We are two young people aged 18 and 19 who were the subjects of care proceedings in the family courts a couple of years ago. We were whisked away from school on an Emergency Protection order which was followed by interim care orders. We were subjected to the most horrible psychological cruelty by the social workers. This went on for over a year. We came from a law abiding middle class family, we achieved well in school, we had respect for authority. Our mother was a professional, she didn't drink or take drugs . Eventually we were shown the reports the social worker was giving to the courts and allowed to comment to the judge. We were shocked and traumatised at the blatant lies written in such a spiteful manner. The social worker dropped the case and we went home. Legislation gives social workers the power to abuse families on a whim, this is very dangerous. We publicly invite you both to meet with us and see first hand how the legislation isdangerous and is failing many famiies.

Helisa, Southport, Merseyside

Kevin Brennan, are you a knave or a fool? "Private does not mean secret" you say. My dictionary disagrees: "Not for public knowledge or disclosure; secret." A judge hands down a ruling in a secret court and then gets to write up his or her own version of the procedures, which is then anonymised. In what way is this not secret, Mr Brennan?

Secrecy is the handmaiden to corruption, and the family courts in this country are deeply corrupt. Keep up the good work, Camilla Cavendish: keep exposing these charlatans!

boris, London, UK

False allegations of MSBP (Munchausens Syndrome By Proxy) and the Secret Court system are now firmly Labour Party policy (though they probably won't make it to the manifesto.) Nonetheless support for the MSBP regime, though discredited as "quack science" is firmly embedded within the minds of labour Party MP's and supporters; it remains the most direct means to control women and maintain the Patriarchal Tradition in the face of a rapidly-changing society. Remember New labour knighted MSBP's "father" (Sir) Roy Meadow in 1998, and despite Margaret Hodge asserting that perhaps 15,000 children had been wrongly snatched from parents due to false MSBP allegation, this "ducking stool" allegation still persists, and is aided by official government guidence to local authorities. The theory and practise is encouraged by the Labour Party, and the use of the allegations depend utterly on social workers and paediatricians driven by misogyny, & a Secret Court system taken from the 16th century

Richard England, Manchester, England

I contacted OFSTEAD last year as I had tried every other option regarding the fact that my son was stolen: yes STOLEN by the Social Services from his school and then placed with abusive persons, then placed in permanent foster care. In three years I, as an innocent falsely accused mother have had to contend with the false statements of three Social Workers determined to keep my son in the highly lucrative care system. Contrary to Mr Kevin Brennans comments, there has been no attempt whatsoever to reunite my son to my care and that of his family: instead he has been cut off from his family and suffered terribly. Camilla Cavendish has reported accurately on what is really going on. Regarding the secrecy: if the authorities are acting above board then why are parents being gagged from reporting their injustices at having their children removed on trumpted up charges with the threat of prison?
Kevin Brennan is either blind to the truth or he's trying to hoodwink the public!

Falsely Accused Mother, West Midlands, UK

Asking the Government and those in power to make truthful and responsible statements is like asking Hitler to care for your jewish grandmother.

Perhaps Mr. Brennan could explain why his department still have not responded to our study of nine cases in Public and private law, mothers and fathers where in each case children have been abused under the noses of CAFCASS, ss and judiciary?

But then it took two appeals to Gordon Brown even for them to acknowledge receipt. Check out www.alliance4justice.eu

Shaun O'Connell, Portsmouth, UK

Mothers for Justice would like to congratulate Camilla Cavendish for her commitment to Stopping Secret Courts.

The OFSTED inspection declared CAFCASS social workers as "dangerous", "inadequate" and "not fit for purpose". That neatly dovetails with what Camilla Cavendish has been highlighting.

Supervision notes for CAFCASS were deemed inadequate with a 97% failure rate.

Babies are being taken without Court Orders.

Camilla Cavendish, we salute you. Your work is an inspiration to many who suffer in the Family Court system. We hope that we can encourage to keep campaigning to STOP Secret Courts. To remove the gagging orders placed on parents. To remove the MI5 powers of Social Services.

No one in Britain seriously believes the position put forward by the Justice committee. These cases would not occur if their polices worked. They know that they're losing the battle so are trying to attack you - but Britain supports you and your work.

UKSecretCourts, Newport, South Wales

Are you actually being serious or is it april 1st?
Firstly, what you claim is happening and what in effect actually happens is two different things, it would be nice for the SS to work to their remit and guidelines but sadly they do not bother to do that.
How many authorities can you name who put an emphasis on kinship adoption? Because I can't name one and I have spent years dealing with these mothers having their babies stolen from them for no good reason than a jumped up diagnosis of MBP ( FII) a not recogonised and discredited illness that gives no evidence of impropriety but suggest a mother MAY harm their child at some point in the FUTURE.
A precognative crime that dragges the poor family into the courts .
As we all know ofsted have rated cafcass and the guardian system as unfit for purpose and a danger to the children it's there to 'support' and as the SS follow much of the same guidelines as ignoring the abused children and picking on the loved one's what does that say .

Atlantis ( mothers for justice ), hemel hempstead, herts

Unfortunately private does indeed mean secret because the legislation is used to protect judgments and those involved in making them rather than children, although there is not a scrap of evidence to suggest identifying children might harm them - even the judges ackowlede this. Publishing selected, edited, anonymised judgments is meaningless: like holding football matches in secret and publishing the scores without naming the teams. The public must be able to see and approve the process if confidence is to be restored. Camilla Cavendish is, as ever, absolutely spot on. As Bentham said, 'Where there is no publicity there is no justice. It keeps the judge himself while trying under trial.'

Nick Langford, Portsmouth,

Good to know this is the case. I'd always thought the court's complete failure to do anything to upset my sister in law was just intrinsic.

It's good to know that they're not actively blocking my nephews and nieces (innocent of nothing, since he initiated the divorce against the mad child abuser,) father's access because they hate men, and instead they're just a bunch of incompetent men and women who couldn't work out how to tie their own shoelaces.

At what point are you going to start jailing mothers who obstruct children's access to their fathers?

Charles, London,