“Suffer the Little Children - and their parents…..”
There has been a huge outcry recently following a series of recent acquittals and successful appeals of women charged with murdering their infant children. So much so that the Government has now ordered a review of every single similar conviction over the past ten years – and has now extended that enquiry to cases in which, although there was no criminal conviction, children have been removed from their parents in care proceedings. The controversy is well founded, but what is it all really about? Tim Dixon, Partner at Swindon solicitors Lemon & Co and a member of the Law Society's Children Panel explains…..
“Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) – “cot death” is a well known phenomenon in which an infant under twelve months old, (and usually under three months), suddenly dies for no apparent reason. Although the number of such tragedies has sharply reduced in recent years, through simple advice such as not smoking in the presence of infants and laying them in their cots on their back – theses tragic incidents do still occur”.
“Munchausen's Syndrome by Proxy, (now more usually called “factitious illness”), is a bizarre condition in which a carer, usually a mother, deliberately harms her child in order to bring attention to herself. It is a controversial diagnosis but one which, despite some recent press reports to the contrary, is fairly well documented and established. Some mothers have even been known to develop sufficient medical knowledge to enable them repeatedly to fool the doctors they consult”.
“Many commentators on the controversy have assumed a connection between a cot death allegedly caused by a mother and “factitious illness”, largely because Professor Roy Meadows, the eminent paediatrician at the centre of the recent cot death cases was himself an early proponent of “factitious illness”. That is misleading, because the problem is far more serious than that and goes to the very heart of our justice system”.
“If a cot death is difficult to explain, then more than one cot death in the same family seems beyond explanation. In fact, Meadows thought he could explain it by his now famous theory that “one cot death was tragic, two suspicious and three murder”. It was no more than that – a theory and indeed one with little scientific or statistical basis, despite Meadows' now equally famous and discredited assertion that the odds against a third cot death not being murder as more than one in 73,000,000”.
“The problem was that, so eminent and persuasive was Meadows that gradually prosecutors, judges and juries came to regard it as established fact. And so we reached the grotesque situation of mothers being convicted of murder when the only evidence against them was the fact that their children had inexplicably died. In other words, we had allowed misplaced expert evidence in one of the most difficult and controversial areas of paediatric medicine to displace perhaps the most basic principle of our criminal law - that a person is innocent until proved guilty”.
“What of “factitious illness” and the plans for the Government's review to now also cover care cases?
If a child's illness is inexplicable, there is a temptation to say the mother must be causing it, especially if expert evidence suggests there can be no other explanation. If that happens the mother could find herself in exactly the same position as the cot death mother charged with murder - found culpable of harming the child on no other basis than that the child has been harmed and then having the child, for his or her safety, removed permanently from her care. That is why the Government's enquiry has now also been extended to cover care cases – not because the existence of “factitious illness” has been discredited”.
“The ripples of this controversy are already spreading and another controversial area of paediatric medicine called Shaken Baby Syndrome (SBS) is now being highlighted as well. In this kind of case there is some physical evidence that a baby has been killed or injured by being “shaken”. But how do you tell if the shaking was deliberate or accidental? Some paediatricians developed a theory that some physical signs were consistent only with a deliberate shaking – therefore, if those signs were present, the carer “must” have caused the death or inflicted the injury deliberately. The problem is that yet again it is only a theory, and now there is increasingly strong evidence to suggest it may be wrong. So again, the possibility of yet more cases having to be reviewed is looming”.
“What we should not lose sight of is the fact that some mothers and carers do kill or injure their babies by smothering them or shaking them or by overdosing them with inappropriate medication. However, what we must ensure is that in our very proper desire to punish the guilty or protect the child at risk we do not convict the innocent or remove a child from its blameless mother. This can only be achieved by ensuring that all the evidence in such cases is carefully considered rather than basing judgement simply on the opinions and theories of one expert”.
Tim Dixon is one of the few specialist solicitors dealing in Child Care cases. A member of the Law Society's Children's Panel, he is based at Lemon & Co's Regent Circus offices.
This article provides an overview only. For specific advice and further information contact: Tim Dixon on 01793 527 141 alternatively by email at timothy.dixon@lemon-co.co.uk
If you would like to receive more information from Lemon&Co and be kept up to date with legal and statutory updates please register here.
Link to this article:
If you wish to link to this article, please paste the follwoing code into your web page:
<p><strong><a href="http://www.lemon-co.co.uk/article_suffer-little.php">“Suffer the Little Children - and their parents…..”</a></strong><br />
What we should not lose sight of is the fact that some mothers and carers do kill or injure their babies by smothering them or shaking them or by overdosing them with inappropriate medication. However, what we must ensure is that in our very proper desire to punish the guilty or protect the child at risk we do not convict the innocent or remove a child from its blameless mother....</p>