A MOTHER who had her baby boy taken away after she and her partner were wrongly accused of abusing him has failed in a test case bid for compensation against Bury Council.

The mother, who cannot be named, was traumatised when her one-year-old son was taken from her by Bury Council social workers on suspicion that four broken ribs he suffered in January 1997 were 'non-accidental injuries'.

Only after the baby spent four months in care did it emerge he was suffering from brittle bone disease and that the rib fractures had an entirely innocent explanation.

The mother and her boy, now aged eight, sued the council for alleged negligence and sought substantial compensation for their 'psychological shock and upset'.

However, in a decision likely to have widespread implications, Appeal Court judges ruled the council's social services department owed the mother no legal 'duty of care' whilst investigating the child abuse suspicions in good faith.

Despite claims the boy had suffered post traumatic stress disorder and other grave psychological symptoms due to his separation from his parents, the judges also ruled the effect on him had been 'transient' and he was not entitled to compensation.

Dismissing the mother and son's appeal against an earlier court ruling, Lord Justice Wall said it was vital, as a matter of 'public policy', that social workers should be able to go about their jobs without the threat of being sued by distressed parents wrongly suspected of abuse.

The judge said he sympathised with any parent wrongly accused of injuring their child, but that did not create any legal obligation on local authorities to pay compensation.

"I am satisfied that at no stage did the local authority owe the mother a duty of care in tort and that she does not, accordingly, have any action in negligence against the local authority," ruled the judge who was sitting with Lord Justice Mummery and Lord Justice Laws.

Also dismissing the boy's appeal, Lord Justice Wall said no doctor had managed to identify any link between his separation from his mother and the difficulties he now suffers. Any damage he suffered was 'transient and non-justiciable', he ruled.

The mother had claimed that her son's removal caused the breakdown of her relationship with his father. Suffering from depression, the court heard she 're-lived her experience regularly and had been referred for psychological counselling'.

The consequences for the boy were said to have been even more serious. The removal from his mother was said to have triggered symptoms of Attention Deficity Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), reactive attachment disorder and post traumatic stress.

The Appeal Court was told how the mother was 'uprooted' from her home, 'bundled into a vehicle' with her partner and baby son and driven to a Bristol hostel 200 miles from their home after the abuse accusations were levelled.

The family's counsel, Mr Benet Hytner QC, said that, by the time the parents' innocence was proved, the black cloud of suspicion had been hanging over them for more than a year and their son had been in foster care for four months.

However, Geoffrey Tattersall QC, for Bury Council argued successfully there were powerful 'public policy' reasons why the mother's claim should be dismissed.

If she won her case, he argued, health professionals involved in child protection cases would be constantly looking over their shoulders under threat of being sued by parents if their suspicions of abuse turned out to be mistaken. He said the gravity of child abuse as a social problem demanded that health professionals, acting in good faith and with the best interests of children at heart, should not have to face 'potentially conflicting duties' when dealing with parents.

The 'insidious effect' of a victory for the mother would be that professionals engaged in child protection cases would be exposed to 'costly and vexatious' litigation if their suspicions of abuse turned out to be without foundation.