THE GUARDIAN

Ministers were consulting England's top family judge, Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, yesterday on how to identify cases where children were removed from their families and taken into care despite disagreement among experts over the risk posed by a parent.

The new director of public prosecutions, Ken Macdonald, also pledged to review personally all pending prosecutions involving unexplained infant deaths "as a matter of utmost urgency" and to take the decision himself on whether to prosecute.

The moves follow a warning from the appeal court on Monday that prosecutions should not go ahead if experts disputed the cause of death "unless there is additional cogent evidence". Lord Justice Judge, giving reasons for quashing the conviction of Angela Cannings, 40, for murdering her two baby sons, said medical science was "still at the frontiers of knowledge" about unexplained infant deaths.

Following the judgment, the attorney general announced a review of the 258 cases in the last 10 years in which parents were convicted of killing a child under two, and 15 pending prosecutions involving unexplained infant deaths.

Mr Macdonald said he had asked chief crown prosecutors to review the cases within 28 days, when he would take the final decision on whether to go ahead with the prosecution.

He added: "The Crown Prosecution Service understands the great public concern in this area and is determined to act decisively."

The solicitor general, Harriet Harman, confirmed yesterday that civil cases in which children had been taken into care would also be reviewed.

She said the 54 cases of the 258 where parents convicted of killing are still in prison would be given the highest priority. Cases where the convicted person was no longer in jail were "still urgent and all are serious" because they could involve care proceedings.

Ms Harman said she had spoken yesterday to Dame Elizabeth, president of the high court's family division, and the children's minister, Margaret Hodge, was also in discussions on how a review of care cases could be handled.

There are thought to be thousands of cases in which mothers suspected of harming their children have not been prosecuted but have had their children removed by court order in care proceedings brought by local authorities.

In many of the cases, mothers thought to have harmed an older child will have had her subsequent children taken into care at birth. Most of the children will have been fostered. Many will have been adopted and forged strong bonds with their new families.

Ms Harman said in the Commons: "We are not in a position to say in how many care proceedings the evidence of experts was decisive.

"We will make sure that we recognise that not only injustices done in the criminal justice system but any potential injustices in care proceedings are identified and acted on.

"We should recognise that for women who have lost a child and then have had another child taken away ... prison is nothing of a penalty compared to the terrible suffering that they have endured.

"While we are getting on straight away to the issue of those in prison and criminal processes, we bear in mind the absolute, utmost gravity and seriousness of those whose injustice is not in the hands of the criminal justice system but as a result of the family justice system."

But parents whose children have been adopted have little hope of getting them back. Allan Levy QC, an expert on child law, said an adoption order could be set aside "only in the most exceptional cases, for instance, if there has been fraud or some procedural error." Family courts are required by law to treat the child's best interests as the paramount principle, and will rarely move a child who is settled and well cared for.