Judge rejects bid by doctor to be joined to public law proceedings amid claims her professional opinion had been manipulated by the mother

The Family Court has decided that a doctor who has been criticised during a case concerning two children should not be joined to the proceedings.

HHJ Moradifar, sitting as a judge of the High Court, said in his judgment the article 6 and 8 rights of Dr K had been protected by steps already taken in the case.

This concerns two children who the local authority involved asserts have suffered significant harm from their mother's exaggeration and fabrication of medical conditions, misleading the professionals involved and attempting to control the professionals to such an extent that the children have been harmed by unnecessary extensive procedures and investigations.

One witness who has yet to give evidence in the lengthy proceedings is Dr K, the children's consultant paediatrician.

The judge said: “The local authority asserts that Dr K has at all times acted in the best interests of the children but that her professional opinion, in common with other treating professionals, has been manipulated by the mother, that she had an unusually close and inappropriate relationship with the mother that blurred professional boundaries, that she has reacted adversely to nurses who raised concerns about the mother and this has impacted upon their ability to raise concerns about the mother, that she has contributed to the delay in unmasking the true cause of the children's presentation and has not given due attention to concerns about the children's perplexing presentation or the concerns about fabricated or induced illness.”

Dr K applied to be joined as a party or an intervener with access to the main bundle and to be represented.

Evidence emerged during the case that made it “increasingly clear that Dr K is likely to face allegations that she would need to respond to in a fair and proportionate manner”, the judge said.

The court had given a number of directions that ensure she has access to the relevant statements, transcripts of evidence, clinical records and pleaded findings that are sought against her.

Other parties submitted the allegations about Dr K fell within the remit of this case and were not outside its known parameters.

HHJ Moradifar accepted that pending a full investigation, there were restrictions the General Medical Council (GMC) could impose that were likely to be influenced by this court's findings about Dr K's conduct.

“It would be entirely inappropriate for this court to begin to predict the details of the measures that the GMC may put in place,” the judge said.

“However, this remains an important consideration when the court is tasked with assessing fairness in the context of Dr K's Article 8 rights.”

Interference with Article 8 rights was only permitted when it is necessary, proportionate and in accordance with the law, the judge noted.

He said that were Dr K permitted to intervene, “there is a high likelihood if not an inevitability that these proceedings will be significantly delayed…and in my judgment fairness can be readily achieved without causing delay in these proceedings”.

HHJ Moradifar said in conclusion: “Dr K's Article 8 rights are clearly engaged and these take prominence over her Article 6 rights that are also engaged.

“These are collectively addressed on the same facts and considerations that are set out in this judgment. The steps that have already been taken to address these rights and the issue of fairness together with those that will be taken, address the fundamental issue of fairness. However, it is important that Dr K is able to rely on the support of her legal team throughout this process and to be firstly supported when giving her oral evidence and to make observations on the narrow issues of the findings that are sought against her after she has received a draft judgment at the conclusion of the fact finding hearing.”

Commenting on the case, Nick Goodwin KC and Sian Cox of Harcourt Chambers, who acted for the local authority involved, said Dr K’s application arose after the court had heard four weeks of complex medical evidence regarding the children, including criticisms of Dr K by other professionals, leading to Dr K being warned that the court may make adverse findings against them. The case is listed for a further four weeks.

Mark Smulian