Qualitative research methods in interventions in injury

Abstract

The Family Division of the High Court exercises jurisdiction in family proceedings in England and Wales. A broadly similar jurisdiction is exercised under the Children Act in care proceedings and in private law disputes between parents by county courts and family proceedings courts. It should be emphasised that this article is about civil, not criminal, proceedings in which the burden of proof is diVerent and the practice which I describe does not apply. 2 The most recent example is the acknowledgment by the Court of Appeal that paediatricians and child psychiatrists are entitled in family proceedings to express opinions on child abuse which are based on or take into account the expert's assessment of the child's truthfulness: see Re M and R (Child Abuse: Evidence) [1996] 2 FLR 195, CA. Equally, I do not have space to address the duties of experts generally, as to which there is agreement across all the divisions of the High Court that expert evidence presented to the court should be and should be seen to be the independent product of the expert uninfluenced as to form or content by the exigencies of litigation. In Re J [1991] FCR 191 at 226/7, Cazalet J said that in children's cases the duty to be objective and not to mislead is as vital as in any case, because the child's welfare is at stake, and his/her interests are paramount. He added that an absence of objectivity may result in a child being wrongly placed and thereby unnecessarily at risk. It must also be borne in mind that a misleading opinion from an expert may well inhibit a proper assessment of a particular case by the non-medical professional advisers and may also lead parties, and in particular parents, to false views and hopes. 3 By section 12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960, as amended by Schedule 13, para 14 of the Children Act 1989, it is a contempt of court to publish information relating to proceedings brought (inter alia) under the Children Act. 4 Oxfordshire County Council v M [1994] Fam 151, CA: Re L (A Minor) (Police Investigation) [1996] 2 WLR 395, HL. 5 By section 1(2) the court is required to have regard to the general principle that any delay in determining questions relating to the upbringing of children is likely to prejudice their welfare. 6