A HIGH-PROFILE childcare expert has become embroiled in a dispute with a parenting website after her lawyers demanded its closure amid allegations of defamatory comments.

Solicitors for Gina Ford, the author whose no-nonsense approach to childcare propelled her to fame and fortune, are said to have asked that the website, Mumsnet.com, be closed because people were posting defamatory comments about her.

In a final attempt to prevent court action, Mumsnet said that it was taking the “extreme step” of asking its members not to discuss Gina Ford, her parenting methods or books, because it could not afford to fight the writer in court. The site is run by ten mothers, working in their spare time to create a business that does little better than break even financially.

Justine Roberts, who co-founded Mumsnet six years ago, said: “It seems a bit rum that our site is being endangered by a wealthy author, who claims to have mothers’ best interests at heart.”

Mumsnet’s attempt at self-censorship prompted parents to set up an online petition. In a few hours it had attracted more than 100 signatories, and comments criticising Ms Ford’s legal action.

Ms Ford’s The Contented Little Baby Book has sold more than half a million copies since it was published in 1999. It advocates strict feeding and sleeping routines for babies, leaving them to cry rather than breaking the regimen. The approach provoked strong views and some personal insults.

According to Mumsnet’s lawyers, Ms Ford’s solicitors have objected to about 30 postings on the website since February, during which time the site has received an average of 10,000 comments a day.

Mumsnet and DSC, the company that hosts the website, are liable for defamation with respect to the contents of the site’s discussion forums once they have been made aware of a potential problem. But Mumsnet and DSC argued that it would be disproportionate to close down a website because of a handful of postings.

Critics of the legal system say that it is too easy to force websites to remove controversial material that may not be defamatory, because many are not willing to risk the expense of legal action. Mark Stephens, Mumsnet’s lawyer, described the legal situation as fundamentally flawed. He said: “The trouble is that libel laws are not well suited to the way these conversations take place. If you believe in the good sense of crowds, then people can come to a natural conclusion with both viewpoints being aired”.

Ms Ford and Mumsnet have been embroiled in the dispute for several months, according to the website. In January, the author asked for the transcript of an interview to be removed. After Mumsnet rejected the request, a lawyer’s letter followed, complaining of “vicious libels,” but suggested that if the interview were removed, the matter would end.

Mumsnet agreed to remove the interview in April, but Foot Anstey solicitors wrote another letter, asking for postings to be monitored and deleted if derogatory, and for damages. Mumsnet refused to pay, but said it was willing to agree to Ms Ford’s other demands. The lawyers wrote again to DSC on July 21. That letter listed three examples of allegedly defamatory postings, and demanded that the company act to “disable the website with immediate effect”.

Neither Ms Ford, her lawyers nor her publisher, Random House, returned e-mails or calls seeking comment.

Explore Tech & Web News

• Personal Tech

• The Web

• Gadgets & Gaming

Times recommends

• Billion-pixel panoramas — from your own camera
• One gadget to rule them all
• The future of social networking: mobile phones