More Articles: Back | Main | Next

Mums sues over Baby Abuse Row

'London Appeal Court heard how the mother was “bundled” into a car and “uprooted” from her Lancashire home'

 

A mother whose baby boy was taken away after she and her partner were wrongly accused of abusing him have mounted a test case battle for compensation. Her case raises the issue of whether local authorities involved in child protection cases owe a legal “duty of care” to the parents as well as the child.

 

London Appeal Court heard how the mother was “bundled” into a car and “uprooted” from her Lancashire home with her partner and baby son to a Bristol hostel after the abuse accusations emerged. 

 

The boy was just a few months old when Bury council took him into care in the belief rib fractures he had suffered were “non-accidental”. It later emerged he suffered from Ontogenesis Imperfecta – a genetic disorder that causes bones to break easily often for no apparent cause.

 

The boy was kept in foster care for four months and the mother sued the council for substantial damages – claiming they treated her negligently – although she accepted the care order was properly made on medical evidence. 

 

But, at Oldham County Court in September 2003, Judge Knopf dismissed her case, ruling the local authority only owed a “duty of care” to her son.

 

At the Appeal Court, Benet Hytner QC argued that she had been directly affected by the council’s alleged failures and her suffering had been foreseeable.

 

Geoffrey Tattershall QC, defending for Bury, said there were powerful “public policy” reasons why the mother’s claim should be dismissed.

 

He said that if she won her case, health professionals involved in child protection cases would fear being sued by parents if their suspicions of abuse turned out to be mistaken.

 

Mr Hytner told the court that after their baby’s birth, concerns were expressed that he was not thriving.

 

He was five months old when in January 1997 hospital x-rays revealed a number of rib fractures.  He was placed on the Child Protection register and medical experts said that, in their view, the baby’s injuries were “non-accidental”. Despite the parents denials a judge made a care order in the council’s favour in May 1997 and on the same day, the parents were told they could not take their baby home. 

 

Mr Hytner said amid a “hostile” atmosphere of “suspicion, they spent three “stressful” months in a Bristol hostel waiting for a risk assessment that was never carried out.

 

In August, the council obtained another court order and the baby was placed with foster parents.  The boy was returned to his parents in December after his illness was diagnosed. 

 

Mr Tattershall said that, were the mother to win her case against the council, it would “fundamentally alter the balance of the law”.