In a judgment handed down last week, Mr Justice Humphreys remarked on the “herculean efforts” by a solicitor to obtain an expert medical report, having approached 38 paediatricians who declined instruction.

The provision of expert medical reports in such cases is “a major source of delay in the family courts”, the High Court judge said.

“There are multiple reasons for this including problems in agreeing letters of instruction, inadequate provision of disclosure, the lack of suitable and willing experts, the pressures which exist within the health service more generally, issues with legal aid and the requirement for multiple different disciplines to report,” he continued.

“Such delays contribute significantly to uncertainty around the future of children, the distress occasioned by this type of legal proceedings and to the ability of the courts to make effective and timely decisions.”

His comments came in a “significant and concerning” case where a health trust issued supervision proceedings after concluding that two young children had been subjected to physical abuse.

The two boys, anonymised as BP and CP, had been born prematurely and were taken by their mother for a scheduled neo-natal review at the Ulster Hospital on 3 March 2025, where marks were noticed on their bodies.

An innocent explanation offered by the parents at an early stage — that the boys were susceptible to marking and the marks in question had been caused by a car seat during a two-hour-long ride — was dismissed out of hand during a subsequent investigation.

The trust’s conclusion that the marks were the result of physical abuse led to the children being discharged into the care of an aunt for almost a month on a voluntary basis and, in April 2025, the issuing by the trust of legal proceedings seeking a supervision order.

An expert medical report was only obtained from a consultant paediatrician and neonatologist in late October 2025, which led to the commissioning of a further report from a consulting engineer, which was received in December 2025.

A final supplemental report from the paediatrician, dated 16 December 2025, subsequently concluded on the balance of probability that the car seat was responsible for the marks observed by hospital staff more than nine months earlier.

Following the reports, the trust concluded that legal proceedings were no longer justified and applied to the court for leave to withdraw them.

Mr Justice Humphreys said the paediatrician and the engineer had established “a perfectly plausible explanation for the marks which were observed, which was also one presented by the parents at the earliest possible opportunity, and which was consistent with the view of [the doctor] who first examined the children”.

Granting leave to withdraw the proceedings, the judge said it was “necessary to reflect on the impact the trust’s intervention and these proceedings have had on the lives of this family”, which he said was “beyond words”.

“It says much for their resilience and fortitude that the family unit has survived the trauma to which its members were subjected,” he said.

“This must cause all concerned with the decision making process to reflect on the grave consequences of the actions which were taken.”

He added: “Whilst it may be of cold comfort to the parents in this case, the litigation process has at least been able to vindicate their position following a proper and rigorous investigation.

“It is to be hoped that lessons will be learned more widely as a result of this case.”