Welcome to another Summery week. Holidays are in the air, but controversy never sleeps.

The Guardian has posted an article today which talks about the judiciary and the level of training they receive in terms of understanding child protection and the law surrounding it. The authoress, Joanna Nicolas, is a child protection consultant. She argues that judges should be better trained and kept abreast of legal and policy changes in a timely fashion across the country.

Ms Nicolas also suggests that the burden of proof, or evidenciary threshold, should be that of the criminal court – beyond a reasonable doubt, as opposed to its civil counterpart currently used in family cases: the balance of probability. She also makes one final suggestion: that all judges who played a part in a case should be involved in that case’s serious case review.

Our question then, is simple: do you agree?