“400. Much has been made of the stresses and difficulties in the parents’ lives. The findings I have made in relation to the mother’s conduct, in relation to her own and Mary’s health and the exaggerations and misrepresentations of course mean that I have doubts about her credibility, and there are similar concerns about the father’s evidence. He has joined in many of the accounts given to doctors, social workers and nursery about the health issues and, thus, I have difficulties about his credibility too. There is the added dimension that he used porn, as I have described, and I have precious little information about the sort of porn he was accessing. 401. However, I also have to weigh in the balance various factors that have become apparent about Ms R during these proceedings and have to consider the inconsistencies and lack of credibility in some of her evidence. She too has had physical health difficulties, as are reflected in her medical records. She has had long-standing and chronic physical health problems.… It is also apparent that she has a long-standing history of depression and anxiety, and that she has had time off work as a result of that.”
“420. Thus, although there are undoubtedly issues about the mother and father’s credibility and a number of identified stresses in their lives, much the same can be said in respect of Ms R’s situation at the time these injuries to Mary occurred. In my judgment, her situation was a complex one.” 9) The parents’ situation in the days leading up to 17 December was significantly stressful and their daily life was very difficult to manage. However, Ms R’s account of Mary appearing as a neglected, withdrawn child at this time was not accepted in the light of the evidence of the nursery and health visitor of her being lively and engaged. Nor did the judge accept the evidence of previous carers who raised concerns about attachment between Mary and her parents, viewing those concerns as being affected by the unhappy employment history. The carers had a prior arrangement to meet social services later on 18 December, but the judge found that the focus of the meeting was to be the unsatisfactory care arrangements for the mother rather than Mary’s situation. [351, 537, 365] 10) On 17 December, the father left Mary alone with her mother when he went to work although the mother was not out of bed. This situation lasted for three hours until Ms R arrived to collect Mary. There was confusion about the handover arrangements. These were of the father’s making and he lied to the court about them. [239, 370] 11) After Mary went to Ms R, a number of text messages passed between Ms R and the mother and between Ms R and her own mother. The judge reviewed these. The messages, which included some photographs, included descriptions of Mary’s activities on both days. These included playing a game of ‘Ring o’ Roses’ with J, playing in a toy car, taking chocolate from an advent calendar, bouncing on the bed, being bathed, cuddling Ms R in bed and (on the morning of 18 December) eating, holding a cup and taking a drink through a straw and being bathed again. She was described by Ms R as “fine” or “okay”
“172. I am satisfied on all the evidence I have heard and read that the hymenal injury was not caused by the failed catheterisation. I accept Dr Rollison’s evidence that the injuries were caused by the insertion of something like fingers or a penis.” 16) In relation to the mark to the foot, having considered the evidence of Professor Craig (forensic odontologist), Dr G and Dr Kouble (forensic odontologist), the judge concluded that it was a child’s bite, probably inflicted within 48 hours of it being photographed on 19 December, and that it had been caused by J, who was showing jealousy of other children at the time. [181, 448] 17) In relation to the other marks on Mary’s body, having considered the evidence of Dr Morrell, the judge identified the bruising to the head and chin as having been inflicted by Ms R. The bruising to the knees was caused when Ms R parted her legs to examine and photograph her genitals. Ms R’s accounts of the bruising were inconsistent and evolving. Ms R’s mother’s evidence was rejected by the judge as being partial. Injuries such as the abrasion to the arm and the bruise to the forehead would have been evident to a carer if they had been sustained before Mary went into Ms R’s care. [446, 449, 458, 460, 463, 465] 18) The judge noted that she had come to conclusions not supported or sought by the local authority and said this in conclusion: “466. I am, of course, conscious that I have come to conclusions which are not supported, or indeed sought, by the local authority. They have submitted that I can exclude Ms R from the pool of perpetrators. I have considered that stance carefully and I, of course, have considered all the submissions on behalf of Ms R. However, having considered all the evidence in this case, I have reached the conclusion that the positions of the local authority and the intervenor do not give full weight of the totality of the medical evidence, by that, I mean the totality of the neuroscientific evidence taken together with the paediatric evidence. In addition, I find that they have not attached sufficient weight to the fracture to Mary’s skull. Furthermore, in my judgment, they have not fully weighed in the balance the complexity of Ms R’s difficulties and the stresses within her life and the contradictions within her evidence. I have also had well in mind the often-quoted principle that a child is unlikely to face more than one abusive carer in her life, however, that does not mean that such a situation never arises. While I have made adverse findings about Mary’s parents, I have sadly come to the conclusion that Mary was indeed faced with two abusive factors in her life. The two types of abuse are very different from each other and I do not consider, on the facts of this case, that it is so improbable as to not have occurred.”