Skip to main content

More interesting cases re Fractures and Metaphyseal Fractures

I had two more interesting cases today and yesterday. Both related to where a baby had a broken bone at an early age (under 3 months). A full skeletal survey was then done (which involves about 19 x-rays). Various vague fractures were then diagnosed. In one case after about 6 months of traumatic experiences the court sensibly decided that actually there was no evidence of the parents having done any damage - although there is evidence that the radiologist has done some damage.

The other case is continuing.

What one of the cases shows it that many social workers don't understand how the courts perceive "balance of probabilities". There is a robust approach based upon most fractures being caused by abuse that means that social workers press to take the children into care.

Actually without other evidence a simple fracture is not enough to warrant taking a child out of its family. These things do happen accidentially. Furthermore some questions do need to be asked about the merits of a skeletal survey if it involves that much exposure to high power electromagnetic radiation.

The problem with all of this is that it remains anecdotal. Across the country people are acting in ways that cause massive problems for children and families theoretically in the interest of the child. The case that turned out well probably involved spending over £50,000 on experts, lawyers and professional time if not more. The outcome has been zilch.

I hope to have the permission of the parents in the first case to tell more of their story. However, it is quite clear that the system is going badly wrong across the country.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Standards Board and Ken Livingstone

The link is to the case where Ken Livingstone appealed the decision of the Adjudication Panel for England. The Standards Board and associated Adjudication Panel have done a lot of damage to democracy in the UK. The courts are, however, bringing them into more sanity. The point about Ken Livingstone's case is that it was high profile and he also could afford to appeal. The Standard Board has a problem in that those subject to its enquiries face substantial costs that they cannot claim back. This is an issue that needs further work. In essence the Judge found that what he said brought him into disrepute, but not the office of Mayor. We do need the machinery of the SBE and APE to concentrate on things that matter rather than people being rude to each other.