Consensus
Report
Innocent
parents accused of abuse
Daniel Foggo
MPs
say hunt for abusers may be out of control
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2147749,00.html
The Sunday Times - Sunday 23rd April 2006
INNOCENT parents are being falsely accused of abusing their children
and threatened with having them taken into care, according to a report
backed by MPs.
An all-party group of MPs and peers is next month to meet Beverley Hughes,
the minister for children, to discuss concerns that the hunt for potentially
abusive parents might be out of control.
The group says large numbers of parents are being wrongly suspected
of Munchausen’s syndrome by proxy (MSBP), a condition where people
supposedly fabricate illnesses in their children to gain attention.
It wants a review of government guidelines issued to social workers,
police and teachers.
MSBP was
first identified by Professor Sir Roy Meadow, a paediatrician who was
struck off the medical register last year, and later reinstated on appeal,
after widespread criticism of his work. He was a key prosecution witness
in the cases of Sally Clark and Angela Cannings who were both jailed
for killing their children. Their convictions were quashed, however,
after Meadow’s theory that some cot deaths were actually murder
was discredited.
Despite the
government’s official view that MSBP, also known as fabricated
or induced illness, occurs in only about one person in a million, up
to 12,000 children a year are being taken into care for MSBP- related
reasons, according to the report.
The 104-page
report, drawn up by Consensus, a group of parents and professionals,
says Department of Health guidelines on MSBP issued in 2002 are phrased
in such a way as to trigger referrals of parents to social workers even
without any evidence.
The guidelines
state: “When a possible explanation for signs and symptoms is
that they may be fabricated or induced by a carer, and as a consequence
the child’s health or development is likely to be impaired, a
referral should be made to social services.” Among the cases highlighted
are:
Social workers
who claimed a mother was inventing her 14-year-old son’s hearing
impediment to get attention, despite medical evidence to the contrary.
The boy was removed from an “at risk” register only after
doctors protested.
A vicar’s
wife accused by social workers of exaggerating her child’s cerebral
palsy to get attention. After the child was put on an “at-risk”
register, a judge threw out the case and told the mother she had done
nothing wrong.
A professional
couple who were placed under investigation by social workers after a
school cast doubt on the seriousness of their six-year-old daughter’s
learning difficulties. The child was taken off an “at risk”
register only after her parents proved she was autistic.
Damian Green, a Tory frontbench spokesman who is part of the cross-party
group, believes the guidelines are encouraging social workers and schools
to be overzealous in their attempts to find MSBP. He said: “You
have the possibility of huge injustices arising through the inflexibility
of these guidelines which are based on questionable theories.”
Other members
of the group include Earl Howe, a shadow health minister; Jon Cruddas,
the Labour MP for Dagenham; Dr Richard Taylor, a retired consultant
and independent MP for Wyre Forest; Nick Gibb, MP for Bognor Regis and
Littlehampton; and Lynne Featherstone, the Lib Dem member for Hornsey
and Wood Green.
The MPs are
concerned by huge geographical variations in the number of families
being placed under investigation by social workers. In 2003, 264,000
parents or children faced “initial assessments” by social
workers who suspected possible abuse.
While in
Buckinghamshire there were only 540 initial assessments, in Kent the
number was 12,510. Even allowing for differences in their populations,
parents in Kent were 10 times more likely to be investigated over child
protection issues. The report argues this discrepancy may be explained
by some areas disregarding the MSBP hypothesis, “whereas in others
it is taken as gospel and applied with zeal”.
The report
has brought to light a number of harrowing cases. They include that
of Tina England, one of Gibb’s constituents, who had both her
adopted children placed on an “at risk” register because
West Sussex social services thought she had MSBP. Her elder son Donald
(not his real name), now 20, who has cerebral palsy and learning difficulties,
was experiencing stomach pains and England was advised by medics to
put him on a special diet.
But social
workers became concerned that she was exaggerating his disabilities
and showing signs of MSBP. They considered both Donald and his 14-year-old
brother Nigel (not his real name), who has more severe learning difficulties,
as well as autism and epilepsy, to be at risk.
At a case conference convened by the authority, a doctor who had met
neither England nor her children said he had “no problem in using
the label Munchausen’s syndrome by proxy in relation to Ms England”.
He had never examined Donald, yet he declared that he did not have cerebral
palsy — even though other doctors could provide written diagnoses
to confirm that he did. The fact England was so caring for her children
counted against her as evidence of MSBP.
A senior
social worker for West Sussex wrote that one risk factor (to her children)
was that “Ms England gains much of her feelings of self-worth
through her perceived dedication to her children’s wellbeing”.
England,
47, said: “I chose to adopt two children who were disabled because
I wanted to make a difference to their lives but that was turned against
me. They also queried Nigel’s hearing aids and suggested they
were unnecessary and I had got them to make him appear more disabled.”
England requested
support from Peter West, a consultant who had prescribed hearing aids
for Nigel. He wrote to West Sussex social services, saying: “I
was surprised and frankly appalled that comments can be passed in a
specialist area of this kind without any reference to any of the audiological
professionals involved.”
England’s
children were taken off the “at-risk” register in April
2001. “I would love to adopt another child but I have no chance
as any application I make causes the fact that my children were once
on an at-risk register to show up,” she said. “Nor can I
work in teaching support, which I am trained to do.”
Another case
in the Consensus document is that of Christina and John Crane. Their
six-year-old daughter Morgan, who has learning difficulties, was temporarily
placed on an “at-risk” register by Kent social services.
A Kent county
council report published earlier this year showed that the number of
children placed on the at-risk register in Ashford, where the Cranes
live, nearly doubled over the previous 12 months, rising from 34 to
62.
Morgan had
been “statemented” as having special needs but a teacher
at her school referred the parents to social services in May 2004, claiming
there were inconsistencies between their description of Morgan’s
abilities and what the school observed.
They were
then subjected to regular visits by social workers who assessed the
family’s relationships to decide whether to remove the children.
John Crane,
42, who runs a kitchen fitting business, said: “During one visit
by the social worker Morgan came and sat on my lap and because I hadn’t
put my arms around her it was written down that ‘no attempt to
show affection was made’.”
The authorities
accepted the reality of Morgan’s condition only after it had been
confirmed by a child psychologist.
In a third
case, Martin and Ann Hewitt, whose 12-year-old son Thomas is autistic,
were investigated by social services in Haringey, London, after a teacher
raised concerns he was being given too much medication. Although the
Hewitts were never accused of having MSBP, Haringey’s “child
in need” inquiry ended only when the couple proved they were giving
Thomas the exact amount of painkillers prescribed.
A spokesman
for Kent county council said: “We are not aware of any problem
with excessive numbers of investigations into allegations of fabricated
illness in Kent. We are very careful to abide by the Department of Health
guidelines. It is a medical diagnosis, not a social services one.”
West Sussex
county council, Haringey borough council, and the Department for Education
and Skills all declined to comment.
