http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article4305392.ece

The report above indicates a likely start in September this year. There is a suggestion of a committee process and the possibility of court sessions being visited.

The Times has taken on the role of champion in the family courts and have started a campaign to open the courts to scrutiny and hold the professionals involved to accountability for their role in court proceedings and outcomes in general throwing their considerable amount of weight behind the campaign groups that the government have written off as a mere nuicence.

 I would say it's only a matter of time before the government decides that scapegoats are needed and then the professionals will be hung out to dry for actions mainy ( I believe ) committed by their managers.

 If the government are scurrying around now over their long awaited consultation into the courts ( another one ) and are planning to release it after the summer you can be assured that some changes will be included and heads will roll shortly after that.

I have a feeling it will be along the lines of the salem witch hunts ( probably without the stakes and fire part) at least that's what i'm hearing anyway.

I'm fearful that the investigation will cause unmitigated panic, particularly if the Council of Europe investigators present an aggressive edge and do things like turning-up unannounced at Family Court hearings.

I suspect many Family Court judges will be doing their best from now on to ensure no blame can be attached to them - for fear of having their name appear in the Councils final report. Yet responsibility for the courts is ultimately their concern - not that of social workers or expert witnesses. How a judge chooses to run their Court is a matter for them - some judges issue written judgements, others choose not. Some employ a firm hand on expert witnesses, others are a bit more forgiving. If the government chooses to make scapegoats of social workers it will just result in morale dropping even more and yet more skilled staff leaving the profession. Social workers and other professionals simply work within the environment they have been given and it is up to the government and judiciary to determine, in consultation of course, how they want things to work. If the fixes aren't fully acceptable to all, at least we should be able to reach a reasonable compromise.

There are perhaps a few recent things that could perhaps have been handled a tad better - the Websters in Norfolk, the Fran Lyon thing, the YouTube audio recording, the RAD business in Leeds with the 11-year-old girl, the Charles Roy Taylor and Prisoner X stuff, the "baby G" blunder in Nottingham...all news stories that would have benefited from someone in authority (like an advanced social worker or an independent case officer) performing a brief review and saying perhaps "let's do this, but use a bit of sense." It is crucial now that similar excuses for the press and others don't transpire in the next few months, and that managers who do have any cases that could be deemed "dubious" get them reviewed and perhaps a different tack taken. The same applies to paediatricians and health workers; folk will be watching like hawks for any untoward behaviour and it is vital no-one provides the ammunition for such.

It's only a matter of time before they are forced to open the courts up to scrutiny and then every case will be pawed over for errors of judgement, any fabrications of evidence or mistakes, judges can just wipe their hands of any percieved 'wrong doing' by laying the blame firmly at the door of the professionals involved by saying that it was their evidence, their report, their testimony that was relied upon for the judgement to be made.

 The government might as well forgo the humiliation of it's justice practices being called into question by Europe especially as we know their are plenty of court cases where anonimity is used and cases are reported in the press, family appeal cases, rape, and now they have given anonimity to witnesses in some trails to name but a few, why should family law be any different?

The government looked pretty silly last time they promised to open the courts with Harriet Harman saying "we will open the courts, justice needs to be seen to be done" unfortunately she was very red faced and unusually quiet when Lord Falconer decided against it.

Other countries have open courts and the world hasn't ended there.

In the times this week there was a quote from a sw who resigned because he couldn't face watching the children suffer under the ' lies' (his words ) that he was being forced to tell in order for the department to get PO's, when sw start speaking out then the cp world is just going to fall apart with people pointing fingers at each other, but as we all know it's the managers who walk away with the big fat pay off's and the 'lowly' sw who's career is left in ruins.