The issue of human rights has set the tone for 21st century social debate and within this debate the rights of children is central.

The ethical repercussions following the Court of Appeal judgment in the case of conjoined twins Jodie and Mary continue to reverberate, underscoring the responsibility inherent in speaking for those who cannot speak for themselves.There has been a sea-change: children are increasingly less likely to be viewed as second-class citizens, incapable of independent thought or freedom of choice.The NSPCC, Barnardo's and other children's charities are formulating a 'Children's Manifesto', which will call for greater consultation with children on issues affecting them.

There is a call for a children's commissioner and a minister for children.

The view is taking hold that children must be allowed their own champions, who will serve as their voice.However, Judith Goodman, head of the family law department at London law firm Bazley White, finds that working on behalf of children can be harrowing.

The temptation may be to impose one's own moral beliefs on a case and this can be at odds with the legal demands.

It is difficult helping those without a voice to make their voice heard; this has especially been the case, for example, when debating whether to sterilise a teenager with severe learning disabilities.

In a recent case, Re: A (mental patient: sterilisation) the court said that its task was to balance all the relevant factors and to decide what would be in the best interests of the person unable to make his own decisions.

It is to be presumed that the moral standpoint of the court would prevail.

Ms Goodman says family lawyers need 'empathy not sympathy' in order to work effectively with their clients.It is assumed that any champion working on behalf of a child will leave his or her own agenda at the court door and speak in the child's best interest s; but is there a danger that this area of law itself presents a potential arena for prejudice? While the three Appeal Court judges in the Jodie and Mary case found for separating the twins, nevertheless all three have been brought up as Christians, and they have 13 children between them.

In this case, they might appear to have successfully distanced themselves from their own philosophical underpinnings, but is this always guaranteed to be so?While children's rights are beginning to be recognised within the law, many solicitors consider this merely to be reactive.

They would like to see measures that are more pro-active.

James Copson, family law partner at City firm Withers, says children's wishes and needs must be ascertained, and this is especially so within a contested divorce where there can be a dispute about whether contact should take place at all.In a perfect world, he considers that such children should more often be independently represented so their voices can be heard.

Although court welfare officers have, in the past, been appointed to ascertain the thoughts of children and what might be 'best' for them, nevertheless it is thought that even they need to be more thorough in addressing the real underlying issues.

It may be that the courts should have better directed them as to what they expect from the reports.A recent well-publicised case that Mr Copson has undertaken involved a divorcing couple -- a French father and British mother -- and concerned a dispute about the education of their two children.

The father wanted the children to be educated in a French-speaking school against the mother's wishes.The judge found it would be in the children's best interest to attend a French school, accepting the father's evidence on the children's behalf.

The children, at ages six and eight, were not considered old enough to make the decision for themselves.

It could be suggested that the parents were placing their private differences above the interests of their children.Children needing representation in cases other than care proceedings may be referred to the office of the Official Solicitor (OS), as Jodie and Mary were.

And those in danger or crisis may be made wards of court and may have solicitors appointed for them by the OS, or be represented directly by members of the department.

Children case workers in the Official Solicitors Department, although career civil servants, are additionally given legal, social welfare, and other appropriate training during their induction period and throughout their time with the Official Solicitors Department.

These interviewers may be moved from department to department and working with children may be just one of their many placements, yet they are taking statements at this extremely crucial and sensitive time.

It is questionable whether this would be acceptable if their work were with adults.There are few fields where rights must be attended to more closely than that of adoption.

Katherine Gieve, children law partner at London firm Bindman & Partners and guardian ad litem for Jodie, considers that adoption work is 'painstaking'.

There are a number of procedural hazards and it is a 'meticulous' business changing the legal status on behalf of a child.Papers must be served at the right time, not only to potential adopters, but to the birth family as well.

All the parties are anxious, and the family lawyer must attempt to manage their agitation.

Adopters cannot feel secure until the adoption has taken place.

Family work, by definition, touches raw human experience.'Trying to help your clients remain calm can be difficult,' Ms Gieve says.

'Contested adoptions can be awful because of the strong feelings on both sides.

Your priority is to get things right and do the job you're paid to do, properly.' In work involving the adoption of older children, she must be constantly aware of the thoughts and expectations of the child.But there are changes afoot to address the diversity of service available to children.

At present, guardians ad litem, the Family Court Welfare Service and the Official Solicitor's Department (OSD) between them deliver more than 45,000 reports on nearly 65,000 children annually.

These three services are due to merge and establish what is claimed will be a 'high quality and cost-effective unified service' with a target date of April 2001.This is at the heart of the much heralded new Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS).

This is the Department of Health's priority scheme aimed at protecting the rights of children in the court process.

This new departure will 'give positive effect to children's rights .

.

.

improve the lives of vulnerable children .

.

.

improve decision-making of some of the most vulnerable children in society -- those whose care is under review or whose separating parents cannot agree amiable custodial arrangements'.It is hoped that children will be enabled to participate effectively in the decision-making process and will be able to communicate their wishes to the court.

In short, says the paper, 'children first'.

If the new rules really manage to deliver what they promise, then children's rights will certainly be more closely attended to and they may acquire a more forceful voice at this critical time in their lives.Naomi Angell, a leading adoption and children's law specialist at London firm Goodman Ray, says the real experts at listening and acting for children are guardians ad litem.

They are usually experienced social workers who mostly work in tandem with solicitors acting for children.

With the CAFCASS promise of more united welfare services, lawyers are waiting to hear what will happen with the legal representation of children in care proceedings.

There is a strong hope that the tandem model will be kept as lawyers consider that it works effectively to protect children.

This is especially true in care proceedings where their interests and views must be effectively promoted.Ms Angell considers that independent representation for children in private law proceedings is likely to be limited to cases including those concerned with implacable hostility or where a parent applies to take a child permanently out of the jurisdiction.

Whatever the circumstances, children must be listened to by welfare services and the present quality of this service would appear variable to say the least.We like to think we are enlightened and deal differently with child cruelty today, but cases from the past still come back to haunt us.

The recent trial of nun Sister Alphonso, convicted of 'cruel and unnatural treatment of children' in Catholic children's homes between 1965 and 1980 is a case in point.

Incidents of cruelty took place over a 15-year period, yet she escaped a jail sentence and was 'admonished' instead.

What does this tell us? How do we think the victims will react? The law is running fast to catch up with the mood of the age, adding the rights of children to the list of those who deserve to be treated fairly and equally.