Recent judgments in the family courts could make it more difficult to protect children from abuse, according to the Association of Lawyers for Children.

It is concerned that judges could be raising the standard of proof required when serious allegations are made against parents or others who deal with children.

The usual standard of proof in family courts is the "balance of probabilities", not proof "beyond reasonable doubt", which applies in criminal courts.

But the association's press officer, Richard White, said it was concerned about a case last year in which Mr Justice Bodey said that, in serious cases, the difference between the civil and criminal standards of proof was "largely illusory".

White, a south London solicitor, said he had recently acted in a case where another judge had said Mr Justice Bodey's remarks must be true in some cases. "I think it's wrong to apply the higher standard in care proceedings, which are purely to secure the welfare of the child," said White. "You never know if cases like this will become established. If they do it will be harder to protect the interests of children."

David Wheeler, co-chairman of the children's committee of the Solicitors Family Law Association, said: "Judges have to conduct a balancing act between the need to protect the child and the need to give the parent a fair hearing."