Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Avoidable pitfalls when writing medical reports for court proceedings in cases of suspected child abuse
  1. T J David
  1. Correspondence to:
    Professor T J David
    Booth Hall Children’s Hospital, Charlestown Road, Blackley, Manchester M9 7AA, UK; t.davidnetcomuk.co.uk

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Avoiding pitfalls

All paediatricians, paediatric radiologists, paediatric pathologists, forensic pathologists, and many other specialists have to deal with cases of suspected child abuse, and in terms of the generation of complaints from families this is a high risk activity. Many complaints are devoid of merit, but in some cases a complaint is justified because of a faulty approach. This review draws attention to the avoidable pitfalls associated with report writing when child abuse is under consideration (see box 1).

Box 1: Common medical issues that may arise in child protection cases

  • Precise delineation of injuries such as bruises and fractures

  • An attempt to identify the age or likely age range of an injury

  • An attempt to indicate the likely type and degree of force resulting in an injury

  • Consider the type of mechanism which could have caused the injury

  • The differentiation between natural disease and pathology resulting from abuse

  • The differentiation between accidental and non-accidental injury

  • The identification of neglect

  • The delineation of the likely symptoms exhibited by the child in a period prior to presentation to the health or welfare services

The modern guidance on the duties of experts in cases of suspected child abuse stems in part from a care proceedings case heard in 1990. A 3 month old baby was admitted to hospital with serious injuries comprising subdural haemorrhages of more than one age, damage to the brain, multiple rib fractures, and multiple limb fractures. Despite the evidence pointing to child abuse, a number of experts from various disciplines offered a variety of unjustified or highly improbable alternative medical explanations (including abnormally fragile bones) for the injuries. The judge was highly critical of some of the expert reports and evidence given in court, and in his published judgment he gave clear advice concerning the duties of an …

View Full Text