Leading doctors have expressed "grave concerns" over the treatment of paediatricians who give evidence in child protection cases.
Delegates at the spring conference of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (RCPCH) backed a motion expressing fears about the General Medical Council (GMC).
However, members failed to back a vote of no confidence in the GMC over the issue.
Following last night's meeting Dr Patricia Hamilton, President of the RCPCH said: "The proposed vote of no confidence was not supported by the AGM.
"Instead the wording was amended to read 'the College continues to have grave concerns over the current GMC procedures in child protection.'
"This amended motion was passed by the AGM, but still has to be taken to Council for a final decision. We look forward to continuing to work with the GMC to resolve these issues."
The original motion demanded the GMC urgently review its procedures in child protection complaints.
It came after some medics warned doctors were "thinking twice" before reporting their concerns or agreeing to appear as expert witnesses in court cases.
Signed by 32 members of the college, it listed eight areas of "grave concern", and called for more protection for doctors against vexatious complaints and serial complainants.
Many child specialists feel deterred from acting as expert witnesses as a result of the GMC's treatment of Professor Sir Roy Meadow, the originally proposed motion said.
Prof Meadow was struck off the medical register by the GMC in 2005 for giving mistaken evidence that helped convict the late solicitor Sally
Clark of murdering her two children.
He later won a High Court battle, with the judge saying the GMC should not punish experts over evidence given in good faith.
But this was overturned in October 2006, after the the GMC successfully argued that the ruling prevented it from doing its work comprehensively.
The then Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, supported the GMC's case.
Mrs Clark's conviction was eventually quashed by the Court of Appeal.
The originally proposed motion also cited the case of Dr David Southall, who was struck off after being found guilty of serious professional misconduct.
He was said to have abused his position by accusing a mother of drugging and murdering her son.
Previously, in 2004, he was suspended from child protection work over his role in Mrs Clark's case.
He later defended himself, saying the first priority of anyone in child protection had to be the child.
ENDS