In its first published High Court case, just two months after opening, Proudmans successfully represented an accredited journalist on a pro bono basis in a significant transparency application.

Jessica Bradley v CM & Ors [2026] EWHC 125 (Fam)High Court of Justice, Family Division26 January 2026, Mr Justice Poole

Background and significance

This High Court judgment is a significant authority on transparency and open justice in private family law proceedings. The application was brought by accredited journalist Jessica Bradley, represented pro bono by Dr Charlotte Proudman, founder of Proudmans, family law firm. It concerned access to court documents and permission to publish material from four concluded private law children cases in which expert psychological evidence from Dr Maria Downs had been relied upon (para 1). The cases concerned allegations of parental alienation, and domestic abuse.

Proudmans was launched in November and, within weeks of opening, undertook this complex High Court transparency litigation pro bono. The case reflects the firm’s commitment to strategic, public-interest work that advances accountability in the family justice system, notwithstanding the very significant time, and resource demands involved.

What was sought and why

Ms Bradley applied for access to expert psychological reports, Cafcass reports, final orders, and judgments, including unpublished judgments, together with permission to publish judgments, final orders, and Dr Downs’ psychological reports (para 1).

The stated purpose of the application was to enable public scrutiny of how the Family Court approaches allegations of alienating behaviour and relies upon expert psychological evidence, particularly in cases involving domestic abuse allegations (paras 7, 38, 73).

Despite opposition from Dr Maria Downs, several fathers, and children’s guardians (Cafcass), the applications were successful (paras 62–71, 105–107). The Court ordered disclosure of expert psychological reports, Cafcass reports, final orders, and unpublished judgments, and permitted carefully limited publication, subject to strict anonymisation and safeguards to protect the children’s welfare (paras 136–145).

The judgment squarely addresses the use of expert psychological evidence in cases involving allegations of alienating behaviour, often raised alongside or in response to domestic abuse allegations. It confirms that such cases are not immune from scrutiny simply because they are heard in private (paras 72–76, 133–134).

The court’s approach to open justice

The Court reaffirmed that journalists do not have an automatic right to access family court documents. However, access may properly be granted where it advances the principle of open justice (paras 38–45).

In exercising its inherent jurisdiction, the Court conducted a careful balancing exercise between Article 10 and Article 8 rights. Child welfare was treated as a primary consideration(paras 52–57, 131–132).

Crucially, the Court accepted that where reporters did not attend the original hearings and judgments were not published, access to court documents may be the only meaningful way to scrutinise judicial decision making in private family proceedings (paras 73–74, 86–88).

The outcome

The Court ordered that unpublished judgments in three cases be anonymised and published (subject to the trial judge’s approval) (paras 136–139). Final orders in all four cases were ordered to be disclosed in anonymised form, with permission to publish (paras 139–141). Full access was granted to expert psychological reports by Dr Maria Downs, and Cafcass reports (paras 142, 149). Limited publication from Dr Maria Downs’ reports was permitted, restricted to summaries and conclusions relevant to child arrangements (paras 143–145).

Public interest in alienation and abuse cases

The Court agreed that the Family Court’s approach to alienating behaviours and domestic abuse is a matter of significant public interest. The judge expressly recognised the importance of scrutiny in this area.

“73. In relation to the balancing exercise, the first two claims by the Applicant that I find established in these four cases are: 

The question of how the Family Court deals with, and has in the past dealt with, allegations of alienating behaviour (including when domestic abuse is alleged in the proceedings) and the role of expert evidence in that process, are matters of significant public interest.”

Parental alienation versus domestic abuse?

The Court situated these highly contentious issues within the wider family justice landscape.

“75. All those working in the Family Court will be aware of the significant number of cases in which accusations of parental alienation are raised in response to allegations of domestic abuse or as an explanation for a child’s resistance to spending time with the parent with whom they are not living. There has been much attention paid within the family justice system to 

(i) the way in which the court should address allegations of parental alienation in particular when domestic abuse allegations have been made against the parent from whom a child is said to have been alienated, and 

(ii) the role of expert opinion evidence in relation to the issue. Attention has fallen not just on how such allegations are addressed currently, and the role of expert witnesses now, but also on how these questions have been addressed in the past. After all, welfare decisions based on findings of parental alienation can have lifelong implications for the children concerned and their parents.”

Support from mothers and children

All four mothers, and many of the children, supported publication.

“All four mothers in the four cases have written to the court to support the application. They each believe that it is in the public interest for the processes by which expert evidence is given to the court and the court makes decisions should be transparent” [71].

Practical barriers facing journalists

The Court recognised the financial and structural obstacles faced by journalists seeking transparency. Ms Bradley would have had to spend over £30,000 to bring the application privately and faced a potential adverse costs application from Dr Maria Downs exceeding £30,000 if unsuccessful. Few journalists could realistically pursue such applications in a hostile and costs environment; despite the vital public service they perform.

“86…Reporters and the organisations they work for do not have the resources to wait outside courtrooms in the Family Court on the off chance that a case of interest might be being heard that day. The chance of a journalist becoming aware of a matter of public interest in a case is of course reduced by the severe restrictions on parties communicating information relating to proceedings heard in private.”

Court cannot editorialise

It was submitted on behalf of Dr Maria Downs that the Court should exercise some form of editorial control over how material might be reported. That submission was firmly opposed by Dr Charlotte Proudman on behalf of Ms Jessica Bradley.

“Dr Proudman, for the Applicant, rightly reminded the court that it could not editorialise: if permission is given to a reporter to have access to and publish from a psychological report then, beyond prohibitions on identification of the children or family members, the court ought not to dictate how the reporter writes or broadcasts about it. To do otherwise would be a wholly unjustifiable interference with the reporter’s Article 10 rights” [59].

Protection of journalistic sources

The Court also underscored the importance of protecting journalistic sources.“103. Indeed, although I have not asked Ms Bradley about her “sources” because I did not consider it appropriate to do so…”

Why this judgment matters

This decision confirms that private family proceedings are not beyond scrutiny where there is a strong public interest and where safeguards can be applied to protect children and families. It establishes that journalists do not need to have attended hearings to obtain access where judgments were not published, and that expert psychological evidence relied upon by the Family Court can be scrutinised responsibly through limited and careful publication (paras 86–88, 131–132, 142–145, 152–153).

The powerful words of the Honourable Mr Justice Poole

“133… Without transparency the Family Court cannot be fully accountable for the decisions its judges make, decisions which can have lifelong implications for the families involved.”