Which jurisdictions allow public searches of family‑court records and how can sealed family cases be accessed by journalists?
Executive summary
Family-court records are presumptively public in many common‑law jurisdictions but the scope of searchable access varies widely: federal courts in the United States make most filings available through PACER but routinely exclude juvenile and certain family‑sensitivity materials [1] [2], while state courts apply a patchwork of rules that can restrict or seal files to protect privacy [3] [4]. Journalists seeking sealed family files generally must use formal legal tools—motions to unseal, motions to intervene, or negotiated agreement with parties—or informal requests to clerks and judges, with success dependent on statute, local rules and the judge’s balancing of privacy against public interest [5] [6] [1].
1. How public access is supposed to work in the U.S.: a presumptive openness with enumerated exceptions
The basic theory in U.S. courts is that court proceedings and records are public to ensure transparency, but statutes and local rules carve out express exceptions for juveniles, juror information, certain pretrial materials and family‑sensitive documents, meaning many family filings may be withheld from routine public display [1] [3]. Courts and clerks will often provide access to electronic dockets and non‑sensitive filings, but policies and privacy rules vary by state and by the type of family matter—divorce, custody, guardianship, or child welfare—so an identical query in two counties can yield very different results [3] [4].
2. Federal courts and public electronic access: PACER, public terminals, and listed exclusions
Most federal filings are filed electronically and are publicly viewable through PACER or at public terminals in clerk’s offices, but the judiciary explicitly lists categories of documents not ordinarily available to the public—juvenile records, unexecuted warrants, certain pretrial reports, and documents that could reveal defense strategy—so federal family‑related materials are often subject to those restrictions [1] [2]. Where records have been sealed by order, the default is that they remain under seal absent a court order to unseal, and motions to unseal are typically referred back to the originating court [1].
3. State court mosaics: examples from Florida, Washington and Texas
State rules demonstrate the variety: Florida’s family‑court rules emphasize that proceedings should be public except when “substantial compelling circumstances” such as protection of children require confidentiality, and permit judges and guardians ad litem to authorize disclosure in the best interests of minors in rare cases [7] [8]. Washington State provides targeted privacy protections (GR 22) for family and guardianship matters, with sealed files generally hidden from public view and indexes indicating only that a file is sealed [9]. Texas retains a presumption of record openness in many family matters but allows sealing under specific statutory or procedural rules such as Rule 76a [10].
4. England & Wales: shifting toward more reporting access for children’s cases
Policy changes in England and Wales are expanding press access to family hearings: pilots and reforms since 2023 have moved to allow journalists into public law and, from 2025, private law children’s hearings, while still limiting which documents can be released and emphasizing anonymity protections for parties [11].
5. Practical legal routes journalists use to access sealed family files
Reporters commonly pursue three routes: an informal written request to the clerk or judge (which has sometimes succeeded) [6]; a formal motion to intervene and to unseal records in federal or state civil matters, following local rules such as D.C. Local Civ. R. 7(j) and California Rule 2.551(h) which authorizes public motions to unseal [5] [1]; or, when feasible, litigation or partnership with public‑interest groups to challenge improper sealing—each path requires showing that the public interest outweighs privacy concerns and that sealing is no longer justified [5] [6].
6. Limits, tradeoffs and reporting ethics
Even successful unsealing can be partial—courts may redact sensitive information rather than open full files—and privacy statutes, protective orders, and child‑protection concerns will constrain reporting; moreover, local practice and individual judges’ discretion frequently determine outcomes, meaning prospective access is never guaranteed [4] [9] [7]. Journalists should therefore combine legal avenues with ethical safeguards—seeking redactions, avoiding compelled interviews with minors, and notifying parties when required—while being transparent about the limits of what the record will reveal [11] [12].