The extreme contrasts of judgements in the Family Courts is the tide turning?

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2011/2376.html

An excellent judgement and outcome by the President Sir Nicholas Wall can be found above. Showing compassion and integrity and exploding some of the current myths surrounding the Family Courts, however, in direct contrast is the Judgement of Eleanor King http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2009/2115.html against Doctors Cohen and Squier, in which they were severely criticised, found "guilty", without any right of reply. Again, in the case of X Y and Z http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2011/1157.html Sir Nicholas Wall makes profound and insightful observations about this particular type of injustice.

I hope that with Sir Nicholas Wall as the President the case of Drs Cohen and Squier will now be given the proper airing it should have from the outset, the relevant legal applications already in play based upon X, Y and Z. The judicial criticisms, without the opportunity or indeed legal right to defend such adverse comments without committing a contempt of court, has, in my opinion, led to the potential for grave miscarriages of justice to have occurred, as the comments in the King Judgement have been used to usurp expert evidence and influence not only juries but the judiciary too. That cannot have been fair for either Drs Cohen or Squier and more importantly, the defendant.