Please note: I am not a legal expert and the bulk of the information below comes directly from this conference. If you can augment or improve the information in any way, please comment and I'll try and keep things updated.

Here is a super quick run down on some of the key reforms necessary to make the family courts system fairer for everyone. It's not about "opening the family courts" - it's about campaigning for the following:

1. Allow trial by jury. The decision to remove a baby or child from a family should not be within the complete jurisdiction of a single individual (the judge).
2. Remove the gag. If parents and/or children want to exercise freedom of speech to speak out about their experiences and circumstances, they should not be threatened with imprisonment for doing so, especially under the guise of protecting their privacy.
   
3. Abolish the removal of children because of perceived risk. Children should only be removed if a crime has been commited that affects them (in strictly defined circumstances).
4. Abolish the removal of children because of perceived emotional abuse. Children should only be removed if a crime has been committed that affects them (in strictly defined circumstances).
5. Disallow hearsay evidence in court. In addition, witnesses should not be allowed to speculate.
6. Allow Mckenzie friends to advocate on behalf of others, especially where they have been refused or are not entitled to legal aid. 
7. Abolish the censoring of contact visits. Parents should be allowed to tell their children they love them, they miss them, and that they are fighting to keep them.
8. Abolish forced adoption (in line with the rest of Europe) if a parent opposes an adoption in court.

More detailed information about the reforms and why they are necessary can be found on Ian Josephs' website, on John Hemming's website and on the Justice for Families website. Please read them as this post is really only a brief reflection of what was discussed on the day and I've chosen not to regurgitate information that can be readily accessed elsewhere.

Finally, what can you do next?

Well, the most important thing is to protect yourself. After this case, it seems to me that - although families should always be free to avoid engaging with whatever if they so choose - most people would benefit from embedding themselves in strong local networks of some description or other. To avoid doing so increases the general level of vulnerability with regard to unnecessary state intervention, as discussed here. It also makes generating sustained help much harder, should the worse happen and you find yourself needing to rely on others.

The internet remains a fantastic way of sharing information and building communities of support and expertise. It's also useful for locating like-minded and helpful people in your local areas who you otherwise might not realise exist. Connecting with people online is supremely flexible, and it's also a lot quicker than having to rely on phonecalls and meetings to achieve complex tasks in a hurry. It can't replace all the benefits of face-to-face relationships - but it might just start them off and help them to flourish.

Once you've done all of that, I suggest you find your own ways of connecting with and helping other people within your sphere of influence, through a medium that you feel comfortable with. If we all did that and freely offered voluntarily accessed channels of support and resources to those who were genuinely in need, then the non-negotiable, government support we're given - whether we want it or not - would soon disappear.