Controversial changes to the law have opened up family law courts to journalists for the first time. The Shropshire Star spent a day in Telford to listen to some of the current cases.

Warring parents, their relationship long since over, fight it out in the courts to try to find a compromise over access to their children.

And a desperate mother writes a heart-rending letter to magistrates begging them not to give the go-ahead for her child to be considered for adoption.

Either of these could be part of a script from any of the soap operas on our screens. In fact, both were part of a busy caseload of work at Telford’s family courts on just one morning last week.

In the past journalists have been denied entrance through the doors signed ‘Family Court’. But a ruling by the Government means members of the media are now allowed access to at least some of the cases – even if there are still restrictions on what we can and cannot publish.

Unlike some courts, Telford seemed ready for a request by the Press to sit in the cases. I had to prove I was an accredited journalist before being shown to a seat. Before each case, those in court was told a member of the Press was there, and asked if there was any objection.

Justice secretary Jack Straw has made the decision to open the courts to the media under very stringent reporting restrictions. Nothing can be written that could in any way identify the children in any case, which of course means their parents cannot be named either.

So why would the Press want access to the courts?

The decision follows pressure from families affected by court decisions, and the media criticism over child care proceedings affecting the likes of tragic youngster Baby P.

There have been claims that children have suffered – even lost their lives – because they have not been taken into care while counter-claims say many youngsters are taken from their parents unnecessarily. Child support agency rulings are also notoriously controversial.

A morning spent in Telford’s family court gave an insight into just some of the cases, and the human anguish behind them.

Any parent who has gone through a relationship break-up knows only too well the heartache involved in sorting out who cares for the children.

For celebrities, this often happens in the glare of publicity.

Former James Bond star George Lazenby, and ex-tennis champ Pam Shriver, are currently going through the process – their latest family court appearance was yesterday. And who can forget actor Robin Williams’ anguish in the comedy drama Mrs Doubtfire, when he pleads with a judge for more access to his children? Or the heart-rending scenes between Dustin Hoffman and Meryl Streep in Kramer vs Kramer?

In reality much of that anguish is played out behind the scenes in conferences with solicitors – often from Cafcass, the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service, and other agencies. So when the parents finally come into court along with their solicitors, a compromise has often already been reached.

In one hearing over contact with children a mother and father sat either end of the court bench, arms folded defensively, their solicitors strategically between them.

A bench of experienced magistrates, all with specialist training, had read the papers giving the history of the case in advance.

Skillfully putting the parents more at ease, the chairman said he was pleased to see that access with the children through a ‘contact centre’ – a venue for one or both of the parents to see the youngsters – was working well.

He went on to praise both father and mother for coping with the contact centre, saying he realised it was a very difficult time for them both. The case was adjourned to give time for more of the contact meetings to take place.

In a second hearing, visits to the father were going well. But magistrates said that before overnight visits was allowed, they wanted the views of the nine-year-old child to be taken into account, remarking that the child was able to express those views very capably. It was a remark that had both parents smiling with pride, their own dispute momentarily forgotten.

Care proceedings followed, courts hearing evidence to determine whether the authorities should go along the lines of taking children away from their parents.

Journalists are still not allowed to sit in on adoption proceedings, where children are in interim care, placed into the temporary care of the local authority.

Various agencies were working behind the scenes to assess whether the child should be returned to the parent or whether long term foster care or even adoption should be considered.

It was very evident that all kinds of hoops would have to be jumped through before there could even be consideration of either.

If at all possible, children are reunited with their parents but the feeling that came from this very brief visit to the court was that the future of the child, whatever that eventually was, was paramount.

In all cases the parent or parents have to be assessed as, importantly, do the children. And in one case a number of potential ‘relative carers’ for example grandparents, were also being assessed.

Magistrates retired to read a long letter written by a mother about wanting the chance to bring up her own child.

She sat in court with none of the emotion poured out in the letter showing on her face.

The magistrates assured her that her views and her wishes would be taken into consideration before adjourning the hearing for further assessment to take place.

A seat at the family court opens up access to the most private parts of people’s lives, where they experience their worst nightmares.

Although it’s sometimes easy to feel like an uncomfortable fly on the wall, opening up the family courts for public scrutiny through the media is a useful step towards greater accountability and transparency of an often-criticised arm of the British legal system.