Case No. YO21C00174

43.Given that there was a history of three accidental injuries, two of which had resulted in timely presentation for medical attention, and all of which were said to be consistent with radiological dating of these fractures, it was crucially important for the Court to hear and evaluate the parents’ evidence with care.44.Having listened carefully to the parents, I find that the Local Authority have not proven their case and my reasons are as follows:-(i)I find that the parents were truthful witnesses. Their presentation and the manner in which they gave their evidence, together with the content of the evidence itself, were compelling. I did not think at any point that they were lying or attempting to deceive the Court. Rather, they were doing their best to recall a horrendous month that is now approaching its second anniversary.(ii)When the parents were given the opportunity to embellish their accounts, they did not take it. The prime example of this is that they simply were unable to specifically recall that they had definitely grabbed a limb on any occasion when seeking to prevent A falling. It would have been the easiest piece of evidence for them to give to say that in hindsight they had done so, thus making the events fit with the medical evidence. (iii)Their evidence was individually consistent and consistent with each other and the other lay witnesses.(iv)The Local Authority’s case must involve a conclusion that whilst three traumatic events had occurred, and A was presented at hospital, in distress, within an immediate timeframe following two of them, the events did not account for any of the injuries. This I find to be unlikely, given the nature of the falls. (v)The Local Authority’s case is that episodes of non-accidental injury (at least two of them) occurred in a small flat with three carers present. The carers were present almost all of the time because of covid restrictions. It follows that the injuries must have been sustained and inflicted without the other two non-perpetrating adults hearing or witnessing the same. To conclude otherwise would involve this Court disbelieving the maternal grandmother, Mother and Father and concluding that they were aware of such episodes but chose to lie about them. Such a scenario strikes this Court not only as extremely unlikely, involving as it must a sophisticated collusion between the adults. (vi)The injuries, whilst not necessarily ‘likely’ to have occurred consistent with the medical evidence, are nonetheless potentially consistent with an identified mechanism that resulted from three accidental episodes. Further the radiological timeframes are consistent with the injuries having resulted from the 3 accidental events.(vii)I do not find it necessary or productive to identify with certainty which event caused which injury and by which mechanism. Such an exercise would involve ‘educated guesswork’ on the part of the court and is unnecessary in the context of the burden and standard of proof that rests with the LA. I did however find persuasive the contention that the acute rib fractures were caused by the fall on the 17th April. The metaphyseal fractures and non-acute rib fractures were sustained by a combination of mechanisms incapable of precise identification on the 21st March and the 13th April.(viii)The presentation of A at hospital by the parents on 17th April and their insistence on bringing to the medics’ attention the “clicking sound” and seeking further x-ray investigation is wholly consistent with a non-abusive parent’s conduct. It is inconsistent with the conduct of a perpetrator.(ix)The non-disclosure on 13th April I found is borne of a genuine belief in the lack of relevance, wrapped up in a conscious or unconscious embarrassment at the number of accidents that had occurred in a short space of time. This was an entirely understandable reaction. Further a perpetrator would more likely wish to bring this event to the attention of the medics and seek to hide behind it as a cause of injures they knew they had otherwise inflicted.(x)The issue of reduced bone density and therefore susceptibility to fracture from a lesser force I do not need to decide. I have concluded that the Local Authority have not proved their case absent such a resolution of this finding. However, I do go on to note that the totality of the medical evidence did entertain a possibility, albeit a small possibility, that A did suffer from conditions including his BMP1 Variant of Unknown Significance and potentially HSD, that cannot be ignored when considering the wider canvass of evidence. The scientific evidence on this issue had a degree of scientific uncertainty and if there was a difference in emphasis of the experts’ opinion between Dr Irving and Dr Saggar, I preferred Dr Saggar’s evidence. He appropriately expressed a greater degree of circumspection than did Dr Irving.(xi)The evidence of Dr Barnes, and in particular the evidence he gave about the position of the acute rib fractures, was helpful to this Court in understanding the potential mechanism. Further, that the dates of all the injuries were not outwith the possibility that the injuries had occurred within the three episodes recorded of accidental injury.(xii)The evidence of Dr Cartlidge I have already indicated I found persuasive. Dr Cartlidge advised that when one is looking at mechanism and degrees of force within the context of momentary accidents, there is a degree of educated guessing from a medical perspective that this Court must step into.(xiii) The medical evidence I find was not inconsistent with all of the injuries having been sustained by the accidental injury episodes described.45.Having carefully considered the totality of evidence, I am unable to find that the Local Authority have discharged the burden, on the balance of probability, of proving that this child sustained his injuries as a consequence of non-accidental injury. It therefore follows that as this child has parents for whom no other safeguarding concerns attach, these proceeding should come to an end and these children must be returned to the loving care of their natural parents forthwith.