Family justice: what we can do to protect our children A ten-point plan to make our courts system fairer Camilla Cavendish, The Times Online, July 9 2008. Part 3 I believe that wholesale reforms are needed, which can be summed up in ten points: 1. Open family courts to the press in all but exceptional circumstances (as recommended by the Constitutional Affairs Select Committee). 2.Let any parent or carer accused of abuse call any witnesses they need in their defence. At the moment, they are routinely refused permission to do so. 3.Give automatic permission for parents who are refused legal aid to get a lay adviser to help them present their case. This is routinely refused. 4.Remove the restrictions that prevent families from talking about their case (as recommended by the Constitutional Affairs Select Committee). 5.Review the definition of emotional abuse across local authorities, to make sure that it cannot become a catch-all for overzealous officials. 6.Provide an automatic right for parents to receive copies of case conference notes and all evidence used against them in court, just as they would in a criminal trial. 7.Create an independent body to oversee the actions of social services, with proper sanctions. If that body is to be the General Social Care Council, make it easier for parents to go directly to that body rather than having to face delays from the local authority. 8.Let children in care waive their right to privacy if they wish to speak out. For gagging …

Family justice: what we can do to protect our children A ten-point plan to make our courts system fairer Camilla Cavendish, The Times Online, July 9 2008. Part 2 The Australian and Canadian family court systems are open and transparent. Children’s identities are protected but judgments are public, and so is the evidence on which they are based. That means that justice can be done, and be seen to be done. Their press apparently takes no interest at all in the majority of cases. This would surely be the same here. The Constitutional Affairs Select Committee took the view that courts should be opened in all but exceptional circumstances. In July 2006, the Government seemed to agree. It published a consultation paper stating that greater openness was required in family court proceedings so that people can understand, better scrutinise decisions and have greater confidence. It proposed that the media should attend proceedings on behalf of and for the benefit of the public, with reporting restrictions to keep the parties anonymous. Almost a year later, the Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, rowed back, citing a survey of 200 children in which a slender majority had expressed anxiety about letting the media into the family courts. He said that openness would be improved not by numbers or types of people going in to the courts, but by the amount and quality of information coming out of the courts. A second consultation paper proposed keeping courts closed, but encouraged …