Britain's lousy child protection system actually protects the doctors, health workers and Lincolnshire social services who have failed child victims.

Court secrecy rules hide child abuse errors - Sunday Telegraph

Extract:

"Shocking failures in the child protection system are being hidden by the secrecy of England's family courts.

Even in cases where it has emerged that children were abused while monitored by social services and the NHS, judges' criticisms and recommendations have been withheld from the public.

In one secret court ruling, a judge warned that babies were being "missed by the system". Critics said the failure to inform the public of lapses could cost lives.

The details of a case involving a four-month-old girl deliberately burned in a faked car crash, in an attempt to cover up scalds she had received days earlier, can also be revealed.

At a criminal trial, Timothy Mallard, 23, received a seven-year jail sentence for grievous bodily harm and Tracey Watson, 28, a suspended sentence for neglect.

During that public trial, no details emerged of how both the baby, who cannot be named, and Watson were seen repeatedly by doctors, health workers and Lincolnshire social services before the attack.

It is understood those details were raised at a closed family court hearing. Secrecy laws prevent full disclosure of the court's findings.

John Hemming, a Liberal Democrat MP and chairman of Justice for Families, said: "Mistakes by social workers and other professionals are covered up as a result of family court secrecy. Lessons go unlearnt, sometimes with fatal consequences."

Family Courts are keeping court judgements from mothers whose babies have been taken from them.

Courts won't reveal rulings in adoption cases - Sunday Telegraph

Extract

"Family courts are refusing to tell mothers why their babies are being taken away and put up for forced adoption.

Two mothers have told The Sunday Telegraph that their pain at losing their children was made worse by not knowing the grounds on which judges took the decisions.

Both women had their requests for copies of the judgments turned down repeatedly. As a result, they were prevented from launching legal battles to win their babies back, because appeals cannot be lodged without -written judgments.

Critics claimed that the cases are an extreme example of the secrecy that runs throughout the family court system. Earlier this summer, the Government abandoned plans to open up hearings to the media.

John Hemming, the Liberal Democrat MP and chairman of Justice for Families, said: "It seems quite strange that somebody can have their child removed and adopted, and the system will not give reasons.

"This arises from the secrecy of proceedings and the fact that people are allowed to misbehave professionally in the family courts without any fear of sanctions against them."

The cases are the latest in a series highlighted by this newspaper which have raised concerns about the workings of the family courts and social services. "

The secrecy of the family courts is a national scandal and harms many children and parents. Let us hope John Hemming manages to bring about much-needed improvements in this unjust, cruel system.