Case No. ZE22C50109

117.I have summarised above the medical evidence which indicates that as a potential mechanism, this explanation is possible but unlikely. In particular, I note the view of both Dr Oates and Dr Cartlidge that they would expect a small baby onto whom a parent had rolled in bed to sink into the mattress to at least some degree before a counter-force sufficient to cause fractures was generated. 118.I note also Dr Cartlidge’s evidence that a baby suffering injuries as significant as these, particularly perhaps the second set of rib injuries, would have responded with a loud distress response, readily distinguishable from the usual stirrings of a hungry baby waking for a feed. 119.The evidence of the mother, and of Mrs O, is that she is a heavy sleeper. I note that this evidence has the potential to be self-serving, but as I have said the mother resisted other opportunities to tailor her evidence to suit her case, and I am inclined to accept it. She was also, inevitably, tired after childbirth, nights spent breastfeeding on demand and days spent caring for a toddler and young baby (I note from the FSW records that there was at least one occasion in the hospital when she fell asleep while feeding S in the night; and another when, half-awake, she reached out for him and pulled him by the arm without realising what she was doing). It is possible, in my view, that S’s initial distress response did rouse her, but that she was sufficiently drowsy that he was latched on and feeding before she was fully awake. 120.On the other hand, the father is a light sleeper. He would have been more likely to wake and hear a distress cry, and to recognise it for what it was. I note that at this point T also was waking quite frequently during the night, and that when he did so the father would get up and go to attend to T in his room (the mother explained in her statement that the parents divided responsibility between them so that if T woke in the night, the father would tend to T, and the mother would tend to S). It is possible that he was not in the bedroom when any incident occurred. 121.I am satisfied that the crackling sound in S’s chest was first noticed by the parents on the evening of 22 April. That is the chronology provided by the parents in their original timeline document, and in both parents’ written evidence; the mother was less sure in her oral evidence when she first heard the sound, but I am satisfied that is because her memory has faded due to the time that has elapsed. Assuming that they are telling the truth (and I remind myself that this is a case where I have found it highly unlikely that the parents have colluded), the parents’ first accounts given at the hospital and in their timeline are likely to be the most reliable. 122.It is highly likely, therefore, that the right-sided injuries were present by the evening of 22 April at the latest. 123.It is more difficult to establish how long before then they were caused. Dr Cartlidge said that the crackling sound did not, by itself, identify the moment when the injuries were caused. The crackling was likely to be the sound of the fractured ends of the ribs moving over each other and grating, but it was not necessarily the case that the fractures had happened immediately before that sensation was felt or heard: it might have been within the previous day or two. 124.It was suggested by Ms Cheetham on behalf of the guardian that the fact that S was seen, and handled, by Mrs O during the day of 22 April, and nothing unusual was observed, “ruled out” the possibility that S’s right rib and humerus injuries had been caused before then, and therefore made the co-sleeping explanation impossible.125.I agree that the evidence of Mrs O makes the co-sleeping explanation less likely. Mrs O said that during the visit S was handled a lot by everyone present: S had arrived in the baby sling and she did not have a cot suitable for a baby his size, so he was held and passed around throughout the visit. This would have been likely to agitate any injuries, and it is difficult to understand how S could have presented as he did during that visit – as a normal, contented baby – if he had already suffered the significant injuries that were found the following morning. I note that during his stay in hospital S was clearly suffering pain and there were a couple of occasions when he became distressed when his pain medication was due. 126.On the other hand, if I accept the mother’s evidence1, she was able to settle S during the night of 22 April and he woke, fed and slept as normal. On almost any interpretation of the evidence, given the crackling sounds heard the night before, the injuries were present during that night. I bear in mind also that the left rib fracture, albeit a less significant injury, was undoubtedly present over a period of time when S was held by a considerable number of different adults; and yet none of them noticed anything unusual. 127.I do not think I can go so far as to rule out this explanation. I accept it is unlikely.