MSBP THE THEORY FALSE ALLEGATIONS PART 3

[Alison J Stevens]

A failing justice system

The justice system is fraught with difficulties for an accused person. The odds are always stacked up against them due to failures in legal aid [ as established by the case of Steel and Morris v UK that showed the unavailability of legal aid in defamation cases.

Lawyers are so expensive that they are now reserved for the rich. This is explained by the defence attorney Ryan in Sick Kids

“Ryan is one of the leading defence attorneys for people accused of MSBP Often working for free, he has persuaded the courts to overturn two guilty verdicts and has won dismissals of allegations in
four other cases. He said he consults with 30 to 40 women annually who
are accused of the syndrome and has volunteered more than 4,000 hours
of his time defending women. He estimates the cost of defending someone
accused of MSBP can range from $25,000 to $1 million”

With these type of legal expenses, working class mothers of disabled or sick children have little or no chance in clearing their names, should they be falsely accused. The stress of fighting to prove their
innocence in whatever way they can is often extremely difficult and
time consuming on the mother/care giver. If the mother/care giver is
single then she has to weigh up whether she can fit in work and child
care around the vast amount of paperwork and research needed to win her
case. The stress of litigation and character assassination can cause
mental health problems in those with no previous history. It has also
been confirmed by professionals that parents are unable to sue.

Mr Clifford Miller a Lawyer wrote this on the BMJ Rapid Responses in answer to an article

“DOCTORS' LIABILITY 24 YEARS FOR FALSE ABUSE ACCUSATIONS

The House of Lords' decision reported in your 30 April article 'Parents wrongfully accused of child abuse cannot sue doctors'
is to be welcomed at least in part. It confirms that paediatricians and
likely others who make false, reckless or negligent allegations of
abuse against a parent owe a duty of care to the child.

Consequently, the guardians of the child may bring an action on the child's behalf any time up to its 18th birthday. Alternatively the child will have three years from the 18th birthday to
bring a claim for personal injury. If other claims can be sustained
then perhaps up to six years beyond the 18th birthday, such as where a
prosperous family environment was destroyed and the child left in less
advantageous circumstances in consequence.

Accordingly, paediatricians are at risk for periods of between 21 to 24 years, as will be their employers.”

Even with an admission of a wrong diagnosis, deleting this from the files containing the false diagnoses is extremely difficult. Climbing the mountain of justice is extremely
hard for a mother without the support of a defence union [as doctors
have]. The Information Commission sin the UK uggests that an individual
can make a Section 10 request under the Data Protection Act 1998.

Section 10 Data Protection Act 1998.

“10 Right to prevent processing likely to cause damage or distress

(1) Subject to subsection (2), an individual is entitled at any time by notice in writing to a data controller to require the data controller at the end of such period as is reasonable in the
circumstances to cease, or not to begin, processing, or processing for
a specified purpose or in a specified manner, any personal data in
respect of which he is the data subject, on the ground that, for
specified reasons

(a) the processing of those data or their processing for that purpose or in that manner is causing or is likely to cause substantial damage or substantial distress to him or to another, and

(b) that damage or distress is or would be unwarranted

It is clear that the health and social services systems have not put in place a method of addressing the serious problems that may be faced by a mother who is misdiagnosed. Faced with this system
and profound losses in their lives, mothers will often rely on anyone
who offers them a chance, any chance through the system. Sometimes,
“any chance” isn’t the right chance or the right method of addressing
the problems. In distress, it is natural for anyone to lash out at
professionals or anyone whom they perceive to be in their way. Doctors
and Social workers often seem impervious to the implications of a wrong
diagnosis. Coupled with this the system has no way of addressing these
issues. By default due to the failures of both the health and social
systems to address grievances properly, the targets become the workers
within the system itself. While legitimate debate and legal challenge
is acceptable, harassment is counterproductive and may have the net
result of placing child protection at risk. This is counterproductive
for all concerned.”

It is difficult to understand why a criminal can have a conviction which is spent however a mother or care giver who is accused falsely and proven to be innocent cannot get data removed.

Countess Mar the House of Lords certainly agrees with this.

Lords Hansard text for 17 Oct 2001 (211017-06)

“Even when accusations of child abuse against a parent or parents have subsequently been withdrawn, often after prolonged and costly legal action, the stigma of being branded a child abuser by the
local authority remains with the parents. Once a social services
referral is placed on their Samson database, the details remain for
ever, no matter what the outcome of later inquiries. The referral
becomes common knowledge in the local community. Those who work with
children, either as carers or teachers, are refused employment and
those who have been active in the community or in voluntary work find
that they are no longer required, especially if children or young
people are involved.”

In other words a wrong accusation of MSBP brings with it stigma and ridicule which is impossible to remove even when proven innocent.

In June 2004 following the conviction of Ian Huntley for the murders of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman, Sir Michael Bichard was asked to lead an Independent Inquiry into Child Protection measures by the Home
Secretary Rt Hon David Blunkett MP. This was mainly on record keeping
and Information sharing in the Humberside Police and Cambridge
constabulary.

This was called the Bichard Inquiry.

This was due to the fact that Ian Huntley had been known to authorities for a number of years and yet this information had not emerged during the vetting procedure, allowing Mr Huntley to be
employed by a school.

In this report certain guidelines were suggested to stop this from happening again.

These were

A new system for registering those working with children and vulnerable adults

61 The current arrangements could be improved within the existing vetting framework to address concerns about checking identity, checking an applicant’s addresses, dealing with incomplete and
withdrawn applications and providing access to additional databases
(for example, HM Customs and Excise). However, the resulting improved
regime would still have overlaps, duplications and inconsistencies and
could only offer a snapshot taken when a vetting search was undertaken.

62 I am, therefore, recommending a very different system. I am proposing the introduction of a register of those who wish to work with children or vulnerable adults – perhaps evidenced by a licence or
card. The inclusion of an individual on this register would reassure
employers that nothing was known by any of the relevant agencies about
that individual that would disqualify them from working with children
or vulnerable adults.

63 The register would be constantly updated, following the introduction next year of a new system (the PLX) that will indicate when police forces hold intelligence on an individual. The register
could be easily accessed – subject to security protection – by any
employer, large or small, including parents employing tutors or sports
coaches. Such a system would relieve the police The Bichard Inquiry –
Introduction and summary 9 of the responsibility of deciding what
information should be released to employers and would simplify
arrangements for employers. It could – and I think should – incorporate
an appeal process for applicants who were refused registration. It
would also avoid information about past convictions being released to
prospective employers without reference first to the individual
concerned.

On Saturday 13th September 2008 in the Daily Telegraph an article entitled “False child abuse claims to be kept on file.” This article (no link) stated that Local Authorities are setting up databases to
hold records of accusations made about anyone from teachers and doctors
to Scout leaders, priests and private tutors. The accusations will be
kept on a persons personal file until they retire so that future
employers can see them.

This is causing an outcry and being raised on several blogs and websites, one of which is the Liberty Scott blog. She says the following when she discussed the article.

“Instead local government investigates allegations and unless you can prove your innocence, they remain on a file, able to be searched by employers, for the rest of your life. It appears that the
UK public policy response to a horrendous crime is to erode the rights
of the innocent – because after all, the safest country is the one
under constant surveillance.”

Once accused you are in a no win situation, once an accusation has been made it stays for life.value Social Services System abuse.