ABC & Ors v Derbyshire County Council & Anor

In suspected fabricated or induced illness cases, professionals may decide not to alert parents before seeking removal where they genuinely and reasonably assess that disclosure would increase the risk of significant harm or prejudice a criminal investigation. The decision must be based on a multidisciplinary assessment, consideration of alternatives, and the least intrusive proportionate response.

Police protection under Children Act 1989, s.46 is exceptional, but may be justified where an emergency has become established, a court application is not practicable, and no less intrusive effective measure is available. Arrest under Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, s.24 requires reasonable suspicion and reasonable grounds for believing arrest necessary. The claims were dismissed.

The claimants comprised two parents and their two children. They sued Derbyshire County Council and the Chief Constable concerning the investigation of suspected fabricated or induced illness in the children in 2017.

The children were removed from their parents under Children Act 1989, s.46 after the parents were arrested. An interim care order with removal was then obtained. The claims alleged negligence, breaches of Articles 8 and 5 of the Convention, and false imprisonment. The central issues were whether the authorities were entitled not to inform the parents of the safeguarding concerns before removal, whether the use of police protection and arrest was lawful and proportionate, and whether delayed disclosure of medical emails breached Article 8.

1. Limitation. Time was extended under Human Rights Act 1998, s.7(5)(b). The claimants’ ages, the continuing Family Court proceedings, preserved contemporaneous evidence and absence of prejudice made an extension equitable.
2. Negligence. The negligence claims against the local authority were professional negligence claims governed by the Bolam test. The claimants’ expert withdrew his criticisms, while the defendants’ expert gave clear evidence that the decisions were within the range of reasonable professional responses. Those claims therefore failed. The court did not resolve the disputed legal basis of any duty owed by the police to the children.
3. Non-disclosure. The delayed disclosure of the three emails of 3 May 2017 did not breach Article 8. The parents received substantial evidence before the inter partes hearing, and the disclosed material did not represent the final professional assessment of risk.
4. Failure to alert the parents. The professionals genuinely and reasonably believed that disclosure could increase the risk of harm, including further unnecessary treatment or induced illness, and could prejudice the criminal investigation. They considered the competing options and the balance of harm. In the exceptional circumstances, not informing the parents before seeking removal was necessary and proportionate.
5. Removal under s.46. The police had reasonable cause to believe that, after the arrests and searches, the children were likely to suffer imminent significant harm if left with their parents. An interim care order could not practicably be obtained that day. Although judicial authorisation would ordinarily be preferable, police protection was the least intrusive effective measure available on the facts. The authorities mitigated its impact by arranging an urgent hearing and placement with relatives.
6. Arrest and detention. The arresting officers honestly believed arrest was necessary under Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, s.24(5), and held that belief on reasonable grounds. The custody officer reasonably believed detention was necessary under s.37(3). The false imprisonment and Article 5 claims therefore failed.
7. Lumba principle. Even if the use of s.46 had been unlawful, the children would have been removed in any event by an interim care order. No material loss or need for substantial damages was therefore established.
8. Conclusion. All substantive claims were dismissed. The court made no determination of the Article 3 issues.