It is disappointing to see James Carter (Letters, 17 December 2009) jumping to the defence of the government in wanting press reporting of children’s cases without any proper research into how this will affect children.

As someone who has represented all sides in care proceedings for over 20 years, I ask him just to consider the plight of abused children. His assertion that secrecy leads to the wishes and feelings of children being ignored is, with the greatest of respect, nonsense. If you say to a frightened, vulnerable child who has been systematically abused by parents ‘before you say anything I must warn you that the facts of this case may be in the papers suitably anonymised of course’ they will not disclose anything.

A triumph of parent power over the hapless child? Or perhaps Mr Carter thinks we should not be honest with children and not warn them?

He says that ‘the issues involved in child care are far too important to be dealt with in secret’. In fact, from the child's perspective, they are far too important to be dealt with in public. It is children we are trying to protect, not the right of a disgruntled parent to sound off to a press reporter. Our system and judges are first class. It is surprising that an officer of the court should not have trust in them.

Bruce Edgington, Gravesend

Stephen Mannering (Letters, 7 January) takes issue with me over public law child care proceedings. He says they are dealt with ‘confidentially’ rather than secretly. What is the difference? In a case I am presently dealing with, ‘confidentiality’ reaches as far as it being in contempt of court to name the village in which the parties live.

It is widely anticipated that the government seeks to widen media access to documents in family cases and it has published the Children, Schools and Families Bill. The bill sets out circumstances in which the court may permit publication of ‘sensitive personal information’.

The proposed regulations are byzantine, and falling foul of any of the provisions (and this is only Stage 1) will be treated as a contempt of court. After a review of Stage 1, a delay of not less than 18 months, some of these restrictions will be removed. The bill is intended to increase transparency but, due to its complexity, will be unworkable. It will prevent, rather than encourage, access by the media and, of course, will take up much court time, assuming newspapers have the funds to embark on the litigation.

My principal concern is the surprisingly large number of cases where children are taken into care for reasons of ‘emotional harm’. This is something that is unknown to some other jurisdictions, for example the Republic of Ireland. My second concern relates to the ease with which in England and Wales children can be freed for adoption. It leads to miscarriages of justice. The Law Commission has issued a consultation paper (Number 190) on the admissibility of expert evidence in criminal proceedings in England and Wales, ‘a new approach to the determination of evidentiary reliability’. If there are concerns in criminal proceedings, those concerns must be even greater in Public Law Children’s Act proceedings where the determination is on the balance of probabilities. These issues cannot be dealt with confidentially. The public need to know what is being done in their name and by whom. Expert witnesses in particular need to be identified.

James Carter, Martin Tolhurst Solicitors, Gravesend