Courts and public agencies have too much control over family life, says Finola Moss
English courts possess the most draconian powers to remove children from their parents in Europe and have twice the number of permanent removals than in Scotland, yet the government maintains that these courts must remain behind closed doors to protect a child’s right to privacy.
Arguments for privacy appear rather pyrrhic, as if the child remains with his parents the community will already be aware of his predicament, as care proceedings per se involve a public examination of everyone one who has, or has had, contact with the child and his family by court officials. If adopted the child’s name is changed and if in care his antecedents follow.
Could this privacy not equally be served by putting reporting restrictions on the media as in criminal courts? As proceedings are behind closed doors, family judges cannot publish their judgments, any miscarriages of justice cannot be aired in the media, and parents cannot seek help from anyone, even their MP.
ADOPTIONS
Despite the fact that the European Court of Human Rights has
