MINISTER
FOR CHILDREN IS PERPETUATING
INJUSTICES TO CHILDREN
Despite
the desperate attempts by Margaret Hodge, the Minister for Children,
and by local authorities to minimise the damage caused to the child
protection system in the United Kingdom by the rulings in the Sally
Clark and Angela Cannings appeal hearings, and to limit the numbers
of children in state care who will be affected by the rulings, there
are many unresolved issues which will continue to fester and will
return to create even further problems for the Government and for
the courts.
The
guidance issued by Margaret Hodge [Local Authority Circular 2004(5)]
ignores the fact that the totality of the evidence given to the
courts by Professor Sir Roy Meadow was called into question and
was largely discredited. The Judges commenting that the evidence
was “manifestly wrong and grossly misleading” and “should
never have been put before a jury”.
That
evidence contained a considerable presentation of Meadow’s
several theories of child abuse and in particular, his theory concerning
Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy upon which the Government based its
ill-considered guidance to child protection agencies, which they
re-titled Fabricated and Induced Illness in Children.
In
the case of children in state care, the Circular issued by the Government
to local authorities has confined the application of the ruling
to an extremely strict interpretation that it is only those cases
where the medical evidence was disputed during the original care
hearing.
This
interpretation ignores that fact that in many more cases the medical
evidence had been subjected to disputes and controversies for many
years in the medical and social work professions, and there have
been several controversial debates in Parliament where contradictory
views were strongly expressed, as in the case of Fabricated or Induced
Illness in Children (FII).
This
theory of child abuse has been strongly criticised for its lack
of scientific integrity, but at many court hearings no expert witness
could be engaged who was able and willing to dispute the medical
evidence which was presented. Very few physicians would be prepared
to oppose Sir Roy Meadow in Court Proceedings.
Yet
the scope of the review of family court cases has been strictly
confined to those current and past cases of children taken into
care, where the decision has followed such a dispute. Such cases
where the medical evidence was undisputed formed the vast majority
of cases where children were removed from their families largely
on the basis of medical evidence.
This
is a gross injustice and unfair to those children who must now remain
in state care because of the Minister for Children’s narrow
interpretation of the Clark and Cannings judgments. No doubt this
decision has been pressed on the Government by local authorities
mindful of the costs of compensation and damages which these cases
will create as a result of inappropriate interventions into the
lives of these children and their families.
Furthermore,
there have been many thousands of children and families who have
had their lives seriously harmed by such `undisputed’ medical
evidence submitted at child protection conferences where the outcome
has been that the children’s names have been wrongly placed
on child protection ‘At Risk’ Registers. Parents and
their children are not permitted to bring expert witnesses nor even
a legal representative to these conferences, which are little more
than kangaroo courts, and where decisions are often taken by social
workers alone and against the opinions of other professionals who
may have known the child and family for many years.
Placing
a child’s name on an ‘At Risk’ Register and carrying
out a child protection investigation are not neutral, benign, and
innocuous in their effects but cause severe and long-lasting harm
to the child and to the family, even if no court proceedings are
brought, which occurs in the majority of cases.
The
children live in terror that they are going to be removed from their
family and this seriously affects their emotional, mental, and social
well being. Families are stigmatised in their communities and suffer
loss of relatives, friends, and the support of concerned other professionals,
who want to continue helping the family but are coerced into withdrawing
their support by the omnipotent presence of the child protection
social workers. This stigma follows the child and family into schools
and other medical and health services, where alarmist reactions
occur as soon as it is known that the child’s name is on the
‘At Risk’ Register.
Despite
the discrediting and widespread condemnation of the child abuse
theories of Professor Sir Roy Meadow and in particular the lack
of a scientifically researched bases for those theories, the Government
continues to promote his theory on Fabricated and Induced Illness
in Children and local authorities will continue to pursue cases
in the courts where this theory is advanced by paediatricians and
other child protection workers.
The
Government [DfES] is in fact now promoting its use by teachers where
children are absent from school for health reasons. So not only
is the Minister for Children failing abysmally in not correcting
past and present injustices toward children and families, but is
introducing further guidance and regulations which will create even
more injustices in the future.
Charles Pragnell Dip.S.W., L.R.C.C. is an Expert Defence Witness
and a Child Protection and Child/Family Advocate in the United Kingdom
and Australia.
