OLDHAM MBC v (1) GW (2) PW (3) KPW (A CHILD BY HIS GUARDIAN JACQUELINE COULTRIDGE) & FORBES (Intervenor) (2007)
This is an interesting case where the initial medical opinion was wrong. The judge refused permission to get a second opinion. Ages later it was found that the initial medical opinion was wrong. Importantly the Appeal Court also refused permission to get a second opinion to start out with.
This case has a public anonymised judgment. This family has been very badly treated both by the medical profession and also by the family division and initially by the appeal court although the parents were allowed a second opinion later.
This was not a strict SBS (Shaken Baby Syndrome) case as it came close to this, but was not the usual one as there was no retinal damage.
I may upload the judgment somewhere. The big issue, however, is that we are holding back medical work in the UK by just assuming that it is the parents that cause damage.
Proper work is needed which is intellectually rigorous dealing with SBS.
This judgment confirms my view that there are substantial systematic problems within the Family Division. I doubt whether it is possible to get justice within the UK as far as Public Family Law is concerned most of the time. Clearly there are some better judgments, but so much seems to be a scandalously lax system of reasoning that relies on conflicted opinions from Childrens Services.
This case has a public anonymised judgment. This family has been very badly treated both by the medical profession and also by the family division and initially by the appeal court although the parents were allowed a second opinion later.
This was not a strict SBS (Shaken Baby Syndrome) case as it came close to this, but was not the usual one as there was no retinal damage.
I may upload the judgment somewhere. The big issue, however, is that we are holding back medical work in the UK by just assuming that it is the parents that cause damage.
Proper work is needed which is intellectually rigorous dealing with SBS.
This judgment confirms my view that there are substantial systematic problems within the Family Division. I doubt whether it is possible to get justice within the UK as far as Public Family Law is concerned most of the time. Clearly there are some better judgments, but so much seems to be a scandalously lax system of reasoning that relies on conflicted opinions from Childrens Services.
Comments