Within two hours of a case conference which mentioned possible removal of children, but agreed other steps, the local authority applied for an emergency protection order, and forcibly removed the child from the family.
Held: The decision making processes adopted by both the authority and the family court were badly flawed. An Emergency Protection Order was potentially harsh in its effect, and one should not be granted unless it was clear that no alternative existed which would satisfy the need to secure the child’s welfare. The social worker had presented thirteen points to the magistrates. Each point had been either misleading or wrong. The magistrates had not given adequate reasons and had not treated what was a most important decision properly. The court gave specific guidance for the conduct of future cases.
McFarlane J said: ‘The ordinary experience of the family courts is of social workers and social services departments whose professional work is both valuable and appropriately targeted to meeting the particular needs of children and their families.’ and: ‘ Given the work that has gone into preparing authoritative national and local guidance upon cases of induced or fabricated illness, the court is entitled to expect that when a social work team manager asserts in evidence that this is a case of ‘Munchausen’s syndrome by proxy’ or ‘factitious illness syndrome’ (depending on which note of evidence is correct) the social work team has acted in accordance with the guidance and that the assertion being made is backed up by paediatric opinion.’
Judges:
MacFarlane J
Citations:
[2006] EWHC 510 (Fam), Times 21-Apr-2006, [2006] 2 FLR 701
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – S v Oxfordshire County Council FD 1993
The failure by magistrates to give reasons for making an order is a serious deficiency and should occur only exceptionally: ‘It would be unjust to this child to allow a decision to stand which so affected his future without at least understanding . .
Applied – X Council v B (Emergency Protection Orders) FD 16-Aug-2004
Munby J reviewed the grant of Emergency Protection Orders, and summarised the applicable law: ‘The matters I have just been considering are so important that it may be convenient if I here summarise the most important points:
(i) An EPO, . .
Cited – P, C and S v United Kingdom ECHR 2002
The local authority had obtained the issue of an Emergency Protection Order under the 1989 Act to remove a child at birth.
Held: Where the possibility of harm arose from the mother introducing something into the child’s system (such as a . .
Cited – Stray v Stray 1999
. .
Cited – T v W (Contact: Reasons for Refusing Leave) 1996
. .
Cited by:
Cited – Durham County Council v D and others FD 11-Jun-2008
Having given his judgment in private in a very complex matter, Munby J went out of his way to publicise his admiration for the work of the professionals involved. . .
Approved – A v East Sussex County Council and Chief Constable of Sussex Police CA 2-Jul-2010
A appealed against the dismissal of her claim for damages under the 1998 Act after the defendants had taken action anticipating possible abuse of her baby child. The baby had been returned after the suspicions were allayed. She complained that the . .
Cited – In re T (Children) SC 25-Jul-2012
The local authority had commenced care proceedings, alleging abuse. After lengthy proceedings, of seven men and two grandparents, all but one were exonerated. The grandparents had not been entitled to legal aid, and had had to mortgage their house . .
Cited – HB v PB FD 9-Jul-2013
Claim for costs against third party local authority, Croydon LBC after four day private law fact finding hearing. F said that M had fabricated illnesses both in herself and the child leading to the LA being asked to prepare a report. That report . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Local Government, Children
Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.239291
