CRIMINAL compensation for a child suffering from foetal alcohol syndrome is being opposed by those wishing to avoid the suggestion of criminality on the part of the mother.

The test case raises complex questions about whether the mother’s drinking constituted a criminal act and whether the child could be classed as an individual in the eyes of the law at the time she suffered injury.

Where persuasion fails we would surely wish to bring pressure to bear to stop any recurrence, causing a woman either to cease significant consumption of alcohol or to cease conceiving children.

If we consider physical deterrence or prevention justified then that is a strong indication that we regard the behaviour to be either criminal or resulting from a lack of mental capacity for such responsibility.

There are, however, other objections to compensation being paid.

Of all the possible varieties of congenital disability, what reason do we have to pick out those resulting from parental negligence to receive greater financial provision from the state than do the others?

The child in the test case is no longer in the care of her birth mother. But that does not form an essential part of the claim. It may be that in many of the 80 pending claims, and future ones, the originator of the criminal injury would administer and spend the compensation money.

Can this be right?

John Riseley, Harrogate