Judges refused to return three children to a couple accused of physical abuse today despite ruling that they may have been victims of a miscarriage of justice.

Mark and Nicky Webster were left devastated after being told that it was 'too late' for them to be reunited now that the youngsters were settled with their adoptive families, even though the original decision to take them away could have been wrong.



The couple's eldest children, a daughter and two sons aged nine, seven and five, were taken into care in 2004 after doctors said that six tiny fractures found on the middle child had been deliberately inflicted.

However, a team of medical experts later concluded that the injuries were not caused by violent twisting and shaking, but were symptoms of scurvy, a now rare vitamin deficiency caused by the family GP's advice that the child should be fed on soya milk deficient in Vitamin C.

After the heartbreak of losing their first three children Mr Webster, 35, and his 27-year-old wife fled to Ireland to stop their fourth child, Brandon, being taken into care at birth.

They later returned to their home in Cromer, Norfolk where after a long legal battle the local authority dropped proceedings to take him into care after accepting that he was in 'robust good health'.

But today the Websters were bitterly disappointed after the Court of Appeal rejected their bid to challenge the adoption order on their other children.

Lord Justice Wall, sitting with Lord Justice Moore-Bick and Lord Justice Wilson, said he had 'profound sympathy' for the couple, for whom the case had been a 'disaster', but ruled that the courts could do nothing for them.

He said: 'Mr and Mrs Webster believe that they have suffered a miscarriage of justice. They may be right. A family which might well have been capable of being held together, has been split up.

'From their perspective, they have been wrongly accused of physically abusing one of their children, and three of their children have been removed wrongly and permanently from their care.

'The only mitigation, from their point of view, is the local authority's belated recognition that they are fit and able to care for Brandon.'

But he said the case highlighted the 'finality' of adoption orders which can only be revoked in extremely limited circumstances.

'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.'

The judge admitted that the potential miscarriage of justice was 'regrettable and embarrassing' to the court and the Family Justice system.

The case had also been a 'worrying and deeply regrettable experience' for Norfolk County Council which took the three eldest children into care, he said.

'For the medical profession, the case has also been a painful learning experience, and a further illustration of the proposition that things may not always be what they seem,' he added.

But he insisted that it would be wrong to criticise any of the doctors or social workers in the case, who had acted properly.

'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,' he concluded.

The Websters have not seen their first three children since January 2005, when they were five, three and two.

They have always denied they had caused the fractures. Brandon has never had contact with his siblings.

The couple's counsel, Ian Peddie QC, had told the court that it was an 'exceptional' case.

'We say there has been a terrible miscarriage of justice and the natural parents' primary concern is to correct it,' he said.

'It is our assertion that the children need to know the truth as to why they were adopted.'

Mrs Webster has earlier told the Mail on Sunday that it was 'heartbreaking' to be without her eldest three children.

She said: 'We have no idea where they are or what they are doing - we aren't allowed to know. I like to think they are happy and settled.

'We did nothing wrong. We followed the advice we were given. We loved our children. How can it ever really be over for us? 'Now we live with the possibility that, at the age of 18 or whatever, our children will find us and ask: "Why didn't you fight for us?"

'We want them to know that we fought, that we loved them and that we still love them every bit as much as we love Brandon.

'They're Brandon's full-siblings and we want for him, and for us, to have some form of contact. They must know the truth. They have a right to know the truth about their history.'

Lisa Christensen, Director of Children's Services at Norfolk County Council, said she sympathised with the Websters but believed the authority was 'absolutely right' to refer the matter to the courts when details of the fractures were first identified on their second child.

She said: 'When there are significant concerns about the welfare of a child or children, staff have a duty to act and are subject to public criticism if they fail to intervene.

'In 2004 the medical evidence was unanimous and we clearly had a duty to place the matter before the court.

'I am certain we would have been open to justifiable criticism had we not done so. This is an exceptional case, which will bring learning for everyone involved.'

578 views since Feb 11, 2009 by Truthed

Report This Media