Why isn’t Dr G named?

The recently published judgment in Kent County Council v M & Ors [2026] EWFC 212 (B) is very critical of a parent and baby residential assessment business, named as Savannah Lodge, and also critical of a paediatrician, who is named only as “Dr G”.

In her judgment, Recorder Fiona Williams in Medway Family Court explained why she was going to name both Savannah Lodge and the paediatrician who’d been appointed as an expert witness. She added that she was going to give them an opportunity to object. There’s a short post script saying that Dr G did object and she decided not to name him after all.

While it’s clear why it’s in the public interest to know what happened at Savannah Lodge, why it’s not in the public interest to identify Dr G is less clear.

Background

This was an application for a care order by Kent County Council in respect of a child, ‘A’, who was born in early 2025 and had been living in a residential placement with her parents, ‘M’ and ‘FA’. Before A was born, there had been a long history of children’s services involvement with both M and FA.  FA had a criminal and prison record including several offences against other children. The judgment is understandably lengthy – we’re setting out a very basic outline only here.

Child A suffered multiple bruises while in the residential placement and was moved to live with a foster carer in August 2025. The parents denied they were responsible and said a member of staff at Savannah Lodge must have caused the injuries. Savannah Lodge, as a company, were joined to the proceedings as ‘interveners’. At the date of the hearing (May 2026), M and FA were having supervised contact with A; the judge said they clearly loved her very much.

The proceedings were complicated by the court having to consider evidence and try to make findings in respect of another child, ‘B’, who is an older half sister to A. B now lives with her father (a different father to FA).

Failings by Savannah Lodge

Defects in the arrangements at Savannah Lodge meant that it hadn’t been possible to ensure that A was fully protected from the potential risks of M and FA’s parenting. The judgment contains a long list of concessions submitted on behalf of Savannah Lodge i.e. their acceptance of most of the criticisms that had been submitted by the other parties about the placement. A range of members of staff gave evidence but the manager was clear that she took responsibility for the failings, that ‘the buck stopped with her’.

However the judge said about the concessions:

This document does not, in my view, go far enough in detailing the concerns with Savannah Lodge. The reflection that they will “not accept any further assessments of families where there have been convictions or findings of physical injuries caused to a child by one or both parents being assessed” reflects upon the fact that their CCTV/monitoring system is wholly inadequate in such cases, but ignores the deeper concerns about doctoring evidence, covering tracks, misreporting to professionals … which could negatively affect any child in their care/assessment were such conduct to be repeated. Until all of these extraordinary failures have been fully investigated and addressed I consider that there may be a risk of harm to any child within their care/placement. It does not matter what the concerns are which bring a child or family to Savannah Lodge if, once there, Savannah Lodge are not able to demonstrate safe procedure or honest reporting. [162]

The judge also said:

… the written and oral evidence from Savannah Lodge has revealed a complete disregard for transparency, fairness, proper procedure and accuracy. More than that, it has shown a willingness to covertly copy and alter important documentation and present it to the court as authentic. [234]

The egregious way in which the parents were treated by Savannah Lodge has also loomed large in the court’s mind. [195]

Savannah Lodge had treated the parents unfairly and the relationship of trust had broken down… [227]

The Cafcass Guardian was extremely concerned about what had happened at Savannah Lodge and asked for permission to circulate the judgment and schedule of allegations to Ofsted and internally at Cafcass. This was resolved by the judge deciding to publish her judgment. It’s a little difficult to follow on TNA and BAILII though, because the schedule of allegations she keeps referring to isn’t published alongside (although the judge said it should ‘travel with’ her judgment).

The concessions list included the fact that Savannah Lodge had self-referred the safeguarding failure to Ofsted. There’s a subsequent Ofsted report published, dated August 2025, showing that a small number of families were living there at that time. This report focuses on a recommendation about cleaning – it doesn’t reflect the serious criticisms later made by the judge.  

One of the failures at Savannah Lodge was that there were blind spots in the CCTV that should have been in place to ensure that M and FA’s interaction with A was visible. Although the judge had spent a long time watching and re-watching the video evidence, this made it difficult for her to make findings about how A’s injuries had been caused.

Criticism of the expert evidence

There were many professional witnesses in this case (social work and medical). The judge accepted them as helpful, in general. She explained that she wasn’t making any findings against any individual staff member at Savannah Lodge, because the manager had taken responsibility. No one individual who gave evidence is named, apart from a Dr Crimes  who undertook a cognitive assessment of M. The judge makes no criticism of Dr Crimes, nor of Dr T, who was the paediatrician who examined B when her injuries were noticed by a health visitor. The judge noted that Dr T’s evidence was helpful but, as a treating clinician, we wouldn’t expect Dr T to be named.

Dr G however had not treated either child; he was appointed by the court as an expert witness to report about the bruising. Expert witnesses are usually named. The judge’s criticisms of Dr G related to poor preparation before he came to court and to the way he gave his evidence:

• He had not understood that he was going to be asked his opinion on B’s injuries as well as A’s.
• He was far less ready than Dr T to accept that the systemic research studies on bruising were limited. Questioning of Dr G on this point had become contentious.
• He had not re-read all the medical reports before attending court and wasn’t familiar with them.

There were a number of points on which the lawyers had questioned Dr G closely about his report, and the judge said:

Something which caused difficulty when listening to the oral evidence of Dr G was the combative stance adopted by him in response to questions. Even regarding a simple typographical error within the report there was a degree of hostility, until I intervened … This approach to questioning made it very difficult to make swift progress, and whilst the substance of the evidence which was given by Dr G I consider unproblematic, the style of delivery certainly was. This became particularly apparent when dealing with questions regarding the documents Dr G had viewed in the preparation of his report, what tests had been completed, and whether or not he had made reference to them in conducting his own independent assessment as required of as the expert paediatrician. [101]

… The lack of confidence in what processes had been followed in the preparation of Dr G’s report led to thorough questioning, as appropriate, in relation to other possible causes of the bruising. [105]

… Dr G appears to believe that because (in his view) one cannot explore every possible cause then none should be explored, which reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of his role and duties… Whilst I take on board the concerns raised by counsel about the way in which Dr G conducted his assessment and gave his evidence, I of course consider the wider canvas. There is evidence, other than medical evidence which, for example alerts me to the fact that once out of the parents’ care B ceased presenting with a multitude of concerning bruising, indeed any suspicious bruising at all… No one sought to recall Dr G … despite the court asking whether any party sought to recall witnesses. The court therefore proceeds with the evidence it has, and bears in mind the wider canvas. [109]

I have set out Dr G’s evidence at length in relation to B and to a lesser extent in relation to A. I would not usually adopt such an approach, bearing in mind this was already going to be a lengthy judgment. The particular difficulty I have tried to address, by setting out the evidence in such detail, is of understanding the thought process followed by professionals, so anyone reading the report can see how the conclusions have been reached. This precise point was made by Leading Counsel to Dr G. As a consequence of the prickly nature of his responses to questioning unfortunately Dr G came across as extremely defensive, saying that he did not think he should “have to quote numerical figures” to prove he has seen the documents to which his report briefly refers and upon which he relies. I do not take issue with the underlying substance of Dr G’s evidence, but where there is any professional report it is not sufficient to simply set out a conclusion. The way in which that conclusion is reached is similarly important. How parents, professionals and courts can understand a conclusion of a report is by the way in which it is explained and the analysis which is given. It is no surprise that parents with cognitive difficulties, such as in this case, are suspicious of a report which makes conclusions without fully explaining why, and ensuring that there are no perceived gaps in the analysis [Our emphasis]. Dr G did at least consider the feedback given to him which he said he would consider, regarding setting out how he has reached his conclusions. Certainly the court would expect professional witnesses to prepare a thorough report, and have read that report prior to giving evidence in relation to it. Unfortunately Dr G very much gave the impression of someone who had come to give evidence ill-prepared. For the parents the perception of fairness is perhaps as important as fairness itself. I say again that whilst I take no issue with the substance of Dr G’s evidence, its presentation left much to be desired. [113]

Decisions on publication and anonymisation

We’ve touched on some of this already. In the concluding paragraphs of the judgment, Recorder Williams refers to the case of Re E (A Child) [2025] EWCA Civ 1563 in which the Court of Appeal had considered whether an expert witness should be named. She pointed out that in this case, Savannah Lodge had been joined as interveners and had full legal representation throughout. The manager had been given full opportunities to challenge evidence that might lead to adverse findings against them.

Although there had been no findings that any member of staff had injured A, the judge said:

I recognise the concerns of everyone in this case that A has been harmed by the separation from her parents following the placement at Savannah Lodge breaking down, and the harm caused to her by the Local Authority having to restart their assessment of the parents. The significant delay for A along with separation from her parents is a cause of harm, not easily remedied. [240]

She gave Savannah Lodge an opportunity to object to being named, but it appears they didn’t do this.

With regard to Dr. G, the judge just said:

…Dr G should be named. Whilst he conceded at the conclusion of his evidence that there were ways to improve, I am deeply concerned that an expert would come to court to give evidence (even if remotely), not aware that they were to be asked questions about two different children and clearly having not prepared themselves in readiness for cross-examination. [239]

However, in the post script, the judge explains she changed her mind because Dr G instructed lawyers who successfully argued that her criticisms were not about the substance of his report but were about his style of delivery and being ill-prepared. (This can be seen from the quotes above.) His barrister drew the judge’s attention to Re X and Y (Care Proceedings: Publication of Judgment: Criticism of Expert Witness) [2026] EWFC 132. We wrote about the X and Y case in our July Roundup.

In X and Y, Mrs Justice Knowles had named an expert witness who had been criticised in her judgment. She rejected arguments made on behalf of the expert that naming him would deter other experts from advising the court. In that case, Knowles J conducted the balancing exercise between Article 8 (privacy) and Article 10 (freedom of expression) and concluded that the balance lay with Art 10, following:

… the necessary analysis required by Abbasi, focussing only on any potential interference with his rights arising from publication of my judgment.  The naming of Mr Mitchell in the judgment is an interference with his Article 8 right to private and family life which may impact his practice as an expert witness, his reputation, his professional standing, his income and his employment.  These are serious matters for him. However, that interference is in pursuit of a legitimate aim, namely the right to freedom of expression under Article 10 enjoyed by all those in society in reading, commenting and reporting on matters in the family court. The public interest is engaged in various ways, for example, in knowing why one set of expert opinion is preferred over another; in correctly identifying child abuse and understanding where that may be put at risk by an expert failing in his duties to the court; and in ensuring that experts comply with their duties to the court and understanding why and when significant criticism of an expert is legitimate. Balancing the rights engaged in this case, I am satisfied that the interference with Mr Mitchell’s Article 8 rights is necessary in a democratic society.

So we can assume that Recorder Williams also applied Abbasi [2024] EWCA Civ 331 and concluded that Dr G’s privacy rights carried greater weight than the public knowing who it was who had conducted himself in the way described in the judgment and had been of concern to her and to the parties’ lawyers..

The judge didn’t refer to the Publication Guidance issued to judges by Sir Andrew McFarlane in 2024, which says that the key principle is that expert witnesses should be named:

Unless there is a specific justification for not doing so. Consider whether criticism of the professional adds weight to the public interest in naming them (subject to the requirements of procedural fairness …). Consider whether there is a specific justification for not doing so, such as a history or risk of harassment of professionals.

Our questions are therefore why it isn’t in the public interest for lawyers and parents to know about an expert medical witness who was defensive and poorly prepared, and whose report puzzled the parents. In the absence of any details of Dr G’s barrister’s submissions about how serious an interference with his privacy rights lifting anonymity would have been, the judge’s post script simply says that she agreed that she had been able to rely on his expertise. There’s no reference to the Publication Guidance or an ‘intense focus’ on rights, as required in the Article 8-10 balancing exercise.

Comment

This is a complicated judgment and we think it’s admirable that Recorder Williams was able to publish it at all. She’s no doubt been enormously busy in the months since the hearing, and perhaps couldn’t find time to add more detail about why she changed her mind about naming Dr G. Or perhaps it was impossible to say anything about his privacy rights without running the risk of his being identifiable. The judge did say that Dr G was ‘on a steep learning curve’, so perhaps she was persuaded he would be better prepared in future cases.

Image: 3rd Party – Creative Commons at Flickr

We have a small favour to ask!

TEN YEARS A CHARITY

The Transparency Project is a registered charity in England and Wales run by volunteers who mostly also have full-time jobs. Although we’ve now been going for a decade, we’re always working to secure extra funding so that we can keep making family justice clearer for all who use the court and work in it. 

We can’t do what we do without help from you! 

We’d be really grateful if you were able to help us by making a small one-off (or regular!) donation through our Just Giving page