The Petition of Mary Kidson, a mother living in Herefordshire,
Declares that she was prosecuted for poisoning her daughter on three counts in Worcester Crown Court. Further declares that on 28 October 2014 following an application from her counsel that she had no case to answer, the court decided that she had no case to answer on any of the three counts. The fundamental point was that the medicine that she had been administering initially without prescription, but later with prescription was not to have been seen to have done any harm to her daughter; instead was seen to have had some positive effects. In essence, she was being prosecuted for doing something that the UK doctors thought was the wrong thing to do, even though the evidence was that it was not doing any harm and in fact was improving her daughter’s medical condition. Further declares that her daughter’s statement in respect of the criminal proceedings stated that the medication “made [her] feel fine” and that “the worst time was when I suddenly stopped taking my medication.” Further declares that her daughter was made subject to a final care order on 23 June 2014 on an uncontested basis. Further that the Petitioner has since contacted the children’s authority for the area and they have indicated that their view has not shifted notwithstanding the decision of the court that she had no case to answer. Further declares that her daughter’s mental health has suffered severely as a result of the care proceedings and her being removed from her mother’s care. That the original state intervention from Children’s Services started on 5 March 2013 and that the Petitioner originally instructed a local firm of solicitors, Thursfields, who she perceived as working hand in glove with the local authority for whom they worked on other cases. Her legal advisers and Barrister Nkumbe Ekaney QC put pressure on her to concede Section 31 of the Children Act 1989 Threshold Criteria were met and she did so even if the criminal proceedings later made it clear that no harm was suffered as a result of the medication. That Dr Gardner, an expert jointly instructed by the court as part of the care proceedings concluded that her daughter would be best cared for by her mother and that this had been clear throughout the proceedings. Losing confidence in her legal practitioners, she uninstructed Thursfield in mid December 2013. It appears that the local authority then persuaded the Crown Prosecution Service to issue criminal proceedings and that those were driven by the Petitioner resisting the care proceedings.
The Petitioner therefore requests that the House of Commons Justice Select Committee, the Health Select Committee and the Education Select Committee review the law to determine why it is that a state intervention both on the criminal basis and in care proceedings can proceed and do so much harm to the child that it is supposed to protect when there is in fact no case to answer.
And the Petitioner remains, etc.—[Presented by John Hemming.]