I won’t be able to get enough of the picture, I’ve not followed up on stories. So in the wake of the Muslim foster care case, there’s a


serious question for journalists. Do we attempt to investigate the actions of state agents who sometimes deal with families very badly, even unlawfully, while accepting we cannot give readers a complete picture? Do we say that because we cannot balance our reporting, we won’t follow up on stories that seem plausible? Or do we work hard with thoughtful


people in social services, the courts and family rights bodies to find a way of responsibly reporting what really goes on in society’s name in the family courts?


It will be difficult but, with creativity,


goodwill and deep commitment to ensure that children stay safe, I think we can get to a place where there is more transparency, rather than less.


Award-winning journalist Louise Tickle specialising in family issues


GAVIN CRILLY


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28