Professionals Against Child Abuse

After viewing the Channel 4 Cutting Edge program on the 12th May, PACA members felt the need to put their comments out as a press release.

PACA Press Release, 14 May 2011 – The Cutting Edge programme on Channel 4 entitled ‘A Very Dangerous Doctor’ (Thursday 12th May) showed yet again how the media approaches the issue of child protection where it has limited factual knowledge of the issues involved, and allows itself to be misled. It repeated the claims made by four sets of parents that Professor David Southall made false allegations of child abuse and was doing this to enable him to research on their children. The programme maker was aware of published evidence that contradicts this in every case, but did not use it. For example, the GMC has already investigated and dismissed the parents’ claims that Professor Southall was accusing them in order to further his research following a detailed investigation by the parents’ own medical expert, who is a Professor of Paediatrics.

Professor Southall has repeatedly expressed how he is unable to defend himself against the mothers’ accusations, as this would place him in contempt of the Family Court in three cases and break the confidences of a social service meeting in the fourth case; in addition, to do so would be potentially damaging to the now “grown-up” children involved.

Because of his pioneering work surrounding child protection, Professor Southall has become the target of those who wish to discredit his work. However, the results of over 20 investigations by authorities such as Professor Southall’s employing NHS Trust, the Regional Health Authority (Griffiths inquiry), three police forces, the Charities Commission, RCPCH, GMC and Attorney General have failed to support the claims in response to complaints made by Mrs Mellor and others in the past 12 years. The numerous investigations have cost the Health Service and the tax payer many millions of pounds to no purpose whatsoever. The complainants are subject to no discipline or sanction, in contrast to the strict professional discipline to which Professor Southall and all the other professionals involved in these issues are subject.

Case 1
The programme incorrectly cited a House of Lords decision (reference: 1), claiming it concerned a false allegation of abuse by Professor Southall. This is quite simply wrong. The case was brought to test whether parents, distressed by an accusation of child abuse, could pursue a doctor for damages in the event of a wrongful allegation undertaken in good faith. The decision of the House of Lords was that for the sake of safety of children, parents should not be permitted to pursue a doctor for damages. No hearing has ever tested whether or not Professor Southall, or any of the other 20 professionals at a child protection case conference who placed the particular child concerned on the Child Protection register, made an error in pursuing child protection proceedings.

Case 2
The second case dates to nearly 25 years ago and was reported in a social care journal (reference: 2). The professionals involved with the case were concerned enough to hold two case conferences and a Family Court Judge made a Care Order, which helped to protect the child. Again, Professor Southall was only one of a team of professionals involved in this case.

Case 3
The third case also has been extensively reported in the media. The allegations the parents made about Professor Southall resulted in a protracted police investigation from 2003 to 2011. The programme reported that “the police have told Dee and Dave that the CPS believes there is insufficient evidence to secure a conviction”. In fact, Professor Southall was advised by the Police on 24th March that the Crown Prosecution Service had: “completed their detailed review of all the documentation submitted to the police” and “have concluded that there should be no criminal prosecution against you”.

Case 4
The final case involved the use of covert video surveillance (CVS) in the diagnosis of fabricated or induced illness. The mother alleged that Professor Southall falsely accused her of fabricating or inducing her two year old daughter’s illness and of “punching” her in the face when under surveillance in the hospital. The illustration in the programme enables a viewer to identify the case in the CVS paper (reference 3). In the 39 cases reported, only one of the children was reported as being hit on the mouth. The covert surveillance, as reported in the journal Pediatrics, revealed additional serious abuse of this child by her mother.

The use of CVS, which is only undertaken in collaboration with the police and social care, has established that parents do, indeed, abuse their children (reference: 3). Fabricated and induced illness is a complex pattern of harm to children. Doctors are reluctant to consider early the possibility that this type of abuse may be occurring, and proving it is difficult. However, the work of Professor Meadow and Professor Southall has provided substantial evidence for the harm this abuse causes to children; Professor Southall also pioneered the importance of a thorough forensic approach, obtaining confirmation with the use of CVS. It is extremely worrying that the media does not have such a thorough approach.

The media continues to give publicity to articulate parents who claim that they have been falsely accused of abusing their child/children. However, no responsibility is taken to raise awareness of the challenges faced by paediatricians with a duty to safeguard children or the multiagency processes that ensure decisions are taken by a wide range of professionals. The parents’ allegations should be verified without reliance solely on the parents’ stories. In the field of child protection, it is well recognised how parents, who may come across as loving and caring, can manipulate health and social care professionals. For example, the mother of Baby Peter convincingly lied to a social worker and was, tragically, believed. A video clip of this revealing interview is available, but was not included in the programme. As professionals have now learnt to think the unthinkable, so the media too must learn that some parents can be very dangerous. Cutting Edge did not present the whole truth and this does injustice to children who were and are abused.

- – -

References

1.JD v East Berkshire Community Health NHS Trust [2005] UKHL 23

2.Rees SV, Munchausen syndrome by proxy: another form of child abuse. Practice 1987;3:267-82

3.Southall DP, Plunkett MCB, Banks MW, Falkov AF, Samuels MP. Covert video recordings of life-threatening child abuse: lessons for child protection. 1997;100: 735-60.

PACA has released the following Press Release in response to information on the Channel 4 Cutting Edge programme website that stated they were going to perpetuate a story that is now finished with.

PACA Press Release, 12 May 2011 – The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has ruled that there is no case against Professor David Southall for allegedly causing harm to a 5-year old boy, over twenty years ago—allegations which PACA has learned from the Channel 4 website will be included in their TV programme, Cutting Edge, aired this evening.

Since 2003, the South Wales police have been investigating allegations made by Mr and Mrs Hollisey-McLean over child protection proceedings in which their son was taken into care following Professor Southall and many other professional’s concerns that his parents were abusing him. The parents alleged that their son was brain damaged during his time in care as a result of “unethical” experiments carried out in the University Hospital of Wales in 1991 as part of the child protection investigation. Professor Southall was actually an external expert involved in organising non-invasive overnight recordings of their son’s breathing for four weeks and was one of a team of more than 20 professionals involved in his care.

The police interviewed Professor Southall over the parents’ allegations in 2009 and in 2010, referred the matter to the CPS.

On 24th March 2011, Professor Southall was advised by the South Wales Police that the Crown Prosecution Service had: “completed their detailed review of all the documentation submitted to the police” and “have concluded that there should be no criminal prosecution against you”.

In addition, and in 2005, the GMC rejected complaints against Professor Southall over these same allegations following an analysis by the Hollisey-McLean’s own medical expert working under GMC proceedings who did not back up their allegations.

The Filmmaker and Channel 4 knew about the CPS rulings and GMC findings.

John Bridson, Director of PACA says: “The recent ruling by the CPS, and analysis by the family’s own medical expert under GMC proceedings six years ago, shows that there is absolutely no evidence to uphold the allegations made by the Hollisey-McLeans against Professor Southall, which according to the programme’s information on Channel 4 website are repeated in the Cutting Edge Programme today”.

The allegations made by Mr and Mrs Hollisey McLean with support from a renowned group campaigning against Professor Southall’s child protection work have incited mass biased media coverage over the past ten years—three television programmes; two radio programmes and multiple articles in tabloid and broadsheet newspapers denigrating Professor Southall and his work and supporting these parent’s specific allegations.

The earlier negative media coverage and today’s programme were timed to cause maximum damage to Professor Southall by coinciding with Professor Southall’s appearances at General Medical Council (GMC) fitness to practice hearings.

This is also the second time that Professor Southall’s work has been investigated by the police following complaints made by the same organised campaigners against his work. The previous investigation involved allegations that Professor Southall had forged parental consent in a research trial involving a safe, non-invasive ventilator. This investigation closed in October 2002 when the police stated: “there is no evidence which could conceivably satisfy the CPS’s tests of 1) sufficiency of evidence and 2) Being in the public interest to prosecute”.

John Bridson of PACA concludes: “The only proof is that by giving air time to repeated lies, the film maker and Channel 4 have contributed to damaging crucial child protection work, which ultimately harms children.”