CHILD PROTECTION

Ofsted Report

2008-11-20T04:25:00.000-08:00

There are a number of reports showing that child protection services in the UK are not equipped to protect children. The main study was done by the University of East Anglia.

Ofsted Report is summarised by the Telegraph here.

In addition, the Telegraph article here provides a excellent summary of the failings in child protection as applied to Child P.

The report said: "Serious Case Reviews carried out by local Safeguarding Children Boards and evaluated by Ofsted were judged to be inadequate in around a quarter of cases and there were serious delays in producing them in almost all cases.

"These shortcomings limit their value as a means of sharing and improving practice."

Miss Gilbert said that while she was encouraged that the report had shown that "so much is going well" for children, young people and adult learners, she was "frustrated" that there was "still too much that is patently inadequate and too many instances where the rate of improvement is unacceptably slow".

She added: "Too many vulnerable children are still being let down by the system and we are failing to learn from the worst cases of abuse."

The Full Report can be accessed here.

The summary can be accessed here. - Section of Safeguarding Children

Saving Africa's Witch Children

2008-11-17T11:29:00.000-08:00

There is a documentary about the abuse, torture and even murder of thousands of children in Nigeria. You can see the Channel 4 Dispatches Documentary.

If you can, please support Gary Foxcroft's work through http://www.steppingstonesnigeria.org/

There is an online petition addressed to the most significant figure driving this persecution. You can sign it here

Baby P

2008-11-14T14:41:00.000-08:00

Collection of articles on Baby P.

06/06 Lord Justice Wall's investigation into child homicide cases

2008-10-27T07:39:00.000-07:00

06/06

Lord Justice Wall's investigation into child homicide cases published

Sir Mark Potter, President of the Family Division, has published a report by Lord Justice Wall investigating judicial involvement in cases mentioned in a Women's Aid report into child homicide.

The original report identified 29 children from 13 families who were killed by their fathers between 1994-2004, following a breakdown in their parents' relationship. 18 of the 29 murdered children were not subject to any form of court proceedings. However, the report identified five cases – concerning 11 children in all - in which a court order had been obtained for the father to have contact with his children.

In 2004 when the issue was discussed at the Constitutional Affairs Select Committee, Lord Justice Wall while giving evidence suggested that it would be helpful if a senior judge looked at the five cases in detail, to see under what circumstances and on what evidence the contact orders have been granted.

His detailed report has now been completed and submitted to the President of the Family Division. It concluded that – after a rigorous examination of the case files – eight of the eleven children who tragically died in these cases did so as a result of parental actions which could not reasonably have been foreseen or anticipated by the court on the material available before it.

The remaining three children were the subject of 2 cases, in both of which the judge was presented with consent orders agreed between the representatives of the parties. Lord Justice Wall said that it was not clear whether the court should have been more proactive in investigating the circumstances and refusing contact despite such agreement. There were arguments in both cases for the order being made in what were genuinely believed to be the best interests of the child despite earlier indications of violence between the parents.

Lord Justice Wall makes three recommendations in the report:

The Family Justice Council should consider and prepare a report to the President on the approach the courts should adopt to proposed consent orders in contact cases where domestic violence is an issue.
There should be a more rigorous approach to safety in cases where a parent has been violent to their partner but not to the child.
On judicial training, no judge should sit for the first time in private family law proceedings without having undergone training that includes multi-disciplinary induction on domestic violence. All refresher training courses should contain updating on domestic violence issues.

The President said:

"I have accepted the recommendations made by Lord Justice Wall in his comprehensive and thorough report. In particular I will be referring his report to the Family Justice Council, which has representatives from across the spectrum of family law professionals and interested parties. I will be asking them to consider what approach courts should take on proposed consent orders in contact cases where domestic violence is an issue.

"I wish to place on record my gratitude to Lord Justice Wall for the painstaking way he has undertaken this report. These were tragic cases – it was right of Women's Aid to highlight the issue and it is right that all who work in the family justice system should do their utmost to avoid such tragedies. The responsibility for murdering a child lies on the murderer, but the family justice system must do all it can to protect children and make contact safe."

Parts 1 and 8 of Lord Justice Wall's report have been published on the website – http://www.dca.gov.uk/judicial/judges/pubs.htm. Parts 2-7 concerned the individual cases and court files reviewed. They have been submitted to the Government, Constitutional Affairs Select Committee and the Women's Aid Foundation of England (WAFE).

In his introduction to his report Lord Justice Wall concluded:

"Whilst I by no means agree with everything in it, I welcome WAFE'S initiative in publishing 29 Child Homicides. However painful they are, practitioners in the Family Justice System need regular reminders of the evils of domestic violence. The document provides one such reminder."

Council of Europe - Parliamentary Assembly

2008-10-15T03:41:00.000-07:00

Doc. 11742

9 October 2008

Human rights and family courts

Motion for a resolution

presented by Mr Rowen and others

This motion has not been discussed in the Assembly and commits only the members who have signed it

1. The Assembly recognises that the protection of human rights is one of the Council of Europe’s core values. It recognises that children are particularly vulnerable and that systems must be in place to protect those children considered “at risk”.

2. The Assembly believes, however, that those who are tasked with protecting children need to be accountable for their actions and need to operate in a way which protects the human rights of all the people they are dealing with.

3. The Assembly notes the recent judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, X. v. Croatia (Application No. 11223/04) dated 17 July 2008, which held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) on account of the applicant’s exclusion from the proceedings which resulted in her daughter being adopted.

4. The Assembly believes that the use of mental incapacity by Croatia to exclude a person from involvement in their children’s future is wrong and not only violates Article 6 (right to a fair trial) but also Article 8 (right to family life) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).

5. The Assembly notes that in the United Kingdom, the 1989 Children’s Act is the main legislation governing child protection and that Cafcass (the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service) provides guardians ad litem for children in care cases.

6. The Assembly further notes that since the start of 2008, when Ofsted (Office for Standards in Education) became the regulator for Cafcass, it has issued two reports which have criticised the standards used by Cafcass. It said: “Inspectors could not find evidence about how service managers satisfy themselves that family court advisers are reaching sound conclusions in order to make the right recommendations to courts about children’s lives”. It found that “most reports contain recommendations to the court that fail to take account of a key principle of the Children’s Act that there should be minimum state intervention in family life”.

7. The Assembly notes that there are over 100 cases a year in England and Wales in which an organ of the state (the Official Solicitor) displaces a parent in proceedings which may lead to the adoption of their child or children.

8. The Assembly further notes that mothers have had their children removed because they were victims of domestic violence or on the basis of medical evidence for which there had been no second opinion.

9. The Assembly further notes that England habitually gives judgment in family proceedings without the judgment being in public (in conflict with Article 6). This Assembly notes that there can be an argument for anonymity, but not for the reasoning of the court to be kept secret which means that the court’s reasoning is not properly accountable.

10. The Assembly believes that these reports and concerns provide evidence of possible violation by the United Kingdom of Articles 6, 8 and 13.

11. The Assembly notes that Portugal also operates a system of forcible adoption where the parents, having not willingly given up their parental rights, have children forcibly adopted away from them.

12. The Assembly therefore believes that there is sufficient evidence and concern about the operation of family courts in relation to the European Convention on Human Rights in Croatia, Portugal and the United Kingdom to request that an investigation be carried out.

Signed ^1:

ROWEN Paul, United Kingdom, ALDE
CHOPE Christopher, United Kingdom, EDG
EÖRSI Mátyás, Hungary, ALDE
HAGBERG Michael, Sweden, SOC
HANCOCK Michael, United Kingdom, ALDE
JIVKOVA Evguenia, Bulgaria, SOC
KOSACHEV Konstantin, Russian Federation, EDG
LAAKSO Jaakko, Finland, UEL
LOUTFI Younal, Bulgaria, ALDE
MARQUET Bernard, Monaco, ALDE
MEMECAN Nursuna, Turkey, ALDE
O'HARA Edward, United Kingdom, SOC
ØSTERGAARD Morten, Denmark, ALDE
POURGOURIDES Christos, Cyprus, EPP/CD
SLUTSKY Leonid, Russian Federation, SOC
WILSHIRE David, United Kingdom, EDG
WOLDSETH Karin S., Norway, EDG

¹ EPP/CD: Group of the European People’s Party
SOC: Socialist Group
EDG: European Democratic Group
ALDE: Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe
UEL: Group of the Unified European Left
NR: not registered in a group

Dr Alun Elias-Jones. What's Love Got to do with it?

2008-10-13T09:13:00.000-07:00

Today, the media has been filled with gossip regarding Dr Alun Elias Jones. The tittle tattle can be heard all over the Midlands in wide dolby stereo. Essentially, Dr Elias Jones was having his cake and eating it.

The Daily Mail stated

"The 57-year-old Scots-born doctor had a second family with a nurse who lived just three miles away.
He fathered three children with his mistress Dee Beresford, the eldest of whom is now fourteen.
The doctor's devoted wife, Hazel, discovered his double life only after he was taken to hospital following a stroke and she found incriminating evidence - a pair of toddler's tights belonging to one of his secret children - left by him in their family home"
Dr Elias-Jones worked as a general paediatrician at the University Hospital of Leicester for 15 years.
He was forced to quit in 2006 after a second conviction for drink-driving.
The family source said that he had parked his car so badly one night that police decided to wait for the driver to return. When Dr Elias-Jones turned up he was breathalysed and found to be twice the legal limit.
Dr Elias-Jones now works as a community doctor. He is the named doctor for child protection for Leicester City and County Primary Care Trusts.

So what all this has to do with his ability as a doctor remains to be seen. Society though expects doctors to be perfect human beings. Of course, many cannot control love and its difficulties. I note that no one conducts an investigation or feature into Penny Mellor, the anti child protection campaigner who can still be seen spouting rubbish. and false information Penny Mellor has 8 children by different fathers. She has never denied an affair with John Hemming. Questions were asked in Parliament but no one knows where Hemming obtained his inspiration. Perhaps, it was love, perhaps it was votes or but it definitely wasn't justice.

The cynical side of me would say that this is simply another effort to undermine yet another child protection doctor. Lurid details of his private life are left for the world to see. Why should anyone of us be interested? Of course, his private life has nothing to do with his work life but that isn't the way the newspapers will observe this.

On occasion, it would balance the issues to publicly feature Penny Mellor - the compulsive liar, the lady who makes false accusations against all and sundry and a lady who has a unhealthy obsession with David Southall. So much so, that she cannot let go of him. This is otherwise known as the " bunny boiler" effect. What is worse in this world of debate is those who have no insight into how intellectually deficient they are. Her blog is there for all to review - the misinterpretations made by a house wife. How many lovers has she had again? Perhaps if she had spent less time breeding and more time reading the books, she may well have had the ability to put forward a reasoned argument.

DCSF: Referrals, Assessments and Children and Young People who are the subject of a Child Protection Plan, England - year ending 31 Mar 2008

2008-10-06T09:29:00.000-07:00

This annual publication contains national figures on referrals, assessment and children and young people who are the subjects of child protection plans (on the child protection register) for year ending March 2008. The publication contains historical data for comparison purposes. The content is the same as previous SFRs in the series. Summary: Statistics on referrals and assessment of children are published as Referrals, assessments and children who are the subject of a child protection plan in England - Year ending 31 March 2008 and include data from England The latest statistics report on the period year ending 31 March 2008 and update those previously released on 20 September 2007 The key points from the latest release are: Referrals There were 538,500 referrals to social services departments in the year ending 31 March 2008, compared to the previous year's figure of 545,000 (in other recent years the figures have fluctuated from between 550,000 and 570,000). Of the 2008 referrals, 24% were repeat referrals within 12 months of a previous referral, an increase of one percentage point on the previous year. Initial assessments (NI 59) Of the 319,900 initial assessments completed in the year, 226,300 (71%) were completed within 7 working days of referral. This compares with 208,700 (68%) out of a total of 305,000 for the previous year. Core assessments (NI 60) Of the 105,100 core assessments undertaken in the year, 83,700 (80%) were completed within 35 working days. This compares with 73,300 (78%) out of a total of 93,400 for the previous year. Children who became the subject of a Child Protection Plan or ceased to be the subject of a Child Protection Plan (NI 65) There were 34,000 children who became the subject of a plan in 2008; this compares to 33,300 in 2007. Around 14% of these had previously been the subject of a plan one percentage point more than in 2007. During the year ending 31 March 2008, 32,600 children ceased to be the subject of a plan; this compares to 31,800 in 2007. Length of time a child was the subject of a plan (NI 64) 5% of children who ceased to be the subject of a plan had been on it for 2 years or more, one percentage point fewer than in 2007, following a downward trend over a number of years. Review of child protection cases (NI 67) The percentage of child protection cases which were reviewed within the required timescales was 99%, the same as last year.
Download Formats PDF (143Kb) \| Screen Reader \| Explain formats

UN Tells Britain to Improve on Child Protection

2008-10-06T09:14:00.000-07:00

Source - Reuters.

GENEVA (Reuters) - A United Nations panel called on Britain on Friday to stem persistently high rates of violence and sexual abuse against children at home and in school.

Authorities should also ensure that no one under the age of 18 is deployed to combat areas, and raise its minimum age for armed forces recruitment from 16 to 18, it said.

The U.N. Committee of the Rights of the Child issued its conclusions after examining the records of seven countries, including Britain, at a three-week session that ended on Friday.

In Britain, the 18 independent experts said they remained "alarmed at the still high prevalence of violence, abuse and neglect against children, including in the home, and at the lack of a comprehensive nationwide strategy in this regard."

Mechanisms should be set up to monitor the extent of violence, sexual abuse, neglect, or mistreatment, including within the family, at school and in institutional care, it said.

Corporal punishment of children should be banned explicitly in the home as well as elsewhere, it added.

The U.N. body monitors compliance with the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child, ratified by 193 countries including Britain. Britain has also ratified an optional protocol on children in armed conflict.

Tom Jeffery of the department for children, schools and families, told the panel that authorities were committed to securing the health and wellbeing of every child in England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland.

Continued here.

RK and AK v the United Kingdom (38000/05)

2008-10-06T09:04:00.000-07:00

Source Family Law Week

ECHR judgment in a claim by a couple whose child had been taken into care, who was later diagnosed with brittle bone disease, for breaches of Article 8 and 13 rights. The court found there was a breach of the couple's Article 13 rights.

The applicants, R.K., and his wife, A.K., are British nationals who were born in 1972 and 1976, respectively. They live in Oldham (United Kingdom). They have a daughter, M., who was born in July 1998.

In September 1998 M. was taken to hospital with a fractured femur; doctors concluded that the injury had not been accidental and she was placed in the care of her aunt. Following another injury, M. was diagnosed with brittle bone disease. She was returned home in April 1999. The case concerned the applicants’ complaint that their daughter was placed temporarily in care due to a medical misdiagnosis. They relied on Articles 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 13 (right to an effective remedy).

It was not disputed that the interim care order had interfered with the applicants’ right to respect for their family life. That interference had been “in accordance with the law” and pursued the legitimate aim of protecting M.. Indeed, the authorities, medical and social, had a duty to protect children and could not be held liable every time genuine and reasonably-held concerns about the safety of children in their families were proved, retrospectively, to have been misguided. The Court considered that M., a three-month old baby, had suffered a serious and unexplained fracture and that the social or medical authorities could not be faulted for not immediately diagnosing brittle bone disease, a very rare and difficult condition to identify in small infants. Moreover, the baby had been placed within her extended family and in close proximity to her parents’ home so that they could frequently and easily visit. As soon as another fracture had occurred outside of the applicants’ care, further tests had been carried out and, within weeks, M. had been returned to her home. The Court was therefore satisfied that the domestic authorities had had relevant and sufficient reasons to take protective measures, which had been proportionate in the circumstances and had given due and timely account to the applicants’ interests. Accordingly, the Court held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 8.

However, the Court found that the applicants should have had available to them a means to claim that the local authority’s handling of procedures had been responsible for any damage they had suffered and to claim compensation. As such redress had not been available at the relevant time, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 13 and awarded the applicants, jointly, EUR 10,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 18,000 for costs and expenses.

Full judgment available here.

To Sir With Love

2008-10-06T08:59:00.000-07:00

The Daily Mail reports on Chris Keates comments regarding teachers who have sex with their pupils.

Child protection experts last night condemned a teachers' leader for saying that staff who have affairs with pupils over 16 should escape prosecution.

Chris Keates, general secretary of the National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers, said teachers should not face jail for having sex with pupils who are over the age of consent.

Her comments, due to be broadcast tonight, have outraged child protection and parenting experts who accused her of disregarding the protection of children.

Miss Keates said: 'There is a real anomaly in the law that we are concerned about.

'If a teacher has a relationship with a pupil at the school at which they teach - it could be an 18-year-old pupil in the sixth form - then the teacher can be prosecuted and end up on the sex offenders' register.'

Teachers who have sex with sixth form pupils are only guilty of an 'error of professional judgement' and it is unfair to put them on the sex offenders' register, she insists.

Continue reading here.

David Southall Returns to Child Protection Work

2008-09-22T01:08:00.000-07:00

The leading articles can be accessed through Google News UK

The Transcripts for the recent hearing can be found here.

STIGMA - A Wrong Diagnosis of Munchausen Syndrome By Proxy

2008-09-22T01:06:00.000-07:00

This article was written by a mother who suffered extensive stigma and prejudice. It can be accessed here.

End of Updates

2008-07-04T12:48:00.000-07:00

This website will not be updated in the future. We are leaving this website as an archive for child protection.

Thankyou to our visitors for their support.

No Case to Answer

2008-07-04T07:35:00.001-07:00

The Henshall case has been dismissed by the GMC.

Press Association lists a summary article.

The news was brought to us by access to Penny Mellor's website and not by PACA.

GET YOUR MP TO SIGN UP FOR THIS EDM.

2008-06-20T11:46:00.000-07:00

GENERAL MEDICAL COUNCIL COMPLAINTS SYSTEM

10.06.2008

Kawczynski, Daniel

That this House believes that the General Medical Council’s (GMC) complaints mechanism fails to comply with standards of fairness and due process required by Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights; observes that the GMC's role in investigating, prosecuting and sentencing falls below the standard required of an independent and impartial tribunal; notes that in practice the GMC represents the interest of parents in cases where doctors suspect abuse; further notes that children themselves have no independent representation to present a doctor's concerns; further believes that no published guidelines appear to guide prosecution decisions and that, as prosecutor, the GMC amends and adds charges in an ad hoc fashion; considers that doctors are uncertain of the allegations they face, compromising their ability to mount a cogent defence; further considers that the GMC calls expert witnesses with clear conflicts of interest in the proceedings who are unrepresentative of mainstream practice or opinion, and that the GMC adopts a populist, punitive, deterrent and disproportionate approach to sentencing; further considers that the GMC’s apparently arbitrary admission and exclusion of evidence extends to ignoring the findings of previous investigations into a case conducted by an accused doctor's employer; further believes that the GMC values the public perception and integrity of the profession above individual rights; and further observes that, contrary to basic principles of justice, the GMC appears to assume the guilt of doctors before it, and refuses to acquit when a conviction is impossible, instead finding 'no realistic prospect of prosecution'.

Brian Morgan Freelance Journalist Fails to Declare Conflict of Interest

2008-06-19T03:25:00.000-07:00

Mr Morgan published a number of articles with the Times Higher Education Supplement - 12th August 1994 and 9th September 1994.

Both pieces were distorted accounts of David Southall's work.

He fails to declare his role in campaigning against Dr David Southall [with Penny Mellor]. So much for independence :) when presenting information.

Further coverage on NHS Exposed Blog

John Hemming Blasted by Family Court Judge. Source Birmingham Post

2008-06-10T13:43:00.001-07:00

Birmingham MP John Hemming has been slammed by one of the country’s top family law judges over his criticism of the Family Justice system and for abusing his position as an MP.

John Hemming

Rounding on John Hemming (Lib Dem Yardley) over his approach towards helping a woman in court proceedings after her child was taken into care Lord Justice Nicholas Wall said: "As to Mr Hemming, my judgment is that his self-imposed role as a critic of the family justice system is gravely damaged.

"Speaking for myself I will not be persuaded to take seriously any criticism made by him in the future unless it is corroborated by reliable, independent evidence."

Hemming had been allowed to take part in the Appeal proceedings. The judge said he found some allegations made by Hemmings without evidence to support them "not only unacceptable but shocking" given the fact he was an MP.

"Mr Hemming has been willing to scatter unfounded allegations of professional impropriety and malpractice without any evidence to support them," he said.

Referring to criticism Hemming levelled against a clinical psychologist involved in the case - identified only by the initials HJ - Lord Justice Wall they were allegations which represented in his judgment "a wholesale and entirely unwarranted attack on the professional integrity of HJ for which, once again, there is no evidence what so ever."

The judge also referred to a Parliamentary petition in which he said Hemming indicated he believed the psychologist was in the pay of the local authority and that he considered the system under which the woman’s case was being handled was "evil."

"In my judgment, these comments are not only wrong and ill-informed. The simple fact remains that they have no foundation in the evidence presented either to the Nottingham County Court or to this court. That they are made publicly by Mr Hemming once again strikes me as an abuse of his position," said the judge.

Turning to general criticism of the family courts the judge said : "Since the Family Justice System is frequently criticised for its alleged secrecy - an allegation often combined with suggestions of corruption and malpractice û this case offers an opportunity to demonstrate just how ill-informed those criticisms can be."

Lord Justice Wall was giving judgment at London’s Court of Appeal in a case involving a woman who gave birth prematurely at 27 weeks, only shortly after she discovered she was pregnant.

The Court rejected the latest round of her legal battle for the right to care for her seriously ill child.

Lords Justices Wall who gave judgment with Lord Justice Matthew Thorpe ruled today that Nottingham City Council was right to take the girl, now two-years-old, into care.

After her premature birth in May 2006, the child remained in hospital until care proceedings were instituted by the Council in September 2006. In November 2006, she was discharged from hospital into the care of foster parents, where she remains.

The judge said that she was taken into care because it was considered that neither the mother, aged 23, the father, aged 66, nor any of her family were capable of caring for her.

Lord Justice Wall said today that the girl, identified only as KP, remains in foster care while the Council tries to find adoptive parents willing and able to take on a child with "many very serious medical conditions".

In his decision today though Lord Justice Wall slammed John Hemming, who has been a fierce critic of the family justice system and who had stepped in to help the mother, identified by the initials RP, to present her case.

He said that the MP had concentrated too much on the rights of the mother and failed to take into account the welfare of the child.

The mother had claimed her human rights had been breached by the court orders placing KP in care, and by the stance of the Official Solicitor û whose job it is to represent the interests of the child in care proceedings, and who did not oppose a care order in this case.

However, Lord Justice Wall ruled that the evidence was "overwhelmingly in favour of care and placement orders" and that the Official Solicitor had behaved "entirely properly".

He added: "The Official Solicitor was right to concede that a care order was in KP’s best interests. The judge was plainly right to make care and placement orders. Such were plainly in the interests of KP. It follows, in my judgment, that RP’s rights have not been breached."

He said that orders made later Judge Butler QC at Nottingham County Court backing the stance taken by the Official Solicitor and challenged in the appeal were "plainly right and inevitable."

"At the heart of this case, as with so many family cases, lies a human tragedy: the premature and unconsidered birth of a disabled child, and a mother who is plainly incapable of caring for her, however much she may want to.

"However, the danger of the mother’s approach, reinforced as it has been in my judgment by Mr Hemming’s partial and tendentious advice, is that it has been entirely adult focused. Not once in his argument did he mention the welfare of KP. His emphasis, and that of RP, was entirely on her rights and the alleged wrongs which had been done to her.

"The court’s focus, of course, is on the child, and if one stands back from this case and asks oneself what is the best interests of KP, the answer is self-evident."

Related Links http://johnhemmingmp.blogspot.com/

House of Lords Debate

2008-05-24T14:48:00.000-07:00

The recent issue regarding David Southall's case was debated in the House of Lords.

14 May 2008 : Column GC363

GMC panel decisions; as it is, there are actually very few. We would expect the OHPA to create equality and balance in its panels.

We do not think that, in this case, there is evidence that a panel of three is insufficient. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Tonge, that the flexibility exists for there to be a larger panel if there is an important or complex case to be considered. It might well be that the cases that have been mentioned might be considered to be just such cases. A panel of three members is widely used by other bodies, such as the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal and many of the health professional regulators. In light of best practice in other adjudication bodies, I do not want to impose a larger panel on the OHPA, especially when it will have the discretion through its rules to vary the panel size according to need. Those rules will be subject to consultation under Clause 104, the approval of the Privy Council and parliamentary scrutiny via the negative resolution procedure.

Amendment No. 124 seeks to ensure that there is a professionally qualified member on the panel who has “relevant professional expertise”. We agree that it is important for the panel to have a professionally qualified member on it, and that is what the Bill provides for. The question is whether the amendment goes one step further by saying that the professionally qualified member must have “relevant professional expertise”. I was reassured by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, that she was not suggesting that the person should be of the same discipline, and other Members of the Grand Committee have mentioned that. While I understand that there may, on the face of it, seem to be benefits from having this kind of knowledge on the panel, there would also be a real risk of such a requirement either undermining the independence of the panel—if it was a very small discipline that might be the case—or of delaying the panel because of the difficulty of finding someone. It is a question of whether “relevant professional expertise” ties the OHPA down in a way that would not be helpful.

Baroness Golding: I strongly support the amendment, which is very important indeed. I speak again about paediatricians. I wrote in March to the president of the GMC, who offered to help me to understand the way that the GMC works. I asked for an explanation regarding the inquiry on the fitness to practise of Professor Southall in the Sally Clark case. Following his reply, I said:

“As I understand it Professor Tim David was the sole paediatric expert assisting the G.M.C. in both the prosecutions of Professor Southall. I also understand that Professor David was appointed by the Family Court to oversee the care of the remaining Clark child and supported Mr Clark’s position. He has also been retained to support the Clark family in their appeal against Mrs Clark’s criminal conviction. If this is correct how could Professor David act as an impartial paediatric expert in the prosecution of Professor Southall by the G.M.C.?”.

I received a reply which said that it would be inappropriate for him to comment on Professor Southall’s case at this stage, as he has appealed to the High Court. He did appeal to the High Court and his appeal was accepted.

That is one case where someone who was supposedly independent obviously was not. The General Medical Council also proposed to ask Dr Nicholson to act as the professional witness at the CNEP trial of Professor Southall, Dr Spencer and Dr Samuel that was due to start this week. That was to happen even though Dr Nicholson had constantly made remarks criticising and attacking the research work at Stoke-on-Trent hospital, where the doctors worked.

I understand that the trial for those three doctors has been delayed because Dr Nicholson was replaced at the last moment. That makes me wonder why. Why should this kind of thing be happening, whereby doctors’ livelihoods are put at risk by people, who are obviously opposed to them, giving evidence as recognised witnesses to the three people sitting on the tribunal at the GMC? What kind of justice is that? We ask for justice for the patients. Where is the justice for the doctors?

Nonfatal Maltreatment of Infants --- United States, October 2005--September 2006

2008-05-18T01:44:00.000-07:00

Nonfatal Maltreatment of Infants” is in the April 4 edition of Morbidity and Mortality WeeklyReport.

To read the entire article, visit here

Surveillance for Violent Deaths --- National Violent Death Reporting System, 16 States, 2005

2008-05-18T01:34:00.000-07:00

The Center for Disease Control and Prevention's NVDRS findings were reported in the April 11 issue of Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report Surveillance Summaries.

To read the report, visit this link

Doctors Argue Lack of Fair Trial

2008-05-14T11:23:00.000-07:00

DOCTORS ARGUE THEY CAN'T HAVE FAIR TRIAL

Be the first reader to comment on this story

DAVE BLACKHURST
DAVE.BLACKHURST@THESENTINEL.CO.UK

09:40 - 14 May 2008

Two North Staffordshire doctors facing disciplinary charges over their involvement in a breathing study on sick babies say it happened so long ago they will be robbed of a fair trail.

But a third medic, Dr David Southall, intends to, "defend the allegations one by one and show them as hollow and baseless", the General Medical Council heard yesterday.

Along with fellow paediatricians, doctors Andrew Spencer and Martin Samuels, he is before the GMC's fitness to practice panel in Manchester to answer complaints by Clayton couple Carl and Deborah Henshall.

They claim one baby, Stacey, died after two days and another, Sofie, now 15, has brain damage because they were placed into low pressure CNEP tanks as part of a research programme in the early 1990s.

More than 100 babies were subject to the programme, to see if they could breath without ventilators in their wind pipes.

The GMC opened the two month hearing by dramatically withdrawing a number of charges relating to statistical parts of the study and clearing an academic paper the doctors published on it.

But Dr Spencer is still facing charges over his care of Sofie soon after her birth at the then North Staffordshire Hospital in December 1992 and the way he took consent from parents.

Dr Southall faces concerns both over taking consent and his application for ethical approval of the research.

And Dr Samuels faces claims that, as research administrator, he failed to ensure appropriate procedures were in place to obtain informed consent.

For Dr Southall, who has just resigned from his job at the hospital, Mary O'Rourke said: "He believes there has been an inordinate and inexcusable delay in this case caused by the GMC and the complainants and that will stop him having a fair trial.

"But he still wants to defeat all allegations one by one and he wants me to cross-examine the complainants."

Martin Ford QC, for Dr Spencer, described the case as being as old as any to come before the panel with one charge expecting witnesses to remember what happened at three minutes past midnight on December 15, 1992.

He said: "This delay is not the doctors' responsibility. A lot of witnesses will be extremely defensive about their role in the 1990s. There is a real fear they will not be judged by 1990s' standards, but by those of 2008.

"These matters have been twice investigated already and 90 per cent of parents recall giving consent. There is no suggestion in the charges that any child came to harm from CNEP, whatever the Henshalls say.

"In the study there was a higher death and disability rate among the babies undergoing CNEP than those having normal ventilation. But the doctors argue that with such sick infants it was not significant."

GMC - A Laughing Stock

2008-05-13T14:39:00.000-07:00

NHS - Behind the Headlines features the latest update for the Henshall hearing.

Nice touch with the Comfy Chair Monty Python Sketch. Rumour has it that the GMC is exactly like it.

Judge Ignores Scientific Evidence

2008-05-13T09:30:00.001-07:00

The Guardian featured an interesting piece yesterday. A court overruled the medical experts in a injured baby case. The decision was out of the ordinary in that there was a departure from the usual manner where the judiciary balances the scientific evidence in the best interests of the child. It is highly unusual and particularly dangerous that the judge set aside scientific evidence and inserted his own view based on the demeanor of the parents. Child abusers have very manipulative personalities and may even be convincing psychopaths. On the stand, they can be convincing to anyone who is not astute to their personas. The Guardian stated "The case signals a growing recognition by senior judges that expert opinions are one part of a jigsaw and that it is for judges, not doctors, to decide issues of liability".

The newspaper went onto quote "

The council asked the judge to rule that one or other of the parents had caused his injuries by shaking the baby, who was removed and placed with foster carers. The judge said the council was "well aware that the impression of these parents from ... doctors, nurses, policemen, foster carers, those who have supervised contact and work colleagues, was of two loving and supporting parents who were deeply upset by the injuries to and illness of R".

My question is this, how can a judge ignore scientific evidence in favour of the parent's demeanour.

The baby was taken to hospital and found to be suffering from brain damage, bleeding on the surface of the brain and into the eyes, and a small fracture of the skull.

It is a brave judge who rules for the parents. We shall just have to see whether these incidents occur again and again and again. Ruling in the interests of the parents is a new trend within the courts. It is now doubt due to the skewed ideas propagated by Professor Tim David and his associations with Family Court judges. Parents are allowed to make any "rare excuse" to escape from being scrutinised by the courts. The important issue here is that common things are common. The above findings would lead to a suspicion of child abuse.

This case sets a dangerous precedent in the Family Courts where child abusers will be able to manipulate the system to their own advantage. All the abuser has to do is be pleasant and charming to the judge.

Our question is this, how many times does the child have to be abused and violated for the judges to believe the child as opposed to the parents?

Related Links

The judgment

GMC - Welcoming Harassers and Ex Felons

2008-05-08T03:23:00.000-07:00

GMC - Failure to recognise that revolving door complaints is Harassment.

The General Medical Council's vendetta against David Southall continues today. The Henshall Hearing has commenced.

Despite the lack of evidence to verify any case against the three doctors - Drs Southall, Samuels and Spencer, the GMC will be continuing to waste doctor's hard earned finances. Dr Southall has faced a barrage of complaints from one group only - led by Penny Mellor. This vendetta and classical tactic used by Mellor remains unrecognised by the GMC. More than 40 complaints were made against David Southall. The GMC held secret meetings with Penny Mellor and other mothers. No meeting has ever been held with any other justified complainant.

All NHS Inquiries vindicated him. The Nottingham Study has vindicated the CNEP trials.

Post Shipman, the GMC has had to justify their existence. They are of the view that "getting" Southall on any flimsy charge will inflate their reputation. As it stands, the General Medical Council has a serious attitudinal problem, a lack of insight and is currently not fit to practise.

More on the Henshall Hearing can be read soon on http://www.henshallhearing.blogspot.com

The Child Protection Emergency

2008-05-05T04:24:00.000-07:00

Finlay Scott should wipe that smile off his face.
The GMC - Increasing the risk to children
Mistreated and abused children never smile.

Over the last year, NHS Exposed has been determined to expose the truth regarding the emergency situation of child protection in the United Kingdom. Vulnerable children are being placed at serious risk due to the General Medical Council’s failure to recognise the importance of placing the abused child’s welfare first.

The General Medical Council’s own guidance Rule 61 states “Your first concern must be the safety of children and young people”. In 2005, the General Medical Council did not meet with the NSPCC or any other organisation that deals with abused children, they had a secret meeting with the nefarious group of parents who were known to harass child protection professionals. This meeting was conducted at the General Medical Council in 2005. To date, no other patient/relative or complainant outside this group has been sent such a welcoming invitation by the GMC. Penny Mellor attended the meeting.

Every ten days in England and Wales, on average, one child is killed at the hands of their parent. An average of 35 a year over the past five years. The General Medical Council has made no press statement relating to their concern for abused children.

Continued here.