SQ24C50017 - [2025] EWHC 2078 (Fam)

This is not a difficult or complicated case. The evidence that the F caused virtually all the injuries to P is overwhelming. The medical evidence is clear and there is no difference or inconsistency between any of the expert evidence. There is no genetic or clinical cause for any of P’s injuries.

The subdural haemorrhage is highly likely to have been caused by shaking. There is no other medical explanation, and the F puts forward no other explanation.

Similarly, the fractures, other than that to the clavicle, have no other explanation advanced apart from shaking or very rough handling.

In respect of the bruising, it is possible that P had some propensity to bruise easily, given that both his parents have hypermobility. However, there are two strong indicators against this. Firstly, he has shown no propensity to bruise since being in foster care, even though as a mobile child he would be much more likely to get bruises now. Secondly, the M said that he never injured himself in a way that caused a bruise when in her care. The M, PA, M and MGF said that P frequently flailed his arms, but none of them said that they had seen that happen and then seen marks that led to bruises.

Professor Fleming’s evidence, which entirely accords with commonsense observation, is that an infant of P’s age is highly unlikely to have the strength to injure himself in the way shown on the photographs. Further, the bruises to the jaw area and the side of the forehead are virtually impossible to have been self inflicted.

The mouth injuries are equally obviously inflicted injuries. The nature of the injuries, including the bruise/abrasion on the lip, indicate extremely strongly that they were the result of rough handling with the bottle being forced into P’s mouth.

The only injuries which I find, on the balance of probabilities, were not inflicted were the clavicle fracture which could have been birth related, and the scratch to the cheek, where on balance I accept the M’s evidence that P did it in the bath. It seems an unlikely injury for her to have inflicted, and she accepts that it happened when she had care of P.

It is, in my view, equally obvious that the F inflicted the injures. There is copious evidence that he struggled to look after P and became frustrated with him when he cried or would not take the bottle. The F has accepted that he was rough with P at least twice, once when he forced the bottle into his mouth and once with the finger bruises to the jawline. In my view he accepted those two injuries, albeit saying they were not deliberate, and he did not realise at the time he was being inappropriate because he had no choice but to do so in the light of Professor Fleming’s evidence. In my view, the F was quite strategic in what he chose to accept and not accept.

The F accepted that he had lied about the Firestick incident, but again only after Professor Fleming had made clear that his explanation was unsustainable. However, in my view, the X-Box controller explanation is almost equally unlikely. The mechanism seems somewhat implausible given that P was said to be lying flat on his back with his head by the cushion. The F would have had to throw the controller down and it hit P on the forehead and side of his head. But more importantly it is very hard to see why the F would have gone on lying about this if it had been a genuine accident once he realised how serious the overall case was. The F might have been embarrassed at first but once the police were involved, if he had just dropped the controller, and had not caused the other injuries, then the benefit of telling the truth would have been manifest.

The evidence that the F caused the bruises is overwhelming. They all appeared after P had been in his care, and he does not suggest otherwise. The idea that P caused them to himself is contrary to the medical evidence, contrary to the M’s evidence that P never bruised himself in her care, and contrary to the fact that P didn’t bruise himself when removed from the parents’ care.

The F conceded, eventually, that he had shaken P on the night of 8 May, but said he had done so only after P had had some form of collapse. There was no medical cause of P’s collapse. On the other hand, the nature of the subdural haemorrhage is highly consistent with a shaking injury. I have no doubt that the F shook P and caused the injury. This is reinforced by the fact that there was a 5 minute gap between the F speaking to the M, who told him to ring for an ambulance, and him doing so. It is utterly implausible that the F would have been asking the M if P had had a similar episode earlier in the day, which she had failed to mention to him, rather than just call an ambulance. In my view the F delayed calling an ambulance because he knew he had caused P a very serious injury.

I do not find that the M caused any of the injuries. The mouth injury on 19 March, the Firestick incident, and the index event on 8 May all happened when it is accepted P was in his father’s care. Nobody suggests that the M was rough or inappropriate with P. I accept the M’s explanation for the scratch to his cheek. Therefore I do not find that the M caused any of the injuries.

For all those reasons I find that the F caused the injuries save for the clavicle fracture and the scratch to the cheek.

The only alleged injury which causes me any forensic difficulty is the bite mark. There is no explanation as to why it is on the F’s phone. Sometimes photos might appear because of some group or website the user has been on. But there is no explanation such as that from the F. In my view the photo shows a bite mark on a white infant of about P’s age. The M says he was not wearing a white vest like that shown in the photo on that day, but there are other photos of a similar top. The M and F both hotly deny seeing the bite marks. However, the importance of the bite mark is that it would be clear evidence of deliberate injury. I therefore put little weight on the M and the F’s denials. However, M and MGF also say they saw no bite mark when they saw P on the following days. The bruise could however have faded. There is also no sign of the bite mark on subsequent photos, although there are no photos of that area.

Ms Hughes urges me to make the finding on the balance of probability. I have decided not to do so given the burden of proof is on the LA and the LA, whilst inviting me to consider making a finding, is much more cautious on the issue than the Guardian. It does however remain a matter of considerable concern.

The next issue, and one that is in my view straightforward, is the M’s failure to protect. The M was in the house at times when the F was looking after P. She was in the kitchen on 19 March when the F was trying to feed P in the next room. I find that she knew the F had been feeding P much too forcefully and caused his lip and mouth to bleed. She kept referring to his frenulum splitting but I find that it split because the F forced the bottle into P’s mouth. In cross examination the M effectively conceded she knew the F was being too forceful.

In relation to the Firestick incident, the M knew the F had initially lied to her saying it “just happened”. So she knew, at least by then, that the F was capable of lying and covering up his actions.

The M also knew that she had never seen P bruise himself when his arms were flailing. There was therefore only one other explanation. Even if the M thought P had a propensity to bruise, he only bruised after the F had looked after him.

The M also knew the F got very stressed looking after P and struggled to feed him. This was a small house and I have no doubt that the M knew that the F got cross and frustrated with P.

The M seems to have taken the attitude that because she did not think the F was deliberately injuring P it somehow mattered less, or was acceptable to stay with him. This may be obvious, but from P’s viewpoint, which is the only one that matters, it is irrelevant whether the F intended to injure him or not. He was being repeatedly seriously injured by his father and his mother was not acting to prevent that happening.

I find that by at least mid-April the M knew that P was becoming injured because of the F’s handling. She said herself that she tried to leave P in his care less. However, despite this knowledge, she did not remove P from the risk by leaving the F. Further, she left P with the F on his own in the house for long periods, on 21 April for over four hours and then on 8 May when she went out. On 21 April this was after a really serious argument with the F, when she knew he was angry and very heightened. The only protective choice was to have taken P with her that day and she failed to do so.

The M, in Closing, accepted that she “grossly failed to protect P”. I have to say that she reached this realisation exceptionally late, and doubtless in the full knowledge of my likely findings. For the benefit of any future assessment, my view is that the M has given little cause for confidence in either her insight or her ability to prioritise P.

The M could have sought help and support from her parents, but she chose not to do so. Instead, she did not tell her parents the truth about the relationship, or about what was happening in the house. Perhaps that was because she wanted to protect her parents, but again it was plainly not protecting P. The M said that she could not afford to move out, but I am afraid, in circumstances where she was aware that P was regularly being injured in his father’s care, that is not a good enough excuse.

I make entirely clear this is not a “bolt-on” finding. The M had the clearest possible warnings that P, a very young and vulnerable child, was at serious risk and she failed to take reasonable steps to protect him.

The next issue is MGM’s and MGF’s failure to protect P. With the benefit of the photograph bundle, MGM’s failure to realise, or even seriously question, what was happening to P seems very surprising. However, the photograph bundle brings together the most troubling photos, and there were a mass of other photos that suggest a normal baby. I think that M showed a striking lack of curiosity, and indeed insight into what was happening to P. However, it is important not to judge with hindsight, and also not to judge with the eye of a childcare professional who is astute to see signs of abusive injuries. I accept that for most people to conclude that their daughter’s partner is abusing a baby, and their daughter is turning a blind eye to this, is a very difficult thing to do.

It is surprising that M did not confront the M and ask more searching questions. However, I accept that she was preoccupied with caring for her own parents. I also suspect that she and the M do not have a relationship where the M tells M everything. It was notable that M had no idea the M regularly took cannabis or that there had been issues with the F drinking too much before P was born.

MGF’s failure to realise what was happening was less surprising. He did not see P very often during the 11 week period. The M never confided in him and that may just be a function of their relationship.

In terms of P’s future, I am deeply concerned about MGM’s and MGF’s failure to accept or even seriously contemplate that the F was injuring P, and the M actively misleading them, until they heard the oral evidence of the experts on the first two days of the hearing. As I have set out above, this is not a difficult or complicated case. The medical evidence is overwhelming and the evidence pointing to the F equally so.

I note that even during oral evidence MGF was keen to say that some of the photos were “misleading”, rather than focus on the overwhelming evidence since at least January 2025 that one of the parents had been injuring the child.

I am worried about the M’s ability to apparently manipulate MGM, and MGM’s gullibility in believing what the M says. I do not accept that the M was simply trying to protect her parents, and to show that she could cope without them. The M chose to actively mislead her parents about what was happening, and not to protect P by asking them for help. The fact that MGM’s and MGF’s acceptance of what the M said continued right up to the second day of the trial gives me real concern about their ability to protect P from the M’s lies and exceptionally poor choices.

Even during their evidence M and MGF were trying to excuse the M’s conduct, and said she was trying to “protect them”, rather than accepting that she was actively misleading them to cover up the fact that her partner was seriously abusing N, and she was letting it happen.

I make clear that I do not think a stated reliance on whatever advice they received from criminal solicitors, or whatever hope they pinned on the submissions of leading counsel for the parents at the Case Management Hearing in January 2025, to be sufficient to absolve them of the need to have questioned the M’s explanations much more critically.

However, these are matters which I would expect any assessment of M and MGF to fully consider if they continue to put themselves forward to care for P.