Case No. ZE22C50109

106.S’s injuries were sustained on more than one occasion. If both sets of injuries were caused abusively, it is extremely unlikely, in my view, that they were caused by different people. Although even caring and attuned parents like these, with no apparent risk factors within the family, can be susceptible to a momentary loss of control, it is rare for children to be injured in this manner. For both parents in a family to act in this way within a few weeks of each other would be an extraordinary coincidence. 107.It is also highly unlikely, although conceivable, that there was only one abusive event and that S sustained an accidental injury on a different occasion. 108.It is much more likely, therefore, that if any of S’s injuries were caused abusively, they all were, and the same perpetrator is responsible. 109.The undisputed medical evidence is to the effect that if any of these injuries were caused accidentally, the cause would have to be a very unusual event. It follows from that, I think, that if both sets of injuries were caused accidentally it is much more likely that they were caused by the same unusual mechanism on two different occasions than that there were two separate and unconnected highly unusual events. 110.Of the two possible explanations that have been put forward, it is more likely that S was injured during co-sleeping on two occasions than that he was injured by T on two occasions. The mechanism involved in an injury caused by T must necessarily have involved a significant number of variables (the relative positioning of the children, and T’s unpredictable movements) that would be unlikely to recur. Further, T and S were together unsupervised only very rarely and for short periods of time, and there is no evidence that they were left alone at all in S’s first few weeks (over the period of the first injury), when the father was on paternity leave and there were many visits to and from family members. 111.In contrast, a co-sleeping injury that went unrecognised by the parents on one occasion could quite possibly recur on another when the same combination of circumstances (the relative positioning of baby and parents, and the fact that both parents were asleep) arose. In her submissions Ms Badejo pointed out that S slept in bed between his parents for 33 nights. If the first injury was caused in this way, and went unnoticed, from that point onwards the event that caused the subsequent injuries could well be described as an accident waiting to happen. 112.In this part of my judgment I have made some observations about the inherent probabilities of the potential explanations for S’s injuries that have been raised during this hearing. In doing so my intention has not been to rule out any possible explanation, even the least likely. It is important in this case that all possibilities are held in mind until the point where the determination is made, and that the court has an overview of the strengths and weaknesses of each explanation in the light of the evidence. To borrow from a different area of the law, it would be a mistake in this case to rule out one possible explanation after another until only one remains.