Bunglie - had you seen this in today's Guardian ?
Falsely blamed mother asks law lords for right to sue
A mother once accused by the paediatrician David Southall of faking her son's illness is taking a test case to Britain's highest court that could pave the way for parents wrongly accused of child abuse to sue for compensation for the psychological trauma they suffer.
The boy, now 15, was referred by a GP to Professor Southall at the age of six for assessment for a breathing monitor. The GP described him as "the most allergic patient I have ever known".
But Prof Southall thought it was a case of Munchausen syndrome by proxy - a rare form of abuse in which parents fake or induce illness in their children to draw attention to themselves - and wrote to the local authority's child protection coordinator that the boy was at risk of significant harm.
The boy, whose identity is protected by court order and is named only as M, was admitted to North Staffordshire hospital in Stoke-on-Trent.
He and his mother were seen by Prof Southall, who noted: "Agreed that mother is exaggerating symptoms. Example of fabricated illness. Need social service strategy meeting."
The boy's mother claims she suffered acute anxiety and depression due to the stress of dealing with the claims against her. Her son was removed from the at-risk register after three months when his condition was diagnosed as extensive and with severe allergies.
The mother has also filed one of seven complaints against the paediatrician which are awaiting a hearing by the General Medical Council.
Last week, the GMC ruled that Prof Southall had abused his professional position in accusing Stephen Clark, the husband of Sally Clark, of killing two of his baby sons, after seeing him interviewed on television.
Mrs Clark was in prison at the time for murdering her sons, but her conviction was later quashed on appeal.
The GMC will decide in August whether the professor's actions amounted to serious professional misconduct and, if so, whether or not to strike him off the medical register.
M's mother is bringing one of three claims by parents against NHS trusts and a local council for the psychological effects of wrong diagnoses that they had abused their children.
The parents lost in the lower courts and again in the court of appeal, where three judges ruled last year that it would be against public policy for parents to be able to sue over mistaken diagnoses. Lawyers for a number of other parents who were wrongly accused are keenly awaiting the outcome of the test appeal to the House of Lords in the autumn.
The second case concerns a girl who was nine when her father was wrongly suspected of sexually abusing her. She was kept in hospital for 10 days, social services became involved and her father was prevented from seeing her.
It later emerged that she had hurt herself in the genital area while riding her bicycle, and marks on her legs were diagnosed as Schamberg's disease, an unusual skin condition. The appeal court ruled that the girl could sue, but that her father could not.
The third appeal is by the parents of a baby who was taken into care after suffering a broken leg. She was returned nine months later after a diagnosis of brittle bone disease.
The parents in the three cases, represented by Allan Levy QC, are appealing against an appeal court ruling that it would not be "fair, just and reasonable" to allow their claims to go ahead, because their interests potentially conflicted with those of their children.
"In view of this", the judges concluded, "we consider that there are cogent reasons of public policy for concluding that, where child care decisions are being taken, no common law duty of care should be owed to the parents."
In M's case, the judges approved a statement by the county court judge who tried the case, which said: "Once a suspicion arises about someone who was the mother of a patient, there was a clear duty to invest in the interest of M, even if initiating the process might damage the mother."