O M (Children) v Local Authority & Ors

Judgment

Lord Justice Wall:

This is the judgment of the court. It is also a judgment to which reporting restrictions apply, and is written anonymously. Nothing must, accordingly be published which in any way identifies either of the children concerned in the case.

It may be helpful if, at the outset of the judgment, we provide a short glossary of the abbreviations which we propose to use throughout:-

(1) “The Act” means the Children Act 1989;

(2) “A&E” means the accident and emergency department of the local hospital;

(3) “CRMO” means chronic recurrent multifocal osteomyelitis;

(4) “GOH” means Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children;

(5) “LCH” means Langerhans Cell Histocytosis;

(6) “NAI” means non-accidental injury / injuries;

(7) “OI” means osteogenesis imperfecta;

(8) “Sheffield” means the Sheffield Children’s NHS Foundation Trust.

Introduction

In our judgment, this case raises an important point about the instruction of expert witnesses in family proceedings relating to children. Accordingly, although we heard the matter on 9 December 2009 and announced our decision at the conclusion of that hearing, we reserved our reasons.

GO and KM are respectively the mother and the father of two children, a boy LO born on 1 April 2005 and a girl EM born on 19 May 2008. Both children are the subject of care proceedings under Part IV of the Act pending in the Northampton County Court and being conducted by His Honour Judge Waine (the judge).

Before us on 9 December 2009 were (1) a renewed application for permission to appeal against part of an order made by the judge on 6 July 2009; and (2) an appeal (brought with the permission of the judge) against a further decision made by him on 22 July 2009, albeit not perfected until the order drawn on 4 September 2009. In the event, both (1) and (2) raise the same point. In each case, the judge refused the mother’s’ application (which was supported by the father) for permission to instruct, firstly a consultant paediatrician “to provide a paediatric overview” of the case; and, secondly, a geneticist “to provide (an) expert opinion on bone fragility”. In the event, we refused the renewed application and dismissed the appeal. This judgment explains our reason for reaching those conclusions and upholding the judge’s orders.

The background in relation to both children

The factual matrix of the case is both complex and worrying, and although the proceedings are ongoing, we propose to set it out in some detail.