The law regarding Scotland's unique Children's Hearing System underwent radical reform three years ago.

One of the goals of the Children's Hearings (Scotland) Act 2011 was to proof the highly regarded system for dealing with vulnerable children against concerns that it was sometimes not compliant in areas of human rights.

The principle of the children's panels - quasi-judicial volunteer tribunals that decide on the best course of action for children who are at risk, or offending, or both - is sound.

Bringing together the key individuals in a child's life along with the child themselves, and deciding on a way forward with the interests of the child at the centre, has proved to be a successful system. The involvement of trained volunteers from the community as the final decision-makers is a crucial element.

However, the system had come under increasing pressure, with legal representatives for parents and other parties challenging some of the ways it operated. Changes brought in by ministers were intended to guarantee fairness, providing consistency across the country in terms of training, procedures and decision-making.

They were also intended to ensure the rights of those commonly involved in children's panels - including parents, children, relatives and carers - were taken into due account.

So it is concerning that John Anderson, one of the people who has played a key part in the running of the system in Glasgow for the past five years, has been so frustrated at the way the new laws are being implemented that he has been forced to approach the Children's Minister to seek answers.

His concern is over the role of "relevant persons", which is key in a hearing. Those judged to have a close involvement in the child's life have a greater say in the decisions, including a duty to attend meetings, a right to see relevant papers and a right to appeal decisions.

Anyone apart from the child and the parents who seeks such status must apply for it, and have their case heard by a panel. The right to appeal against such decisions was one of the protections brought in by the act.

However, Mr Anderson claims meetings are being held in such a way that it is impossible to guarantee this right of appeal. If a parent objects to, say, a foster carer being deemed "relevant", there is no chance to appeal if the case is heard before an appeal can be lodged.

The counter-argument is that in some cases it is not in the best interests of a child to delay and allow a period for such a decision to be challenged. It will very often be the case that a young person's interests are not well-served if their needs are put on hold while adults wrangle.

There is a need for balance between the principles of a system that is designed to be relatively informal and which serves Scotland well.

The Children's Hearing System makes vital decisions about children for whom time is often of the essence. Yet the new legislation was introduced for a reason, and decisions must be taken in compliance with the law.