Case No. EWFC-57

1.For the purpose of this judgment, I will refer to the child as B, her mother as A and her father as C. B was born on the 6th May 2022. These are care proceedings brought by the local authority and I am charged with the task of determining whether the threshold criteria for the making of public law orders is satisfied, as pleaded by the local authority in a document dated the 1st March 2023. B is represented in these proceedings through her Children’s Guardian, Sian Harrison.2.The parents met in July 2021, after A had arrived in this country from India in the April of that year. C had been married before to a woman called TT, and they had had a child together, ST. C has not had contact with ST since he separated from TT. The relationship between the parents progressed quickly, and they entered into an Islamic marriage in October. 3.B was born at 36+5 weeks by caesarean section and was kept in the neonatal intensive care unit for a period of three days. She and her mother were discharged home on the 9th May 2022. During the first weeks of her life, there were on-going concerns about her failure to put on weight. On the 20th May 2022, she was taken to A&E and advice was given. In fact, it took B until 22nd June 2022 to return to her birth weight. 4.Just after midnight on the 1st July 2022, the mother presented B to UHCW with a bruise to her right jaw. B was admitted, and subsequent investigations revealed ‘multiple rib fractures of different ages’. The parents were arrested and interviewed, and that investigation is on-going. These proceedings began and B has been in the care of the authority since the 4th July. She is placed in a foster placement. Contact has been disrupted as a result of this hearing, which has been very hard for both parents, particularly the mother. 5.The findings sought by the local authority in relation to those injuries are set out under the heading of ‘physical harm’ within the threshold document. It is asserted that B presented with the following injuries- (1)On or before the 30th June, B sustained a bruise to her right jaw measuring 1.5cm x 0.5cm (2)A non-displaced but complete fracture of the left 4th rib towards the side in the region of her left armpit, which was between 2 weeks and 4 weeks old at the time of admission.(3)Non-displaced fractures of the left 5th and 6th rib at the interface between the bone and cartilage at the front of the rib cage, which were up to two weeks old at the time of admission.6.The local authority contends that all those injuries were inflicted by either the mother or the father. Findings are also sought in relation to the father’s poor handling of B as seen in various videos obtained from the mobile ‘phone analysis. It is also asserted that the parents failed to take advice in relation to safe sleeping and that they failed to adhere to feeding advice leading to B’s failure to thrive. 7.The mother and the father remain in a relationship, and they deny that either of them has ever harmed their child. The existence of the injuries is accepted, but both parents believe that there is an underlying cause for B’s presentation. Neither of them accepts that there was poor handling of B (save for that observed in one video, a topic which I will return to in due course). They do not accept that they failed to take advice.