The whole esence of the British legal system that the public has the right to attend a magistrates court or higher court is to prove that justice and fairness is being upheld, to remove this is tantamount to the law saying we in our own right will be the 'Judge and Jury ' with respects to fairness and not the people. there are elements within our social services system where you can get inexperienced social workers dealing with case sensitive families who through lack of experience can take innapropriate action to remove a child from its parents to a vindictive social worker who is just determined to remove a child regardless of the minor discrecions of a parent, It is totally wrong for our legal system to deliberately abuse its power over the rights of the citizen to see that justice is being done,it is about time the Europen Court was called upon to investigate our unfair and dictatorial legal system. and they should stop useing innapropriately " in the interest of the child".

Ray Newman, Bristol, United Kingdom

The comments regarding the secrecy of the Family Court system is only part of a wider malaise that permeates these courts.

The widespread over emphasis on the wishes of the child/children embodied in The Children's Act, 1989 leads to grave injustices being meted out to non-resident parents(usually fathers) due to " Parental Alienation". A deliberate attempt to alienate one parent from the other which amounts to emotional abuse - thus, in practice blocking contact usually to the father in divorce cases.

Family Courts in the U.K. generally refuse to acknowledge this widespread practice and Social Workers /Psychologists/the Judiciary ignore this concept largely I think ,because it emanates from the U.S.A and opinions of some years ago by Psychiatrists in this country. My question to The British Psychological Society on this subject was ignored.

By all means let's have more openess then these so called "experts" can be challenged.

George Rutter, Middlesbrough, Cleveland

To Lucy reed

If only your view was correct. as a practising 'Mckenzie Friend' (lay person who helps families and individuals going through family court proceedings who are representing themselves) I know of many cases where people have literally been whisked out of family court proceedings and carted off to prison on the order of the presiding Judge.

This may not be a palatable fact to the public, but it happens, and far more frequently than you may imagine...

drax, St Helens, Merseyside

I am not interested in the press, media or judiciary. I want to know why judgements and information about adoption/care proceedings/expert testimony/social services opinions et al are not made available in their entirety to the birth parents of the children or babies concerned. I presume that if these documents were available - then they could be challenged and people could be made accountable. I am sure the general public are oblivious to monumental injustices being done in their name and on their tax. Let us life the lid of this Pandora's box and get it sorted once and for all.

Georgina, North Somerset,

Re: Comment from Monte Carlo -
At point 2 you are referring to the courts committing parents to prison for contempt of court (breach of court order) which has a penalty of up to 2 years. These hearings are in fact conducted in public, unlike other family proceedings, precisely because of the deprivation of liberty.

Lucy Reed, London,

Labour could have ended Family Court secrecy Last year. A consultation showed 3/4 of the public and all the media would admit the press; it was the judges who were opposed, contrary to what Mark Potter remembers. Only 1 in 5 would let the media in their courtroom.
Labour’s response was dishonest. It ignored the public’s view, and grotesquely misrepresented the children consulted. Lord Falconer said, ‘They are clear – crystal clear – that they do not want the family court filled with people who have no involvement in proceedings.’
The Times said, ‘That is a bizarre interpretation of the consultation findings… One can only conclude that he was expressing his own view.’
Once again the Government expresses its own view that Family Justice should operate without scrutiny or accountability. Publishing selected judgments will fool no one. What the public must see is the process by which they are arrived at. F4J appeased? The only people appeased are the judiciary.
Fathers4Justice

Nick Langford, Winchester,

1:- Why do family courts gag parents forbidding them to reveal details of proceedings after they have had their children taken for forced adoption by family courts?
Surely the right to protest against a perceived injustice is fundamental in any democratic country.?
2 A minister admitted in parliament that family courts imprison more than 200 parents every year with no public hearing ! Surely prison sentences , as long as 2 years, without public trial should happen only in dictatorships not in a democracy such as the UK?.
3:-Why do family courts take newborn babies for adoption jbecause a hired "expert" predictions that they may be at "risk of emotional harm".? Why should mothers and babies be split up because experts make predictions?
4;- A burglar facing 6 months or more in prison can demand a jury so why should a jury be denied to parents who risk losing their children for life?No jury would take children for the trivial reasons given by social services and accepted by judges

ian josephs, monte carlo, monaco

L Harris: the provisions in the Data Protection Act you are thinking of only apply to data which can be used to identify a living person (e.g. names, addresses, dates of birth etc.). The published judgments will be anonymised (see article), and so there will be no breach.

J Brilliant, London,

Er, how will that comply with the Data Protection Act?

L Harris, Poole, Dorset,

Another step by this facist government tightening their control over the media and the people of this country. Next step abolution of free elections and full control of all aspects of private and public life by the Labour Junta.

This is not hyperbole. The record speaks for itself. Iraq war, NHS and school 'reforms', the interference in the BBC.

Jon Ruben, Nottingham, UK