Anyone watching Panorama?

[LauraNorder]

Think it's going to be and

Christ Spero. Is that true? How is that even possible? This will surely just delay all Family Court proceedings even longer if they can't get representation?

Of course it must be terrible for innocent parents to have to go through this, but what is the alternative? If there are suspicions of child abuse then the child has to be protected. I thought the point of the program was to explore the secrecy round the Family Courts - and I don't think it did that very well.

Squigglywig, it is not that medical evidence is treated as 'divine' but rather, the rest of us in court just don't have the knowledge to say that they are talking crap or not. I know very little about the working of the brain, so if a doctor tells me that bleeding in the subdural area indicates non accidental injury, how do I challenge??

The parents always have a right to seek to get another medical opinion, but it isn't automatic and the trend is to try to get one agreed joint expert because it is cheaper and it stops hearings taking so long. The more experts you have, the more difficult it is to fix a trial date as it has to be convenient for all experts.

Spero- Thats really interesting regarding legal aid. In a town where I volunteer I noticed a sign in local solicitor stating no legal aid solicitor in x town from October.

I wondered why and thought about how certain members of the community may not be able to access legal aid in the next town which is a lengthly distance away.

Spero - but if removals go up who will look after all these children? I don't have in depth knowledge - but do know that locally the numbers of children being "Looked after at home" are rising as there is no alternative.

mamatomany - I would be very surprised if a three month old baby could break his ribs by coughing, but that is why the medical evdidence is so important.

the legal aid cuts are going to lead to massive delays and possibly even no representation for parents in court. I am not arguing for the money going to lawyers - I think more money should be put into early intervention for families with problems, but the gov is clearly insane if it thinks this is the way to deal with the problem.

lal123, I have no idea what will happen. There is already a serious shortage of foster parents - I think we need about 10,000 extra?

Either children will stay at home and die or be seriously harmed or the media scare stories about babysnatching social workers will become reality as people are much keener on adopting babies.

It just seems an incredibly powerful position for essentially one medic to be in. I know they are generally experienced, and it can be a jointly agreed expert etc. But people fuck up.

I just find it really frightening, the potential that is there for people's lives to be destroyed. I'm not saying that is ever the intention. I don't think it is.

I get what you mean about the other people in court not being in a position to challenge it, but in a way I think that makes me feel even more clearly that there ought to be more than one expert where the consequences are so grave.

As far as getting court time goes - is it really necessary to have everyone in the room?

Spero is correct in saying that it is difficult to challenge a medical opinion - and that holds true no matter what the circumstances.

Child abuse is notoriously a difficult area but often these doctors get diagnosis wrong in other areas too. How often do we see in the media that someone died of meningitis because the symptoms were missed or not taken seriously enough despite pleas from the parents or family.

Medical negligence is very difficult to prove and it can be a long and arduous process to get a second opinion - in an emergency situation it must be nigh on impossible.

squigglywig - after the angela Channings case, the court made it clear that no one should be convicted in a criminal court if the medical evidence was unclear, and we should be wary on proceeding on medical evidence alone - for eg, look at all the surrounding circs in a child's life. But of course, we are all fallible and doctors can and do get it wrong. The consequences for innocent parents are huge. But so too are the consequences for children left with parents who hurt or even kill them. I think we have got the balance about right, but I don't think any system can ever prevent miscarriages of justice. Every system involves humans and we make mistakes, get careless etc, etc.

I have been involved in trials where there were a couple of days between each expert giving evidence, but this is an awful situation and not fair on anyone. Generally you want the hearing to be over in a block of time so the judge can properly evaluate the evidence. I've had experts give evidence over the phone and that's not great either.

Exactly Angel - there have been quite a few cases I can remember reading about where children are sent home from casualty only to die of meningitis. But no one argues that you shouldn't take your child to the doctor if you are worried.

I don't have answers how to make a system 'perfect', mainly because I don't believe perfection is possible, but we could reduce risk of mistakes by paying social workers more and appointing more of them, so the ones working aren't stressed and overloaded to begin with. That would probably have saved Victoria Climbie.

I don't know Spero. Agreed, pay more and recruit more.

But I just think that the consequences for a child removed from innocent parents are as bad as they are for the parents. And whilst I am not particularly objective I guess, I find those imperfections in the system too hard to swallow. Likewise, another Baby Peter cannot be allowed to happen.

Am not sure the Angela Cannings judgement has had the force and effect it needed to, tbh. But I only have experience of a few cases and they were all with the same few experts so I'm maybe wrong at a more general level.

I don't know what the answer is. The Swedish system is good, but taxes are prohibitively high by UK standards in order to fund it (and other stuff, obv).

Video-conferencing for experts?

More staff. Better paid. Better supported. Greater funding for early intervention. More capacity for various levels of supervision - from the minimal to the complete.

Am in cuckoo land now I know. But would it fix it?

Laura you mentioned that the child was being tested for deficiencies.

Depending on the type of injury it could be a blood-clotting disorder such as Von Willebrands Disease. It is estimated to occur in 1% of the population yet many people have no knowledge of it.

It's a genetic condition so whole families have been broken up because of this.

Sorry for hijack and not SS-bashing in any way.

Spero - you are correct and I'm not saying that you shouldn't take your child to the doctor if you are worried.
The parents involved in this case were worried and did take their child to be examined and there the nightmare began.
The system will never be perfect and it's an impossible dream to expect that.

I agree with all you say about better pay, more resources, better working conditions etc... Social work appears to be seriously underfunded and mismanaged in some areas.

However there is still the attitude of doctors always being assumed to be correct too that needs addressing. They do have a tendency to think themselves above reproach and criticism yet anyone is capable of a mistake.
In any possible case where doubt exists should an independent opinion not be sought elsewhere automatically? Without the second medical team knowing who has seen the child or why. It may provide more of a balance and allow for better assessment of the facts.

Angel - in most non accidental injury cases I have been involved with there is always a multitude of experts - you have the doctors in A and E then you have the experts appointed afterwards to review the hospital evidence etc, etc. It really isn't that doctors are treated as 'gods' who are never wrong, but that some areas of expertise are so narrow it is very difficult to even know what you should be challenging. For eg, adult radiologists defer to paediatric radiologists, the specialisms get narrower and narrower.

Maybe the only thing to realistically do is to concentrate on speeding up court hearings, I agree that if it takes 17 months to resolve a case that is utterly unacceptable. But to speed up the system will need a massive injection of money and the gov has already shown that all they are prepared to do is to cut existing budgets and shut down half the existing firms of solicitors who represent parents in care proceedings. The next year is going to get very ugly is my sad prediction.