Sir Mark Potter, President of the Family Division, makes an important call in today's Times for greater openness in the family courts. The interview ranges more widely than this topic alone and he believes that many criticisms of the family justice system, including some made by this newspaper, have been unfair and misleading. But Sir Mark is quite clear: the balance has now come down in favour of greater openness. It seems likely that the Justice Secretary, Jack Straw, is set to act to allow the public to see what is being done in their name. It will be a salutary change.

Since launching our campaign to open up the family courts and make social workers properly accountable for their actions, The Times has received many phone calls and letters from parents who feel that they and their children have been the victims of injustice. Many of those parents fear that the professionals are amplifying problems which should be solved by supporting, rather than by accusing, families. Some have been denied access to their own case papers by local authorities which seem to be interpreting the Data Protection Act in surprising ways. Many are afraid to speak out for fear of being in contempt of court. The lack of openness distorts the natural course of justice. As a result, the sheer number of parents who feel the system is stacked against them is alarming.

The 1989 Children's Act enshrined the principle of minimum state intervention in family life. But recent reports by the watchdog Ofsted into Cafcass, the Children and Family Court Advisory Service, suggest that some local authorities are wilfully disregarding this principle. The Times campaign stems from the belief that some social workers are too quick to jump to conclusions about parents, and that grievous miscarriages of justice are occurring because professionals can operate without scrutiny in closed courts. Gagging orders and reporting restrictions mean that cases do not come to light unless judges choose to make their judgments public.

It should be quite possible, as Sir Mark Potter argues, to hold professionals to account while also preserving the anonymity of children. There is no reason to increase the suffering of innocent children by dragging their names into the public domain. Rape cases are a useful analogy. The police give evidence in open court in rape cases. The media can report that evidence in full. But we do not name the victim. That process works perfectly well and in the interests of open justice.

Sir Mark argues that family courts should be open to the press, but not the general public. This also makes sense. Most family cases are deeply personal and involve intimate details which relatives are understandably keen to protect. The press is subject to codes, which means that it can be trusted to protect certain details which nosey neighbours could use to spread misery. Experience in Canada, where the family courts are open, suggests that many cases are of no interest whatever to the press in practice. Open courts would change the experience of families in only a minority of cases, usually where the family wanted the press to see what was going on.

Child protection is fraught with difficulty. Judges and social workers operate in a minefield of emotion and complexity. Many do an excellent job. It is clear that some children are at risk from family members and they need protection. But the removal of children from their parents has consequences for all of society. The statistics on children taken into care - their life chances - make grim reading.

The public which funds the child protection system has a right to expect it to be accountable, and transparent. Sir Mark's words are an important step in this direction.