Summary of the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Judgment - W (Children)

(N.B. This news release summarises the judgment handed down in this case, but forms no part of the judgment)

1. The Court of Appeal has today handed down its judgments in this case. It has refused Mr and Mrs Webster permission to apply to set aside the care, freeing for adoption and adoption orders made in the county court relating to their three oldest children, known in the proceedings only as A, B and C. These three children were adopted in December 2005. Mr and Mrs Webster’s fourth child, Brandon, who is now 2 years and 9 months, is living with them without any court involvement. Although the court was hearing applications for permission to appeal only (the outcomes of which are generally not reported) the court has given permission for their judgments in the case to be made generally available in the form in which they were handed down
2. Care proceedings were taken by the local authority on the basis that child B had suffered non-accidental injuries inflicted by one of both of his parents. Evidence obtained in 2007 indicated that child B may not have been the subject of deliberate injury; rather that his fractures were attributable to scurvy and / or iron deficiency due to the fact that in the year leading up to the proceedings he had a feeding disorder and had consumed nothing but supermarket soya milk.
3. The case emphasises the finality of adoption orders. Adoption is governed by Statute. It is the process whereby a child, in the words of section 67) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 is treated “as if born as the child of the adopters”.
4. The circumstances in which adoption orders can be revoked or set aside are extremely limited. None applied in the present case. The court concluded that after three years it was in any event too late to set the orders aside, and that it would not be in the interests of the children to do so. It is therefore possible (Mr and Mrs Webster would say probable) that the basis upon which A, B and C were taken into care and subsequently adopted (Mr and Mrs Webster’s alleged non-accidental injury of child B) was wrong: see paragraph 2 above.
5. Nonetheless, the Court of Appeal came to the clear view that: -
   • the injuries suffered by child B had a high specificity for abuse;
   • the doctors who provided reports for the proceedings and gave evidence to the circuit judge in 2004 did so honestly, competently and in good faith;
   • non-accidental injury is infinitely more common than scurvy; and
   • the medical evidence obtained in 2007 could and should have been obtained by the parents in 2004.
6. Mr and Mrs Webster believe that they have suffered a miscarriage of justice. They may be right. It would, however, be wrong in the court’s view to criticise any of the doctors or social workers in the case. Each has acted properly throughout. Anyone who is minded to criticise the family justice system for what has occurred should read the whole of the court’s lengthy judgments and the other documents which the court has placed in the public domain. If there is a lesson to be learned from the case it is the need to obtain second opinions on injuries to children at the earliest opportunity, particularly in cases where, as here, the facts are unusual.

Notes to Editors:

• For further information, please contact the Judicial Communications Office on 020 7073 4852.