“A Court may only make a care order or supervision order if it is satisfied – (a) that the child concerned is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm; and (b) that the harm, or likelihood of harm, is attributable to – (i) the care given to the child, or likely to be given to him if the order were not made, not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give to him.”
"I make no criticism of its use but it is a 'catch-all' for everything that is not an accident. It is also a tautology: the true distinction is between an accident which is unexpected and unintentional and an injury which involves an element of wrong. That element of wrong may involve a lack of care and/or an intent of a greater or lesser degree that may amount to negligence, recklessness or deliberate infliction. While an analysis of that kind may be helpful to distinguish deliberate infliction from say negligence, it is unnecessary in any consideration of whether the threshold criteria are satisfied because what the statute requires is something different namely, findings of fact that at least satisfy the significant harm, attributability and objective standard of care elements of section 31(2)."
“It is the local authority that seeks a finding that FM’s injuries are non-accidental. It is for the local authority to prove its case. It is not for the mother to disprove it. In particular it is not for the mother to disprove it by proving how the injuries were in fact sustained. Neither is it for the court to determine how the injuries were sustained. The court’s task is to determine whether the local authority has proved its case on the balance of probability. Where, as here, there is a degree of medical uncertainty and credible evidence of a possible alternative explanation to that contended for by the local authority, the question for the court is not ‘has that possible alternative explanation been proved’ but rather it should ask itself, ‘in the light of that possible alternative explanation can the court be satisfied that the local authority has proved its case on the simple balance of probability’ .”
“I suggest, therefore, that in future cases judges should no longer direct themselves on the necessity of avoiding “straining to identify a perpetrator”
“To these matters I would only add that in cases where repeated accounts are given of events surrounding injury and death, the court must think carefully about the significance or otherwise of any reported discrepancies. They may arise for a number of reasons. One possibility is of course that they are lies designed to hide culpability. Another is that they are lies told for other reasons. Further possibilities include faulty recollection or confusion at times of stress or when the importance of accuracy is not fully appreciated, or there may be inaccuracy or mistake in the record-keeping or recollection of the person hearing and relaying the accounts. The possible effects of delay and repeated questioning upon memory should also be considered, as should the effect on one-person hearing accounts given by others. As memory fades, a desire to iron out wrinkles may not be unnatural - a process that might in elegantly be described as ‘story-creep’ - may occur without any necessary inference of bad faith.”
“[F’s] dynamic risk has continued to reduce… [F] does not pose a risk to strangers, infants or pre–pubescent female children or male children of any age, and there is no evidence that [F] poses a risk to his daughter [] or to his son [] at this time.”
“during argument with wife today at home patient’s wife threw drill at patient hitting right side forehead, would 1 inch not bleeding…. Patient’s daughter in property at time, will complete MARF (patient aware)…”
“There was a misunderstanding with them. They wrote down in my notes that my wife threw a drill at me but what actually happened was that I was at the bottom of the stairs, I was doing some work on the house at the bottom of the stairs and my wife was on the middle floor. I needed my drill and I asked my wife to chuck it down to me. She chucked it down to me and I missed it. It was a complete accident and I got caught in the head.”
“Autism is considered a neurodevelopmental life-long condition with different levels of symptom severity with two core domains: deficits in social communication and reciprocal social interaction; and restricted repetitive behaviours, interests, or activities (RRBs) including sensory differences.”
“Assumption is then that the child had been caught around the front of the chest but as we know from this case it has been suggested that the child was caught by the arm and that would of course be a different situation. Throwing a child in any direction letting gravity do it’s job and then catching child by the arm would of course induce a very severe traction of the arm and traction of the arm is one of the possible mechanisms for a fracture of the nature seen here.”
“Child who has some speed due to gravitational acceleration if caught by the arm one would easily accept that would lead to traction of the arm beyond what seem part of reasonable handling.”
“F was verbally fluent, speaking in a combination of complex and simple sentences. No overt grammatical, syntactical, or semantic errors were present in his spoken language. His speech and vocal patterns were typical, with no obvious atypicality evident in his intonation patterns, speaking volume, rhythm, or pitch. No examples of immediate echolalia were present and his phrasing was not overtly stereotyped, idiosyncratic, or repetitive.”
“I would throw A up in the air and catch her, catching her under the arms. She usually laughs and enjoys it. However, there was one occasion when I have caught her wrong and she cried. I would usually catch A under her arms but this occasion I caught her by the top of both arms…”