Skip to main content

Skeletal Surveys and False Allegations of Child Abuse

This story (see link) from Saratoga is one where a child was removed from parents by a paediatrician "on a crusade" because of false medical allegations of child abuse.

The things to note about this are:
a) The typical rush to judgment of the court unwilling to hear a range of medical experts. The court in the US (much like many Family Courts in the UK) only want to hear the experts that say "guilty" and dont want any uncertainty. Look at the Oldham case to see a similar example in the UK.
b) There is an issue about a form of brittle bone disease "that cannot be tested for".
"Subsequent testimony of new doctors said Julia suffered from a variant of the brittle bone disease that cannot be tested for. The doctors also stated that Julia's parents repeatedly sought medical help for Julia and consistently took her to the same doctor, which is not the behavior of parents trying to hide abuse."

In the UK, however, this would possibly be considered FII (aka MSbP). This may be medically equivalent to the Websters (Hardinghams) case. I cannot really suggest anything here because I have not spent the same time studying the scientific research that I have spent on SBS.

If you are a parent being treated the same way as those people in New York, I am sorry, but I don't have their contact details. I do try to collate useful pieces of information from around the world.

It does seem that the USA courts are more interested in getting the decision right rather than a rapid adoption. In the long term this is best for both children and parents.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

Statement re Police investigation into Harassment and Perverting the Course of Justice.

It was recently reported that the police were not investigating the allegations of Perverting the Course of Justice that I had made. This came as a surprise to me as I had been told for some time that my allegations were to be considered once the VRR had been rejected. I have now had a very constructive meeting with Staffordshire police on Friday 29th June 2018 and the misunderstandings have been resolved. At that meeting the evidence relating to the perversion of the course of justice and the harassment campaign against my family were discussed. The police have decided to investigate both the perversion of the course of justice and also the harassment campaign. I would like to thank them for changing their decision and I accept their apology for the way in which they did that. I am also in possession of written confirmation a police force would be investigating allegations that a vulnerable witness has been harassed for trying to expose the campaign against me. I hope that the aut…

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

I have only just found this one which I think is accurately reported below (but if it is not please give me an accurate report).

KING’S BENCH DIVISION

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

November 9 1923

Editor’s comments in bold.

Here, the magistrates’ clerk retired with the bench when they were considering a charge of dangerous driving. The clerk belonged to a firm of solicitors acting in civil proceedings for the other party to the accident. It was entirely irrelevant that there had been no evidence of actual influence brought to bear on the magistrates, and the conviction was duly quashed.

LORD HEWART CJ:
It is clear that the deputy clerk was a member of the firm of solicitors engaged in the conduct of proceedings for damages against the applicant in respect of the same collision as that which gave rise to the charge that the justices were considering. It is said, and, no doubt, truly, that when that gentleman retired in the usual way with the justices, taking with him the…