COMMENTARY: " Medical error rips yet another family apart forever Family courts have been ignoring the evidence and confiscating children from innocent parents," by Christopher Booker, published by the Telegraph on October 11, 2015.
GIST: "The Today programme’s Jim Naughtie may have described as “very unusual” the tragic case of Karissa Cox and Richard Carter, the distraught parents accused of injuring their son, who was therefore sent for adoption, before a criminal court found that the cause of the boy’s injuries was “metaphyseal fractures” due to a Vitamin D deficiency. Had Naughtie been better briefed, however, he might have known that this was only the latest of many similar travesties of justice centred on what has long been as contentious an issue as any in our court system. It won its greatest prominence in the famous Webster case, when three small boys were similarly sent by social workers and the courts for adoption, because it was argued that bruises to one child must have been “non-accidental injuries” caused by the parents. When expert medical evidence then led another court to agree that the boy’s injuries were natural, caused by a Vitamin D deficiency, the Court of Appeal ruled that, because the children had settled to their new life in adoption, they could not be returned to their wholly innocent parents. This was only the latest of many similar travesties of justice centred on what has long been as contentious an issue as any in our court system This problem really began when, back in the Eighties, Britain’s courts and social workers fell for a theory put forward in America that “metaphyseal fractures”, which can naturally arise in small children when their bones are forming, must always be a “non-accidental injury”, caused by the parents. In case after case this was argued by “expert witnesses” who accepted the theory, and successfully used as an excuse to remove many children from innocent parents into care. So strong was the evidence against this theory that in the criminal courts its central flaw was eventually recognised. But in the family courts it has continued to be accepted, as in one of the first cases I followed here in detail, where a mother wished in vain to argue that her baby son’s “metaphyseal fractures” were caused by her own serious Vitamin D deficiency. The key judgment in which Mr Justice Bellamy found against her showed that the only expert witnesses heard by his court were all committed advocates of the “non-accidental injury” theory, which he unquestioningly accepted, ruling that the injuries could only have been caused by the mother..."
The entire story can be found at:
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: Dear Reader. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog. We are following this case.
I have added a search box for content in this blog which now encompasses several thousand posts. The search box is located near the bottom of the screen just above the list of links. I am confident that this powerful search tool provided by "Blogger" will help our readers and myself get more out of the site.
The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at:
http://www.thestar.com/topic/
Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at:
http://smithforensic.blogspot.ca/2013/12/the-charles-smith-award-presented-to_28.html
I look forward to hearing from readers at:
hlevy15@gmail.com;
