UK appeal court rulings cause upheaval in UK child Welfare and medical groups.

LONDON -- A ruling by the United Kingdom Court of Appeal, that reversed the convictions of two mothers accused of murdering their children, has caused considerable disturbance in the medical profession, and for child welfare authorities. The convictions of the two mothers were obtained largely on expert testimony that the judges considered "unsafe."

* The United Kingdom's Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith ordered a review of almost 300 criminal cases where mothers had been jailed on the strength of evidence presented by a single scientific expert, usually a paediatrician.

* Local authorities were ordered to examine thousands of civil cases where parents had been forced to give up their children for adoption after being accused of abuse on the testimony of paediatricians.

* The Legal Services Commission will fund legal action by parents, whose children were removed because of the abuse accusations by paediatricians.

* The General Medical Council, which regulates the profession, is investigating the fitness of Professor Sir Roy Meadow, whose expert testimony and competence as an expert were found to be "unsafe" by the Appeal Court. (Meadow is now retired).

* The GMC is being accused of failure to act on earlier complaints about Professor Meadow and complaints that he was practicing outside his area of competence.

Meadow has been a controversial figure among experts on Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. He propounded "Meadow's Law" which states that: one child death is a tragedy, two suspicious and three murder. The court found this approach to be "fundamentally flawed". Meadow has been challenged by other experts who maintain that multiple deaths of children happen far more often than Meadow claims. In 2003 a case of a mother accused of murdering her children was quashed and recently another woman convicted of child murder has been given leave to appeal. In both of these cases Meadow provided the expert testimony.