SQ24C50017 - [2025] EWHC 2078 (Fam)

I do not need to set out the position of the parties in great detail. The LA submits that I should find:

The LA does not seek findings of actual injury by the M.

The LA seeks a finding of failure to protect by the M and I will refer to the evidence in this regard in my conclusions.

The LA does not now seek formal findings of failure to protect against either M or MGF. However, the LA and the Guardian seek for me to deal in this judgment with the evidence that goes to MGM’s and MGF’s conduct both before 8 May and in the period since.

The M denies causing any of the injuries and, in her closing submissions, now supports a finding that the F caused the injuries. Ms Burnell on behalf of the M accepts that the M has grossly failed to protect P. She accepts that P was presenting with more and more bruising and the M ought to have considered whether P was being harmed, or at least handled inappropriately, by the F. She accepts that the M did have concerns. She accepts that the M had seen P with injuries after he had been cared for by the F and fed by the F.

In his closing submissions on behalf of the F Mr Hadley accepts:

Although in his closing submission the F maintains his denial of knowingly having caused any of the further injuries, he accepts that he has never seen the M mishandling P in any way. He cannot offer any explanation for the other injuries.

Mr Fraser on behalf of M and MGF submits that I should make no findings that they failed to protect P. Mr Fraser sets out in detail the limited occasions upon which either M or MGF saw P before 8 May. He also submits that some of the photographs may paint a somewhat misleading picture of the prominence of the bruises.

In respect of the period since 8 May, Mr Fraser sets out a detailed chronology of both the dates when M and MGF were provided with particular information and also, importantly, the degree to which M in particular was concerned with her own parents. I note that in January 2025 the maternal great-grandfather was diagnosed with terminal cancer and sadly died at the end of March 2025, and the maternal great-grandmother has been diagnosed with dementia.

Mr Fraser also relies on the fact that leading counsel, through their submissions, may have led M and MGF to believe that there was an alternative explanation for P’s injuries.

The Guardian concurs with the LA on the factual findings of injuries, save that Ms Hughes argues the bite mark should be found to be caused by the F on P. She concurs with the LA on the M’s failure to protect. She is perhaps even more critical of M and MGF than the LA.