A judgment has highlighted concerns around health professionals wrongly diagnosing accidental injuries as intentionally inflicted ones, leading to families being separated from their children.
The case involved a baby who suffered a serious head injury after his 12 year old sister accidentally dropped him while in her arms. Medical professionals initially diagnosed the injury as non-accidental and social services then took the baby from the parents.
While the judge in the case, Judge Bedford, uses the public judgment to highlight the need for more medical experts inside the family courts, there is a much more important point to be made.
Non-accidental injuries are very hard to diagnose and the training alone for this area is rigorous and given to only a few highly specialised doctors.
Judge Bedford says in the judgment:
“It is imperative when treating medical professionals have made a diagnosis of non-accidental injury that they keep this under review and update this diagnosis when new medical evidence is received and give active consideration to convene a multidisciplinary meeting. Dr Katta’s letter of 31 August opined that C’s low level vitamin D and calcium were “an unrelated issue”.
It seems that neither Dr Katta or his colleagues revisited his opinion on their view that non-accidental injury was ‘highly likely’.
Clearly, it is important that treating medical professionals do keep under review their diagnoses in the light of information as it emerges.”
Symptoms such as a lack of Vitamin D, which are common features in cases like these, can also indicate the presence of organic diseases which are not in any way related to deliberate injuries and can explain injuries as being accidental.
Given that children come into hospitals all the time with injuries, training around non accidental injuries should be given to every single treating physician looking at children.
Judge Bedford also said in the judgment:
“Although the fact that C has rickets was not ultimately linked by Dr Cartlidge to a subdural bleed, early knowledge of this fact would have put the parties on notice that there was cogent evidence C had an organic condition that may well explain his injuries (rickets of course being linked to low level vitamin D which can be linked to subdural bleeding.”
The baby was returned to his parents after spending five months apart from his family. There is no indication from the judgment as to how this separation affected the health of the baby, or the parents and their other children.
We are calling on the medical profession to insist that every physician treating a child who comes in with an injury or ailment should be trained to detect non-accidental injuries properly, and to ensure that accidental injuries are not misdiagnosed.
Re your last paragraph, quite right and well done. I hope your recommendations are put into effect – fully.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nearly every child that has ever been born suffers injuries during their childhood.That is part of growing up and alerting that child to more serious risks in the wide world awaiting their adulthood.
This gives every doctor( relying on an income via social workers).the opportunity to say more likely than not an injury is non accidental thus giving social workers the opportunity to grab almost any child they target especially branding helpless single mums as abusers who are guilty because they cannot prove their innocence.
Yet another disgrace found far too frequently in our failing British judicial system;
LikeLiked by 2 people
It is imperative that medical professionals assess situations accurately and do not jump to false conclusions. It takes time to assess situations correctly and this can only be done by patiently talking to the parties involved – it used to be called a good bedside manner.
LikeLiked by 2 people
It’s not just doctors. When a Case has reached criminal court when it’s claimed a child was hurt in play and it’s over the local newspapers/radio- the outcome, where the decision made by the Judge referred to it ‘not’ been deliberate then-
What gives the right to other court officials (non medical exoerts) to pursue the parent totally innocent of causing unintentional harm- who had not hurt the child in play and was not out at bingo, clubbing and was home with her children but in another room downstairs as they was in bed and-
How many more miscarriages of justice (potential) have happened in this way already xx
LikeLiked by 1 person
i know of a baby that sustained a minor head injury due to a fall in 2014. the hospital agreed with the parents that it was an accident but the LA stated “Suspected none injury” in their case files and that baby along with his brother was removed for Adoption although the foster carer suspiciously got the LA to drop the Adoption plan and they remained with the carer under a SGO till they are 18.
the parents have not seen them since due to Lies, deception and Obstruction.
LikeLike
Typo.
that should read “Suspected none accidental injury”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Would be so much easier if there were an Edit button to correct errors.
LikeLike
Pingback: New law to prevent illegal child removals by social services | Researching Reform