There are rarely true “winners” from any divorce but children are often the greatest losers. It is right that this fact and their interests are awarded a very high priority when arrangements for custody are determined. The precise weight offered to their preferences as to whom they might live with remains, however, a matter of controversy. This argument will be further stoked by the candid views put to The Times today by Anthony Douglas, the chief executive of the Children and Family Court Advisory Support Service.

Mr Douglas believes that, with a number of exceptions, children from the age of 7 should have the primary voice in deciding their future. He has previously written that the judicial system should “listen to children first and last”. He contends that, on the whole, children have the insight and maturity to know what they want and that those insights should be respected by the courts. He has cited his own extremely difficult circumstances as a child — the adopted son of two parents where the father had come to “hate and detest” the mother — as an illustration in favour of his position.

Mr Douglas is an able public servant, passionate about his work and a staunch advocate for children. He recognises some of the challenges that a shift in the presumption of the law in this area might bring. He may, though, underestimate their impact. There are three powerful reasons against moving in the manner that he suggests.

The first concerns the age of the children he would empower. The level of maturity of those aged not merely 7, but up to the early teens, varies enormously. The difference is not just personality, but by gender and, for example, whether the child is the eldest, youngest or in the middle and the size of the family. Then there are the strengths or not of the broader family network. It would be an unwelcome step for the courts to assume that children at anywhere close to this age are the best judges of their own interests.

The second consideration is the damage that could be done to the already fragile relationship between separating parents. There is the danger of creating a competition for the affections of children that would be utterly destabilising. Parents might seek to shower their children with favours and treats or, worst still, poison them against the other partner. Divorce is bad enough without any extra conflict.

Finally, while it is clear that reform in this area is necessary, it has not been shown that the change required is that which Mr Douglas has suggested. The principal complaint made against the current system — and by sensible people and bodies, not merely aggrieved fathers dressed in silly costumes calling for “justice” — is that there remains a bias against awarding men the custody of children. Those children may also suffer as a consequence if denied proper contact with fathers..

Family law often lags behind social trends. In time more fathers will be awarded custody. Both the issues of access and alimony need to be policed more effectively. The change that Mr Douglas supports, nevertheless, would be a step in the wrong direction.