---

Dept for Education and Skills

Answer

Vera Baird: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to the answer of 5 July 2004, Official Report, column 460W, on adoption cases, when the Association of Directors of Social Services survey on past family cases concerning children and expert medical evidence will be placed in the Library. [194996] Margaret Hodge: [holding answer 2 November 2004]: The Association of Directors of Social Services (ADSS) has now completed its survey, and I have today placed a copy of the results in the Library. This is the second stage of the survey of family court cases concerning children and expert medical evidence, conducted by the ADSS this year following the judgment in the case of R v. Cannings. The first stage of the survey, the results of which are already in the Library, looked at the cases of children who were the subject of current care proceedings. Across the 130 local authorities who responded to first stage of the survey, disputed medical evidence featured, or was anticipated to feature, in only 47 out of 5,175 cases. Where the impact of this evidence was known, there was a change to the local authority's care plan in one case. The first stage of the survey did not consider children who were already the subject of a care or related order, which has been the subject of the second stage survey. Across the 127 local authorities that responded to the second stage survey, which was conducted during July and August 2004, 28,867 children were the subject of care orders or freeing orders on 31 March 2004. 26 cases involved a serious disagreement between medical expert witnesses. Of these, five cases involved a serious disagreement between medical expert witnesses in which any doubt has been expressed about reliability of the evidence following the judgment in R v. Cannings. Of these five cases, the care plan remains unchanged in three cases. In one case the plan had been changed already in light of new information reviewed in 2003 and in one case further consideration of medical evidence by the court is being awaited. The figures collected in this survey will not include any care orders which have previously been discharged through the courts on the basis that it is safe for the child to do so, quite independently of any specific review being undertaken by the local authority. Approximately 1,000 applications for discharge of current care orders are made each year, of which around 80 per cent. are granted. This survey only includes children who are currently under the care of the local authority--not cases where the care order has been discharged. Expert witnesses' medical evidence is only one of the many factors in the complex and difficult decision- making process that surrounds the safeguarding of children through the courts. As the survey shows, very few cases where children are currently being looked after by local authorities depend on the evidence of medical expert witnesses. The courts must have access to the best possible expert witnesses, and the Chief Medical Officer is currently leading a programme of work, expected to be completed by early 2005, to ensure the availability of competent, quality-assured medical expert resources to the family courts. In addition, as I indicated in my statement to the House on 17 June, I am also now issuing a Local Authority Social Services Letter setting out key aspects of the recent Appeal Court cases of Re LB and Re LU, which make clear the implications of the criminal court judgment in R v. Cannings on family proceedings, and also details the case of Dr. Colin Paterson, currently suspended by the General Medical Council, pending an appeal, as a result of his activities as an expert witness.

Secondary information

Type

Written question

Reference

194996; 426 c1289-90W;426 c1293-4W

Session

2003-04

Subjects

Children Children in care Care proceedings Adoption Doctors Family proceedings Local government Protection Witnesses Surveys Expert evidence Association of Directors of Social Services

Contains statistics

Yes

Link

View this Written question on www.publications.parliament.uk