Sir, The comments by Sir Mark Potter (“Media must be allowed into family courts”, Oct 20) are long overdue but he is incorrect to say that it was “untrue” that parties were unaware of the case against them (for instance, when children were being removed into care) or that they were denied seeing the evidence before the courts.

In my oral evidence to the Commons select committee inquiry into looked-after children in June, I made MPs aware of cases where issues have been raised against a person in the family court where children were to be removed from the family, but that person has not been allowed to be present in the family court to challenge what has been said about him or her. I firmly believe that is completely wrong. If you are mentioned in court documents or court statements, you should have a right to challenge that — certainly if an allegation is made — in the family court. I hope Sir Mark will revisit this area and correct the injustice inherent in its workings so that parents and carers have a right to see all the evidence against them.

Trevor Jones

National Co-ordinator, Parents Against Injustice, London N4

Sir, Sir Mark Potter’s support will be welcomed by many families.

But his comments about potential reform of the law about unmarried couples are equally important, given that marriage levels are at their lowest since 1862. Divorce law (and law relating to cohabitants) was last reformed in the mid-1960s.

The Government has backed away from comprehensive reform despite pleas from senior members of the judiciary. A royal commission into the family justice system would show that family breakdown and family justice are at the top of the political agenda.

Gavin Lockhart

Head of Crime and Justice Unit, Policy Exchange

Sir, By opening the family courts to the press the Government is once again showing its willingness to buy perceived short-term popularity at the price of needlessly hurting some of the most vulnerable members of our community, namely children who have been abused and neglected. Some of the media will find it hard to resist sensationalising the details that often surface in family court, where of necessity the most intimate minutiae of family life must be discussed.

The danger that some children’s private lives will become public property is perhaps greatest at neighbourhood level, where local newspapers will find a reservoir of copy in the proceedings of the family courts, while neighbours and gossips will find it only too easy to deduce the identities of the children and families involved.

Chris Mills

Sevenoaks, Kent

Sir, I am disappointed in that this proposed openness of justice will only apply to care proceedings.

Having gone to these closed family courts what is believed to be a UK record 133 times before 33 different judges just to see my children after my divorce, it is clear that the overwhelming need for transparency in family law should be extended to all family cases with the intended safeguards to the parties’ and children’s identities now proposed.

Because of the secrecy laws I can only now talk about the injustices that were heaped upon my children and me as my daughters are all now above the age where the courts cannot prevent us from talking.

Mark Harris

Author, Family Court Hell

Plymouth

Explore Letters

• Feedback