SQ24C50017 - [2025] EWHC 2078 (Fam)

In setting out the facts I will refer to the relevant parts of the evidence in the narrative, rather than recounting all the evidence separately.

The M and F’s relationship began in early 2023 having known each other previously at school. The M became pregnant in May 2023 and they moved to their current property in December of that year. It is highly relevant that this is a fairly small three bedroom property, with a living room and kitchen downstairs and three bedrooms upstairs. The M and F both agreed that the walls and ceilings are thin and if someone is downstairs talking on the phone they can be heard upstairs (albeit not the words). This means that if P was crying in one room, it is extremely likely that a parent somewhere else in the house would have heard.

On 6 February 2024 there is a Facebook message from the M to a friend, KK, in which the M indicates that the F has practically stopped drinking and been out less. The M says that the F had said that he didn’t realise how much it affected his “attitude and anger”. The F in his evidence said that he had stopped drinking for a while but started going to the pub again shortly after P was born. This is a fairly constant cause of tension between the M and the F in the many electronic communications.

There is also a running theme of worries about money, which both the M and the F accepted.

P was born in 2024 with no resuscitation required and good Apgar scores. It is clear that the birth itself was quite traumatic but there is no evidence of any birth related injuries. P’s newborn infant physical examination indicated no abnormality apart from a possible posterior tongue tie.

There were a series of visits to healthcare professionals in which no concerns were raised about P’s presentation. I do not need to set these all out because by the end of the hearing all parties accepted that P had a number of injuries, which had no organic or otherwise explicable cause other than non-accidental injuries.

On 5 March there is a Snapchat message between the M and the F where the F apologises to the M for “making her feel shit” and there is reference to the parents arguing.

From 8 March onwards there are a series of photographs of P, to which I will refer below. It should be noted that photos, particularly when not taken in a controlled and professional manner, can be misleading and need careful interpretation. I take this fully into account when commenting on the photos.

On 9 March there is a WhatsApp message from the M to F where it is clear that the M is very tired and somewhat struggling. Throughout this period there are references to M seeing P and having no concerns. Similarly, PA saw P regularly and also says she had no concerns.

On 11 March P went to a postnatal clinic. On 15 March he was seen by Dr H because of constipation.

On 16 March there is a message which appears to indicate that the F was caring for P alone whilst the M was out. The F says “fed him winding him he cried. Sat here now he’s crying. Idk what to do and its pissing me off x”.

On 18 March there is the first of a long series of concerning photographs of P. This photograph appears to show abrasions on his face and lips, including quite a deep scratch to the left of his mouth. The M said the scratch happened when P was in the bath and he scratched himself with his nail. The F agreed with the M. Professor Fleming said that he was surprised if a baby’s fingernail could cause a scratch this deep. The M said the photo was misleading and there had been a scab which fell off and then the scratch bled again.

On 19 March there are photographs and a video of P’s mouth. They show a bruise/abrasion on P’s left upper lip and the video shows a great deal of blood in P’s mouth that appears to be coming from more than one place.

In her statement of 27 June 2024 the M said that the mouth bleed had probably been caused by P putting his hand in his mouth. However, in a subsequent statement, the M said she thought it was from P’s frenulum being torn when the F was feeding him. The M said in oral evidence that she was in the kitchen and had made up a bottle for the F to feed P in the sitting room. The F was struggling to get P to latch on, so the M went through to the sitting room, helped P to latch on and then she went back to the kitchen. The F again called for help and she then saw the blood in P’s mouth and took the video with the torch on to try to see what was happening in his mouth. She was wiping the blood off the outside and inside of P’s mouth.

The M said that when the F brought P back through she was “panicking” and “teary”. Despite the blood inside P’s mouth and the very clear bruise/abrasion on his lip she said she never thought the F had hurt him and had not thought the F had forced the bottle into his mouth.

Professor Fleming’s view was that the photos and videos indicate significant force-feeding, by pushing the bottle too far into the P’s mouth, injuring the inside of the mouth and the lip. I have no hesitation in agreeing with Professor Fleming. It is entirely obvious that the feeding was far too forceful and had injured P’s mouth quite seriously.

I have to say that I found this part of the M’s evidence fairly extraordinary. She was in the next room throughout and saw the clearest possible evidence that the F had forced the bottle into P’s mouth far too roughly. Yet she did not, or says she did not, reach the obvious conclusion. I note that the account that she gave orally to the court of three attempts to feed P is not the account that she gave in her earlier statement.

The F, after a number of questions, accepted that he might have been “a little too aggressive” in giving P the bottle. I take this as effectively a concession that he caused the mouth injuries, albeit without intending to.

The M said that she told the GP and the health visitor that P’s frenulum had been bleeding. It is accepted that there is no reference to this in the medical notes.

On 22 March there are further photographs which appear to show a mark higher up on P’s left cheek.

On 23 March there are photographs which appear to show a mark on P’s left eyelid and possibly his forehead. Professor Fleming thought P could have caused these to himself. On 25 March there are photographs which appear to show marks to the left side of P’s face. The M said P had dry skin and I accept that these photos are not determinative of there being injuries.

On 31 March there are photos that show a clear bruise below P’s left eye. The M had no explanation for this. She said she had never seen anything dropping on P’s head or face. She said in response to this photo and many others, that she had asked the F whenever she saw a bruise and the F always said he didn’t know how the injury had been caused. Professor Fleming thought it unlikely that P could have done this to himself.

On 4 April health visitor MH saw the M and P at the 6 to 8 week check.

On the same day there is an argument in the messages between the M and the F because the F is gaming and the M says he is not helping.

5 April is the earliest date on which the fractures to P’s left ribs, his left radius, the lower end of his left shin bone, and the two fractures to his left foot could have occurred.

On 10 April there is a photograph which shows a faint bruise by P’s left eye/on his cheek. The M had no explanation for this but said that whenever there was a bruise there had been a red mark before. She thought P might have caught himself or rubbed his eyes and his cheek.

I note that in respect to a number of the bruises, Professor Fleming said that in his experience babies of this age do not flail their arms around in a way that causes them bruises as shown in the many photographs.

On 14 April there was a photograph which appears to show a bruise on top of P’s forehead on the left side.

On 16 April P was taken by the M to the GP clinic for his immunisations and 8 week examination.

Between 16 and 20 April there are a series of photographs in the photograph bundle which appear to show scratches to the left side of P’s nose and cheek and bruises to his left cheekbone and forehead. The M said she did not cause them and she had no explanation for them. She did accept during cross examination that she was starting to have doubts in her mind that the F’s explanations “didn’t make sense”. She said “I thought maybe he wasn’t handling him as gently as he should have been”. The M suggested that from about this time onwards she started asking the F to do less with P.

There are also photos of blood on a muslin cloth. The M said P’s frenulum had split again when the F fed him. She said the GP had told her it had healed, but again there is no record of that in the notes. The M said in cross examination that she thought the F had put the bottle in too hard, but “he didn’t do it purposefully or out of frustration”. The M said that whenever she raised her concerns with the F he said that she was “overthinking”, that it was merely her anxiety and that she was insinuating that he had deliberately harmed P.

The F accepted that he may again have been “too forceful” in feeding P.

In my view, from at least 16-20 April the M knew that the F was injuring P through his rough and inappropriate handling. That is the only sensible interpretation of what the M said in evidence and the photos.

On 19 April M cared for P for a couple of hours as the M had an eyelash appointment. M indicated that discolouration could be seen but it was not as significant as the photographs would suggest.

From around 17 April the family were all unwell with flu. On 19 April there are messages from the M to the F in which she indicates that she is ill and identifies a number of matters which are making her unhappy. She says “I feel like shit I don’t have the energy to do anything. Just want to smoke a joint and drown myself in the bath.” The F is in the pub in the late afternoon and an argument develops about his reluctance to come home. The M states that she is “genuinely at the end of my tether with life in general because I prioritise every fucker else and put other people first and nobody does the same for me”. The F says that he does care but that he has “just had a few pints after work to sort me and my mental health out a little bit”. The M posts an Instagram message about her, the F and P being unwell.

On 21 April there are a further series of photographs that show a significant bruise or lump at the centre of P’s forehead and bruising to the left cheekbone. The F’s story as to how these injuries occurred has varied. On 21 April the F told the M that P had picked up the Firestick remote (a light electronic device) and dropped it on his own head. I therefore will call this the “Firestick incident”. On the evening of the second day of the hearing, after hearing Professor Fleming, the F told the M and PA that he had dropped the X-Box controller on P. Professor Fleming made clear that the nature of the head injuries meant that it was virtually impossible that the Firestick incident could be true. I will set out the original course of events and explanations and then return to the X-Box.

A video probably filmed at 10.08am appears to show a cut/bruising to P’s lip and P crying. The F said that P caught his lip on his nail. It is not entirely clear when this happened or whether the M was still in the house. At 10.24am the M Facebook messages PA to ask if she can come over, she says “please don’t tell F.”“I feel like I’m losing my head, I’ve had to walk out of the house”. It seems that there had been a significant argument about a family party. The M says that when she left the house P was uninjured and asleep on the sofa. She was out of the house from 10.24am until about 2.41pm. The F accepted this was the longest period when he had cared for P alone. Both the M and the F agree that there had been a major argument that morning when the F said that he would not go to the M’s grandmother’s 80th birthday. At some point, possibly during this argument, the F suggested to the M that P may not be his biological child.

It is not entirely clear where the M was this day after she left PA before lunch. She said she did not go for a walk with a friend, but there seems to be a couple of hours unaccounted for. Ultimately this is not critical for the issues I have to decide, save that the M was out of the house for about four hours when she was fully aware that the F posed a serious risk to P.

The F sent the M the photo of the significant bruising at around 2.30pm. At this point she speaks to the F and texts PA at the same time. The F initially said the bruising “had just appeared”. The M pushed the F on this and he then said that P had dropped the Firestick on his head. The M said in evidence that she went home, but only after about another 25-30 minutes. She said when she got home she had suggested taking P to the doctor but the F had persuaded her not to. The M decided to wait till the next day and then there was no swelling.

There is an exchange with PA from 14.27pm in which the M says that the F has asked her where she is and “is making out like I'm cheating on him”. The exchange continues and the M says “I genuinely can’t cope anymore. Sat on Morrison’s car park crying.” She also says “He’s just sent me this picture of [P]. I know he wouldn’t lay a finger on him however he didn’t have them this morning and he’s never smacked himself in the face that hard.”“They just appeared”. There is then a discussion between the M and PA about P whacking or boxing himself.

The M said that when she got home she suggested taking P to the doctor but the F dissuaded her, and suggested waiting till the next morning. The swelling had then gone down so they decided he did not need to go to the doctor.

The F maintained the Firestick incident story until the evening of the second day of the trial. His oral evidence then changed to saying that he had placed P on the sofa and had got up to make him a bottle and dropped the X-Box controller, forgetting that P was on the sofa. The F said he was embarrassed by what he had done and therefore made up the Firestick incident.

The F’s story seems unlikely. Firstly, I am doubtful that dropping the X-Box controller would have caused these two separate head injuries, although I accept it is possible. Secondly, although the F might have been embarrassed, it seems more than odd to make up the unlikely story of the Firestick incident and then stay with it once the police and social services became involved. I think that the F changed his story because he heard Professor Fleming’s evidence and realised his original story was unsustainable. I also conclude that the F, with the at least tacit collusion of the M, decided not to take P to the doctor in case awkward questions were asked.

On 25 April there are a number of deeply concerning photographs. These appear to show a number of bruises to the left side of P’s face extending from just below the left eye to under his chin, together with discolouration to the left eyelid and scratches to the left nostril. The M says that she left the house three times that day. The M says that she wasn’t planning on leaving the F alone with P but her cat was ill and had to be taken to the vet urgently.

The F called her when she was shopping in Sainsburys and told her that P had injured his eye whilst being changed. The M went straight home. She said that when she saw the bruises she didn’t think P could have done them to himself but when she asked the F he insisted that was what had happened. The M’s plan was to take P to the doctor next morning, but the bruises had faded by then.

These bruises are important because the bruising below the jawline are ones where it is impossible to see how a non-ambulant baby could have caused them to himself, and they fairly clearly show finger marks. They are therefore very strongly suggestive of very rough handling around P’s jawline. Professor Fleming said that he could not believe they were self-inflicted and they were characteristic of forceful holding whilst forcing a baby to feed.

The F had no explanation for these marks. He said he might have held P “too firmly” and “harder than I assumed I was”.

On the F’s phone the police found a photo on Snapchat which appears to show a baby with a bite mark. The date on Snapchat is 25 April. The image is slightly unclear, but Professor Fleming thought that it was probably a bite mark. In my view it is a bite mark. The F denies ever seeing the photo but has no explanation as to how it is on his phone. The M denies seeing a bite mark. I will deal with the bite mark in my conclusions.

On 8 May both the M and the F say that P was well. The F was working in the morning, he came home and changed P. The F came home early from work and he, the M, his brother’s girlfriend Sophie, and P went to a football match. They came home between 7pm and 8pm.

At around 8pm the M went out to buy cannabis to ease her period pains. When she left the house P was asleep or falling asleep, and she said that she was not anticipating that the F was going to put P to bed, she was going to do it on her return.

At 8:38pm the F made a 999 call. He described P as being in and out of consciousness and his eyes kept rolling back. The operator heard a baby screaming.

The F’s evidence was that he decided to take P to bed because he was starting to fall asleep downstairs. This was the first time that he would have done so on his own. He took P upstairs and put him on the changing mat. The F took P’s clothes off to change his nappy and P was “a bit agitated” and was flailing his arms around but not crying. The F went to pick P up to feed him and he noticed that P’s breathing was very irregular. The F picked P up and he was floppy and his limbs had no control.

Under cross examination the F said that when he picked P up and his breathing was irregular “I may have shaken him to see if it would rectify the situation.” He said he was “in a bit of a panic” and went back and forth, once or twice, to see if P “would return to normal”.

The F accepted that he had never said before that he had shaken P. He said he had been unsure whether he did or did not, but he was now clear that he had done so. He said that he only shook P after P had gone floppy. The F denied losing his temper with P or shaking him out of frustration because he was crying.

I am confident that the F was lying in this evidence. I deal with this in my conclusions.

The F was clear in his evidence that the M was an excellent and loving mother and would never have harmed P.