At least 15 children have died in the past eight years after family courts granted contact rights to their violent fathers.

Some were stabbed. Some were strangled. Some were beaten to death. Three had their throats cut while they slept.

Tony Bangs, from Brighton, was strangled by his father, Henry, because he chose to live with his mother. He was 12.

Only when the violence went too far and Tony was killed did the true story come to light.

But across the country, hundreds of children are abused or attacked by a violent parent every day and no one hears about it - even after their cases have reached the courts.

The Press is not allowed to bear witness to the secrets of the family courts.

If a parent is accused of being violent, it stays behind closed doors. If a judge grants them contact with the child, that too stays private.

Only when a child is killed or abducted does the truth come to light.

In the majority of cases, this truth often involves a violent man who has terrorised his partner and then turned on his children.

According to statistics, estranged fathers were refused contact with their children in less than three per cent of cases heard in the family courts in 2000.

However, the Association of Chief Officers of Probation stated in 1999 that Domestic violence was present in almost 50 per cent of cases where a welfare report was ordered.

Out of the 46,070 cases heard by the courts in 2000, hundreds of children who may have been at risk from abuse or violence were forced to maintain contact with their fathers.

In the light of these figures, the Women's Refuge Project in Brighton is calling for a presumption of no contact between violent parents and their children.

Jean Calder, the project's director, said this presumption should remain unless it could be shown contact was in the interests of the children, desired by them and safe for them and the non-abusive parent.

This view is shared by the Women's Aid Federation, which has produced a national survey on the enforcement of contact orders in cases involving domestic violence.

The survey showed even fathers with criminal convictions for violence or abuse were awarded contact with their children.

Out of 127 women's refuges surveyed across the country, 23 per cent showed cases of abused women who had been forced to hand over their children for contact visits even though they had been warned previously by social services their child could be taken into care if they didn't leave the father.

Despite being placed on the Child Protection Register, children in 11 per cent of the refuges were forced to see violent fathers or stepfathers.

A further six per cent said they knew of women forced to comply with contact orders even though the father or stepfather had been previously convicted of cruelty to a child.

So how is it possible for the family courts, social services and the criminal justice system to be so disjointed?

The Children Act of 1989 enshrined a civil/public split with child protection under public law and custody arrangements under civil law.

Different sets of professionals work in each sector and the two worlds rarely meet.

This is how children like Tony Bangs end up being murdered.

The Children Act pledged to put the child's welfare first - but this has been interpreted by law lords to mean almost every child should have contact with both parents.

In 1995, the Master of the Rolls ruled contact was 'almost always in the child's interest'.

He dismissed concerns about domestic violence causing emotional harm, saying excessive weight should not be accorded "to short-term or transient problems".

This is the view of pressure groups like Families Need Fathers and the Equal Parenting Council.

These groups also welcome the House of Lords' ruling that a higher standard of proof should be required in family law cases that involve serious cases of abuse.

Tony Coe, of the Equal Parenting Council, said: "Allegations of violence are not always true. These sorts of allegations abound in family court cases. The difficulty the courts have is in telling which are false and which are true.

"Even if an allegation is true, violence to the parent doesn't necessarily mean there's a risk to the child. The question is: Is it relevant? Is it significant?

"The way it's going, if you look at a person aggressively or refuse to speak to them, that is seen as violent."

Jean Calder disagrees and said: "Research indicates in 40 to 60 per cent of cases, children who live in situations of domestic violence are themselves abused.

"Women often underestimate rather than exaggerate the danger to themselves and their children. Many women and children have been taught to minimise the violence and blame themselves."

If women wish to avoid the suspicion that they have made a false allegation, they must involve the police and women's refuges as soon as possible.

According to Jean Calder: "If a man's violence can be corroborated by a number of agencies, it helps to build a picture, so when it comes to the final confrontation, a man cannot turn around and say a woman is lying."

Detective Chief Inspector Sharon Rowe, of Sussex Police Family and Diversity, emphasised the need to report violence.

She said: "It is important for a woman to involve the police at an early stage because it will help her case later. This is important even if the perpetrator is not convicted."

But corroborating evidence does not always help.

Domestic violence expert Dr Lorraine Radford, of the Roehampton Institute, surveyed 130 abused parents nationwide in 1996 and found 21 per cent had been advised not to mention violence or abuse in court for fear it would be misinterpreted as a false allegation.

This was despite the fact that 90 per cent had moved home to escape violence and 48 per cent had experienced potentially lethal attacks.

Even when this was mentioned in court, contact was still ordered in more than 75 per cent of cases.

Even more shocking, 76 per cent of the children went on to be abused or attacked by the violent parent they had been ordered to see. Ten per cent were sexually abused, 15 per cent physically harmed and 26 per cent involved in an abduction attempt.

Part of the problem lies with the contact arrangements. Sometimes, children are ordered to have contact with their fathers at a paternal relative's house. There is no supervision by outside agencies in these cases.

Even when a child sees his or her violent parent in a contact centre, there is no guarantee they will be safe.

Contact centres provide a neutral space for the visits. Some offer high-level supervised contact while others only offer supported contact.

The centres also act as hand-over points when a parent is awarded unsupervised contact and a mother is concerned about letting the father into her home.

These centres are affiliated to the National Association of Child Contact Centres, with volunteers and co-ordinators provided by the Women's Royal Voluntary Service.

This is an improvement on the days when contact often took place in church halls with untrained volunteers.

However, Jean Calder said: "There is a need for centres that offer supervised contact, to be properly staffed with properly trained people who can recognise signs of abuse and violence. They need to be equipped with CCTV cameras and there must be procedures to prevent abduction."

She said she knew of cases where children had been sexually abused in the toilets of contact centres.

Trevor Berry, of Families Need Fathers, said there was no spare cash to regulate contact centres and installing CCTV cameras would disrupt the attempt to create a warm and relaxed atmosphere.

Mr Berry claimed some people were easier provoked than others and said: "Anyone can wind a human being up until they get very ratty and lash out."

However, he said children should be protected if their father was abusive.

He said: "If he's a genuinely nasty character, it's not going to do the child any good to see him."

Jean Calder's call for a presumption of no contact in cases of domestic violence has been backed up by David Lepper, Labour MP for Pavilion ward in Brighton, and East Worthing and Shoreham Tory MP Tim Loughton.

To contact Brighton's Women's Refuge Project helpline, call 01273 622822 on weekdays and 01273 665538 on weekends.