Officials consider attempt to trace parents wrongly accused of child

A HIGH-profile review to establish whether families in Scotland were wrongly broken up after false accusations of child abuse was viewed by those carrying it out as "a joke", sources have claimed.

The investigation, ordered last year by ministers, was triggered by a number of major court cases - including that of Angela Cannings - in which mothers were cleared of deliberately harming or killing their children.

The cases involved testimony from the paediatrician Professor Sir Roy Meadow, who claimed they suffered from a condition called Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy (MSBP), which leads parents to hurt their children to draw attention to themselves.

In the face of a growing crisis over the diagnosis, ministers instructed the child protection agency, the Scottish Children's Reporter Administration (SCRA), to examine its case files to establish if any parents in Scotland had been wrongly separated from their children.

The investigation found 35 cases of concern but said none should be re-opened. Three cases were the subject of legal action.

But the Sunday Herald can reveal that senior SCRA staff had "grave concerns" about the robustness and validity of the exercise.

Sources close to the review admitted it was so badly flawed that cases where children were wrongly taken from their parents could "easily" have been missed.

One SCRA insider said: "There were grave concerns by those asked to undertake the review about how robust it was. There was a reluctance internally even to call it a review. To be honest, it was seen as a bit of a joke." The source claimed that an initial look at the SCRA's electronic database threw up around 3500 "potential cases of concern". But when it became clear that the burden on staff of checking through each file would "effectively shut down" the entire hearing system, SCRA workers were simply sent an e-mail asking if anyone could remember any cases involving a diagnosis of Munchausen's over the last 20 years.

The source revealed that this recall exercise - called a "race memory" review - was the basis for the high-profile investigation, despite the fact it did not take account of staff members who had left the organisation, those who had died and those who simply could not remember.

Neither did the review involve contacting social workers or other professionals who may have been able to provide an insight into the case.

A series of e-mails sent between SCRA and Scottish Executive officials at the time of the review appears to highlight deep disquiet about the investigation.

In one e-mail, Alan Miller, the SCRA's principal reporter, warns the Scottish Executive, of the "considerable difficulties in practice" of undertaking a thorough review of case files.

In another, Gordon Watt, deputy head of the Children's Hearing Branch at the Scottish Executive, writes to colleagues: "To undertake this fully would require a physical look at each file they've [SCRA] got." But he adds: "They can, however, mount an investigation relying on the 'race memory' of their authority reporters. Would this be enough?" The source told the Sunday Herald that the review was so poor that at least one case was identified by staff "by pure chance" after it was completed.

"Someone just happened to glance through some files and flagged up a question mark over the case, " the source added. "That was one that was completely missed and was a case held within the office of the practice team that was overseeing the review. It begs the question, how many other cases were missed in the other 30-odd SCRA offices?

"It was a cosmetic exercise to give the impression the Executive was doing something.

It was simply done to try to retain public confidence." The revelations last night prompted anger from lawyers, politicians and Cannings herself, about its apparent shortcomings.

Cannings, who had her conviction for murdering her two baby sons overturned on appeal in December 2003, said: "My concern is that there could be cases that have been missed. To be absolutely sure that hasn't been done, a more thorough review needs to be carried out. Child abuse does happen but innocent people are being vilified and that is so wrong." Massimo Franchi, a Glasgow lawyer who represents a mother accused of trying to murder her baby as a result of Munchausen's, branded the review "just appalling".

He said: "It lacks complete transparency. How can they say this was a thorough review when there is a real possibility that cases have slipped through the net? It has reinforced my view that the whole thing was a whitewash.

Christine Grahame, social justice spokeswoman for the SNP, said she had "very significant concerns" about the SCRA's review. She added that she would also raise questions about the level of interference by the Scottish Executive in the SCRA, which is an independent public body.

Despite the concerns highlighted about the thoroughness of the "race memory" review into MSBP, the Executive admitted it had ordered the SCRA to carry out a separate investigation using the same technique.

The review - said to have been carried out at the end of last year - examined cases involving testimony from Scots pathologist Dr Colin Paterson, who claimed some children reported to social workers with fractures actually suffered from a now discredited condition called temporary brittle bone disease.

Last night, a Scottish Executive spokeswoman would only say it was examining a "small number" of cases thrown up which involved Paterson.

She denied that the SCRA's review into MSBP cases was flawed, adding: "We are confident that this [review] was carried out in the best and most appropriate way."

liam. mcdougall@sundayherald. com

Copyright 2005 SMG Sunday Newspapers Ltd.
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved.