Case No. ZE22C50109

6.The parents are in their 30s. Both are employed, although the mother was on maternity leave at the relevant time. They have been in a relationship for over 10 years. They live together in a three-bedroom maisonette in East London. 7.Until the events which triggered these proceedings, the family was not known to child protection services. T had had two attendances at A&E for minor illnesses/ injuries. He was in nursery for two days each week where his attendance was very good and he was described by staff as a happy, settled, well-cared for little boy.8.S was born by normal vaginal delivery. He required resuscitation through inflation breaths, but not CPR. He was discharged home the day after his birth. 9.Midwife notes from a visit when S was 11 days old read, “very content and happy baby after feeding and mother observed to be confident and bonded well with baby”. 10.On the morning of 23 April 2022, when S was about five weeks old, he was brought to A&E by his mother, the father following soon after with T. The parents gave a history of noisy breathing and unsettled behaviour since the previous night and described a “crackling” sound in S’s chest.11.X-rays carried out that day revealed multiple fractures to S’s right side posterior ribs. A skeletal survey conducted on 26 April confirmed acute fractures to the right posterior 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th and 10th ribs, and a healing fracture (with callus formation) to the left sided 8th posterior rib. 12.A follow-up skeletal survey on 5 May confirmed the rib fractures, and identified in addition an oblique fracture to the right humerus. 13.Fortunately S has made a full recovery from his injuries. 14.T underwent a child protection medical on 27 April. No injuries were found. 15.Neither parent was able to give an account of any event that could have caused the fractures. The opinion of the treating clinicians at the hospital, unsurprisingly, was that in the absence of an explanation there was a significant chance that the injuries had been caused non-accidentally. A referral was made to the local authority and a joint local authority/ police investigation was initiated. With the parents’ agreement T went to stay with his maternal grandparents. 16.Both parents were interviewed by the police in the days following S’s admission to hospital. As far as I am aware the police have taken no further action. 17.S remained in hospital until 6 May 2022, when he and T were placed in foster care with their parents’ consent. 18.The local authority issued proceedings on 9 May 2022. At a hearing on 11 May I declined to make interim care orders on the grounds that both boys were in foster care with parental consent under CA 1989, s20, the parents were fully cooperative, and I did not consider that orders were necessary. On 25 May 2022, following a positive viability assessment of the paternal grandparents, the children moved to their care and I made interim care orders to ensure there was a robust safeguarding framework around what was, potentially, a more vulnerable family placement. 19.This was a clear single-issue case. At the first case management hearing on 25 May 2022 I listed it for a fact-finding hearing in the first available slot, which was at the end of November 2022. Unfortunately that fixture was lost due to the need for genetic testing of both parents (which had to be conducted by a laboratory in Germany) and a further specialist medical opinion following on from that testing. Thereafter the earliest date on which the hearing could be re-listed was in April 2023. 20.By September 2022 the paternal grandparents were struggling with the full-time care of both children and their relationship with the local authority had become difficult. In November 2022 the children moved to the care of their maternal grandparents, where they have remained. The maternal grandmother, Mrs N, had originally been joined as an intervener but after the medical evidence was received the local authority indicated that it no longer sought to place her in the pool of potential perpetrators, and she was discharged. 21.Throughout the proceedings the children have been having contact with their parents on four afternoons each week for 2 ½ hours, and on one day each weekend for five hours. Contact was initially professionally supervised but since June 2022 has been supervised by family members.