Court
stops parents suing over false abuse claims
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/story.jsp?story=429445
Independant
- 1st August 2003
Parents
from three families wrongly accused of abusing their children were
yesterday refused the right to sue the doctors who made the allegations.
But the
Court of Appeal confirmed that children subject to such misdiagnoses
can sue doctors.
They allowed
an appeal by a child in the case who was taken into care aged nine
after a mistaken diagnosis of sex abuse against her father.
The abuse
allegation began when the girl, who suffered a rare skin condition,
was injured while riding a bicycle. She has already been allowed
to take action against Dewsbury Health Care NHS Trust and Kirklees
Metropolitan Council by a county court judge.
The other
test cases involved a mother who claimed against East Berkshire
Community NHS Trust for the distress she suffered after being diagnosed
with Munchausen by Proxy, and a couple who claimed against Oldham
NHS Trust after being accused of injuring their daughter, which
led to them being separated from her for almost a year.
Dismissing
the appeals by the parents, Lord Phillips, Master of the Rolls,
said that it was reasonable for the children to sue where they had
suffered harm as a result of negligence but the position of the
parents was different.
"We
consider there are cogent reasons of public policy for concluding
that, where childcare decisions are being taken, no common-law duty
of care should be owed to the parents."
The ruling
was based on the fact that in child abuse cases, the interests of
the children and the parents may be poles apart.
Doctors
have a statutory duty to report suspected cases of child abuse and
the judges said it would be wrong to allow the common law of negligence
to trump that duty.
In the Oldham
case, the mother of a boy with a range of illnesses was accused
by doctors of exaggerating and fabricating them over several years,
before he was diagnosed with severe allergies and the allegations
withdrawn.
The judges
said: "The moment it was suspected that his injuries might
be deliberately exaggerated by his mother, the duty owed to M [the
boy] was in potential conflict with the interests of his mother.
"It was essential that the professionals should not be inhibited
in acting in the best interests of M by concern that they might
be held in breach of a duty owed to his mother." Doctors and
parents both claimed the verdict was a victory for children.
Harvey Marcovitch,
consultant paediatrician and spokesman for the Royal College of
Paediatrics and Child Health, said: "If a doctor falls below
acceptable standards, patients are entitled to seek recompense -
that is entirely reasonable.
"What
paediatricians are relieved about is that the judgment does not
extend the legal duty of care to the parents. That might have inhibited
[the doctors' investigations] and potentially protected abusers."
Penny Mellor,
a campaigner on behalf of parents who claim they have been wrongly
accused of abuse, said: "Doctors and social workers have been
able to behave with impunity for years. If they suspected abuse
they could rip children away and that was outrageous."
Jennifer
Barnard, director of children's services at the National Society
for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, said: "Although
we realise it is very distressing for parents and carers involved
in these cases, childcare professionals must be allowed to carry
out investigations without fear of reprisals or of being sued."
Landmark
decision in the High Court 30th July 2002
