Sir, Your support for Camilla Cavendish’s list of ten reforms needed for the family justice system (leading article, July 12) ignores the complexity of the issues facing the local authorities, the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Services (Cafcass) and others who seek to protect children at risk of abuse or serious neglect. No one is saying that our system is free from miscarriages of justice but it is incorrect to characterise the solution as lying with the media.

If we are serious about listening to what children want we must be mindful of responses to government directly from children who did not want to be identified by the media and do not trust journalists. Media exposure is not necessarily a prerequisite for good family justice. But it is true that more information about family courts is needed in the public domain and new proposals are under way.

I am not quite sure what Ms Cavendish means by her proposal to restructure Cafcass “from being an organisation that reports on the parents to the courts to one that actively promotes the parenting needs of children. . . It should be diverting parents away from contested hearings into the making of parenting plans.”

Ms Cavendish possibly confuses two different types of proceedings and more seriously ignores the sometimes urgent nature of public law cases. Where children are not at immediate risk local authorities do work with parents with the aim of rehabilitation. Where children may be removed from the family home Cafcass guardians do rigorously test that local authority proposals are in the best interests of children. All of this is discussed in court with all parties present.

New proposals are being implemented this year that will ensure parents get the information they need to be properly represented but also to ensure that they actively consider the best interests of their children.

Anthony Douglas
Chief Executive, Cafcass (Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service)

Sir, The debate about transparency in the family courts is important and complex. However, I must correct a regularly repeated error. Parents can access legal aid in childcare cases. It is important that no one is put off seeking legal aid because of this mistake repeated by various commentators.

In every case where a local authority wants to apply for a care or supervision order, the parents have the right to a publicly funded legal aid lawyer to provide them with advice and if proceedings are taken to represent them — irrespective of their means or of the details of the case. The Legal Services Commission (LSC) makes a priority of funding representation for parents of children who are the subject of care proceedings.

There is no lack of provision — 95 per cent of the population live within 45 minutes on public transport of a childcare solicitor contracted with the LSC to undertake legal aid work. Revised payment schemes for this area of legal aid started in October 2007 and the LSC has no evidence or knowledge of any reason why solicitors would be unwilling to take on this work.

Our reforms are about ensuring the long-term sustainability and future of legal aid. We want to get the best value from the system so that we can help as many people as possible within the resources available.

Carolyn Regan
Chief Executive, Legal Services Commission

Explore Letters

• Feedback