Case No. ZE22C50109

150.I have not found that S’s injuries were caused non-accidentally by either of his parents. 151.I have not found that at the relevant date either T or S was suffering or likely to suffer significant harm due to neglect. 152.The threshold criteria are, therefore, not met and these proceedings come to an end. 1 Even ignoring for the moment my observations about the mother’s credibility generally, I do not think it makes sense for her to have denied any symptoms S exhibited overnight, when she had already said she had heard the crackling in S’s chest the night before. 2 S’s increased fractiousness as a baby, compared to T, adds weight to this argument. It seems likely that a guilty parent would have interpreted the behaviour of a baby who woke more frequently, and seemed more unsettled, as a potential sign of injury or pain. I remind myself that the parent in question would not have known that the injury was a broken rib, that would heal without treatment: there would surely have been a real fear that an even more serious injury had occurred.