In a series of recent judgements the courts have authorised the treatment of adolescents against their will. What effect have these judgements and other legal developments had on the legal basis of medical treatment for children? How do they affect the professionals involved in decision- making? This article attempts to address the most commonly expressed concerns and queries about the changing legal context of work in the field of child mental health. It is based on the authors' discussions with professionals from backgrounds in health care, social care, and justice during training we have carried out with multidisciplinary and multiagency teams in England and Wales. For the purposes of this article, we will, in keeping with The Children Act 1989 (s105 (1)), use the term ‘child’ and ‘children’ to refer to everyone under 18 years old.

For a relatively new organisation (it was founded only 10 years ago), Young Minds has already made a major impact on the CAMHS field. Its magazine contains lively articles by writers such as Susie Orbach and Adam Phillips and is widely read. It runs a well-used information service for parents concerned about the mental health of their children, and a consultancy service for professionals. High profile personalities such as Spike Milligan, John Bird, John Fortune and Nick Hornby have given their services to its fund-raising events. Who can take the major credit for the success of Young Minds? Stand up, Peter Wilson, the subject of this profile. He was initially Chair of the organisation and has been Director since April 1992.

Plato's view that we should be ruled by philosophers has never really caught on in Britain. Indeed, in recent years, political attitudes to the study of philosophy have resulted in the closure of departments of philosophy in our universities, so that the subject is less studied at undergraduate level than it was 20 or 30 years ago. So it is surprising that the way our generation thinks about education, genetic experimentation, broadcasting, and some of the other most contentious issues of our time should have been so influenced by a professional philosopher whose working life has never taken her out of Oxford and Cambridge.

Mary Warnock has served as chairman of government committees on special education, on animal experimentation, on human fertilisation, and on teaching quality. Further, the recommendations of the committees she has chaired have usually been rapidly adopted by the government of the time and then translated into legislation with bipartisan support and considerable speed. The fate of her reports firmly refutes the commonly held view that governments set up committees to avoid making difficult decisions and then leave their weighty conclusions to sit on shelves, gathering dust until the topics in question have lost the interest of the public.

Re CB and JB (care proceedings: case conduct)[1998] 2 FCR 313 Family Division, Manchester. Wall J.

Care proceedings were brought in respect of twins who were born in February 1996. It was alleged that one of them had been the victim of two shaking episodes, whilst in the care of their parents. In February 1998, a care order was made and the children were freed for adoption. The facts of the case were very simple, the only factual issue being which parent had inflicted the child's injuries. Care proceedings were commenced in November 1996 and the substantive hearing took place in February 1998; a large number of expert opinions had been sought; the legal advisers had not worked towards clarifying the issues. The judge, Mr Justice Wall, was highly critical of the conduct of the case and made a number of recommendations.