Case No. YO21C00174

The Local Authority contend that the evidence of the Clinical Geneticists was such that the Court can safely either exclude or regard the significance of the potential for bone fragility as being trivial or minimal. They rely upon the evidence of Dr Cartlidge that even if the force was reduced by a small degree, the force would still need to be excessive. The LA therefore concentrated upon the detail of the three accidental incidents. They contend that the injuries cannot have occurred by the mechanisms described in the three episodes. There was simply, they contend, an absence of descriptions that would allow for the sort of twisting force which would account for the metaphyseal fracture. The absence of bruising and the two falls described on 21st March and 13th April would not account for the rib fractures seen on x-ray. They do concede that there is potential for the acute rib fractures to have been caused by the fall on 17th April, but in the context of multiple inflicted fractures the likelihood that they were caused by squeezing should prevail. 40. As to the parents’ evidence and presentation, the LA point to the failure of the parents to disclose the episode on 13th April to the hospital in a timely manner. The Local Authority’s position is that this non-disclosure demonstrates a lack of candour. Additionally, they point to the circumstances in which the injuries occurred, namely that these were first time parents caring for twins, sleep deprived with the father having to combine contributing to childcare with continuing to work from home. The relevant period being during Covid lockdown may have added to their stress. Finally, that the non-perpetrating parent has failed to protect the children from the actions of the perpetrator as they would have known from the excessive crying that something had taken place.41.The Mother, Father, Third and Fourth Respondents and the Guardian, whilst having nuanced and differing submissions to make, essentially all invite me to reject the Local Authority’s contentions for non-accidental injuries and therefore invite me to discharge and dismiss the application and return the children to their parents forthwith. It was clearly expected that this position would be presented by the family members, but it was of significance that the Guardian felt compelled to come off the fence and invite the Court, following careful and detailed written submissions, to conclude that threshold is not met. 42.The Guardian from her own enquiries and having heard the parents give evidence, believed that the twins are part of a loving family, the parents are of exemplary character without any of the other social difficulties, and that the evidence from the family has, in the view of the Guardian, created a singular reliable picture of family life sufficient to conclude that the fractures sustained by A were caused by the misfortune that he incurred accidental falls in short succession, rather than the interpretation of one of his parents inflicting injury from a loss of control. The Guardian was struck by the clarification and circumspection that emerged from the expert oral evidence, when set against their written reports. The Guardian is driven to the view that the Local Authority have failed to discharge the burden of proof placed upon them and failed to prove that these are non-accidental injuries.