Family justice: what we can do to protect our children Part2

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 judges to release anonymised judgments.
That was a tragic loss of nerve. For there is no way that the growing lack of public confidence in the system can be solved by the publication of a bit more information that the authorities decide to let us see. Publishing an anonymised judgment without the evidence will not let ordinary citizens see what is being done in their name. We cannot tell, for example, whether witness X repeatedly goes beyond their remit or offers hearsay evidence. We cannot tell whether local authority B or judge C repeatedly gives X's evidence undue weight. If it was felt too risky to reveal their names, I would suggest that each expert witness could be given a unique code. That would deter the sensationalist hack from malice, but would enable the determined truth-seeker to track the behaviour of individuals over time, and hold them to account.
Many of the children's charities and lawyers who lobby against openness are trying to protect vulnerable people from damaging publicity. It is a tricky balancing act. But the clincher for me is this. One of the most draconian decisions the State makes is to deprive a child of a parent's love and care. Removing a child from its family is not simply a private matter. It is a decision that demands the very highest standards of accountability and transparency.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Family
• justice
• protect
• our
• children
• camilla
• cavendish
• times
• online
• campaign
• stand
• together
• petition
• social
• services

[asynkronos]

Brilliant! May we Americans borrow Camilla for a year or two? If so, warn her not to bring any babies or toddlers. Our food and water are safe, but our marketable children can't be left alone for a minute.

[UKSecretCourts]

Camilla Cavendish has done wonders to raise the issue to the attention of Parliament.

She's one ace reporter, and a leading light in the fight against social worker corruption.

[anarchy3E]

the best thing to do to protect children is not bring them into this world. if you do, there is no 100% protection against anything. choose wisely.