“When children who have pigment in their skin, depending on their racial origin, injuries may not heal in the sense they leave a mark behind. These marks are not scars necessarily, they are movement of pigment so you can see persisting marks due to the darkening of the skin which may last quite a long time.” 59). In cross examination, Dr Rahman was asked to consider alternative explanations for the marks/bruises such as C falling over or them being caused by another child in the fight at school which had taken place on the3 May 2024 . Dr Rahman rejected these alternative explanations either because the extensive marks C had were patterned, and because they were on soft areas of his skin which are not usually injured in accidental falls, or because another similarly aged child would be unlikely to produce sufficient force through another child’s clothes to cause such bruising: “When children fall they are either falling forwards or backwards. If a child falls sideways they put their hands or arms out to protect themselves therefore you only see falls causing injuries to the front of the legs or due to falls on the head when we see them to the front of the forehead, older children do not typically fall flat backwards”. 60). On the photograph of C’s right thigh at F3 in the bundle there are a number of distinct, circular bruises to C’s leg, Dr Rahman’s opinion is that “it is difficult if not impossible to imagine a single fall could cause at least four circular marks on his leg”, and he agreed C’s description of being hit with a wooden spoon matches these circular marks almost exactly. He also agreed it is difficult to imagine how any fall could have created the patterned marks to C’s back and agreed they are “wholly consistent with what C says about being hit with a stick, a handle of a broom, or a handle of a wooden spoon’”. 61). In respect of the likelihood of the marks being caused by another child, Dr Rahman told the court: “If C was involved in some form of altercation with other children I would either expect to see no bruises or bruises and scratches which would not look like the bruises we have seen because when looking at the marks they show patterns. Marks in small fights generally have a mark with no pattern. We may see marks 1cm – 2cm – 3cm whatever, but they will be uniform without gaps in between and without any shape or pattern unless the fight involved implements”
“If we look at the description it says ‘bruise right shin with central pale area’. I cannot think of an accidental bruise which would cause a pale central area which is why I didn’t say it is a possible accidental injury…what is said is a good description. I can visualise what the doctor is describing but I agree it would be good to have had a photograph”. “Typically when I come across descriptions of bruises to shins, photos or no photos, I tend to say they are accidental but in this case if, for example, it had been described as a 1.5cm x 5cm bruise I would accept it is more likely to be an accident but we have a further description where the doctor says a ‘central pale area’. It is very difficult to imagine an accident which would cause a bruise like that”. 63). Dr Rahman considered the totality of the evidence available to him, including the history given by C, and his firm opinion is that these marks and bruises are not likely to have occurred accidentally and are more likely to be inflicted injuries in keeping with the history provided by C. Dr Rahman states that C is likely to have felt pain when he sustained the bruises and may have cried or spoken out to say it was hurting. Furthermore, any carer assisting C with his personal hygiene is likely to have noticed the bruises, and the person or persons who inflicted them are very likely to have been aware that their actions had led to an injury. THE EVIDENCE FROM THE SCHOOL STAFF 64). Two members of staff from C’s primary school were required to give oral evidence; HT, the Headteacher of [School], and CT, C’s class teacher in May 2024. 65). HT confirmed she saw the marks and bruises to C’s body at school on the3 May 2024 as shown in the photographs in the court bundle, and as the parents were, at that stage of the proceedings, disputing these were photographs of C, she also confirmed these were photographs of his body and what she saw that day although she had not been present when the actual photographs were taken. HT went on to explain C is wearing a distinctive red top visible on one of the photographs which is not school uniform because it should have been white. I am persuaded this is likely to have been known to the parents. 66). HT agreed C’s behaviour had been deteriorating in the lead up to the3 May 2024 whereas prior to Easter he had been making good progress. She confirmed there is a recording on the Child Protection Online Monitoring System (CPOMS) kept by the school which included a reference to C’s involvement in a fight on the3 May 2024 as part of the wider safeguarding entry relating to his bruises, but there was no specific entry relating to the fight itself. When asked why not, HT’s explanation is “if we felt it was a serious incident it would have been recorded on the CPOMS” and if the fight had involved implements, this would ‘definitely’ have been recorded on the CPOMS at the time. HT didn’t have any recollection of being told about the fight but said, if “it had involved any implements it would have been reported to me and I would have considered exclusion of a child who used implements”. 67). HT had been working at the school in 2018 when child A had made allegations against the mother. She denied ‘A’ had limited command of the English language at that time and stated her recollection is that “His English was good for someone whose English is not their first language”…. “78% of the children in my school speak English as an additional language so what I consider as the norm for our school, he was part of that norm. He certainly didn’t stand out as a child who needed extra support over and above what we were already doing. Verbally he could communicate and read well. He was in the higher group of that class for reading.” 68). She also expressed her concern about child B not wearing spectacles and rejected the suggestion this was not unusual. HT told the court; “We do see it as unusual when we have spoken to parents and asked them, and reminded them and they still continue not to wear them. We do see that as a concern.”
“It would have been a conversation about it is not considered acceptable to use that to manage a child’s behaviour, and making it clear to the parents what was expected and not expected from them in that respect…Yes they cooperated and that’s one of the main reasons we were able to manage the case at the level we did (Child in Need) without any escalation. We closed the case because we were satisfied it was a ‘one-off’ incident with no other concerns of that nature for the children which led to the decision the case could be closed”. 80). Miss Badger told the court a safety plan was put in place, and it included the parents’ agreement not to use physical chastisement again. She explained the inclusion of that condition was unique to the circumstances of this particular family and was not included in every case. She also confirmed that if ‘A’ did not know a particular word he found a way to describe it e.g. he use the words ‘costume peg’ to describe a coat hanger. THE POLICE EVIDENCE 81). OIC Cox is the investigating officer in the police investigation into how C sustained his injuries, she was also the person who observed C’s ABE interview. OIC Cox carried out the search of the family home pursuant tosection 18 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 on the4 May 2024 , and in her oral evidence she confirmed she seized a wooden spoon from the draining board in the kitchen, and a broom with a wooden handle from behind the television in the living area, both of which are now exhibits in the criminal investigation. The photographs of these items appear in the court bundle. 82). The parents deny ownership of both of these items and deny they were found in their home. On Day 3 of this final hearing they asked the local authority to make enquiries with the family support worker who visited the home on the3 May 2024 to check on the children, whether she had brought these items into their home. The answer to this enquiry is, no and there is no evidence to suggest otherwise. 83). DC Radford is the Police Officer who conducted C’s ABE interview, she has played no other role in the police investigation. DC Radford referred to C’s allegations as ‘disclosures’ but refuted the suggestion she had approached the interview with pre-conceived ideas about the veracity of C’s account. The delay in conducting the ABE interview between the 3 May and the30 July 2024 was attributable to the availability of the intermediary and she agreed, this delay was regrettable and not best practice. DC Radford agreed C presented as ‘chatty’ and ‘seemed quite comfortable in the setting’. DC Radford denied there was any risk she had invited C to tell her or repeat what he had told the teachers or social workers at school. C’s ALLEGATIONS AND HIS ‘ABE’ INTERVIEW 84). In his ABE interview on the30th July 2024 , C had the assistance of an intermediary and he repeats the allegations he made to CT, Ms D’Amico, Ms Monaghan and PC Manole on the3 May 2024 . 85). C makes allegations that both of his parents were hitting him in the living room of the house in the presence of his four siblings, he refers to ‘A’ and B being scared and they left the room to go into their bedroom. 86). C recalls he had said “bad words at school and after the teacher told them, my dad and mum then after they got angry that’s when they started hurting me (sic)”… “When they got angry after school, after school when my dad picked me up and my sister when we gone back home my mum said why did you do anything after she started hitting mewith a stick and a wooden spoon”
“you did wrong because you were not performing well at school and then he (child C) became angry”
“He spoke to me about what he heard from the teacher, that C is going to kill everyone in school and what is going to happen to your son in the future, and because of this [the father] was upset. Then he beat C due to the information from the teacher that unless this boy is punished now, C is going to attack everyone in the community and [the father] was upset by this so he beat him up. That’s what [the father] told me”. 96). The mother accepted she agreed with and supported what the father had done and the reasons for it, she accepted she did not ask C anything further about his injuries or look at them herself to see if he needed medical attention. The mother said she did not check on C because this was the first time this had happened in the family and the father had given her an acceptable reason for why he had done it. The mother initially asserted the first time she became aware of the father assaulting C with a stick had been ‘yesterday’ i.e.1 April 2025 which was the date the father made his admission to the court. The mother’s evidence then changed and she said “I remember after a long time I asked him what happened and after that I didn’t want him to mention it as I was busy thinking about my children.” 97). The mother maintained her denial of ever having hit C with a wooden spoon and suggested that whilst C may be telling the truth about what the father had done to him, he was lying about what he alleged she had done; “As I said, I verbally told him what wrong he did at school and I have never hit his body or hurt him. I compared him with ‘A’ and ‘B’, I said they were behaving very well at school and working hard and maybe he was unhappy with me because of this” . 98). The mother accepted she had known all along the photographs in the court bundle were of C and had previously denied this to be the case, requiring the local authority to prove the child’s identity in them, “because I was in fear”
“everything only became clear last Monday (31st March 2025 ) …I didn’t know beating up kids is not legal in this country before then”
“Had he been a good student at school, this wouldn’t have happened.”
“When lockdown finished I think I took them to the dentist. I realise now I took them from school to the dentist and then our children were taken out of our hands.”
“We didn’t discuss what happened about C, all we speak about is the future and how we bring up the children in the future.” 105). When asked in cross examination about the detail of what he had done to C, the father said he had been holding C by the hand whilst hitting him with the stick on his back, he denied C was crying and said C was “overwhelmed with anger, he didn’t utter a word” and was covering his face with his other, free hand. The father couldn’t recall how many times he had hit C and admitted to feeling he “was really sad and angry” whilst doing it. He agreed he had lost control of his temper. The father said he let go of C’s hand and C crossed the street and went home whilst the father turned to B and D to hold their hand whilst crossing the street. 106). In his oral evidence, the father denied hitting C with a wooden spoon as C has alleged in his ABE interview. The father refused to accept the wooden spoon and broom had been removed by the Police from the family home, he asserted that “issues inside the home are to do with their mum. I do not know what is there or not there, I really don’t know”
“I have never hit C with a wooden spoon or broom handle or any object. We have these items in the house. The wooden spoon is in the kitchen. The broom is in the corner behind the TV to stop the younger children getting to it”
“That was an error of judgment. I didn’t see his face and when I saw the bodycam footage I accepted it” and attributed this to a fear of the police which had led him to lie. 108). Both parents deny not sending C to school on the2 May 2024 in an attempt to conceal the injuries. They both assert C did not wish to go to school and they did not want to force him to go. 109). The father accepted he had made an application for C to attend court to give evidence and be cross examined about his allegations. His instructions at the time were that the allegations were not true and could only be properly challenged by being tested in cross-examination. The application was withdrawn on the day it was due to be determined by the court in the face of opposition from the local authority and children’s guardian. The mother was ‘neutral’ about the application but ‘vehemently disputed the allegations made by C and if the court had sanctioned C giving evidence, intended to pose questions to him’. When asked about the emotional impact this may have had upon C if he had been required to give evidence when the father knew what he had done, the father said: “I’m not denying now I hit C and I want to say sorry but what happened has already happened” which deflected answering the question. 110). The father admitted he had lied to Daniel Roberts during the parenting assessment when he had denied hitting C and denied having any reason to hit him. 111). In respect of the allegation relating to ‘A’ in 2018, the father denied any recollection of social care involvement at the time, he denied any recollection of ‘A’ having made a complaint to his teacher at school, and he denied any recollection of attending the hospital when the CPMs were carried out by Dr R.. When pressed in cross examination about the likelihood of it being a memorable event, the father said: “I didn’t go to the hospital in 2018, I was working” and was able to recollect he was working five days a week, 6am – 6pm in Rotherham. 112). The father denied any recollection of refusing to give consent for photographs to be taken of the bruises seen on ‘A’ at the CPM and had no recollection of giving any written consent for the CPM to take place. He stated: “I don’t remember that at all. Maybe if I had signed this I would remember that”
“The problem is I don’t know what I signed because I am making a lot of signatures…I only know that is my signature, I don’t know what I signed.” 113). In contrast, when speaking to Mr Roberts during the parenting assessment the father told him “with records, I don’t know, but at this time I was working, ‘A’ was young, ask him to confirm. He didn’t know the language, we took him to the doctor, and it was made up against us” which indicates he could recollect ‘A’ was seen by a doctor. In addition, when asked about the neglect of ‘B’s eyesight and vision, the father was able to recollect taking B to a hospital appointment about her eyes in June 2018 and denied ever missing any appointments for her. The father also asserted he didn’t consider ‘A’s English language skills had been good enough in 2018 to communicate with Dr R. and said: “I don’t think he could explain himself at that time.” 114). Child A has filed a witness statement dated10 February 2025 setting out his recollection of what happened in 2018. He should know that I have read it very carefully. In it, he denies the incident in 2018 and states his parents have never hit him, and if he has done anything wrong, they “have told me off but that is all”
“I’ve not caused C’s injuries, I don’t know how he got these injuries as I didn’t know about them before I was arrested. I’ve never seen or been aware of my husband hitting C or any of my children”
"the court should begin with a preference for the less interventionist rather than the more interventionist approach. This should be considered to be in the better interests of the children … unless there are cogent reasons to the contrary."