A Local Authority v Mother & Ors [2025] EWFC 145 (B)

[2025] EWFC 145 (B)Case No BS24C50328
IN THE FAMILY COURT AT BRISTOL
Venue Bristol Civil and Family Court Justice Centre
2 Redcliff Street
Venue Bristol
BS1 6GR
Before
Her Honour Judge Cope
Between
A Local AuthorityApplicant
Mr Morgan (instructed by A Local Authority) for applicantMs Armstrong (instructed by Battrick Clark Solicitors) for motherMs Zabihi (instructed by Daniel Woodman Solicitors) for fatherMs Farqhar (instructed by Powells Solicitors) for childMr Hewitt for intervenorHearing Hearing dates: 3 – 7, 12 February 2025
Approved JudgmentThis judgment was handed down on 12 February 2025 by circulation to the parties or their representatives by e-mail at a hearing and by release to the National ArchivesJudge’s name: Her Honour Judge CopeJUDGMENTThis judgment was given in private. The judge gives permission for this version of the judgment to be published on condition that (irrespective of what is contained in the judgment) in any published version of this judgment the anonymity of the children and members of their family must be strictly preserved. All persons, including representatives of the media and legal bloggers, must ensure that this condition is strictly complied with. Failure to do so may be a contempt of court.IntroductionDate 2025-02-12
[1]I am concerned with a finding of fact hearing in respect of a little girl who is now aged eight months old who I shall refer to as A. The first respondent is the child’s mother and the second respondent her father. A’s guardian is Ms SD.[2]The local authority is represented by Mr Morgan, the mother by Ms Armstrong, the father (who has been assisted by a lay advocate) by Ms Daley and A by Ms Farquhar. The maternal great grandmother, Ms B, has been joined as an intervenor and is represented by Mr Hewitt. I am grateful to them all for their assistance. I express my particular gratitude to Ms Mitchell and Mr Hewitt who have worked tirelessly to ensure that the case could proceed. I have also been greatly assisted by a detailed chronology prepared by Ms Farquhar. Background[3]Both parents are vulnerable young people. They met in June 2022. The mother is 19 years old and the father 19 years old. Both have a history of significant child protection intervention when they were themselves children. The mother was removed from her parents’ care and placed with Ms B pursuant to a special guardianship order. However, there are reports that Ms B was physically abusive to the mother and struggled with alcohol abuse.[4]The father was also subject of public law proceedings on a number of occasions and spent a significant period of his childhood in foster care.[5]Not long after the parents met, the father stopped taking his ADHD medication albeit without medical guidance. The parents started to live together in July 2023. In October 2023 the mother discovered that she was pregnant. In early May 2024 the father got a flat but the parents did not move into it at the time due to work that needing doing to it. A was born on 2 June 2024 by Caesarean section. The mother and A were discharged from hospital on 4 June 2024. The family moved into the flat around 16 June 2024. On 18 June 2024 the mother noticed marks to the back of A’s legs. A was due to see the midwife that day, but the midwife cancelled the appointment. On 8 July 2024 A was said to be struggling to breathe. Late that night an ambulance was called.[6]Upon arrival, the paramedics reported safeguarding concerns due to the house appearing cluttered, there seemingly being no cot for A and the paramedics having to remind the mother to support A’s head. A was taken to hospital. She was taken as a result of her bruising as opposed to having breathing problems.[7]A child protection medical was undertaken by Dr MA on 9 July 2024. That medical assessment identified the following injuries: i) bruise to the back left of the head; ii) bruise to the left side of the base of the neck; iii) bruise to the right side of the neck/shoulder blade; iv) bruise to the back right of the head; v) bruise to the back of the left shoulder; vi) bruise to the right side of the neck within the skin fold; vii) bruise to the front of the right shoulder blade and lower neck; and viii) broken blood vessels to the right side of the jaw below the ear and over the front shoulder and left of the neck.[8]A skeletal survey was undertaken and then repeated on 22 July 2024. That follow up skeletal survey identified a fracture to A’s right forearm bone. Dr MA reported that the two sets of injuries were highly suspicious of inflicted injury.[9]Following A’s discharge from hospital on 8 July 2024 the parents and the local authority entered into a safety plan which provided that the parents would not be left unsupervised when caring fora. A. They initially stayed with the paternal grandmother, Ms D, and then Msb. B. On the 9 August 2024 and following the issue of these proceedings A was placed in foster care.[10]On 11 October 2024 Ms D, was invited to join the proceedings as an intervenor. The parents did not appear to run an active case against her and she was subsequently discharged.[11]The parents did run an active case against Ms B (alleging forceful and inappropriate handling) and she was joined as an intervenor.[12]Both parents have been assessed in terms of litigation capacity and cognitive function. Both have litigation capacity. Dr Lyons considers both to be vulnerable witnesses albeit neither have required the court to make substantial participation directions. Both parents have given evidence from the witness box and answered oral questions in the normal way, but allowances have been made to ensure the use of simple language and breaks.[13]Dr Olsen (paediatric consultant radiologist) confirmed the presence of a fracture in A’s right forearm. He confirmed that the fracture was present on the 10 July 2024 and could have occurred up to two weeks prior to that date. The radiological window therefore commences on approximately 26 June 2024. He opines that the fracture cannot date back to birth. It is likely to have been caused by a squeeze or a grab to the mid upper forearm. There are no radiological signs of any underlying medical condition. The application of force to cause the fracture would have been excessive and beyond reasonable handling.[14]Dr Hobbs (consultant paediatrician) opines that the bruising to the neck and shoulder blades is likely to be as a result of blunt force trauma by fingers or a hand. The linear petechiae may be the result of pulling an item such as clothing tightly around the neck. Dr Hobbs concurs with the opinion of Dr Olsen in that he opines the fracture to the right forearm is caused by a grab. The injuries are consistent with physical abuse with excessive force being used. In terms of pain response, Dr Hobbs opines that A would have cried excessively. She would have cried in pain for some time which would be exacerbated by touching or moving her limb. Dr Hobbs is clear that the haematological investigations undertaken by the treating clinicians were thorough and there is no evidence of any underlying disorder that would lead to easy bruising. In addition, Dr Olsen rules out birth injury in terms of the radiological timing window.[15]The local authority has now pleaded its case within a schedule of allegations. The amended allegations are set out at the end of this judgment. The issues and the parties’ positions[16]The issues I have to determine are as follows: -. Has the local authority established that all or any of A’s injuries were non-accidental? -. If A’s injuries are inflicted, has the local authority proved who inflicted the injuries? -. If not, has the local authority proved that there is a real possibility that anyone identifiable inflicted A’s injuries?[17]Following the conclusion of the parents’ evidence, Mr Morgan confirmed that the local authority sought to withdraw any findings against Ms B and invited the court to make an order discharging Ms B as an intervenor and that it did not require her to give evidence. This was agreed by all parties and I was content with this as a way forward. I do not set out the evidence in respect of Ms B but the evidence against her was so weak, it would be extremely hard to consider any other outcome. However, how she came to feature as an intervenor in these proceedings requires further consideration.[18]Otherwise, the position remains that neither the mother nor the father can explain how A’s injuries have occurred. The guardian supports the findings that the local authority invites the court to make against the parents. The legal framework[19]The burden of proof lies with the local authority. The inherent probability or improbability of an event remains a matter to be taken into account when weighing probabilities and deciding whether, on balance, the event occurred. There is no room for a finding by the court that something might have happened. The court may decide that it did or that it did not happen. The standard of proof does not shift according to the seriousness of the allegation, nor the inherent probability or improbability of an event occurring (Re B (Care Proceedings: Standard of Proof) [2008] UKHL 35) (Re B).[20]The standard of proof is the balance of probabilities (Re B). The standard of proof is to be assessed following a sift of the evidence.[21]The court must be cautious about hearsay evidence and the weight to be attached to it.[22]Findings of fact must be based on evidence including inferences which can be properly drawn from the evidence (Re A (A Child) (Fact-finding hearing: Speculation) [2011] EWCA Civ 12).[23]Findings of fact must not be based on hypothesis. The court must avoid speculation, particularly in situations where there is a gap in the evidence (Re A (Fact finding hearing: Speculation) [2011] EWCA Civ 12). The parents have to prove nothing and the court must be careful to ensure that it does not reverse the burden of proof (Lancashire v R [2013] EWHC 3064 (Fam)).It is not for the parents to prove anything.[24]Whilst, it would be wrong to apply a hard and fast rule that the carer of a young child who suffers an injury must invariably be able to explain when and how it happened if they are not to be found responsible for it, the court is entitled to take into account the nature of the history given by a carer, where the absence of any history of a memorable event may be expected in the individual case may be very significant (Re BR (Proof of Facts) [2015] EWFC 41). The fact that the local authority relies on the lack of a satisfactory explanation for the injuries does not amount to a reversal of the burden of proof (Re M-B (Children) 2015 EWCA Civ 1027) but the court must be slow to infer that because the parents have not given an explanation for the injury, the real explanation must be a sinister one (Re M (Fact-finding hearing: burden of proof) [2012] EWCA Civ 1580).[25]In BR (Proof of Facts) [2015] EWFC 41 risk and positive factors were suggested.[26]When considering cases of suspected child abuse the court must take into account all the evidence and furthermore consider each piece of evidence in the context of all the other evidence (Re T [2004] EWCA Civ 558 (paragraph 33)).[27]Whilst appropriate attention must be paid to the opinion of medical experts, those opinions need to be considered in the context of all the other evidence. The roles of the court and the expert are distinct. It is the court that is in the position to weigh up expert evidence against the other evidence (see A County Council & K, D, & L [2005] EWHC 144 (Fam) per Charles J). Thus, there may be cases, if the medical opinion evidence is that there is nothing diagnostic of non-accidental injury, where a judge, having considered all the evidence, reaches the conclusion that is at variance from that reached by the medical experts.[28]The court must be careful to ensure that each expert keeps within the bounds of their own expertise and defers, where appropriate, to the expertise of others (see observations of King J in Re S [2009] EWHC 2155 (Fam)).[29]The evidence of the parents and any other carers is of the utmost importance. It is essential that the court forms a clear assessment of their credibility and reliability. They must have the fullest opportunity to take part in the hearing and the court is likely to place considerable weight on the evidence and the impression it forms of them (see Re W and another (non-accidental injury) [2003] FCR 346).[30]It is common for witnesses in these cases to tell lies in the course of the investigation and the hearing. The court must be careful to bear in mind that a witness may lie for many reasons, such as shame, misplaced loyalty, panic, fear and distress, and the fact that a witness has lied about some matters does not mean that he or she has lied about everything (see R v Lucas [1981] QB 720). In Re A-B-C (Children) [2021] EWCA 451 Macur LJ provided updated guidance on the assessment of credibility.[31]When seeking to identify the perpetrators of non-accidental injuries the test of whether a particular person is in the pool of possible perpetrators is whether there is a likelihood or a real possibility that he or she was the perpetrator (see North Yorkshire County Council v SA [2003] 2 FLR 849). In order to make a finding that a particular person was the perpetrator of non-accidental injury the court must be satisfied on a balance of probabilities. It is always desirable, where possible, for the perpetrator of non-accidental injury to be identified both in the public interest and in the interest of the child, although where it is impossible for a judge to find on the balance of probabilities, for example that Parent A rather than Parent B caused the injury, then neither can be excluded from the pool (see Re D (Children) [2009] 2 FLR 668, Re SB (Children) [2010] 1 FLR 1161).[32]The further point, made in Re D (Children) (ibid) and endorsed by the Supreme Court in Re SB (Children) (ibid) that, in circumstances where it is impossible for a judge to find on the balance of probabilities that Parent A rather than Parent B caused the injury and neither can be excluded from the pool, that ‘the judge should not strain to do so’ was expressly rejected by the Court of Appeal in Re A (Children) (Pool of Perpetrators) 2022 EWCA Civ.[33]In Re B (Children: Uncertain Perpetrator) [2019] EWCA Civ 575 the correct approach to the concept of the ‘pool of perpetrators’ was reiterated. Jackson LJ stated (paragraphs 48 and 49):
‘The concept of the pool of perpetrators should therefore, as was said in Lancashire, encroach only to the minimum extent necessary upon the general principles underpinning s.31(2). Centrally, it does not alter the general rule on the burden of proof. Where there are a number of people who might have caused the harm, it is for the local authority to show that in relation to each of them there is a real possibility that they did. No one can be placed into the pool unless that has been shown. This is why it is always misleading to refer to “exclusion from the pool”: see Re S-B at [43]. Approaching matters in that way risks, as Baroness Hale said, reversing the burden of proof. To guard against that risk, I would suggest that a change of language may be helpful. The court should first consider whether there is a “list” of people who had the opportunity to cause the injury. It should then consider whether it can identify the actual perpetrator on the balance of probability and should seek, but not strain, to do so: Re D [2009] EWCA Civ 472 at para 12. Only if it cannot identify the perpetrator to the civil standard of proof should it go on to ask in respect of those on the list: "Is there a likelihood or real possibility that A or B or C was the perpetrator or a perpetrator of the inflicted injuries?" Only if there is should A or B or C be placed into the “pool”.’
[34]Finally, when the court is considering failure to protect there must be a connection between the facts found and the risk alleged in the form of evidence that the parents knew or ought to have known that the carer presented a risk to the child (see Re L-W (children) [2019] EWCA Civ 159). It comes in various guises. Findings, where made in respect of a carer, often the mother, are of the utmost importance when it comes to assessments and future welfare considerations. A finding of failing to protect can lead a court to conclude that the children's best interests will not be served by remaining with, or returning to, the care of that parent, even though that parent may have been wholly exonerated from having caused any physical injuries.[35]Judges must also be alert to the danger of such a serious finding becoming 'a bolt on' to the central issue of perpetration or of falling into the trap of assuming too easily that, if a person was living in the same household as the perpetrator, such a finding is almost inevitable.[36]Finally, in respect of social media, in Stocker v Stocker [2019] UKSC 17 Lord Kerr cautioned against:
‘… elaborate analysis of a tweet; it is likewise unwise to parse a Facebook posting for its theoretically or logically deducible meaning. The imperative is to ascertain how a typical (i.e. an ordinary reasonable) reader would interpret the message. That search should reflect the circumstance that this is a casual medium; it is in the nature of conversation rather than carefully chosen expression; and that it is pre-eminently one in which the reader reads and passes on.’
The hearing[37]For the purpose of this hearing, I have read the bundles of documents and heard oral evidence from Dr Hobbs, Dr Olsen, Ms D, the mother and the father. The parents were given section 98 warnings prior to giving their evidence. Dr Hobbs and Dr Olsen were clear witnesses who gave their evidence having given the matter careful thought. Ms D was a careful and reflective witness. Sadly, I did not always find the parents to be truthful when giving their evidence. Risk and protective factors[38]I need not go slavishly through the risk/protective factors identified in Re BR (Proof of Facts) (ibid). The risk factors point to both parents having significant child protection intervention when they were children. Both parents had some support from family members but this was limited. The mother talked about losing her friends when they knew she was pregnant. When they lived with Ms B, the mother said there were arguments amongst others in the property and they did not want A to be exposed to them. Ms B was said to drink at times and play loud music although she did not play loud music after A was born. The mother was in labour for a long time and had to have a Caesarean section. It took some time for her to get back to normal. She was clearly isolated and spent a lot of time on her own with A while the father worked. At times he worked long hours trying to do his best to support the mother and A. Both parents felt unsupported in terms of professionals helping them to learn how to care for A. For example, they were unaware for some time that they were not preparing A’s bottles with enough formula. The mother accepted that there were times when she was exhausted; the father denied such and told me that he needed little sleep. I reject his evidence in that respect and did not consider him to be honest as he did not want to be thought of as not coping. There can be no doubt that A was a baby who cried a lot and was difficult to settle. The father confirmed that there were times when he had to walk away. The mother accepted feeling overwhelmed.[39]On the positive side, there is no suggestion of any substance misuse for either parent and on the whole they had a supportive relationship although there is some evidence of the parents falling out. For example, there is text exchange on 25 June 2024 about the mother and A moving out. The father had also sent messages to other girls, and even though he maintained they were just friends, the mother was clearly unhappy about this for a time and raised this on 25 July 2024 with the father’s brother. A’s injuries[40]A’s injuries are now established to be a fracture to her right forearm, seven bruises and broken blood vessels to the right side of her jaw, the front of her shoulder and left of her neck. Timing[41]The expert evidence in respect of the fracture is that it might have occurred from 26 June 2024 until just before 10 July 2024. Neither Dr Olsen nor Dr Hobbs thought that the fractures would date back to birth. Dr Olsen said in his oral evidence that he was certain that the fracture could not date back to birth as the x-ray on 10 July showed no signs of healing. Dr Hobbs was not able to date the bruises but he was not of the view that they would date back to birth. Other causes[42]The medical evidence is clear that there are no underlying causes which might have caused A to suffer the injuries she did. Appropriate testing has been undertaken and the likelihood of additional testing revealing anything is extremely unlikely. Dr Hobbs was clear that the sight and nature of the bruising does not lend itself to some underlying cause. Further, A has not suffered any unexplained fractures or bruising since which further reduces this is an explanation.[43]The medical evidence from both experts was that rolling off a mat would not have caused the fracture and in any event the mother does not describe A as being in any distress. This is also the case for the marks/bruising. Both parents were clear that they have thought about every possible explanation as to what might have caused A to suffer the injuries she has. I am satisfied that it is not the case that something has happened which the parents might have forgotten which is relevant when considering whether something of a more accidental nature might have happened.[44]Whether A might have been injured by the use of forceps was not something Dr Hobbs felt able to accept.[45]There is a photograph of A on the shoulders of the mother’s friend (C) which was taken on 22 June 2024. Whilst there is no suggestion that this was the cause of A’s injuries, the evidence given by the parents about this requires further exploration. This photograph has taken on more significance than might otherwise have been the case due to the accounts given by the parents. Given A’s age, the photograph is worrying and placed A in a position of danger. The photograph was found on the mother’s phone. It remains unclear as to who was in the flat when the photograph was taken. Both parents have given contradictory accounts and have attempted to change their accounts over time. The suggestion now is that either a friend of the mother’s took the photograph or the father’s brother. Both parents tried to persuade me that they were not present or in the father’s case not looking at the time it was taken. Their accounts were implausible. On the balance of probabilities, the photograph was taken by the mother and both parents were aware and were involved in A being placed on C’s shoulders. However, having found that the parents have been dishonest in this respect, that does not mean that they have been dishonest about the matters which I am required to determine. The cause of A’s injuries and knowledge of others[46]The medical evidence is clear that the injuries A has suffered are non-accidental. A was a five week old baby and not mobile. Further A would have presented in such a way that her symptoms would have been immediately apparent and her presentation would have been of her being more irritable, crying and being unsettled which would have continued for some time. Dr Hobbs told the court that A would be in pain for days rather than hours and she would present as being more irritable and less likely to move the injured arm. When the paramedics attended the home, they did not note any limited movement. This was also the case for the doctors who saw A at the hospital. Whilst this cannot easily be explained, it does not impact my decision.[47]The medical evidence is also clear that it is likely that the person who caused the injuries would have known A was injured although not necessarily that she had suffered a fracture. Despite the fracture not initially being diagnosed, the level of force would still have been excessive. Dr Olsen appropriately accepted that given the extent of the fracture the force might be at the lower end of the scale, but he was also clear that the force would still be significant and excessive. I refer to his report in this respect and the fracture being the equivalent to the force from a fall from half a metre. Further, the expected level of force would be beyond that arising from normal handling. Both experts were clear that A has suffered physical abuse. Dr Hobbs stated that A had suffered significant harm which would have been traumatic. He said the injuries are extremely worrying given her age. I agree.[48]Further, Dr Hobbs was of the view that even an inexperienced parent would know something was wrong even though they might not know what specific harm had been caused to A. This was an important piece of evidence relating to the parents. In this respect, I do not overlook that they had not experienced positive parenting themselves to know what it looked like and might not have reacted to matters of concern in the same way as a better-informed parent. Ms D[49]Ms D and the father had a limited relationship. They were, as Ms D described, in the early stages of forming a friendship. She confirmed that she saw A on two occasions. The first time was on 8 June 2024 and the second time was on 8 July 2024 and so on the day when the parents called the ambulance. The mother showed her some marks to the back of A’s neck which looked like two circular bruises which were almost overlapping. She looked at them and ran her hand over them. She said A seemed fine. She was shown the photographs of the bruising which was apparent at the hospital and confirmed this was not the same as the mark/s she had seen. Caring of A[50]The mother was the primary carer of A but the father did his share when he was able to but seemed less confident looking after A. The father only looked after A alone for the first time on 2 July 2024 but he would help out in the night. The mother said they tended to take it in shifts so that someone was always awake during the night (I was not persuaded this was the case and again felt the parents were attempting to persuade me they were particularly diligent in looking after A). The father was not very confident dressing A and was worried that he might be too heavy handed, but the mother had not seen this. The mother said she could always hear if A was crying as the flat was not big. In my view both parents were both extremely tired despite the father denying this.[51]The mother had some support from her father who was able to settle A but even on her own account this seemed very much to be a last resort. The maternal grandfather was not with the parents when they moved to the flat. Events leading up to A’s hospital admission[52]A was first seen for a neonatal follow-up on 11 June 2024. She was described as being well and there were no abnormal findings. The next day A was seen by the health visitor who described the parents are ‘relaxed and happy’. A appeared fit and well.[53]The mother struggled with A at times. On 17 June 2024 at 17.24 she sent a message to the father stating ‘ye ur daughter is driving me mental’ and at 17.26 ‘she wont shut up she’s been fed changed Keeps spitting out her dummy.’ There were further examples of the mother expressing her frustrations to the father by text.[54]On about 18 June 2024 the mother noticed marks or a rash to A’s legs. She thought it was due to A being too hot. The mother was supposed to see the midwife that day but as I have stated elsewhere, the midwife cancelled.[55]On 25 June 2024 the mother sent a text to the father at 00.41 saying ‘don’t expect me back whilst ur still awake’, ‘so ur going to leave with our daughter’ and ‘I don’t rly wanna come back just to get called a cunt nd all this shit when u have latterly said take your daughter before I throw her and I’m not at C’ The messages went on to say ‘she wont stop’ ‘I’d it my fault be of last night.’ The mother said in her oral evidence that A was very upset on and off and the mother was upset that she could not settle her. The reference to throwing was not in respect of A but her bottle and the words had been missed out. I was unpersuaded by this as an account. These messages were the day before the radiological window opened but the window could go back to 19 June 2024. On any view, not only was A hard to settle but the parents had also fallen out.[56]On 26 June 2024 the mother was again messaging the father stating ‘she will not stop’ and ‘nd it’s stressing me out’. The father responded ‘remember tho just stay calm and it will be okay’ to which the mother replied ‘I’m trying but I’m boiling I feel like shit too’ and ‘she’s of again’. The mother accepted that again she was struggling with A and it was clear that the father was doing his best to support her albeit from a distance.[57]The mother first felt that A was not okay on 28 June 2024. She sent a message to the father at 13.55 along these lines ‘… her breathing is sounding really chesty’ and ‘I haven’t been able to go to the toilet or anything without her crying and screaming’. However, having been to the toilet the mother reported that ‘I think she’s doing better now’. By this point the mother accepted she felt overwhelmed having had several days of A being unsettled.[58]On 2 July 2024 there are photographs of A with a mark on her left shoulder. No explanation has been provided for this by the parents. The mother says she had seen it and mentioned it to the father. She was not concerned about it. The father says he does not recall seeing it and if the mother had mentioned it, he does not recall such.[59]On 2 July 2024 the father was looking after A alone (for the first time). He says that he was on the phone to the mother as he wanted her to talk him through changing A as he did not want to get it wrong. He noticed a red mark on her left arm (later right arm) which went down again not long afterwards. For a time, A would not let him touch the arm but after 30 minutes or so the redness had gone away and A was content. The mother requested some photos (these were not sent until about 4.30pm). The mother says it was to A’s left arm and she had checked on her phone. When she got back A was fine. It is also clear that during this time the parents spoke more than once and the mother ended up coming home. However, I am reminded that there was a photograph of A with both hands up to her bottle which might suggest there was no problem with her right arm (which I find was the arm about which the father was concerned). Photographs taken the next day also show A with her arms up. The mother now accepts the importance of this date but maintains that if something happened to A on this occasion the father would not have deliberately set out to harm A. However, I have referred to the medical evidence above in respect of the level of force which I accept. It is also the case that when A was seen on 9 and 10 July 2024 the medical professionals were not concerned about her arm.[60]On 3 July 2024 the mother sent a message to the father stating ‘she’s not letting me put her down again without crying’. She wanted the father to return home at 8.30pm. Things were not any better as by 23.25 the mother said ‘idk what she wants’. By now her inability to settle A was a regular occurrence. At about this time the parents had a text exchange about the mother leaving the flat although the mother says she was overreacting. However, it seems clear that the parents’ relationship was again being tested at this point.[61]Also on 3 July 2024 there are photographs of A with a mark on her left shoulder. The parents’ position is the same as on 2 July 2024.[62]On 4 July 2024 the mother placed A on her front for a brief period and A rolled onto the floor. I have addressed this elsewhere.[63]On 7/8 July 2024 the mother noticed a mark to A’s neck which was ‘purpley blue’ which she told the police looked like a heat rash. She said it went after a few days. The mother thought she would have fed A during the previous night.[64]The mother said she showed the mark to the father before going to Ms D’s home. Ms D says the mother showed her one mark or two overlapping marks to the back of A’s neck. Again, there are photographs of A with her arms in different positions which were taken by Ms D.[65]The parents returned home that evening. They say they returned at the same time but the father cycled home and the mother and A took the bus. The mother says A was overwhelmed and crying. She told the police that ‘we got off the bus and she was quite overwhelmed, like crying, erm coughing because she was crying so much.’ A would not take her bottle and ‘was breathing fast and also struggling to breathe’ so she called 111.[66]It seems that whilst both parents were in the flat they were messaging each other which they said was how they communicated generally. At 21:42 the mother sent a text stating ‘I don’t think she’s very well as she’s quite drowsy’. By 23:00 the mother sent a text stating ‘bring me a wet wipe quick please’ and then at 23:32 ‘can you bring me a nappie and the wipes’. Despite the written evidence of the parents that A’s presentation declined shortly after their return home (30 minutes), the father only made the call at 23:46 and so some two hours later. The father said his text to the mother stating ‘what is wrong with her so I know what to say’ was him checking because he went into another room and wanted to be sure that he reported was wrong with A was accurate. The mother also said that he wanted to understand from her just what was wrong with A and not to forget anything. She had not felt the need to call for help before. Despite not having said in any of her written documents the mother said A was gradually getting worse. She said they did not delay as something had happened and they wanted to get their story straight.[67]The father reported that A was ‘struggling to breathe … going hot to cold to like really hot within seconds.’[68]The ambulance arrived at 00:44 and multiple bruises were noticed. The home conditions were also a concern. The mother had to be reminded to hold A’s head. The mother referred to bruises appearing from nowhere. Notably the paramedics did not report there to be anything medically wrong with A. Ms B[69]I return at this stage to explore Ms B’s involvement in these proceedings.[70]There was no reference to Ms B by the mother when she spoke to the police on 15 July 2024. This was also the case when the mother provided her first response document to the allegations. The mother’s first statement is dated 7 October 2024. There was no mention of rough handling by Ms B and the mother raised no concerns about her with A. Indeed, Ms B was put forward as a kinship carer. However, on 4 November 2024 the mother referred to Ms B grabbing A’s arm and holding it down. She says she confronted Ms B about this but did not receive a response. The mother describes A as crying. In the mother’s statement dated 28 January 2025 the description of A changed from ‘crying’ to ‘screaming’.[71]On 31 October 2024, the father referred to four occasions when he was concerned about A in Ms B’s care. However, like the mother he too made no mention of this to the police or in his initial response.[72]The explanation given by the parents is that they were asked to give really careful thought to how A might have been injured. I am afraid I reach the conclusion that they involved Ms B in an attempt to distance themselves from what had happened. It was unfair of them to have done so. They lied in this respect and this is relevant in respect of the findings I am invited to make. Observations and analysis[73]I return to the three questions I identified earlier in this judgment.[74]First, I am satisfied that the local authority has established that all of A’s injuries were non-accidental. I am satisfied that the bruising and fracture to A’s arm are inflicted injuries.[75]I have thought carefully about whether A has been injured in a deliberate way. I must be cautious to find that A’s injuries were not deliberate given the evidence before me. The evidence is clear that there must have been excessive force when handling A or there was a momentary loss of control.[76]Secondly, the local authority has not proved who inflicted the injuries.[77]Thirdly, it will be apparent from this judgment, that the local authority has proved that there is a real possibility that either the mother or the father inflicted A’s injuries. Despite the fact that the mother was apparently carrying out the majority of A’s care, I was left with a sense that there was an attempt by the father to distance himself from the level of care he was providing. That said, I am not able to find that it is more likely that the mother caused the injuries. Both parents have been untruthful and there is a real possibility that both caused some or all of the injuries. Further, whoever inflicted the injuries would have known they had used excessive force and that A was hurt. That said, I do not overlook the difficult circumstances in which the parents found themselves.[78]I make these further observations in respect of the timings. On the basis that the mother had seen a bruise to the back of A’s neck on the morning of 8 July, there are photographs of a mark to A’s shoulder on 2 July and 3 July and more bruising was noticed by the paramedics and clinicians on 9 July, I am satisfied that A was injured during more than one event. I cannot say that the fracture and the bruising happened at the same time albeit although even if that was so, it must have been as a result of two separate mechanisms. Otherwise, I cannot say with any more precision when A might have suffered the fracture. I have concerns as to what happened on 2 July but note that A appeared to move her arm without difficulties and this was apparent from the photographs. At the same time bruising to A’s left shoulder was apparent.[79]The events on 8 July were also unusual. Again, there is a lack of clarity as to what was happening and this was particularly so for about two and a half hours after the parents returned home. Was that when some of the injuries were caused? Whilst I am satisfied A was injured on more than one occasion, beyond that I cannot say save for it appearing to be the case that the window for the fracture did not start until 2 July 2024 but that must be seen in the context of the observations from the medics who did not note anything unusual with A’s arm. Conclusion[80]In reaching this decision, I have throughout firmly had in mind the legal principles. Taking all matters into consideration, I am satisfied, at the relevant date, namely 9 August 2024, that being the date protective measures were implemented and the date the local authority issued proceedings, A had suffered and was likely to suffer significant harm, and the harm or likelihood of harm was attributable to the care given to her or likely to be given to her, not being what it would be reasonable to expect her parents to give (s.31(2)(a) and (b)(i)) Children Act 1989.[81]In due course I will decide what orders to make in respect of A’s future care and welfare in the light of those findings and such other evidence as may be put before me. Her Honour Judge Cope 12 February 2025 FINDINGS The child, A, has sustained the following injuries: i). an incomplete fracture in the shaft of the right radius (forearm); ii). bruise to the back left of the head; iii). bruise to the left side of the base of the neck; iv). bruise to the right side of the neck/shoulder blade; v). bruise to the back right of the head; vi). bruise to the back of the left shoulder; vii). bruise to the right side of the neck within the skin fold; viii). bruise to the front of the right shoulder blade and lower neck; and ix). broken blood vessels to the right side of the jaw below the ear and over the front shoulder and left of the neck. A has sustained all of the above injuries.[2]The above injuries were caused on one more than one event between 24 June 2024 and 8 July 2024. The allegation is made out.[3]The above injuries were caused by excessive and significant applications of force, likely to be gripping by a carers hand, which would fall well outside of what is considered reasonable handling of a child of A’s age. The allegation is made out.[4]The above injuries were deliberately inflicted by the mother, the father or a combination of them. The allegation is made out.[5]Whoever inflicted the injuries on A would have known that they had hurt her and they have not given an honest or plausible account which has led to A having to undergo unnecessary medical investigations and examinations. Neither parent has given an honest account prior to the issue of these proceedings nor during the proceedings themselves. The allegation is made out.[6]The parents have failed to protect A from the harmful handling by a third party on 22 June 2024. The allegation is made out.[7]As a result of the findings above and on the relevant date (9 August 2024) A has suffered significant physical and emotional harm and is at risk of suffering further such significant harm as a result of the parenting she has received with such parenting not being reasonable or acceptable to expect for a parent to give to a child. The allegation is made out.