We have very similar laws here, not only can the name of the child be censored from the press, but indeed any means of identifying them indirectly, if so ordered by the court (and in some cases automatically eg family courts are all not allowed to be disclosed)
So even mentioning the accused can be an issue where any press reporting has to be sure not to cross the line, this can cause issues for reporters in smaller towns etc, where there may be only one major arrest in a week, if not longer, so for the local papers they have to tread very carefully, less so for national ones who can get away with something like "An accused father in a small country town was arrested", where the local paper there would still fall foul of being identifying the individual concerned, as he was the only one arrested...
Privacy laws are taken very strictly here, in comparison to the 'open slather' approach favoured by the USA
And of course there may be a variety of reasons for having certain aspects of a trial suppressed until a later date ;it is very rare for privacy provisions to be lifetime, usually it is until a minor comes of legal age (18) or until other aspects that caused the privacy clause to be enacted eg multiple defendants on separate trials over a period of time may have privacy clauses enacted until after all trials have been completed to prevent possible juror contamination from prior associated cases
