Almost five years ago, one of the most senior judges in England and Wales explained that significant reform was required.

Sir Andrew McFarlane, the then President of the Family Division of the High Court, described how the way in which family courts were reported by media was “not sustainable“.

“There needs,” he continued, “to be a major shift in culture and process to increase the transparency in a number of respects.”

Allowing media greater ability to write or broadcast about cases before the family court would, Sir Andrew insisted, enhance public confidence in the family justice system.

That is arguably still important, given how the workings of the family courts are considerably less familiar than their criminal equivalents, for instance.

News media and articles such as those on the Hall Brown Family Law ‘blog provide some insight.

However, more still needs to be done, especially when one considers the volume of cases handled by family courts across the country.

Figures released in March by the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) show that just over 64,000 new cases started in family courts during the final three months of last year.

I think that most people would agree that anything which demystifies such proceedings and makes participation in them less intimidating is to be welcomed.

Yet throwing open the doors of family courts to journalistic – and, therefore, public – scrutiny can, out of necessity, only go so far.

There are certain circumstances which demand that information presented in the matters it deals with remain confidential.

Chief among them is the need to protect the interests of children involved, a fundamental tenet of proceedings according to the law, and one noted by Sir Andrew McFarlane, even as he announced his proposals for more transparency.

Another challenge, though, has surfaced within the last week and demonstrated the courts’ commitment to increasing awareness of their functions.

The High Court had been asked by an investigative journalist, Louise Tickle, to allow her to report a case in which a man believed to be a member of the UK’s special forces was allowed unsupervised contact with his daughter despite serious allegations of domestic abuse.

It was an appeal contested by the man and the Ministry of Defence (MoD), which set out the “national security, operational and personal risks” should the earlier proceedings be explored in any article in full.

The MoD ultimately withdrew its objection to a transparency order – allowing the reporter access to documents from the original family court proceedings.

That was in part because Mr Justice Garrido said was there was a “significant public interest” in the case being reported.

Even the argument that national security might be compromised was not enough to frustrate what the judge summarised as “the open justice principle“.

As a result, the transparency order was granted, albeit subject to certain sensitive material being redacted and Ms Tickle’s article has been duly published in The Observer.

The outcome shows, in my opinion, that even when put in such a difficult position, family court judges are fully committed to the idea of greater awareness of how they operate and why decisions are particular made.

This judgement has another consequence, one which has already been grasped to a degree by many families involved in family law disputes, be they from military backgrounds or not.

It demonstrates that there is the possibility of private details appearing in print or on-air.

The odds of that grew as a result of the transparency project launched by Sir Andrew McFarlane being extended to every family court in England and Wales.

Against that context, it is perhaps not surprising that more families in cases which do not necessarily feature allegations of domestic abuse or risk to the welfare of children try to resolve their disagreements using non-court dispute resolution (NCDR) methods, such as mediation, arbitration or collaborative law.

Myself and my colleagues at Hall Brown have certainly seen an increase in couples wanting to settle matters following their separations – including arrangements for children or the question of how best to divide their assets – in this way.

The merits of that approach had been emphasised by Sir Andrew McFarlane in the months before he stepped down as President of the Family Division, in a letter circulated to parents involved in family court proceedings.

As the latest case involving the Ministry of Defence has illustrated, there are times when the cause of transparency can be stressed.

However, it is a ruling which shows that family judges are not to be found wanting when it comes to ensure greater understanding of what they do.