With the public furore which continues to rage over the case of Robert Thompson and Jon Venables, who murdered two-year-old James Bulger when they were aged just ten, children's rights have come to the fore of late.The case, claims Melanie Stooks, a juvenile law specialist at London firm Powell Spencer & Partners, created a backlash which has resulted in more juvenile offenders receiving custodial sentences.'Magistrates decided that children were capable of real crime, of more evil things, and began to send more into custody.

Unfortunately, even though the tariff was reduced for Thompson and Venables, so they could avoid going into a young offenders' institution or an adult prison -- because it was considered that this would undo all the rehabilitative effect of the secure unit -- this has had no effect on the attitude of youth courts.

Young offenders are still going into custody at an alarming rate.'Ms Stooks says: 'I thought it would change the attitude, at least slightly in borderline cases, particularly where the juvenile is in employment or has a college course to go to -- I work in Brent and that's quite rare around here -- but it does not seem to have made a difference.'She adds that a positive thing to come out of the Thompson and Venables case is that it is now considered inappropriate for children to be tried in a full Crown Court atmosphere.

Children appearing in court are now being allowed regular breaks, and lawyers' wigs are removed.Ms Stooks praises the efforts of the court to keep their identities secret after release.

'It's a long shot that it is going to work, there are always going to be vigilantes hunting them down, but without this they would have no chance of operating in normal society.'She points out that this move has set a precedent which was recently followed in another case involving a serious crime by children.

'The judge decided not to identify them after sentence because otherwise they would have no chance of rehabilitation,' she says.Ms Stooks says that in her field of criminal juvenile law, children have fewer rights and are worse off than before -- largely because of a lack of funds.'In many ways they are worse off but not necessarily because of lack of intent.

In many areas, courts are imposing custodial sentences more and more, because the specified activities which used to be given with supervision orders as an alternative to custody aren't available through lack of funding.'She says the fate of a child is a 'postcode lottery' with children born into wealthier local authority areas -- which can afford better facilities and are given an alternative to custody- less inclined to reoffend.Ms Sto oks describes the relatively new reprimand and final warning system as 'an atrocious invasion of rights' and one on which she is currently consulting counsel to see if a case can be brought under the Human Rights Act 1998.She explains that instead of the old caution system, whereby the child had to admit the offence before a caution could be issued, a reprimand can be made by police and go on a child's record even if the crime is not admitted.'I had one case where the police refused to charge my client -- even though she claimed she was acting in self-defence and wanted to go before a court to prove her innocence.

They gave her a reprimand, which means if she is arrested again a reprimand will not be an option and she will either receive a final warning or be charged.'Shamim Khan, a partner specialising in child law with Derby firm TKW, says the Human Rights Act has not had the dramatic effect on civil child law that was expected by many practitioners.'There was concern that it would dramatically alter the system, but although it has made some minor changes in the way local authorities disclose information, it has not been as earth-shattering as people thought it would be.'Jeremy Rosenblatt, a barrister at 4 Paper Buildings and chairman of the Bar Committee on the Rights of the Child, says several recent cases, both domestic and in Europe, will enhance young people's rights, particularly in the public law field.He says: 'There was a case in the European Court of Human Rights in which it was decided that children have the right to sue local authorities, which will impact hugely on local authority duties.'The Court of Appeal also decided recently that in public law cases, local authorities must live up to expectations and carry out what is expected of them, otherwise the case returns to court.

This effectively allows the court to retain an interest in cases despite a final order being made.

It means the Court of Appeal cannot trust local authorities.'Another recent Court of Appeal case -- one in which he says the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) intervened -- ended in a child being allowed separate legal representation because it was considered that the child's interests were not being sufficiently protected by the court welfare officer.'The impact of these cases is that children will be more protected and there will be more pressure on local authorities to carry out their duties effectively.'Earlier this month, Cherie Booth QC launched the Power Pack -- an NSPCC information pack for children subject to public law proceedings.

The pack aims to inform children about the legal process and their involvement in it.

It includes leaflets explaining the roles of the court and the solicitor, legal jargon and their legal rights.Mr Rosenblatt comments: 'I am always dubious about things like this.

They only come in to being because the system, including parents and schools, have failed.'Mr Khan says that in his line of work -- a mixture of public and private child law cases -- the 'draconian' contracts currently being issued to guardians ad litem could cause problems.Guardians -- who are appointed by the court to act in the best interest of children and whose duties include, among others, instructing solicitors -- were funded by local authorities.However, the guardians, like the former Family Court Welfare Service, the Reporting Officer Service and the Children's Division of the Official Solicitor's Department, now fall under the umbrella of the Children and Family Court Advisory and Su pport Service (CAFCASS) which was formed to act as a single service representing the interests of children.Mr Khan says: 'There has been a big shake up with the guardians ad litem.

CAFCASS is saying a guardian can either become full-time with them or, if they want to remain self-employed, they have to sign these draconian contracts.'These are much more restrictive and give standard fees for all cases.

The guardians are expected to put in the number of hours required to serve the child.

If it's a run-of-the-mill case without much work required, they could be in profit, but if it's very complex, it could run for over a year.

If the guardians don't accept these contracts, God only knows what's going to happen.'He adds that a proposal made during consultation to allow guardians to conduct proceedings in court instead of solicitors fell by the wayside 'for obvious reasons'.

He explains: 'A guardian couldn't be expected to keep up to date on all the law, otherwise they would be solicitors.'Mr Khan says the hundreds of thousands of refugees and immigrants currently pouring into the country are generating a lot of concern for the social services and a lot of juvenile-related work for lawyers.'The way some refugees from different cultures take care of their kids is not the way we do things.

Some are regarded as high risk by the social services and are being removed.'There are potentially hundreds of kids in the care system or in limbo and running parallel to the care system, without having had orders taken out in their favour.

The south-east is struggling with the number of people coming into the country.'Mr Khan says one of the pitfalls of his job is the number of hours he is required to put in, for which he is not paid.

'You can't take a clinical view and not do something just because the Legal Services Commission won't pay for it.

Kids have a limited understanding of life and need reassurance which you won't get paid for.

Most practitioners go that extra mile knowing they won't get paid for it.'All in all though, he is content with the way the law in his area is evolving.

'I am reasonably happy in that the courts and practitioners are constantly discussing ways to maximise efficiency, cut down on delay, and get things done as quickly as possible for the child.'It seems that however long legal reforms relating to children take to bed down, the government can rely on the goodwill of solicitors, who know that in some cases children have no one else to rely on but them.