Expert reports and court evidence in child protection — OSCE

Candidate brief

You are the paediatric registrar. You cared for a 5-month-old infant admitted with injuries consistent with inflicted harm. The matter is now in family-protection proceedings, and your consultant has been asked to prepare an expert report. The parents have asked to speak with someone about what the report is, what it will contain, and what it means for them. Your consultant has asked you to have the first conversation with the parents while they review the case file. [2] [6]

You have 8 minutes to explain to the parents what an expert report is, what it will and will not determine, what the duty to the court means, and what the process will involve — while maintaining an honest, non-accusatory and supportive relationship. [1]

Examiner instructions

Assess the candidate's ability to: [2]

• Explain what an expert report is in plain language — a written account of the medical findings and a reasoned opinion, prepared to assist the court. [2]
• Frame the report's purpose honestly: it informs the court; it does not decide guilt or innocence, and it does not determine the outcome alone. [2] [6]
• Explain the duty to the court — that the report is impartial and not written to favour any party, including the agency or the family. [6]
• Distinguish fact from opinion in terms the parents can grasp (what was found versus what it likely means), without over-simplifying or over-stating. [1]
• Acknowledge the parents' likely emotional response (fear, feeling accused, anxiety about the outcome) without becoming defensive, dismissive, or promising outcomes the candidate cannot guarantee. [6]
• Offer a clear account of next steps — the report is prepared, shared between the parties, and the court decides — and offer a follow-up conversation and written information. [1]

Actor (parent) cues

• Initial reaction: anxiety and confusion — "Are you saying the report will say we did this?"
• If the candidate is vague or evasive, escalate: "So the report is against us, isn't it?"
• If the candidate explains the report calmly and honestly, shift to worry: "Will the court take our baby away based on what you write?"
• If the candidate promises a specific outcome ("nothing will happen"), the actor should press: "How can you promise that if the court decides?"
• If asked, the parent may ask whether they can see or change the report. [6]

Marking schema

Excellent (8–10): Explains clearly and honestly what an expert report is and what it will and will not determine; frames the duty to the court as impartial; distinguishes fact from opinion in plain language; acknowledges emotion without defensiveness; avoids promising outcomes; offers clear next steps and follow-up. [2] [6]

Pass (5–7): Explains the report adequately but may be slightly vague on the duty to the court or the fact-versus-opinion distinction, or may struggle to acknowledge the parents' emotional response. Covers the broad process and offers follow-up. [1]

Fail (below 5): Tells the parents the report will prove they harmed the infant; promises a specific outcome; frames the report as advocacy against the family; cannot explain the duty to the court or the process; becomes defensive or dismissive of the parents' concern. [6]

Key teaching points

• The expert report informs the court; it does not decide the outcome, and it does not determine guilt or innocence. The candidate should communicate this clearly. [2]
• The duty runs to the court — the report is impartial, not written to favour any party, including the child-protection agency or the family. [6]
• Distinguishing fact (what was found) from opinion (what it likely means) is a skill the candidate should be able to convey to lay parents without over-simplifying. [1]
• Honest, non-accusatory communication preserves trust; promising outcomes the candidate cannot guarantee destroys it. [6]