T (A Child: Traumatic Injuries), Re [2026] EWFC 244 (B)

WARNING: This judgment was delivered in private. The Judge has given leave for this judgment to be published. The names of the children and the adult parties in this judgment have been anonymised pursuant to the Practice Guidance of the President of the Family Division issued in December 2018 having regard to the implications for the children of placing personal details and information in the public domain. The anonymity of the children and members of their family must be strictly preserved. All persons must ensure that this condition is strictly complied with. Failure to do so may be a contempt of Court.
IN THE CENTRAL FAMILY COURT
[2026] EWFC 244 (B)Date 18 August 2026
Between
The Local AuthorityApplicantMr Coutts, Solicitor for Local AuthorityMr Bagchi KC and Ms Rayson, Counsel for First RespondentMs Munroe KC and Ms Dixon, Counsel for Second RespondentMs Cheetham and Ms Clements-Bewley, Counsel for Third and Fourth RespondentsHearing Hearing dates: 10 to 18 August 2026
T (A Child: Traumatic Injuries), Re
Before: His Honour Judge Middleton-Roy
APPROVED JUDGMENTCrown Copyright ©Judgment was handed down on 18 August 2026

Anonymity

[1]The two children at the heart of this case are brothers, both under 3 years old. They will be referred to in this judgment by the anonymous initials ‘O’ and ‘T’. The Court recognises that behind those initials are two children with individual characteristics and needs.[2]Against a background of parental domestic violence, drug misuse and poor mental health, the youngest child, ‘T’, at the age of three months, suffered multiple traumatic injuries in the form of three skull fractures, a brain herniation and double fractures to the left wrist.[3]On 7 December 2025, ‘T’ was presented to hospital via ambulance with swelling to the temporal region of the head. On examination and following a CT scan, it was identified that the child had extensive soft tissue swelling to the left side of the head and fractures to the left side of the skull. Further examination, following an MRI scan, revealed amongst other things, evidence of complex fractures to the skull and bruising to the brain. A full skeletal survey revealed a previous fracture to the forearm and wrist. The treating medical team at the hospital did not consider that the account provided by the child’s mother provided adequate explanation for the injuries. The mother was arrested and interviewed by police on suspicion of causing grievous bodily harm to the child.[4]The Local Authority began these Court proceedings on 15 December 2025 asserting that there were reasonable grounds to believe that ‘T’s injuries were non-accidental, that he had suffered significant harm and that his older brother ‘O’ was likely to suffer significant harm, attributable to the care given to them, not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give. Interim Care Orders were made at the outset of the proceedings. Both children were placed in the interim care of the Local Authority, where they remain. Their mother denies causing ‘T’s injuries. Their father also denies causing the injuries.[5]At the outset, the Court gave directions to enable the contested relevant factual issues to be tried fairly, including directions to obtain independent expert evidence necessary to resolve the proceedings justly, from a Neuroradiologist, a Paediatric Neurosurgeon, a Paediatric Radiologist and from a Consultant Paediatrician.[6]The task of this Court, in light of all the available evidence, is to identify and determine the disputed relevant facts, to identify on the balance of probabilities whether the child suffered non-accidental injury, the circumstances in which the injury occurred and to identity the perpetrator or possible perpetrators, in order to provide a factual basis for future welfare decisions for the children.[7]As is essential in cases of this nature, both parents were entitled to non-means and non-merits tested legal aid, such that they benefited from free, independent legal advice and representation throughout these court proceedings. The children were similarly represented independently throughout the proceedings, through their Children's Guardian.[8]The Court has considered a substantial quantity of material comprising over 3,500 pages and a series of videos. The Court has spent 7 days during this Fact Finding Hearing immersed in the evidence. The Court had the unique benefit of hearing oral evidence from the independent Paediatric Neuroradiologist, the Consultant Paediatrician and from both parents.[9]At the conclusion of the evidence, the Court received helpful, comprehensive written submissions from the advocates for each party. The Court was assisted greatly throughout this Final Hearing by specialist, highly experienced advocates, who each approached their task with great skill and diligence, for which this Court is particularly thankful. The Court attempts to meet the challenge, which arises in acute form in this case, of producing a judgment of manageable length. The Court has spent considerable time absorbing the evidence and the arguments advanced by the parties. The Court has endeavoured to give its reasoned decision on those issues which the Court considers to be central, without dealing with every peripheral issue, the resolution of which would not in any event impact on the outcome of the case. It is not necessary nor possible in this judgment for the Court to address each piece of evidence read or heard nor each submission made by the parties. Nevertheless, the Court has given all the evidence careful and anxious scrutiny. This written judgment is handed down on 18 August 2026.[10]The key issues in the case for determination at this Fact Finding Hearing are as follows:a. Whether the injuries to the child ‘T’ were accidental or non-accidental;b. If the injuries were non-accidental, who caused them. The Relevant Law (“Fact Finding”)[11]The following established legal principles have each been taken into consideration and applied by this Court when considering the evidence and in making the findings set out in this judgment.[12]The burden of proving a fact is on the Local Authority. To prove the fact asserted, that fact must be established on the civil standard, that is, on the simple balance of probabilities. There is only one civil standard of proof, namely that the occurrence of the fact in issue must be proved to have been more probable than not. Re B [2008] UKHL 35 Neither the seriousness of the allegation nor the seriousness of the consequences makes any difference to the standard of proof to be applied in determining the facts. Re B (Minors) [2008] 3 WLR 1HL per Baroness Hale If the Court finds it more likely than not that something did take place, then it is treated as having taken place. If the Court finds it more likely than not that it did not take place, then it is treated as not having taken place. Re B [2008] UKHL 35, per Baroness Hale[13]Where a fact is required to be proved, a ‘fact in issue,’ the Court must decide whether or not it happened. There is no room for a finding that it might have happened. The law operates a binary system. The fact either happened or it did not. If the Court is left in doubt, the doubt is resolved by a rule that one party or the other carries the burden of proof. If the party who bears the burden of proof fails to discharge it, the fact is treated as not having happened. If the party does discharge the burden of proof, it is treated as having happened. Re B [2008] UKHL 35, per Lord Hoffman If the evidence in respect of a particular finding sought by the Local Authority is equivocal then the Court cannot make a finding on the balance of probabilities as the Local Authority has not discharged either the burden or the standard of proof Re B (Threshold Criteria: Fabricated Illness) [2002] EWHC 20 (Fam), [2004] 2 FLR 200) .[14]Failure to find a fact proved on the balance of probabilities does not equate, without more, to a finding that the allegation is false. Re M (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ 388[15]The inherent probability or improbability of an event remains a matter to be taken into account when weighing the probabilities and deciding whether, on balance, the event occurred. Common sense, not law, requires that in deciding this question, regard should be had, to whatever extent appropriate, to inherent probabilities. Re B [2008] UKHL 35, per Lord Hoffman Having regard to inherent probabilities does not mean that where a serious allegation is in issue, the standard of proof required is higher. The inherent probabilities are simply something to be taken into account, where relevant, in deciding where the truth lies.[16]In assessing whether the evidence is sufficient to lead to a finding, it is not necessary to dispel all doubts or uncertainty. Re D (A Child) [2017] EWCA Civ 196[17]This case involving alleged inflicted injuries, the Court must be careful not to reverse the burden of proof inadvertently by requiring a parent to prove that the injuries in question have an innocent explanation. Re M (Fact-Finding Hearing: burden of Proof) [2012] EWCA 1580, [2013]2 FLR 874 It follows that is not for a party against whom allegations are made to prove a negative case. Such a party is not required to provide any satisfactory or benign explanation as to why allegations have been made about their conduct. Re M (Fact Finding Hearing: Burden of Proof) [2013] 2 FLR 874 There is no obligation cast on respondents to come up with alternative explanations. Lancashire County Council v D and E [2010] 2 FLR 196 at paras [36] and [37]; Re C and D (Photographs of Injuries) [2011] 1 FLR 990, at para [203] and Re D (a child) (Fact-Finding Hearing) [2014] EWHC 121 (Fam). If the Local Authority relies on the lack of a satisfactory explanation for the injuries it does not amount to a reversal of the burden of proof. Re M-B (Children) [2015] EWCA Civ 1027, considering Re M (Fact Finding: Burden of Proof), at [881][18]Findings must be based on evidence. Re A (Application for Care and Placement Orders: Local Authority Failings); sub nom Darlington Borough Council v M, F, GM and GF [2016] 1 FLR 1 per Munby LJ The Court must not evaluate and assess the available evidence in separate compartments. Rather, regard must be had to the relevance of each piece of evidence to other evidence and to exercise an overview of the totality of the evidence in order to come to the conclusion whether the case put forward has been made out on the balance of probabilities. Re T [2004] 2 FLR 838 at [33][19]The decision on whether the facts in issue have been proved to the requisite standard must be based on all the available evidence and should have regard to the wide context of social, emotional, ethical and moral factors. A County Council v A Mother, A Father and X, Y and Z [2005] EWHC 31 (Fam)[20]Expert evidence must 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 the expert evidence against its findings on the other evidence. The Judge must always remember that he or she is the person who makes the final decision. A County Council v K, D & L [2005] EWHC 144 Fam, per Charles J at paragraph 39 The expert evidence is part of a wider canvas and it is the court that is in the position to weigh up all the expert evidence against the other evidence. A County Council v K, D& L [2005] EWHC 144, [2005] 1 FLR 851 per Charles J and Re JS (A child) [2012] EWHC 1370 (Fam) per Baker J, Lancashire County Council v R, W and N [2013] EWHC 3064 (Fam) per Mostyn J). Although the medical evidence is of very great importance, it is not the only evidence in the case. Explanations given by carers and the credibility of those involved with the child concerned are of great significance. All the evidence, both medical and non-medical, has to be considered in assessing whether the pieces of the jigsaw form into a clear convincing picture of what happened. Re B (Threshold Criteria: Fabricated Illness) [2002] EWHC 20 (Fam), [2004] 2 FLR 200.[21]In assessing alternative possible explanations for a medical finding, the Court will consider each possibility on its merits. There is no hierarchy of possibilities to be taken in sequence as part of a process of elimination. The Court will not conclude that an injury has been inflicted merely because known or unknown medical conditions are improbable: that conclusion will only be reached if the entire evidence shows that inflicted injury is more likely than not to be the explanation for the medical findings. Re BR (Proof of Facts) [2015] EWFC 41 Jackson J para 9[22]Doctors, social workers and courts are fully entitled to take into account the nature of the history given by a parent or carer. The absence of any history of a memorable event where such a history might be expected in the individual case may be very significant. Perpetrators of child abuse often seek to cover up what they have done. The reason why paediatricians may refer to the lack of a history is because individual and collective clinical experience teaches them that it is one of a number of indicators of how the injury may have occurred. Medical and other professionals are entitled to rely upon such knowledge and experience in forming an opinion about the likely response of the individual child to the particular injury, and the court should not deter them from doing so. The weight that is then given to any such opinion is a matter for the Judge. Re BR (Proof of Facts) [2015] EWFC 41 Jackson J at para 16[23]The Court must demonstrate the willingness to entertain that medical science might not have a definitive answer to each and every case, but there are some 'outlying' cases where the answer as to what has happened is simply unknown or not capable of proof on the balance of probabilities within care proceedings. Re B-T (Children) [2017] EWCA Civ 265[24]The cause of an injury, or an episode, that cannot be explained scientifically remains equivocal. Recurrence is not itself probative. Particular caution is necessary in any case where the medical experts disagree, one opinion declining to exclude a real possibility of natural cause. The Court must be always on guard against the over dogmatic expert, the expert whose reputation or amour-propre is at stake, or the expert who has developed a scientific prejudice. The judge in care proceedings must never forget that today’s medical certainty may be discarded by the next generation of experts or that scientific research will throw light into corners that are at present dark. In Re LU and LB [2004] 2 FLR 263 Butler-Sloss P Even where, on examination of all of the evidence, every possible known cause has been excluded the cause may still remain unknown. R v Henderson [2011] 1 FLR 547 per Moses LJ The more unknown and/or mysterious the cause, the more tempting it is to wander into the realms of speculation but this would be a wholly impermissible basis for sound fact-finding. Re A (Fact Finding Hearing: Disputed Findings) [2011] I FLR 1817EWCA Civ 12 per Munby LJ[25]The evidence of the parents is of the utmost import and to this end the Court will make a clear assessment of their credibility and reliability. The Court is likely to place considerable weight on the evidence and the impression it forms of the parents. Re W (Non-Accidental Injury) [2003] FCR 346).[26]A Judge considering non-accidental injuries must always consider the whole picture before determining causation. The Court must ask itself, what was the context in which this alleged non-accidental injury came to be sustained and entertain the totality of the evidence before the Court. Re B-T (Children) [2017] EWCA Civ 265 For example, an injury that might be accepted as accidental if it stood alone might take on a wholly different aspect if it is only one of a number of injuries. Re L-K (Children) [2015] EWCA Civ 830 The Court must take into account all of the evidence and furthermore consider each piece of evidence in the context of all the other evidence. Evidence cannot be evaluated and assessed in separate compartments. A Judge in these difficult cases must have regard to the relevance of each piece of evidence to other evidence and to exercise an overview of the totality of the evidence in order to come to the conclusion whether the case put forward by the local authority has been made out to the appropriate standard of proof. Re T [2004] 2 FLR 838 at 33, per Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss P[27]It is in the public interest for those who have caused non-accidental injuries to be identified. Re K (Non-accidental Injuries: Perpetrator: New Evidence) [2005] 1 FLR 285, CA The Court should not, however, 'strain' on the evidence before it to identify on the simple balance of probabilities the individual who inflicted the injuries. If it is clear that it is not possible on the evidence before the Court for the Court to conclude on the balance of probabilities who the perpetrator of the injuries is and the Court remains genuinely uncertain, then the court should reach that conclusion. Re D (Care Proceedings: Preliminary Hearing) [2009] 2 FLR 668[28]If the Court cannot identify a perpetrator or perpetrators, it is still important to identify the pool of possible perpetrators by asking whether the evidence establishes that there is a 'likelihood or real possibility' that a given person perpetrated the injuries in question. Re S-B (Children) [2010] 1 FLR 1161, SC; North Yorkshire CC v SA [2003] 2 FLR 849, CA In such circumstances, it is all the more important to scrutinise the evidence carefully and consider whether anyone, and if so who, should be included in the pool of possible perpetrators. Re S (A Child) [2014] 1 FLR 739, CA 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. North Yorkshire County Council v SA [2003] 2 FLR 849. 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.[29]Where there are two possible perpetrators, the Court must first assess whether there is sufficient evidence to identify a single perpetrator on the balance of probabilities. If there is not, the Court must then consider in relation to each possible perpetrator whether there is a real possibility that they might have caused the injury and exclude those of which this cannot be said. There will be cases where a Court cannot identify a single perpetrator and the Court should not strain to do so. Re B (A Child) [2018] EWCA Civ 2127, per Jackson LJ The question is not ‘who is the more likely perpetrator?’ but ‘does the evidence establish that this individual probably caused this injury?’ Re B (AChild: Uncertain Perpetrator) [20 26] EWCA Civ 1024per Peter Jackson LJ In determining whether a person is properly included in the pool of potential perpetrators, it is essential that the Court weighs any lies told by that person against any evidence that points away from them having been responsible for the injuries. H v City and Council of Swansea and Others [2011] EWCA Civ 195 In 'uncertain perpetrator' cases, the correct approach is for the case to proceed at the welfare stage on the basis that each of the possible perpetrators is treated as such. Re O and N: Re B [2003] 1 FLR 1169, HL[30]Where an injury has been found to have been inflicted, as opposed to being accidental or of natural origin, and where there are only two people who might be responsible, the question for the court becomes a binary one: which of the two is more likely to have been responsible? If the question can be answered, it follows that the person identified on a balance of probabilities as the more likely of the two to have been responsible is in fact responsible. That is in contrast to a case with more than two possible perpetrators, where the identification of the likeliest perpetrator might not satisfy the balance of probability standard that is necessary for a finding of fact. In making its assessment, the Court will take account of the quantity and quality of the evidence available to it and will be alert to any potentially significant imbalances. Only if it cannot answer the question for lack of reliable evidence, or because it finds the evidence equally balanced (a rare occurrence), will it fall back on a pool finding. Re B (AChild: Uncertain Perpetrator) [20 26] EWCA Civ 1024per Peter Jackson LJ[31]If a Court concludes that a witness has lied about one matter, it does not follow that he or she has lied about everything. If a witness lies in the course of the investigation or the hearing, the witness may have lied for many reasons, for example, out of shame, humiliation, misplaced loyalty, panic, fear, distress, confusion and emotional pressure. R v Lucas [1981] QB 720[32]In cases where repeated accounts are given of events surrounding injury, 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 that they are lies designed to hide culpability. Another is that they are lies told for other reasons. Further possibilities include faulty recognition or confusion at times of stress 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 inelegantly be described as ‘story-creep’ – may occur without any necessary inference of bad faith. Lancashire County Council v The Children [2014] EWFC 3, Peter Jackson J[33]When considering the evidence, the Court should only take account of any lies found to have been told if there is no good reason or other established reason for the person to have lied. Hertfordshire v T and J [2018] EWHC 2796 per Keehan J The 'lie' is never taken, of itself, as direct proof of guilt. Re H-C [2016] EWCA Civ 136 per McFarlane LJ Judges should, therefore, take care to ensure that they do not rely upon a conclusion that an individual has lied on a material issue as direct proof of guilt'. The mere fact of a lie being told does not prove the primary case against the party. The Allegations[34]The Local Authority makes the following assertions, in respect of which the Local Authority invites the Court to make findings of fact: 1. On 7 December 2025 ‘T’ was taken to the hospital by ambulance and seen by Dr S. He was found on examination to have:a. Temporal swelling in the left temporal area;b. Some evidence of bronchial illness.[2]A CT head scan was undertaken of the child which revealed the following injuries:a. Extensive superficial soft tissue swelling overlying the left temporal bone, left parietal bone, right parietal bone and occipital bone;b. fractures through the bilateral parietal bones and fracture through the occipital bone;c. Left hemispheric acute extra-axial collection measuring approximately 8mm in maximal depth;d. Right sided extra-axial collection is most prominent over the anterior right temporal lobe and measuring approximately 7mm in maximal depth;e. No evidence of acute infarct. No hydrocephalus. 3. On 9 December 2025 an MRI scan of the child was undertaken which revealed the following matters: a. Evidence of multifocal trauma with complex fractures involving both parietal and occipital bones, a left-sided subdural haematoma; b. a left temporal contusion and left parietal encephalocele; c. Right sided dural calcification is suspicious for a previous episode of intracranial haemorrhage.[4]On 10 December 2025 a skeletal survey of the child was undertaken that revealed:a. AP and lateral skull: As demonstrated on the recent CT, there are bilateral parietal skull fractures and an occipital fracture. The parietal fractures are complex with widening bilaterally and branching on the left. There is overlying soft tissue swelling on the left;b. Appendicular skeleton: There is an old healed left distal radial diaphyseal fracture with volar angulation;c. There is remodelling and new bone formation suggesting this injury is several weeks old;d. There is an associated distal ulna diaphyseal fracture with similar degree of remodelling suggesting these injuries were sustained at the same time. Mechanism[5]The injuries have involved different applications of force:a. At least one pulling twisting type action to the left forearm which was probably 2 to 6 weeks prior to presentation;b. one or two very significant forces to the back of the head to produce one or possibly two occipital fractures;c. one significant force to the right side of the head to produce the right parietal fracture which is likely to have been at least 2 weeks before the left fracture given the absorption of the soft tissue swelling;d. One significant force to the left parietal area likely to have occurred within minutes or maximum of a couple of hours prior to presentation. Lack of prompt medical attention 6. It is probable that ‘T’ would have been in pain and distress and may have lost consciousness from some or all of these injuries; 7. The person caring for him when these injuries occurred should have sought immediate medical attention for him and would have been alerted to his discomfort, pain and distress. 8. Failure to obtain prompt medical attention will have prolonged ‘T’’s pain, distress and discomfort. Attribution[9]‘T’ sustained the injuries described above as a result of one of the following causes:a. Due to rough handling by his carer;b. Due to being deliberately harmed by his carer as a result of loss of temper or some other loss of control eg through intoxication;c. Due to a lack of vigilance / lack of supervision by his carer. 10. In relation to the injuries to the distal radius and ulna found on 10 December 2025 these appear to have been caused from 2 to 6 weeks before the examination. 11. The persons who may have had the care of the child when these injuries occurred were one of or a combination of: a. The mother; b. The father. 12 - 13. For the majority of the material times when it is likely the injuries to ‘T’ occurred, the mother was the main or sole carer for the child. 14. The explanations that mother gave to the clinicians to explain the injuries namely: a. She and ‘T’ were co-sleeping in her bed when ‘O’ bounced on the bed and fell on his brother’s head are not credible and would not account for the severity of the injuries to the child. Summary in Relation to the Injuries 15. At some point prior to 7 December 2025 and no later than approximately the 3rd week of October 2025 ‘T’ sustained serious injuries to his head and left wrist which were caused either deliberately or as a result of a significant failure of his carer to protect him from injury by another. Domestic Abuse 16. The mother and the father have had a conflicted relationship which has involved allegations of significant domestic abuse. Domestic conflict between the parents has exposed the children to the likelihood of significant emotional harm through witnessing or being present when such harm has occurred. 35. Having regard to the Local Authority’s pleaded threshold assertion about domestic abuse in the parental relationship, the mother makes specific allegations against the father as follows: 1. The father was physically abusive towards the mother: a. In or around July 2023, the father hit the mother on the thigh with a hairbrush which caused a bruise; b. In or around December 2023, the father strangled the mother by grabbing her by the neck with his hands and squeezing; c. Shortly after 16th March 2024, the father grabbed the mother’s throat with his hands, pushed her onto the bed and strangled her, which left marks on her neck and made it painful to swallow;d. At the end of April 2024, the father hit the mother across her face causing her ears to ring and her to draw blood;e. In or around September 2024, the father hit the mother in the mouth with his hand causing the inside of her mouth to bleed;f. On 1st January 2025, the father grabbed the back of the mother’s neck with his hand leaving marks;g. In or around June or July 2025, the father elbowed the mother in the stomach whilst she was heavily pregnant with their second child and said something along the lines of ‘you’re not going to have this one’ referring to the second child;h. On or around 10th November 2025, the father slapped the mother twice across her face, pushed her onto the floor and strangled the mother with his hands causing her to lose consciousness. 2. The father was verbally abusive toward the mother: a. In or around the end of October 2023, the father shouted at the mother, threatened to physically hurt her and was derogatory towards her calling her a ‘h*’; b. On 1st January 2025, the father screamed at the mother, called her a ‘dumb b***h’ and referred to her as a ‘lying c**t’ via text; c. On 22nd May 2025, the father sent the mother an abusive message via TikTok threatening to attend the maternal grandmother’s house after he saw a video of the mother with another man. 3. The father was coercive and controlling of the mother: a. Throughout the party’s relationship, the father threatened to report the mother to social services as a way of controlling her; b. In May and June 2024, the father put pressure on the mother to withdraw her police statement in respect of his assault of her in or around the end of March 2024; c. In January 2026, the father surveyed the mother’s flat in a way that made her feel intimidated; d. On or around 4th February 2026, the father shared a video he had taken of the mother without her knowledge or consent with third parties including the mother’s friend and the maternal aunt’s colleagues; e. In April 2024, November 2025 and February 2026, the father made malicious reports to the police about the mother’s alleged behaviour with a view to causing her distress; f. Throughout the party’s relationship, the father pressured and coerced the mother into engaging in sexual activities with him including in May 2025 and January 2026. 4. The father was aggressive, intimidating and threatening towards the mother: a. Throughout the party’s relationship and specifically in June or July 2024, the father demonstrated antisocial behaviour in the mother’s building including leaving faeces in the building, attempting to post burning paper through the mother’s letter box, raising his voice and banging on doors; b. In June or July 2025, the father became angry and destroyed ‘O’s pram causing it to break; c. On 3rd February 2026, the father threatened to slit the mother’s face with a knife, sliced her bag and punched his fist into her microwave. 5. Prior to the end of October 2023, the father kept a Rambo-style knife under the mother’s mattress without her knowledge or consent. Evidence and Analysis[36]There are several background facts that are not in dispute. ‘T’ is the second child of his mother and father.[37]The mother and father are both aged in their twenties. They have known each other for many years, since their late teens. They each spent periods of their childhood in Local Authority care. They report beginning their relationship in 2023. They each live separately in rented accommodation. The father is employed in the public sector. The mother is not employed. She receives welfare benefits.[38]It is not in dispute that there was domestic abuse in the parents’ relationship. Further, it is not in dispute that there is a history of illicit drug use by both parents.[39]The mother reports having long-standing anaemia and taking iron medication regularly. She is also asthmatic. She reports mental health problems, including Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, depression and anxiety, for which she was previously referred to CAMHS in her teenage years. Her GP had prescribed antidepressants at intervals. She is reported also as having sickle cell trait, being a carrier state of sickle cell and possibly alpha thalassemia. She was known to Local Authority Children’s Services after being physically chastised by her mother. In her teenage years she was recorded as being beyond parental control. Several missing episodes are recorded. It is also recorded that she was exploited sexually as a child. She was placed in the care of the Local Authority. She has three convictions for six offences committed in 2017 when 16 years old.[40]The father reports having dyslexia and problems reading and writing. He also reports having mental health problems. Dr. Farhy, Consultant Psychotherapeutic and Counselling Psychologist undertook a cognitive assessment of the father within these proceedings. The findings suggested an IQ at the bottom of the non-impaired range.[41]Prior to the index event, the older child was known to Social Services. The child ‘O’ was the subject of a Child Protection Plan from July 2024 due to concerns about parental domestic abuse. He is reported generally as being in good physical health. He is a relatively big child for his age. He was noted to have an incidental ependymal cyst in his brain at birth, noted during investigation of a prominence on his occipital bone of his skull at birth. This was found to be of no significance and was entirely benign. ‘O’ has been under review in the neonatal clinic for neurodevelopmental progress. He is noted to be making good progress and no further concerns with his development were noted. Overall, ‘O’ is noted to be making good progress.[42]A Local Authority Child Protection Conference took place on 18 March 2025, attended by the mother and her sister. The mother reported having a new boyfriend. She reported that she was no longer in contact with ‘O’s father, following an incident in January 2025 which resulted in police being called. The Local Authority took the decision at the Child Protection Conference to ‘step down’ the intervention to a Child In Need plan. At that stage, the mother had not disclosed that she was pregnant with ‘T’ nor that the Second Respondent could be the father of the expected baby.[43]‘T’ was delivered at 41 weeks by Caesarean section. The C-section was undertaken due to the mother having scarring from a previous C-section when ‘O’ was delivered. There were no antenatal concerns. ‘T’ was born in good condition. He required no resuscitation and was not admitted to the unit.[44]The mother initially queried whether the Second Respondent is ‘T’s father. Expert evidence by way of DNA paternity testing is not disputed. That evidence establishes that ‘O’ and ‘T’ share the same paternity.[45]Following discharge from hospital, ‘T’ lived primarily with his mother and older sibling ‘O’, who was then 20 months old. The mother stayed with the children variously at the maternal grandmother’s home for a period and at the home the father shared with the paternal grandfather. The mother and children later moved to their own accommodation. The father visited and stayed from time to time with the mother and children at the mother’s address. They had various combinations of sleeping arrangements, often co-sleeping with one or other child and sometimes with both parents and both children in the same bed.[46]‘T’ was seen by the GP for an 8-week check up on 14 October 2025. He presented as well. He attended again one week later, on 21 October 2025 for standard childhood immunisations.[47]‘T’ was breast fed and was reported to be doing well. His feeds were changed to formula milk in early November 2025 at the age of three months, due to mother wishing him to be cared for by the grandmother, while the mother celebrated her birthday.[48]The mother has, subsequent to the index event, mentioned that in early November 2025, while staying at the maternal grandmother’s house, ‘T’ fell out of bed during the night while they were co-sleeping. The mother reports that ‘T’ seemed to settle afterwards and she did not think he had been harmed.[49]On 13 November 2025 ‘T’ is noted by the GP to have an upper respiratory tract infection but was otherwise well. He was physically examined by the doctor, Dr Z, who found that ‘T’ had nasal congestion. ‘T’ was noted to be sleeping on arrival but easily roused when checking his temperature. No signs of injury were identified during the examination.[50]The mother and the children moved into their own accommodation on or about 28 November 2025. They remained together at that accommodation until the index event on 7 December 2025.[51]On 7 December 2025, the mother reports that the father had been at her accommodation, caring for ‘O’, while she was caring for ‘T’. She reports that the father left the address in the morning to go to a shop where he brought throat sweets and food items, amongst other things. The mother reported that, after lunch, she woke from sleep and went to the bathroom, leaving ‘T’ sleeping on the bed, towards the top of the bed, near the headboard. She reports that ‘O’ was in his room. The father was also present at the address. She reports that, while she was in the bathroom, she heard ‘T’ cry. She reports that she returned quickly to her bedroom. She reports seeing ‘T’ and ‘O’ both on the bed. ‘O’ was lying on the bed with his legs over the top of ‘T’. She reports that the father was also in the room. She reports asking the father why ‘O’ was on the bed, as ‘T’ had been sleeping. The mother is reported as saying she was “fuming because [‘T’] was now crying having been sound asleep and it looked to me like [the father] had just let [‘O’] climb onto the bed and had done nothing about it.” She reports that the father lifted ‘O’ off the bed and took him back to his room. She records that ‘T’ was crying. She reports that she picked him up to put him in his cot to see if he needed changing. The mother reported that, as she moved around the cot, she caught ‘T’s head on the plastic corner of the cot but she was not moving fast, so it was a gentle tap. She records that she put ‘T’ into the cot and whilst changing him, she thought he was being a bit fussy. She reports that the father came back into the room and watched. He then said that ‘T’s head looked swollen and when the mother looked at his head, she noticed the swelling too. The mother records that her immediate thought was whether ‘O’ had jumped on ‘T’s head whilst she was in the bathroom. The mother stated that, after consulting with the maternal grandmother by video briefly, the mother then sought emergency medical assistance by calling 999. The mother states that the father decided to leave, as it could look bad if he were present when the ambulance arrived.[52]It is not in dispute that a 999 emergency call was made by the mother at 15:28 on 7 December 2025. ‘T’ was taken to hospital arriving at 16:50. The mother remained at her property with ‘O’. The ambulance staff note that ‘T’ was crying and distressed when they arrived at the property. The paramedics identified ‘T’ to have a slight fever associated with his flu-like symptoms, which mother reported he had suffered for a few days. The mother reported that she was also unwell with flu-like symptoms. She says it was suggested to her that she should not go to the hospital with ‘T’.[53]‘T’ was handed over to hospital staff at 17:31 on 7 December 2025. The maternal grandmother met ‘T’ at the hospital. Investigations at the hospital suggested that ‘T’ had suffered three fractures through the bilateral parietal bones and fracture through the occipital bone, a brain herniation and historical left distal radial and ulnar diaphyseal fractures.[54]Police attended the family home on 7 December 2025 to check on the condition of the home and to undertake a welfare check for ‘O’. When the police arrived, the mother said that both she and ‘O’ were unwell with flu. The police observed ‘O’ to be unwell. He was sleeping deeply on the floor. The police did not identify the arrangements as being unsuitable for him nor that the home conditions were of concern. The mother said that the injury to ‘T’ occurred when both she and ‘T’ were sleeping in the bed in her bedroom. She stated that ‘O’ had come in, climbed onto the bed and had begun bouncing on it, falling over and landing on ‘T’s head.[55]‘T’ was first seen at the hospital by ‘Dr S’, locum Consultant Paediatrician. Thereafter, ‘Dr D’, Consultant Paediatrician, conducted a child protection medical examination of ‘T’ at the hospital. Dr D observed from the notes that ‘T’ had been brought to hospital via ambulance on Sunday 7 December 2025 at 17:07. The London Ambulance Service call out sheet noted, “2-day history of coryzal symptoms - congestion, runny nose. Pt has reduced oral intake. Normal nappies. Mum gave calpol @1400. Mum called 999 as she was concerned pts head looked swollen - call was upgraded to C1 on the phone as the call handler heard excessive crying and DIB from pt. Both mum and sibling are unwell with the same symptoms. Mum and 2yr old brother also unwell. Mum to stay at home with sibling, crew to be met at RFH by pts grandmother who is making her way there.”[56]Dr D reported that ‘T’ was seen by Dr S in the Emergency Department with his grandmother present. The history was taken from grandmother verbally and from mother over the phone because the mother had stayed at home with ‘O’ and both were unwell with a coryzal illness. The mother reported that ‘T’ had been coryzal with a dry cough and blocked nose for the last two days. Feeding was reported to be slightly reduced but the mother reported ‘T’ had managed six bottles of 180ml over the last 24 hours and was passing urine adequately. The mother reported that ‘T’ had been clingy and on the bed with herself and that his 20-month-old sibling, who was jumping on the bed, stepped on the baby’s head. The mother reported that ‘T’ had not had any falls. The mother reported that she subsequently noted that the left side of the head was swollen while changing ‘T’s nappy that evening. She reported that she called an ambulance straight away and called her mother to accompany ‘T’.[57]On examination, Dr S identified a tender swelling in the left temporal area. No indentation or bogginess was observed. Pupils were noted to be equal and reactive to light bilaterally. Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) was noted to be 15, which was noted to be normal. ‘T’ was noted to be alert, warm and well perfused. His chest was clear with no respiratory distress. Multiple bluish green discoloured marks were noted on the back, said to have been present since birth, consistent with congenital dermal melanocytosis. Dr S recorded, “Linear marks on both feet? from one of the clothing he was wearing which was too tight two days ago.”[58]A diagnosis was made of Bronchiolitis. ‘T’ was noted to be clinically well. He was noted to have a head injury with left temporal swelling. It was arranged for a CT head scan to be provided. ‘T’ was given pain relief and a nasal swab was performed to exclude a viral illness.[59]A CT head was performed at 18:52 on 07 December 2025 which showed extensive superficial soft tissue swelling overlying the left temporal bone, left parietal bone, right parietal bone and occipital bone. There were fractures through the bilateral parietal bones and fracture through the occipital bone. Left hemispheric acute extra-axial collection was noted, approximately 8mm in maximal depth with right sided extra-axial collection most prominent over the anterior right temporal lobe and measuring approximately 7mm in maximal depth. No evidence of acute infarct was observed and no hydrocephalus. Urgent paediatric neurosurgical input was advised.[60]Dr S contacted the Local Authority Children’s Services to inform them of the presentation and handed ‘T’s case over to the night consultant, ‘Dr M’ who reviewed ‘T’ at 23:45 on 7 December 2025. Dr M discussed the results of the CT scan with ‘Mr C’, neurosurgical registrar at Great Ormond Street Hospital, who advised that no neurosurgical intervention required currently.[61]It was recorded that the mother and maternal grandmother were informed of the findings of the CT scan of the head and that further action was required. The mother was documented to be upset on the telephone during this discussion, reporting that she had not felt the injury was very bad.[62]‘T’ was admitted on 8 December 2025 under Dr D who spoke to the mother by video via the grandmother’s phone. When asked how she thought the fractures of the skull had happened, the mother is reported to have said that she thought it happened when she was in the toilet at between 1pm and 2pm and left the 20 month old toddler (‘O’) with ‘T’ on the bed unattended. When she came back ‘T’ was crying and the 20-month-old was lying next to ‘T’ with his feet on ‘T’. She reported that she picked ‘T’ up and comforted him and then put him in the cot. Dr D explained that three fractures of this type would take a bigger impact than a 20-month-old falling onto him on a soft bed. The mother is recorded as having said she couldn’t think what else had caused them. She then said she bumped ‘T’s head on the round side of the travel cot as she put him in it and she showed Dr D the plastic round edges of the travel cot during the video call. Dr D further explained that this would not cause these fractures. Dr D asked the mother if she could think of anything else that might have caused these fractures, involving a higher impact. The mother is reported as having said she could not think of anything. She then said, could it have happened about four weeks ago when she was at her mother’s (maternal grandmother’s) house and she slept there with ‘T’ in bed with her and she heard a thud and looked down and saw ‘T’ on the floor. Dr D told mother that this would not cause these three fractures of the skull. The grandmother was noted to have been surprised to hear about the incident with ‘T’ falling off the bed. The mother is recorded as having said, “Yes I didn’t tell you mum.” Dr D noted that a 2-month-old cannot roll, so would not be able to roll off the bed physically. It was noted by Dr D that a child of that age could perhaps fall off if they slid off the duvet/sheet/or blanket as the adult moves.[63]The mother was noted to be very upset during the video call. When asked if anyone else had cared for ‘T’ she said that she had been the only one looking after him. When asked about domestic violence, the mother is reported as having explained that she contacted the police in respect of ‘O’s father about a year ago. She is recorded as having said this hasn’t happened again and that she hasn’t seen him recently. The mother is recorded as having said that ‘T’s father had been over once in the last two weeks but he wasn’t on his own with ‘T’. Dr D asked if the mother had ever felt threatened by ‘T’s father or at risk of domestic violence. The mother is reported to have said no. Dr D told the mother that she didn’t think an explanation for these fractures had been given. The mother was noted to be very upset at the end of the conversation.[64]A Strategy Meeting was held on 8 December 2025 at 14:22 with representatives from the Local Authority, the hospital safeguarding team, the matron and the police Child Abuse Investigation Team resulting in a decision for a multiagency section 47 investigation to be arranged.[65]‘T’ underwent further investigations and examinations including an ophthalmology review on 9 December 2025, which reported a normal eye screen, no retinal haemorrhage seen.[66]An MRI brain and spine scan on 9 December 2025 showed evidence of multifocal trauma with complex fractures involving both parietal and occipital bones, a left-sided subdural haematoma, a left temporal contusion and left parietal encephalocele. Right sided dural calcification was identified and noted to be suspicious for a previous episode of intracranial haemorrhage.[67]The neurosurgical registrar, having sight of the MRI images, was consulted at16.00 on 9 December 2025.[68]Dr D reviewed ‘T’ again on 10 December 2025 at 11.30. ‘T’ was noted to be well in himself. His maternal grandmother was present. ‘T’ was reviewed by the nursing team and by the ward team who observed the swelling in the left side of the head but otherwise reported ‘T’ as being stable and well. His blood tests had shown a reduced haemoglobin, which was in keeping with bleeding into the brain. His platelets were raised, in keeping with having a fractured bone.[69]Dr D contacted ‘T’s mother to gain her consent to perform a skeletal survey.[70]Dr D spoke to Professor J, neurosurgical consultant, who advised there was no indication for emergency transfer, to cease neurological observations on the ward and that ‘T’ would need a review the week of 14 December 2025. Professor J noted that three fractures of the skull were unlikely just from a fall from a bed, that the injuries were unlikely to be sustained from one fall, that they were in keeping with a fall from a considerable height or were in keeping with being sustained from a significant blow to the head, unlikely to be a single blow to the head and more likely to be more than one blow to the head.[71]A Skeletal Survey was conducted on 10 December 2025 at 13:00 which showed complex bilateral skull fractures. The survey further identified old, healed left distal radial and ulnar diaphyseal fractures. A follow-up skeletal survey was sought 10-14 days thereafter.[72]Dr D recorded conclusions that ‘T’ was a 3-month-old baby who presented to hospital with a 2-day history of coryzal symptoms and maternal concern regarding a swelling to the left side of his head. A CT head showed extensive soft tissue swelling over the left temporal bone, left parietal bone, right parietal bone and occipital bone. There were complex bilateral parietal and occipital fractures with bilateral extra-axial collections. MRI head showed the left parietal fracture to be relatively wide with possible herniation of the brain into the fracture. There was suspicion of a previous bleed in the right dura with calcification, suggestive of old blood. An old, healed fracture of the left distal radial and ulnar was found on skeletal survey. The medical view, following discussion and review of the investigations with paediatric and neurology radiologists and the neurosurgical professor was that the injuries suggest multifocal trauma, not in keeping with the histories given. Dr D recorded, “We do not have explanations for these injuries.”[73]Independent expert evidence was obtained in the course of these Family Court proceedings from Dr Fionnan Williams, Consultant Neuroradiologist. Dr Williams reviewed the imaging findings beginning with the CT brain performed on 7 December 2025. He concluded that there was a large volume of massive soft tissue swelling over the left side of the skull vault extending across the posterior midline. No convincing occipital scalp soft tissue collection or asymmetry was identified. On the right, there was no further scalp soft tissue injury.[74]Multiple complex skull vault fractures were observed. In the left parietal bone there was a widened fracture running the length of the parietal bone entering the coronal and lambdoid sutures with sutural widening and displacement. It was noted that the brain herniated into the posterior fracture defect. There was a right parietal skull vault fracture also, which contacts the coronal and sagittal sutures and was also widened. There was a degree of fragmentation/comminution.[75]A further slightly displaced fracture of the right occipital bone was noted, which was also complex with a main fracture line and a branch which extended inferiorly. There was some slight irregularity separately more superiorly, raising the possibility of a superior fracture branch, though a further, separate older occipital fracture is possible. There was noted to be evidence of acute extra-axial haemorrhage over the left cerebral convexity with acute subdural blood. This was noted to exert no mass effect. A small hyperdense extra-axial collection, presumed to be extradural, was seen in the right side of the posterior fossa inferiorly adjacent to the inferior portion of the fracture. Some calcification adjacent to the right-sided fracture was noted. No clear parenchymal injury was observed. There was no cerebral oedema.[76]With respect to the MRI brain and whole spine images of 9 December 2025, Dr Williams found an ongoing left-sided and posterior scalp injury with soft tissue swelling containing haemorrhage. Although there was some crossing of the midline posteriorly predominantly, there was no swelling on the right. Dr Williams noted that the skull vault fractures were better seen on CT scan but it was noted that the left was clearly widened, with herniation of brain into the defect. It was noted, at this point, there was some focal brain injury. There was also a small focus of restricted diffusion in the left superior temporal lobe possibly traumatic in nature. Small volume subdural collections were noted over each cerebral convexity, more so on the left than the right. Some surface subarachnoid haemorrhage was also noted on the left. A small amount of recent extra-axial haemorrhage was seen in the posterior fossa. No evidence of any diffuse brain injury was seen. There was no old injury or area of scarring noted and no congenital malformation. Normal spinal imaging appearances were noted. Dr Williams noted that the CT imaging was of good quality.[77]Dr Williams told the Court in his report that soft tissue swelling is a marker of blunt impact trauma. The soft tissue swelling will persist on imaging for up to 14 days, approximately, in total. It will gradually resolve and reabsorb over that time so that by day 14 following trauma, no soft tissue swelling will be visible. Dr Williams noted, “The importance of this is that when we see soft tissue scalp injuries, it means the impact which caused the scalp soft tissue injury has occurred within the 14-day period before the CT was performed. This swelling is extensive. It contains a mix of hyperdense, bright acute haemorrhage and lower density fluid. The timing range is an estimate. In practice, we see traumatic scalp soft tissue injuries resolve on imaging very quickly and it is unusual to still see such injuries persisting to day 14 when sequential imaging is done.”[78]Dr Williams considered the fractures and noted that multiple skull vault fractures are seen:
“There are fractures in each parietal bone and in the right occipital bone. Skull vault fractures are also markers of blunt impact trauma. The bones of the skull vault do not heal in the same way as the long bones and ribs, and consequently it is not possible on imaging to date the skull vault fractures directly. The role of associated soft tissue swelling thus becomes highly relevant. It requires considerable force to break the bones of the infant skull. The skull vault bones in infants are not weak and brittle. They are soft and pliable, reforming and remodelling in response to external forces and stresses.”
[79]Dr Williams observed that the left sided fracture runs the entire length of the parietal bone in a horizontal though jagged fashion. It enters the coronal and lambdoid sutures. There is widening of both sutures and some displacement also of the coronal suture. The fracture is widened, especially posteriorly and displaced. There is also a branching pattern especially posteriorly. Posteriorly, brain and coverings extend into the fracture defect. There is widening of both sutures and some displacement also of the coronal suture. The fracture is widened, especially posteriorly and displaced. There is also a branching pattern especially posteriorly. Posteriorly, brain and coverings extend into the fracture defect.[80]Dr Williams further observed that the right sided fracture likewise is a complex pattern. It is L-shaped and longitudinally extensive. The fracture enters the coronal and sagittal sutures. The fracture is widened and at one point there is a degree of comminution and minor depression. Dr Williams told the Court in his report, “Appearances associated with the right parietal fracture are clearly different from the left. Firstly, there is no associated scalp soft tissue swelling yet on the left there is massive swelling. Additionally, there is calcification adjacent to the fracture along the inner table/dura interface. This suggests an older injury with possible old dural injury/haemorrhage and/or attempted healing of the fracture.”[81]Dr Williams reported that there is also a right occipital fracture:
“This shows some minor displacement and has a branch which separates and extends inferiorly and laterally.”
Dr Williams told the Court, “Fractures of bones other than the parietal bone are rare in childhood trauma. The occipital bone is particularly difficult to break; it is thicker than the parietal bone. More superiorly there is an area of irregularity in the right occipital bone separate from the fracture further inferiorly. This may be a further branching component but the possibility of an older, healing injury is raised. There was no visible associated soft tissue swelling or asymmetry related to this fracture. We can see less or even no soft tissue swelling in occipital fractures, due to the location and thickness of overlying protective soft tissues at the junction of the neck and skull. Hence, the absence of scalp soft tissue swelling needs to be interpreted with caution in the setting of occipital fractures. The occipital fracture lines may also be in keeping with two separate fractures in the right occipital bone. The blood is bright or hyperdense on CT in keeping with acute haemorrhage.”[82]Dr Williams commented on the MRI scan of ‘T’s brain and spine undertaken on 9 December 2025, noting there is left sided scalp swelling/haematoma overlying the left parietal bone and extending shortly across the midline posteriorly. Dr Williams noted, “There remains no evidence of any soft tissue injury over the right parietal bone.” It was noted that the MRI shows evidence of herniation of brain and coverings into the posterior fracture defect on the left. Dr Willaims told the Court, “This is a traumatic encephalocoele; it is true some encephalocoeles can be congenital but not this one -this is a traumatic phenomenon. The MRI shows entrapped brain tissue with some localised signal change.”[83]As to the cause of the injury, Dr Willaims noted that there is no congenital malformation or any evidence of an underlying disorder. No volume loss/atrophy was noted. Spinal imaging was noted to be normal. There was no intraspinal haemorrhage. The skeletal survey identified a further wrist fracture, “but there was no concern expressed regarding bone density/fragility or any skeletal dysplasia. Normal bone strength is thus assumed.” Dr Williams told the Court, “There is no naturally occurring explanation for the injuries seen on neuroimaging; they are due to trauma.”[84]Possible causes of trauma to consider, Dr Williams told the Court, “include birth, accidental trauma and non-accidental injury,” however, Dr Williams excluded a birth injury, “since to see a fracture from straightforward C-section would be essentially unheard of. Anytime one is seen following a C- section there either has been a prior attempt at failed instrumented delivery and/or the head needs to be levered out or dis-impacted from the maternal pelvis at section. There is no such history here. The commonest fracture to see following birth is the linear parietal fracture. Forceps can be associated with depressed ping-pong fractures of the skull. To see complex fractures like we have here and a right occipital birth from birth injury would require there to be extraordinary levels of obstetric trauma.” Dr Williams added, “the right sided fracture lacks soft tissue swelling so theoretically could date back to birth. The left sided fracture with associated soft tissue injury does not date back to birth. The acute haemorrhage seen on CT cannot date back to delivery. Birth would not be responsible for the subdural effusion seen on MRI or the thrombosed subdural bridging veins. Hence, birth is not the cause of these injuries.”[85]Dr Williams considered the possibility of accidental trauma, noting, “Skull vault fractures can occur in accidental falls from height. There is no minimum height below which a fracture never occurs and above which one always does. Experience and data suggests fractures in low-level falls are uncommon.” In Dr Williams’ opinion, any suggestion these injuries were inadvertently or deliberately inflicted by ‘O’ is not plausible. Dr Williams noted that the “event” described by the mother as occurring on the 7 December 2025, where she encountered ‘O’ lying astride ‘T’ which occurred whilst she was in the toilet, “does not describe any traumatic event and [‘O’] would not be responsible for these injuries by kicking [‘T’] or standing on him. Similarly. they would not result from mother inadvertently rolling onto him during sleep. Likewise, a time when [‘O’] stood on [‘T’s] Moses basket contains no description of any trauma or any significant distress on the part of [‘T’]. This is not a plausible explanation.”[86]Dr Williams concluded that there is no adequate accidental explanation for ‘T’s injuries. The fractures are best explained on the basis of multiple, episodes of cranial impact trauma. Dr Williams was of the opinion that it is difficult to be accurate about how many episodes of trauma were experienced by ‘T’, noting that if each fracture was the result of a separate impact then there would be four high force impacts, two to the parietal bones and two to the occipital bone. Dr Williams was of the opinion that it is conceivable some fractures occurred at the same time, with separate impacts, noting that the inferior occipital and right parietal fractures appear to be more recent than the right parietal and more superior right occipital fracture. Dr Williams was clear that the force needed to cause each and all of these fractures would be high. Further, the presence of stellate, branching components posteriorly on the left implies high force point contact.[87]Further, Dr Williams observed that some of the features seen on the imaging suggests acceleration-deceleration forces, such as the injured/thrombosed subdural bridging veins and multifocal nature of the subdural haemorrhage. Such forces, Dr Williams noted, can be seen in significant blunt impact cranial trauma but do raise the possibility of a co-existent shaking mechanism.[88]In his oral evidence, Dr Williams told the Court in summary that in respect of the evidence relating to ‘T’s skull, ‘T’ experienced a significant blunt impact traumatic injury in the form of a complex skull fracture to the left side of the head, the right side of the head and the back of the head, which involved significant force. The evidence relating to the right side of the head, raises also the possibility of an earlier injury. Dr Williams told the Court in his oral evidence of his opinion that the injuries are best explained by two episodes of trauma with at least three points of impact, possibly four: the injury to the left side of the head being caused close to the time when ‘T’ was presented to hospital and the injury to the right side of the head being more remote in time. The occipital fracture, Dr Williams told the Court, implies another injury to the back of the head.[89]In this Court’s judgment, the independent expert evidence of Dr Williams was clear, compelling and reliable.[90]Mr Amedeo Calisto, Consultant Paediatric Neurosurgeon prepared a written report for the Court in respect of ‘T’ dated 19 April 2026. Mr Calisto identified subdural effusions, subarachnoid bleeding and thrombosed veins. Mr Calisto concluded that ‘T’ experienced more than one incident of abusive head trauma involving shaking and impact over the previous weeks prior to being presented to hospital.[91]Mr Calisto substantially agreed on the presence of the injuries, as described by Dr Williams, save that he did not find the thrombosed vein or the subarachnoid bleeding. Mr Calisto recorded in his written report that he was not convinced that the right frontoparietal "calcification" represents evidence of a previous bleeding in that location. In this regard, Dr Williams noted in his oral evidence that this was a “minor disagreement” between the experts on this issue, which Dr Williams explained reflected, “the differing levels of comfort and training.” Dr Williams observed in his oral evidence that Mr Calisto, “does not report on the imaging. He is not a radiological practitioner,” adding, “there is no significant disagreement in terms of causation and timing.”[92]Upon reviewing the imaging, Mr Calisto noted a very significant left scalp swelling extending from the region lateral to the eye socket to the back of the head, almost 5cm beyond the midline and reaching towards the skull vault. A step in the posterior portion of the fracture was noted and in the coronaric suture (membranous joint in between the skull plates). A long, irregular, diastased (with a gap) skull fracture was noted, horizontally travelling through the whole left parietal bone. It has three branches. One reaches the lambdoid suture, one the sagittal suture and one stops before joining the latter. A long, irregular and diastased right parietal fracture was noted, going from the coronaric to the sagittal suture. Further, a right, mildly displaced occipital fracture was observed together with a small amount of proteinaceous fluid, slightly brighter than brain (hyperdense) under the anterior portion of the left parietal fracture and under the occipital fracture.[93]Having regard to the brain MRI scan of 9 December 2025, Mr Calisto noted a small amount of blood between brain surface and left fracture, showing as a biconvex lens. The fluid collection over the cerebellum (under the occipital fracture) was noted to have reduced in size. A film of thin fluid collection in the subdural location was noted over the left frontoparietal region and a smaller collection was noted to be present on the opposite side. Bilateral subdural fluid of different aspect over the frontal region was noted, the left more than the right, in keeping with a waterier content. Mr Calisto considered that these were either traumatic effusions or, less likely, chronic subdural haematomas. A small amount of brain herniating into part of the left parietal fracture was noted, which Mr Calisto assumed had created a linear tear of the dura mater (the most external of the brain envelopes), about 30mm long and 5mm wide. A very small area of altered signal in the superior temporal gyrus of uncertain nature was noted.[94]Mr Calisto summarised that he found grossly the same abnormalities seen by the treating clinicians and by Dr Williams. There were minor differences in the findings but no substantial difference in the respective conclusions.[95]Commenting on encephaloceles, Mr Calisto did not think that congenital encephalocele is a realistic possibility in this case, noting that here, there is a scalp swelling over a diastased long parietal fracture over the left side of the head and an encephalocele inside the fracture line.[96]Mr Calisto concluded that ‘T’ experienced the following injuries: scalp swelling, three skull fractures, two of which were very significant, relatively small bleedings over the brain/under the fractures, bilateral extensive frontal subdural collections, part of the brain herniating through one of the fractures and a tiny abnormality in the left temporal lobe. Mr Calisto commented that most of the injuries seem to directly lie one over the other, suggesting, if trauma is accepted as the most likely explanation, that blunt impact was involved, with injuries occurring along the same force propagation vector.[97]In respect of the scalp swelling, Mr Calisto observed that this was first noticed on 7 December 2025. The hypotheses of a local infection, a rare form of tumour or a vascular malformation were all, in Mr Calisto’s opinion, unrealistic in this case, as there was never any sign of infection, no vascular malformation was obvious from the scans and the swelling resolved with simple observation. Mr Calisto concluded further that this was not caput succedaneum nor delayed infant subaponeurotic fluid collections, which he considered not to be relevant in ‘T’s case. ‘T’s scalp swelling was noted by Mr Calisto to be a collection of blood products and water forming a subperiosteal and/or subgaleal haematoma. In the first case the blood would come from the broken bone itself, in the second from the traumatic rupture of small capillaries sitting deep in the scalp. The important point, Mr Calisto emphasised, is that the scalp swelling is very large. Mr Calisto informed the Court that not all skull fractures result in clinically visible scalp swellings. Only those that are large and complex almost invariably do. Traumatic subgaleal haematomas tend to develop within minutes to hours, although it may take a few days before they are noticed especially if small or shallow. They mostly resolve spontaneously and are not appreciated after a maximum of two weeks.[98]Mr Calisto noted that blunt trauma causing skull fracture/s is more likely to involve impact against a rigid, non-yielding object. Impact may occur because of the head hitting a hard surface with strong enough energy or because of a hard object of sufficient mass striking the head at speed. Crush injuries are possible as well, uni or bilaterally, by less rapid skull compression. Skull fractures result from blunt or penetrating trauma, where a significant force is applied. A single impact may result in fractures involving more than one adjacent bone plate. Mr Calisto considered that this could be the case with ‘T’, although Mr Calisto was more inclined to think that ‘T’s head suffered separate impacts because the fracture lines are relatively distant from one another. As a neonate's skull is pliable by nature and can be subject to significant deformation before a fracture occurs, it is also possible, Mr Calisto told the Court, that the fractures resulted from slower compression forces contemporarily applied to the sides of the skull (crush fractures). It is not uncommon, in these cases, he told the Court, to see some focal bleeding directly under the fracture site.[99]Mr Calisto commented on intracranial extradural collection, that is, a thin layer of blood products found directly under the occipital fracture, noting that the only realistic hypothesis is that this is bleeding due to the fracture either haemorrhaging into the extradural space or the fracture's edges damaging the outside of the dural envelope, making it bleed. The cause, Mr Calisto concluded, would therefore be blunt trauma. The injury appeared smaller on the second scan, suggesting that it was relatively recent.[100]Mr Calisto noted that intracranial subdural collections are abnormal under any circumstance and causes can include vascular malformations, rare tumours, arachnoid cysts and infections, of which there is no evidence in ‘T’s case. Other causes are iatrogenic (related to medical interventions) and traumatic.[101]In respect of the possibility of birth injury, Mr Calisto noted that asymptomatic, birth-related, subdural bleeds, in single or multiple locations, have been reported to occur in up to 46% of deliveries but the possibility that ‘T’, aged 15 weeks at the time of his CT scan, had birth related intracranial subdural collections seemed unlikely, although not unrealistic. In this respect, Mr Calisto noted that ‘T’s head circumference went from the 75th to the 99th centile over 15 weeks, possibly under the extra pressure of subdural collections.[102]There was no opportunity, Mr Calisto concluded, for iatrogenic cause and in infants and young children, head trauma is the most common cause of subdural collections. They are considered to result either from direct impact (usually smaller collections containing a high proportion of blood confined to under a skull fracture), or from severe acceleration forces acting on the head, with or without impact, like in the case of falls from heights or road traffic accidents, for example, but also in case of very vigorous shaking, when abusive head trauma occurs. Mr Calisto noted that, in infants and young children, head trauma is the most common cause of subdural collections resulting either from direct impact (usually smaller collections containing a high proportion of blood confined to under a skull fracture), or from severe acceleration forces acting on the head, with or without impact, like in case of falls from heights or road traffic accidents, for example but also in case of very vigorous shaking, when abusive head trauma occurs.[103]The most likely explanation for ‘T’s subdural collections, Mr Calisto concluded, is one or more episodes of significant head acceleration/deceleration, to account for his subdural effusions, and impact, which would explain the highly proteinaceous subdural collections found under the skull fractures. Head trauma by a mechanism of significant acceleration/deceleration and impact against a non-yielding surface, on at least one occasion but involving more than one impact, is the most likely explanation for ‘T’s head injuries.[104]As to timing, Mr Calisto noted that skull fractures cannot be dated accurately. The bright appearance of part of the subdural and extradural collections, Mr Calisto considered, would suggest that the injuries occurred, with some approximation, in the 7 to 11 days preceding the CT scan. The acute subdural effusions of darker fluid found in the subdural space are in keeping with this hypothesis, although they could also be older.[105]In conclusion, from the expert perspective of a neurosurgeon, Mr Calisto was of the opinion that in ‘T’s case, the only realistic possibility is that very recent blunt head trauma caused all three injuries. It would have involved a very significant amount of energy, as both the skull and the brain meninges were broken to the point of letting the damaged, swollen brain escape through the gap. Mr Calisto found no natural explanation or predisposing factor for ‘T’s injuries. Mr Calisto concluded that it is unlikely that ‘T’s injuries can be explained by the mechanism suggested by mother. Mr Calisto was of the opinion that ‘T’s injuries are in keeping with significant deceleration and blunt head trauma, where more than one impact occurred, quite possibly at different points in time, from incidents that have not yet been disclosed. Mr Calisto was of the opinion that ‘T’ would have presented with obvious signs and symptoms, requiring urgent medical attention. Further, in his opinion, ‘T’ is at significant risk of developing a growing skull fracture, seizures and minor/moderate problems with behaviour, processing and social functioning as a consequence of the injuries to his head.[106]Mr Calisto’s evidence was not the subject of challenge and the Court finds no reason to depart from his conclusions. Whilst noting that Mr Calisto did not have the opportunity to give an oral explanation to the Court in respect of the minor professional disagreement with Dr Williams, the Court accepts Dr Williams’ expert opinion, as outlined to the Court orally, on that issue.[107]Dr Andrew Watt, Consultant Paediatric Radiologist, produced an independent report dated 7 April 2026 following a review of the Xray imaging of ‘T’, including the skeletal survey of 10 December 2025. Dr Watt observed that ‘T’s bone density appeared normal. Bilateral skull fractures were again noted, consistent with the previous CT findings. Single layered periosteal reaction was noted to be present along the shafts of the humeri, femora and tibiae consistent with physiological periosteal reaction. There was noted to be a healing transverse fracture of the left distal radius with mild angulation. Callus formation with remodelling was evident but the fracture line was noted to be still partially visible. An adjacent buckle fracture of the left distal ulna with callus formation was evident.[108]The later skeletal survey dated 23 December 2025 was reviewed by Dr Watt. The distal radial and ulnar fractures were noted to show a slight degree of progressive healing.[109]Dr Watt commented on the left distal radial and ulnar fractures, noting that these fractures affect the distal part of the forearm near the wrist. The fractures are transverse and the ulnar fracture was noted to be incomplete. Dr Watt told the Court of his opinion that, as the fractures are adjacent and show similar healing, they probably occurred together at the same incident. Established callus formation was noted to be evident on 10 December 2025. Progressive healing was noted on 23 December 2025. Based on the radiographic findings alone, Dr Watt told the Court of his opinion that the fractures are probably between 2 and 6 weeks old on 10 December 2025.[110]Dr Watt told the Court of his opinion that the mechanism of injury for this type of fracture is bending, hyperextending or twisting of the wrist. In mobile children, Dr Watt told the Court, such injuries are usually the result of falls onto the outstretched hand. This is not the case in non-mobile infants. Dr Watt told the Court that the precise amount of force to cause such a fracture in a child of this age is not known but is inconsistent with normal handling of a child. Dr Watt was of the opinion that he would expect there to be some immediate pain, swelling and loss of function but in general, incomplete fractures tend to cause less in the way of symptoms than complete fractures. A carer present at the time of injury, Dr Watt opined, would probably have realised that a fracture had occurred. A carer who was not present at the time of injury may have been able to identify that an injury was now present depending on the degree of symptoms and loss of function of the limb.[111]Dr Watt considered that accidental trauma is unlikely, as ‘T’ could not walk or stand independently. It is not possible therefore that ‘T’ could have caused the fractures by his own actions due to an unwitnessed fall.[112]Brittle Bone Disease (Osteogenesis imperfecta), Dr Watt concluded, can be excluded as there are no radiographic features to suggest that an abnormal bone disease process (or bone dysplasia) is present. Nutritional deficiency and Rickets were also excluded by Dr Watt, who observed that radiographic changes of osteopaenia, widened and frayed metaphyses and bending of the long bones would usually be observed. There are no radiographic features to suggest a nutritional bone disease such as Rickets was present. The blood tests including vitamin D were noted to be normal. There was no clinical evidence at the time of chronic renal insufficiency and no evidence for any underlying condition. In conclusion, Dr Watts did not identify any underlying medical conditions which could result in an increased fracture risk nor was there an adequate explanation to account for the presence of ‘T’s fractures. Given the level of ‘T’s mobility, it is not possible that the fractures were caused by an unwitnessed fall. The cause of the fractures is therefore unexplained. An undisclosed inflicted injury, either intentional or unintentional, could, Dr Watt concluded, account for the fractures identified.[113]The Court was assisted by a comprehensive independent report fromDr Diana Birch, Paediatrician. Dr Birch set out a detailed and helpful summary of the background medical chronology and of the written evidence of the other independent experts.[114]Dr Birch observed that the actual history of the discovery of ‘T’s head swelling is “rather unclear and confused by the different accounts given by mother and father.” Dr Birch told the Court, “It is often the case that imaging will show a soft tissue swelling earlier than a clinical diagnosis can be made and the swelling is very evident within a very short time after injury, sometimes a matter of minutes although it can be delayed by an hour or two.” Dr Birch noted, “The parents appear to have noted a swelling in the early afternoon and hence it is likely that the underlying injury occurred very shortly before this swelling was noted. The development of a scalp swelling can be variable with some children presenting immediately and a small swelling is likely to be present very early on – however the swelling can then develop and increase in size over several days resulting sometimes in delayed presentation. A carer would however be alerted to the injury by the pain and crying of the infant at the time of injury and subsequent signs of distress such as not settling, being off feeds and general malaise.”[115]With respect to timing, Dr Birch told the Court, “Although cases can vary considerably in their presentation, nevertheless the presence of a significant scalp swelling indicates that the injury would have occurred within a week or ten days and one would expect it to have gone completely by two weeks. Nevertheless, since the swelling of the scalp is still large on presentation that would tend towards a shorter timescale.”[116]With respect to the distribution of the soft tissue swelling, Dr Birch noted Dr Willaims’ conclusion that there was a large volume, massive soft tissue swelling over the left side of the skull vault extending across the posterior midline. No convincing occipital scalp soft tissue collection or asymmetry was identified. On the right, there was no further scalp soft tissue injury. Dr Birch noted, “This contrasts with the hospital radiology findings where they describe extensive soft tissue swelling over the left temporal bone, left parietal bone, right parietal bone and occipital bone and this is reported in the Child Protection Report of [Dr D]. The matter of whether or not there was swelling over the right parietal area is important. I defer to Dr Williams, as the court appointed expert, on this point.”[117]Dr Birch noted that the CT Scan revealed a number of injuries including the scalp swelling, multiple skull fractures including bilateral parietal fractures and occipital bone fracture, which appears to have been broken twice. Dr Birch observed that the two parietal fractures were very severe, bleeding over the brain/under the fractures, bilateral extensive frontal subdural collections, part of the brain herniating through one of the fractures and a tiny abnormality in the left temporal lobe. Dr Birch told the Court, “Considering the fractures individually, the left sided swelling noted on presentation gives us a clue that the left parietal fracture was probably the freshest and most recent fracture and probably occurred quite soon before presentation.”[118]The left sided fracture was noted to run the entire length of the parietal bone in a horizontal though jagged fashion It enters the coronal and lambdoid sutures. Widening of both sutures and some displacement of the coronal suture were noted. Further, it was observed that the fracture is widened, especially posteriorly and displaced. There is also a branching pattern especially posteriorly. Dr Birch told the Court, “Posteriorly, brain and coverings extend into the fracture defect. It enters the coronal and lambdoid sutures. This is a description of a complex and severe fracture.” Dr Birch explained that the complexity of a fracture is determined by the break crossing suture lines having a branched composition and the widening of the fracture line. “This type of complex fracture,” Dr Birch told the Court, “is more often associated with non-accidental injury than with accidental causes,” adding, “Accidental fractures tend to be single, uncomplicated linear fractures affecting only the parietal bone, not crossing suture lines and less than 5mm in width.”[119]Dr Birch observed that the right sided parietal fracture also had a complex pattern, although it differs from the left in several ways. It is L-shaped and longitudinally extensive. The fracture enters the coronal and sagittal sutures. The fracture is widened and at one point there is a degree of comminution and minor depression:
“It hence also falls into the category of complex fracture.”
Importantly, Dr Birch observed, there is no associated scalp soft tissue swelling on the right comparable to the massive swelling on the left...also, as Dr Williams pointed out, there is calcification adjacent to the fracture along the inner table/dura interface. This suggests an older injury with possible old dural injury/haemorrhage and/or attempted healing of the fracture.”[120]Further, Dr Birch noted, there is also a right occipital fracture, “which is a rare fracture in an infant. The occipital bone is very hard and thick and is not prone to fracture unless the applied force is very great. The fracture is slightly displaced and has a branch which separates and extends inferiorly and laterally. There is also a formation present which could be a branch of the fracture or could represent an older, healing injury. Although there is no swelling over the fracture areas, this is a characteristic of occipital fractures due to the nature of the soft tissues at the junction of the neck and skull. The occipital fracture lines may represent two separate fractures in the right occipital bone. The blood is bright or hyperdense on CT in keeping with acute haemorrhage.”[121]Having regard to the MRI scan performed on 9 December 2025, Dr Birch observed, “This again showed that there is scalp swelling/haematoma overlying the left parietal bone and extending shortly across the midline posteriorly with no soft tissue injury over the right parietal bone. The MRI shows evidence of herniation of brain and coverings into the posterior fracture defect on the left. This is a traumatic encephalocoele. Whilst an encephalocoele can be congenital and part of an association with spina bifida – ie a neural tube defect, there is no evidence that this is congenital or genetic. In [‘T’s] case, his is a traumatic phenomenon. The MRI shows entrapped brain tissue with some localised signal change.” Dr Birch concluded, “This is indicative of a very severe injury whereby a great deal of force was applied to the tissue since both the bone of the skull and the linings – meninges – were severed and the pressure build up pushed brain tissue through the gap in the bone and torn tissues thus also damaging the brain tissue itself. This can have long term effects for function and development in a child and can cause complications such as seizures in the future.”[122]Dr Birch told the Court that ‘T’ was a normal infant with no underlying medical or inherited conditions. He is no more likely to sustain injury than any other child of his age. There is no congenital or pre-existing condition which could have caused any of these serious injuries. Dr Birch was clear in her conclusion that ‘T’, “has been subjected to trauma. [‘T’] has been exposed to significant traumatic forces to cause his injuries. The force required is way in excess of any normal handling or inept or rough handling and is such that if a carer used such force in handling [‘T’], [they] would be under no doubt that [‘T’] would be injured and similarly a witnessing carer would also know that the infant was being harmed. A non-witnessing carer would be alerted to his crying and distress and later the swelling of his scalp.”[123]Dr Birch was equally clear that birth injury can be excluded, both in terms of severity and timing. Dr Birch noted that the birth was an uncomplicated caesarean section and ‘T’ was in good condition at birth. As regards timing, Dr Birch noted, it is not possible for the recent fractures with soft tissue swelling to have occurred as long ago as birth (15 weeks before), adding that it is very rare for birth injury to occur after a caesarean section without assisted instrumental delivery. Dr Birch added that when asymptomatic brain haemorrhage has occurred in the perinatal period, no signs are visible after about 4 weeks.[124]In Dr Birch’s opinion, no satisfactory explanation has been given to account for ‘T’s very significant injuries:
“The skull injuries alone involve very severe fractures to both sides and the back of the head and hence a traumatic impact must have occurred from at least three directions. A serious road traffic accident with a degree of crushing of the part of the car holding the baby is about the only thing which could have come near causing the injuries – but differing timing would exclude such an explanation even if it were forthcoming. These fractures are not as the result of a simple domestic accident. Given the age and developmental stage whereby [‘T’] was only 13 weeks old at time of presentation, he cannot yet sit up alone and is completely non-ambulant, it is very unlikely that he could have sustained an accident which was not observed by the carers. Such an accident would need to have been significant and forceful in order to produce a head injury and fractured skull and could not have gone unnoticed. The sort of accident which would produce a fracture would be a significant event with considerable force and would not be a trivial domestic accident. Moreover, the child would have been in considerable pain and distress after such an accident and on sustaining the head injury, which would have been evident to the carers. Such an accident would be evident to any carer present and they would know that the child was likely to have suffered significant injury. Thus far, no accident has been described which could be responsible for the degree of trauma experienced.”
[125]Dr Birch expressed the opinion that, “the force required to fracture the skull in a child of this age would need to be high. The sutures and anterior fontanelle are usually still unfused in a child of this age thus the skull vault is malleable requiring a larger force to cause fractures than in an older individual with fused skull bones. Thus far, no event involving sufficient force or a fall from a high enough level or onto a hard enough surface has been described.” Having regard to the injury to ‘T’s arm, Dr Birch told the Court, “The fractures would have involved application of considerable force and it is unlikely that an unreported accident could have caused this fracture which is likely to have involved some twisting pulling action. An older child can acquire such a fracture from a fall on an outstretched arm, but this is not possible at [‘T’s] age.”[126]Dr Birch concluded, “In summary we have a 15-week-old baby who has sustained a number of injuries over probably an approximate 6-week period, perhaps slightly longer for the arm fractures, and likely extending up to the day of presentation for the most recent skull fracture, the left parietal. The injuries have involved different applications of force at least one pulling twisting type action to the left forearm which was probably 2 to 6 weeks prior to presentation; one or two very significant forces to the back of the head to produce one or possibly two occipital fractures; one significant force to the right side of the head to produce the right parietal fracture which is likely to have been at least 2 weeks before the left fracture given the absorption of the soft tissue swelling. One significant force to the left parietal area likely to have occurred within minutes or maximum of a couple of hours prior to presentation. Hence, it is likely that [‘T’] has been injured several times over a prolonged period of time. These injuries have not been reported although it is likely that he had been in considerable pain.”[127]Dr Birch was clear in telling the Court of her opinion that, “it is very likely that these injuries are non-accidental inflicted injuries both due to their nature and due to the absence of any alternative explanation.”[128]Dr Birch told the Court that she took into consideration the entire picture of medical evidence, presentation and investigations, as well as the background risk factors and the history:
“Here we do not have a history of any significant incidents which could have contributed to the injuries. There have been social concerns regarding domestic violence, parental mental health and parental substance abuse.”
Dr Birch observed that the parents have given statements and described some explanations, “which do not really fit the injuries and their accounts are in many ways in conflict with each other. Also, misleading information was given by Mother to [Dr D] at the Child Protection medical regarding the father of [‘T’] – saying that it was the father of the older sibling who was violent and not [‘T’s] father. She does not say that it is the same father nor that the father was present at the time that swelling was noted nor that the father first pointed out the swelling.[129]With regard to the mother’s account that in early November, ‘O’, ‘T’ and the mother were sleeping on a blow-up mattress at the maternal grandmother’s property, the mother heard a thump and she woke to find ‘T’ was on the wooden floor, Dr Birch observed that the mother indicated she fed ‘T’ and he went back to sleep easily, concluding, “This would be a very low level fall which would be more of a roll off than a fall and the blow up mattress is more or less on floor level – if anything a matter of a few centimetres thickness,” Dr Birch concluded that it would be “almost impossible” and “most unlikely” for an event of this nature to cause the severity of injury seen in ‘T’.[130]Having regard to the mother’s explanation of events of 7 December 2026, when the mother returned to the room where ‘T’ was positioned and ‘O’ had fallen into ‘T’, Dr Birch told the Court, “From this description it seems that if [‘O’] had fallen onto [‘T’] it is likely that he sat astride him with his legs over him and not impacting forcefully with his bottom...Father was apparently present throughout and has not expressed concerns that [‘O’] sat on ‘T’s head. A great deal of emphasis has been placed on the fact that [‘O’] is said to have been a very big boy with the assumption that he could hence have injured [‘T’]. I have plotted [‘O’s] growth…we can see that his weight was not excessive and usually around the 75th centile which is perfectly acceptable for a child of 21 months and he would not be excessively prone to injuring his brother. The accounts of [‘O’s] movements have not convinced me that he has had anything to do with [‘T’s] injuries.”[131]Commenting further on the mother’s explanations, Dr Birch observed, “As she [the mother] moved around the cot, mother says that she caught [‘T’s] head on the plastic corner of the cot but she was not moving fast so it was a gentle tap. Such a light touch onto the plastic edge of the bed is unlikely to have caused sufficient force for any of [‘T’s] injuries. She put [‘T’] into the cot and whilst changing him, thought he was being a bit fussy. Father came back into the room and watched. He then said that [‘T’s] head looked ‘swollen’ and when Mother looked at his head, she noticed the swelling too. Mother’s immediate thought was whether [‘O’] had jumped on ‘T’s head whilst she was in the bathroom…there have also been times that [‘O’] has got into the moses basket with [‘T’] for example in October [‘O’] climbed down from the bed and stepped into [‘T’s] moses basket. She heard ruffling and crying on the baby monitor and found [‘O’] standing in the basket. Mother has also said that the injury had occurred when both she and [‘T’] were sleeping in the bed, in the master bedroom. [‘O’] had come in and climbed onto the bed, and begun bouncing on it, before falling over and landing on [‘T’s] head. This is a slightly different account indicating mother was present when [‘O’] had fallen onto [‘T’] and not in the bathroom.”[132]Having considered the mother’ accounts, Dr Birch told the Court, “In my extensive experience of sibling pairs and infantile injuries I have never come across a 21-month-old child producing severe injuries of an infant sibling but there are very many cases where this has been put forward as an explanation. Injuries are usually limited to bruising and minor injuries or in the case of older (usually teenage) siblings who can actually pick up and drop an infant.”[133]Dr Birch also noted the father’s description of the mother becoming intoxicated with nitrous oxide from inhalation of balloons and that she would be very angry and disorientated after ‘coming down’ from the balloons. The father described that at these times, the mother acted erratically and angrily towards the children and he was very concerned for ‘T’s welfare. This was particularly bad, he said, in early December 2025. Dr Birch noted the father’s account that on 5 December 2026 (he has since told the Court the incident was 7 December 2025) that he was vacuuming the mother’s property and whilst vacuuming ‘O’s bedroom, the father heard ‘T’ crying in the mother’s bedroom. The father noted that this sounded different to ‘T’s usual cry and it sounded as if ‘T’ was “air bound letting out a squeal. I could not explain the sound as I had never heard it before. I was not sure what I could hear so decided to stop the hoover a few times to listen to him properly. Every time I stopped the hoover, the crying stopped, so I carried on hoovering, I did this a few times then heard ‘T’ cry out hysterically. I thought [Mother] was up to something, so went to check on him. I left the hoover running this time and took off my sliders and crept in to her bedroom, where I saw [Mother] shouting at ‘T’ full of rage, she said; ‘drink your f**king milk, you’re p***ing me off now!’ [Mother] turned around and was shocked to see me standing there, she looked at me and said; ‘it’s you, it’s you, it’s you and [‘O’], you’re making him cry’. I told her to put [‘T’] down. I walked up to her and told her to stop shouting at him. I tried to intervene and get to [‘T’] however, she picked him up first and glared at me for several seconds where I saw the whites of her eyes and she didn’t appear normal, she looked psychotic and had been behaving similar over the last few days. I left the room and continued hoovering the stairs which lead to the front door of the flat then all of a sudden heard [‘T’] crying again so ran into her room. When I walked in I saw [‘O’] standing at the headboard of the double bed trying to look out of the window, with [‘T’] lying next to him unattended. It looked as if [Mother] had done this intentionally, it was as if she wanted [‘O’] to hurt him. I found this odd and from what I saw it looked as if [‘O’] may have jumped or stepped on [‘T’] to get to the window however, I cannot say for certain this happened as I did not witness it. [Mother] came back into the room quickly; she picked [‘T’] up and he seemed ok. An hour later, I was cooking some food for me and [‘O’] and whilst playing with him I was chasing him around the flat and as I went back in the bedroom, I noticed [Mother] had brushed [‘T’s] hair in a different direction to his usual parting and used cream or gel to set his hair. I had never seen her do this before however, noticed a small bump on his head and asked her why he had a bump there, I touched his head and stroked the bump and he began to scream in pain. I was genuinely concerned [‘O’] had caused this bump earlier however, [Mother] said he was fine. Later on, [Mother] asked me to go to the shops and buy her a pack of ice poles. It was December and freezing, so I asked her why she wanted them and she told me it was to help her with her cold and her comedown from the balloons. I did as she asked and went to the shop however, upon returning I noticed the bump on [‘T’s] head had expanded and the swelling was worse than before. [Mother] took a picture of the swelling then video called her mum. I asked her why she was calling her mum as we needed to call an ambulance immediately. [Mother’s] mum also asked her on the call, why she had rang her, she needed to call an ambulance. [Mother] hung up then started to panic and blame me, she said it was because I gave [‘T’] Calpol. I was not sure what she meant by this. I recall [‘O’] was unwell with a fever so I had given him Calpol earlier that day. I remember suggesting we should give [‘T’] some Calpol for his congestion however, I did not give him any as [Mother] had given him some already. Then all of sudden [Mother] said, ‘[‘O’] done it, [‘O’] done it!’ in a flustered tone. I began to become concerned why she was acting like that; jumping from person to person, looking for someone to blame. During this time, I was attending to [‘O’] and setting him up on his tablet and putting him in his bedroom. [Mother] called the ambulance, then walked up to me, muting the call, she started begging and pleading with me to leave, she was getting emotional and told me I was not supposed to be there, and I had to leave now.”[134]Dr Birch observed, “There is much conflict between the accounts of mother and father. Certainly, if the father’s account is accurate, there’s a high level of concern with respect to mother’s intoxication with nitrous oxide and her risk to the children while in this state or whilst coming down from the drugs.” Noting that it is for the Court to decide which account is correct, if either, Dr Birch observed, “The ultimate position at present however is that we have a child with multiple severe injuries and no feasible explanation for how these were acquired.”[135]Having regard to prognosis, Dr Birch told the Court that ‘T’, “seems to have made a good clinical recovery at present and it would appear that he did not have a serious degree of encephalopathy on presentation…he was fully conscious, however this does not preclude the possibility that he could have lost consciousness earlier or in response to the earlier injuries. It is of concern that he had a small piece of brain tissue which was herniated between the edges of the broken bone…this could cause later problems and seizures. Children who have sustained head injuries are liable to developmental and cognitive difficulties later on and it is advisable to follow up infants at least until school entry to diagnose problems. Many milder brain function problems can go unrecognised. Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is the leading cause of death and disability in children. TBI in children result in a range of traumatic injuries to the scalp, skull, and brain that are comparable to those in adults but differ in both pathophysiology and management. The differences are attributable to age-related structural change, mechanism of injuries based on physical ability of the child, and the difficulty in neurological evaluation of paediatric populations. The scalp is highly vascularized and a potential cause of lethal blood loss. Even a small loss of blood volume can lead to haemorrhagic shock in a newborn, infant, and toddler, which may occur without apparent external bleeding. Therefore, children are considered to exhibit a specific pathological response to brain injury and accompanying neurological symptoms.”[136]In ‘T’s case specifically, Dr Birch told the Court, “We have the problem of ‘growing skull fracture’, which can be associated with the herniated piece of brain tissue previously discussed. In developing infants or young children, a leptomeningeal cyst or herniated brain tissue through dura mater can result in enlargement of the fracture line. This is due to localized pulsatile pressure via lesions that are adhered to the inner table of the skull. Such pathological changes on the skull bone will facilitate nutritional deficiencies, especially at the bone edges. In most cases, cosmetic issues such as cranial depression or pulsatile swelling are diagnostic factors, whereas headache and seizures may be observed in some cases.”[137]In this Court’s judgement, the independent expert evidence of Dr Birch was comprehensive, compelling and reliable.[138]In this case, the independent expert evidence is largely uncontroversial. The unanimous independent expert evidence suggests that that there were at least three separate episodes of abusive handling. Further, the expert evidence is clear that the person who handled ‘T’ during each episode would have known that they had inflicted harm to him. After hearing all the evidence, no party sought to challenge that consensus of independent expert evidence.[139]It is the mother’s case that the Court should find that the father perpetrated each injury to ‘T’ and that she, ‘T’s mother, did not. Her secondary position is that the Court should conclude that the evidence does not enable the Court to determine on the balance of probabilities which of the parents inflicted each injury, which would in this case result in a pool finding in relation to each parent. It is the father’s case that the Court should find that the mother perpetrated each injury to ‘T’. The Local Authority, in closing submissions, invited the Court to find that it is more probable that the mother has caused the injuries to ‘T’. The Guardian submits that the evidence before the Court would support a finding that the mother is more likely to have inflicted the injuries to ‘T’ than the father.[140]The totality of the evidence from all sources leads to a plain conclusion that the parents’ relationship was characterised by domestic abuse and illicit substance misuse.[141]The maternal grandmother is reported to have struggled to care for the mother during the mother’s teenage years, resulting in the mother living with another family member at 13 years and then being accommodated by the Local Authority at age 15. The mother displayed challenging behaviour at school and is reported to have engaged in risk taking behaviour, including missing episodes, becoming involved in criminality and drug use and being at risk of sexual exploitation. She has six criminal convictions during the ages of 17 to 21 years, including two offences against the person She experienced a number of different placement moves. Records suggest that she was the victim of a number of significant sexual assaults. She was supported by the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service for 12 months. Within that period, she made two attempts to take her own life by overdose and spoke of wanting to jump off her balcony. In 2018, she was admitted to hospital under the Mental Health Act 1983 at the age of 17. The mother was diagnosed as having a ‘Reactive attachment disorder of childhood’. On the mother’s own account, she experiences PTSD, anxiety and depression as a result of her childhood trauma.[142]The mother gave evidence to the Court at length. The mother told the Court that following ‘T’s birth, she struggled with postnatal depression, which she described as ‘baby blues’. The mother appears to have sought help from her GP and from a midwife. However, in oral evidence, she denied that she was feeling overwhelmed or tired. It appears she declined anti-depressants when offered by her GP. Following ‘T’s birth, the mother was caring for an active toddler, ‘O’, in addition to ‘T’ as a new-born. The mother also reports grieving the loss of her grandmother on 15 November 2025. The mother’s support network largely comprised her sister and mother. On her evidence, she received some but limited help in the period from mid-September 2025 onwards following her grandmother’s diagnosis of terminal illness and her subsequent passing.[143]Against the background of those significant vulnerabilities, the mother misused substances, including the regular use of nitrous oxide and the use of cannabis, on her admission. Immediately prior to ‘T’ being admitted to hospital, both children were unwell with cold or flu-like symptoms. The mother reports that she too was unwell with flu. Plainly, the mother was under significant pressure, much of which was outside of her control.[144]Regrettably, the mother’s evidence was not reliable in a number of significant respects. The mother was not honest with the police during her formal interview under caution as to the fact that the father had been staying at her property with the children. She also failed initially to identify him as ‘T’s father. The parents both accept that the father used a fictitious name during antenatal appointments and when attending ‘T’s birth, in order to dishonestly conceal the father’s identity by way of a sustained attempt at deception of professionals regarding the nature and continuity of their relationship.On the father’s account, the mother suggested and encouraged him to use that alias. When challenged about the use of the name, the mother's evidence was evasive. Her claimed lack of knowledge on matters which plainly concerned her own relationship was unconvincing.[145]The mother told the Court generally that she behaved dishonestly due to fear of the father's reaction and concern about professional disapproval of their continuing relationship. It is plain from the evidence that the Local Authority had concerns about domestic abuse in the parental relationship. The mother made allegations against the father of serious violence on 27 April 2024, leading to the father being remanded in custody and criminal proceedings commencing in June 2024. The mother did not support that prosecution. The parents continued to engage in a relationship. Both parents were secretive and dishonest with professionals about that relationship, in particular following the Local Authority’s decision to place ‘O’ on a Child Protection Plan in July 2024.[146]It is plain that the mother sought through her words and actions to conceal the ongoing relationship with the father when engaging with professionals, including medical staff, police and Social Workers, including telling professionals that she had not seen the father for a year and denying that anyone else had cared for ‘T’. Deliberate misinformation was given during the child protection investigation. Moreover, the mother told the Court in oral evidence that she lied to the police “initially” but did not provide further information to the police asking, “How can I tell the police when there’s an ongoing investigation? I let them investigate what’s going on. They’ve got my phone. They can do forensics on my flat.” In circumstances where the purposes of the investigation was to identify harm to ‘T’ and to take measures to protect him, the mother's willingness to mislead professionals and not provide assistance to get to the truth of such a fundamental issue relating to the injury of her child substantially undermines confidence in the completeness and reliability of her accounts.[147]The Court has considered whether the concealment of the relationship may itself have been a manifestation of coercive control and fear of the consequences of the professionals discovering the ongoing parental relationship. In this regard, the Court recognises that domestic abuse victims may remain in abusive relationships due to coercion, fear, financial dependence and emotional attachment amongst other factors. The Court has considered whether the dishonesty on the part of the mother and the father in concealing their relationship might be explained by the domestic abuse dynamics. In her oral evidence, the mother told the Court that she did not tell anyone about her pregnancy with ‘T’, including her mother and sister, “As I was scared of being judged…I felt embarrassed…it was a fear of being criticised and shamed…it was almost like I was getting blamed for getting abused…I deliberately held the information back. I was indecisive.” The mother told the Court that feelings of shame were the dominant reason for her failure to disclose the ongoing relationship, adding, “I was not too worried about safety.” The mother added, “I kept going back because of the apologies and saying he would change…I took some time away. Sometimes we were seeing each other. I continued seeing him. He was continuing to see [‘O’].”[148]The father challenged the mother’s account that she had not told her mother and sister about the relationship. He told the Court that the maternal grandmother and maternal aunt knew of the parents’ ongoing relationship, “She was on Facetime with them in my house.” He told the Court that he wished to remain in a relationship with the mother, adding, “We wanted to have a second baby. We had a little kick off in January [2025]. She spat in my face. Ten days after, she said she was pregnant. We got back together instantly. I thought maybe she would change. It was a family I always wanted.” The father told the Court that it was the mother’s suggestion that he use a false name when attending antenatal appointments and attending at ‘T’s birth:
“She told me to use my snapchat name, so professionals did not know we were in a relationship. She said, don’t use your name as it will flag it up on the systems.”
The father told the Court that the mother was staying at his property, “She was constantly coming back and forth. Her mother and sister were aware. They all got on Facetime together. They were not concerned.”[149]The fact that the mother repeatedly returned to the relationship would not, of itself, undermine allegations of domestic abuse or fear. Victims of domestic abuse can remain in abusive relationships for complex reasons. While this Court does not consider it necessary to determine the mother’s individual allegations of domestic abuse, the Court has nevertheless considered whether taking the mother’s allegations at their highest, the concealment and dishonesty could properly be explained by coercion or fear. For the reasons that follow, the Court does not consider the evidence establishes such a causal connection.[150]There were other aspects of the mother’s evidence which were not reliable. One of the key index events was 7 December 2025. The mother contacted the 999 emergency services requesting an ambulance. The Ambulance Service notes record that the mother provided a history of ‘T’ having a runny nose and congestion for two days, with reduced oral intake. She is noted to have told the ambulance service that she gave ‘T’ Calpol (paracetamol suspension) and was concerned that ‘T’s head looked swollen. The emergency call was upgraded as the emergency call handler heard excessive crying and difficulty in breathing. ‘T’ was identified by the ambulance service as being in his cot, wearing a baby grow and demonstrating a strong cry. He was noted to be alert and orientated.[151]The mother provided differing and changing accounts concerning the events of 7 December 2025. The most obvious concern relates to the evolution of the mother's description of events on the day ‘T’ was admitted to hospital.During the 999 call the mother repeatedly denied that ‘T’ had banged or knocked his head.That response is difficult to reconcile with later accounts in which she referred to ‘O’ jumping on or falling on to ‘T’, the suggestion that she herself had knocked ‘T’s head gently against the cot and the unusual suggestion that ‘T’s head became swollen after he was administered Calpol to treat his symptoms of flu. The explanation provided by the mother of hitting ‘T’s head on the cot emerged as a detail later in time and was not mentioned during the 999 call. The omission of any reference to physical impact when specifically asked has not reliably been explained.[152]The mother's accounts concerning ‘O’ changed repeatedly. At various times she suggested that ‘O’ stepped or jumped on ‘T’, that she was asleep when this occurred, that she was in the bathroom when it occurred, that she discovered ‘O’ on or near ‘T’ or that she merely speculated afterwards whether he may have caused injury. These accounts are not easily reconciled. There is no identifiable stable and coherent account from the mother regarding what she says occurred before the swelling to ‘T’s head appeared.[153]The father criticises the mother's report to police in February 2026 in which she asserted, for the first time, that the father had hurt the baby and that she woke to find a bump on ‘T’s head.That allegation sits uneasily with the explanations she advanced previously in these proceedings. It was not developed in her statements and was not pursued as part of her evidential case.The Court regards that late allegation as lacking reliability and the Court attaches little weight to it.[154]The mother has asserted that she is afraid of the father. The evidence before the Court leads to a conclusion that the mother and father were both abusive to each other, physically and emotionally. The father produced video footage from his doorbell video camera which vividly shows the mother attempting to kick down the front door of the address he shares with the paternal grandfather. When the father opened the door, the mother proceeded to assault the father by striking him about the head, leaving the property and returning very shortly after to physically assault him again by striking him about the head, all the presence of the paternal grandfather. The mother was evidently in a dysregulated state and was being verbally abusive. The father, on the recording, appears not to retaliate and he attempts to diffuse the situation. The snapshot of the incident captured on camera must properly be seen in the context of the father being aware that the incident was being recorded on his father’s video doorbell camera, which may go some way to explain his reaction. Further, the context leading to the mother’s acts of aggression cannot be ascertained from the short video evidence. The Court recognises that victims of domestic abuse may themselves engage in aggressive, retaliatory or violent behaviour. The Court recognises that one episode of the mother as aggressor does not necessarily undermine the proposition that she was afraid of the father at other times. The Court acknowledges that an act of aggression by a victim of domestic abuse is not necessarily inconsistent with fear and that victim behaviour may be counterintuitive at times.[155]In this case, there is further evidence before the Court of the mother’s propensity to violence. The father relies on other video evidence of the mother assaulting a person who appears to be a vulnerable adult by pushing him out of a car and verbally abusing him. When addressing this evidence, the mother told the Court that she was “under the influence.” When pressed further, the mother told the Court, “pills and drinking. MDMA. Rum,” adding, “I can hold my own if I need to.” The mother accepted that she can be violent and aggressive, adding, “under the influence.”[156]With regard to her use of nitrous oxide, the mother’s evidence was not, I find, entirely reliable. While the mother accepted using ‘balloons’ in November 2025, including while caring for the children, she denied the use of balloons in December 2025. When asked what substance she was inhaling from the balloons, the mother told the Court, “I don’t know.” When asked further in cross-examination on this issue, the mother denied ever purchasing nitrous oxide. However, when audio evidence was put to her where she had been recorded ordering nitrous oxide, the mother told the Court, “I never purchased them. I never used my money.” This Court found the mother’s evidence to be evasive. She repeatedly failed to answer questions on this and other issues in a direct manner. She denied the nitrous oxide had the effect of making her angry, as asserted by the father, telling the Court, “It made me sleepy, tired really.” Notwithstanding clear photographic evidence of her lying on the bed inhaling from a balloon while ‘T’ was lying beside her, the mother denied that there was ever a time when she laid on the bed with ‘T’. She then told the Court that she could not remember if she ever used balloons when lying on the bed. The Court did not find the mother’s evidence in this regard to be reliable.[157]The mother accepted using cannabis throughout November 2025, adding “I smoked a fair amount into November.” When asked if this was in the presence of the children, the mother told the Court, “Just off the balcony…maybe…I don’t know, [the children] would have been with their Dad or grandad. They wasn’t always beside me…I don’t remember continuing smoking past November.” When asked about the effect of cannabis on her, the mother told the Court, “A bit paranoid sometimes.”[158]The mother accepted in oral evidence that she lied to Local Authority Children's Services. She accepted that she lied to the police regarding her drug use in the presence of the children. When put to her that she also lied about the injury to ‘T’s head when claiming the swelling to the head was caused by Calpol, the mother told the Court, “If that was the case, I would have covered it up…I would have said he fell.” The mother invites the Court to conclude that she is a witness of truth by accepting that, had she inflicted the injuries to her son, she would have covered it up. That is not an easy invitation to accept.[159]The Court had the benefit of observing the mother’s reaction to the police welfare visit to her home at 21:00 on 7 December 2025, following ‘T’ being presented to hospital, evidenced in the police bodycam footage. The mother presented as being upset and voiced that she was scared. The police officer recorded, “It appears that this was a concern that she was going to be in trouble due to the injury. Officers informed her that their reason for coming was to complete a welfare check on the family which seemed to calm her.” When the mother was later arrested, the mother can be seen from the police bodycam footage to be highly distressed and dysregulated. She repeated, “I did everything right, I called an ambulance…someone just kill me now. I don’t want to go into a cell. They’re going to section me…I don’t want to be in a cell I get panic attacks…I’ll be thinking of harming myself…I don’t want to be alone with my thoughts.”[160]The Court has considered the possibility of the mother’s evidence being unreliable by reason of faulty recognition or confusion at a time of stress. The Court does not conclude that the problematic areas of the mother’s evidence fall into these categories nor that there is a benign reason that might account for that unreliability. Taken cumulatively, the problematic areas of the mother’s evidence which pertain to the core issues lead the Court to conclude that the mother's evidence must be approached with considerable caution, that it cannot be regarded as wholly reliable on the central factual issues in dispute and that on many of those core issues, it is likely that the mother’s pattern of misleading information was intended to conceal information relevant to the investigation. The Court accepts that shame, fear of criticism and the dynamics of the relationship may have contributed to some aspects of the mother’s dishonesty. However, the Court does not accept that they adequately explain the particularly misleading accounts relevant to the causation of ‘T’s injuries.[161]The father was assessed as having some cognitive deficits. The expert evidence in this regard from Dr Farhy was not the subject of challenge. The Court accepts that the father has cognitive vulnerabilities. The Court has borne those vulnerabilities in mind when assessing the quality of his evidence.[162]The father too experienced a difficult childhood. He reports having been groomed and manipulated into participation in criminal activities, including being involved in organised criminal county lines drug supplying during his youth. His criminal record evidences twelve convictions, which include drug offences and violent offences in his youth and into early adulthood. He tells the Court that he suffered a knife attack in the early Summer of 2025, necessitating a lengthy period of hospitalisation. He tells the Court of experiencing low self-esteem and vulnerability to manipulation.[163]In this Court’s judgement, during his oral evidence, the father largely answered questions in a direct manner, without evasion and he was largely more willing to accept aspects of the case that were adverse to him, including in respect of his own substance misuse and domestic abuse. In respect of substance misuse, he told the Court that both he and the mother “did balloons” at his property and at the mother’s property when the children were in the properties with them. He also accepted that both he and the mother used opioids prescribed to the paternal grandfather. In respect of domestic abuse, he accepted that the relationship between him and the mother was volatile, involving arguments, swearing, shouting, threats of violence and that at times, “hands were put” on each other. He accepted that the children would have been exposed to that behaviour and that it would have impacted them emotionally. He told the Court, “That would not have been good for them. I’m sorry about that…I let my children down massively.” He told the Court that the relationship was “so toxic and volatile. It wasn’t like how a proper relationship should be, thinking back on it,” adding that he did not know the extent of the mother’s allegations against him pertaining to domestic abuse, adding, “She said she’d get domestic points and live in a lovely two-bedroom flat.”[164]The father told the Court that when the mother and children stayed at the paternal grandfather’s property, the father would sleep on the sofa and the mother and children would have the bed. He told the Court that he did not have a key for the mother’s property. When he stayed at the mother’s property, he told the Court that he would sleep with ‘O’ “all the time, because she [the mother] was very abusive.” He described how the mother “segregated” herself from ‘T’ and from the father, telling the Court, “She did not interact with us. She’d keep herself separate in her bedroom, doing her balloons there. I couldn’t say much. I was with [‘O’] the majority of the time. I wanted to spend time with [‘T’]. I never had the opportunity to bathe him or change his nappy once. I changed his clothes once in October when he was newly born.” The father added, “She did not interact with [‘O’].” In respect of the medical evidence that suggests ‘T’ suffered a fractured arm much earlier in time prior to 7 December 2025, the father told the Court, “Maybe that’s why she would not let anyone near him.”[165]In the days immediately prior to ‘T’s admission to hospital, the father asserts that he cared primarily for ‘O’ and that the mother segregated herself with ‘T’ away from the father and ‘O’. In this Court’s judgement, the father gave credible evidence when describing these arrangements.[166]The father did not provide any detailed account as to the events of 7 December 2026 until filing his statement dated 25 March 2026. His detailed account did not emerge until that witness statement. Those matters unquestionably create credibility concerns. His cognitive limitations and emotional dependence upon the mother may partially explain his passivity. He makes significant allegations against the mother within that statement. He appears not have raised those concerns with professionals as to the mother’s conduct until after the parents had separated. According to the father, on or about 7 December 2025, he heard unusual cries from ‘T’. He heard the mother speaking angrily in ‘T’s presence, directed at ‘T’. He observed concerning conduct by the mother towards ‘T’. He later noticed a swelling on ‘T’s head. He did not contact emergency services. He did not report these matters to professionals. He left the mother’s property before the ambulance arrived. He told the Court that the mother “begged” him to leave the property, adding, “I thought I was doing her a favour. If I knew what she’d done, I wouldn’t have left.” He added, “I was believing what she was telling me. I just didn’t think at the time. I regret it. I was stupid. I should have called 999. I was not thinking she was doing all this madness. If I’d thought that, I would have been the first person to call the police.”[167]In oral evidence the father described hearing ‘T’ cry:
“I know the difference between a normal cry and weird cry. It made me want to catch out what she was doing. I’d never heard that cry before...I heard him cry out hysterically. That lives on in my head. [The mother] was shouting at [‘T’] full of rage, saying ‘drink your f**king milk’.”
He then described one hour later cooking food when he noticed the mother had brushed ‘T’s hair differently, to the left and back, using gel to cover over the bump to ‘T’s head. He described stroking ‘T’s hair over the bump, whereupon ‘T’ screamed in pain. He told the Court that the mother told him to go to the shops to buy ice poles and red bulls, “to help her come down.” He told the Court that he thought it was a “bit weird” that the mother wanted ice lollies in December.[168]The father told the Court that the mother had been, “inhaling balloons continuously for a few days. When she came down, she would be angry, moody and irritable. She’d refuse to eat and she’d be bed bound. She’d have a lack of energy. I’d never known anyone to get a come down from balloons. She did.” He told the Court that the mother would become, “very rude and very nasty” when taking nitrous oxide:
“She gets really aggressive on them.”
The father’s oral evidence was supported by photographic evidence of the mother in bed, lying next to ‘T’ while she appears to be inhaling from a balloon. The father told the Court, “I reported her to the police because she was in bed with my baby with a gas cannister. He told the Court that when he took that photograph of the mother lying on the bed next to ‘T’ inhaling nitrous oxide, the mother, “shot off the bed and tried to fight me.”[169]On those core areas of his evidence, being the mother’s continuous use of nitrous oxide, her increased anger and aggression at that time, his account of directly witnessing the mother shout at ‘T’ and his evidence of directly hearing ‘T’ cry out hysterically when ‘T’ was with the mother in her room, the father’s evidence was consistent throughout proper cross-examination by leading Counsel and each of the advocates. In this Court’s judgement, the evidence of the father in this respect was compelling.[170]The Guardian expressed concern as to the father’s passivity and an apparent inability to assert himself in the children’s interests, even when he was fully aware of the risks to which they were being exposed. The Guardian expressed concern about the father’s wish not to provoke the mother, whom he feared would make trouble for him and that this was at the expense of his children’s safety. In oral evidence, the father told the Court, “I assumed it was the grief of her Nan. I felt sorry for her…I never thought she would do that to her kids. I didn’t think I was in a position to do anything...she controlled everything. She called all the shots about everything.”[171]The mother submits that the father curated evidence and built a case against her. Particular reliance is placed upon the father’s use of covert recordings, doorbell video footage, photographs of substance misuse, video recording of confrontations and collecting material adverse to the mother. The father did provide as exhibits to his statements, some photographic evidence of positive times involving the mother, the father and ‘O’. He has also provided evidence that has portrayed the mother negatively. Whether motivated by concern or self-preservation, that does not mean the material he relies on was fabricated. However, it does require caution when evaluating whether the father's accounts are objective. The Court also places in the balance the father’s firmly held belief that at the time ‘T’ was presented to hospital on 7 December 2025, the mother was not suffering flu-like symptoms but was fabricating illness, instead, experiencing a come down from substances. There is clear evidence that both children were unwell with coryzal symptoms suggestive of a head cold or respiratory infection. On the police bodycam footage of the mother’s arrest shortly after ‘T’ was admitted to hospital, the mother can be seen coughing and showing signs of nasal discharge. It is not difficult to conclude that the mother was experiencing similar coryzal symptoms to the children, making her feel unwell. The father’s insistence that the mother was fabricating illness lends some weight to the submission that he was seeking to portray the mother negatively. The Court also takes into consideration the fact that the mother, by reason of her phone being retained by police, has not been able to produce evidence which she might otherwise have sought to rely on to support her case.[172]Putting everything in the balance, the Court is compelled to conclude on all the evidence that ‘T’ sustained each of the injuries pleaded by the Local Authority in its schedule of findings. The Court finds that the injuries involved different applications of force, specifically at least one pulling twisting type action to the left forearm, probably two to six weeks prior to presentation, one or two very significant forces to the back of the head to produce one or possibly two occipital fractures, one significant force to the right side of the head to produce the right parietal fracture, likely to have been at least two weeks before the left fracture given the absorption of the soft tissue swelling and one significant force to the left parietal area, likely to have occurred within minutes or maximum of a couple of hours prior to presentation.[173]The Court finds that ‘T’ sustained the injuries due to rough handling by his carer and/or being deliberately harmed by his carer as a result of loss of temper or some other loss of control. The parents’ respective drugs use, partially accepted by the parents, is likely to have been a factor impacting on their parenting, by changing or exacerbating their changeable moods and affecting their capacity to make safe, child-focussed decisions. The expert evidence by way of drug testing of both parents indicates polysubstance misuse by each parent at a time when the children were in their presence and care.[174]This is not a case on the evidence where the injuries or any of the injures was caused by a lack of vigilance or a lack of supervision by his carer.The Court finds that the explanations the mother gave to the clinicians to explain the injuries are not credible and would not account for the severity of the injuries to the child. Further, the Court finds that for the majority of the material times when it is likely the injuries to ‘T’ occurred, the mother was the main or sole carer for the child. The Court finds paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 13, 14, and 15 of the Local Authority’s pleaded threshold statement are proved.[175]Further, the Court finds that the mother and the father have had a conflicted relationship which has involved allegations of significant domestic abuse. The Court finds that domestic conflict between the parents has exposed the children to the likelihood of significant emotional harm through witnessing or being present when such harm has occurred. The Court finds paragraph 16 of the Local Authority’s pleaded threshold statement to be proved.[176]In respect of the mother’s specific allegations against the father, in this Court’s judgement, it is not necessary for the Court to proceed to make findings in respect of each of the allegations of domestic abuse set out in the mother’s schedule. PD12J to the Family Procedure Rules 2010 reminds us of the general principle thatdomestic abuse is harmful to children and puts children at risk of harm, including where they are victims of domestic abuse for example by witnessing one of their parents being violent or abusive to the other parent, or living in a home in which domestic abuse is perpetrated, even if the child is too young to be conscious of the behaviour. Children may suffer direct physical, psychological and/or emotional harm from living with and being victims of domestic abuse and may also suffer harm indirectly where the domestic abuse impairs the parenting capacity of either or both of their parents.[177]The Court is satisfied that the findings made in respect of paragraph 16 of the Local Authority’s schedule of allegations provide sufficient factual basis for any future welfare report, in order to provide a basis for an accurate assessment of risk, before the Court can consider any final welfare-based orders in relation to the arrangements for the children child arrangements and before it considers the need for a domestic abuse intervention. In this Court’s judgement, the finding sought by the Local Authority at paragraph 16 of its schedule and found by the Court to be proved, sufficiently reflects the toxicity of the relationship between the parents and the consequential harm to the children. The Court is not satisfied it is necessary nor proportionate to proceed to make additional findings in respect of the mother’s disputed allegations. The Court has considered, if every individual allegation is not determined, whether the existence of coercive and controlling behaviour may explain aspects of the mother’s conduct. The Court concludes that it would not. The Court observes that there are problematic aspects in respect of the credibility of each parent’s evidence at times, particularly that of the mother. In this Court’s judgement, having regard to the PD12J principles, resolving the individual disputed accounts of domestic abuse is not necessary to resolve these proceedings justly.[178]In this case, the Court has found ‘T’ to have suffered injures which have been inflicted, as opposed to being accidental or natural origin. There are two possible perpetrators: the mother or the father.[179]The Court has considered by way of assessment of the evidence, whether there is sufficient evidence to identify a single perpetrator on the balance of probabilities. On assessment of the considerable volume of evidence available, this is a case where the Court must properly conclude that the mother is more likely than the father to have been responsible.[180]The mother has at all times asserted that she was ‘T’s primary carer from birth until 7 December 2025.For the very large majority of the material time when ‘T’ sustained the injuries described, ‘T’ was in the exclusive, sole care of his mother. On the evidence before the Court, the mother spent most of her time separately with ‘T’ away from the father and ‘O’. She spent much time caring for ‘T’ separately from ‘O’, staying in a room away from them. The father was, on all the evidence, not given the opportunity by the mother to feed, bathe or change ‘T’, save on one occasion when the mother was present. As a consequence, the mother had substantially more unsupervised caregiving time with ‘T’ than did the father. Further, those actions meant that the mother was in a better position to cover up the injuries after they occurred. The mother’s use of nitrous oxide and cannabis, while caring for ‘T’ and segregating herself, may have contributed to a worsening of her mood and could have deprived her of the ability to care appropriately for ‘T’. There is clear evidence of the mother using substances in the close proximity of ‘T’. There is also clear evidence of the mother behaving in a dysregulated, aggressive manner towards the father and others. She, like the father, is the perpetrator of domestic abuse.[181]The Court has weighed carefully the father’s admitted substance misuse, admitted domestic abuse, dishonesty and deception towards professionals and the delay in advancing allegations against the mother. The father had less opportunity to cause the injuries to ‘T’. Whilst on his own account he was visiting the mother and children daily, the father also worked full time. His work shifts were in the early mornings or in the afternoon or during the night. Further, the father is the registered carer for his own father, who has mobility difficulties, literacy difficulties and anxiety. The father cooked, cleaned, shopped and assisted in all aspects of the paternal grandfather’s care. The Court accepts the submission by Miss Munroe KC and Ms Dixon that, between work and his caring responsibilities, the father was left with limited time to spend with the mother and the children. Moreover, on the mother’s evidence, the father was not afforded the opportunity to be alone with ‘T’. On her own evidence, she permitted the father to change ‘T’s clothing on one occasion only, at which time she was present with him, watching him. While the mother stated that there were times in September, October and November 2025 that the father was alone in a room with ‘O’ and/or ‘T’ while she was elsewhere in the paternal grandfather’s accommodation, the mother stated that she cannot remember specific dates. The mother stated that she recalled there being times when she would hear ‘T’ cry and she would go to him. She stated that she did not recall observing or hearing anything that would have indicated to her that ‘T’ had been hurt, adding, “usually I would just take over from whatever [the father] had been doing. I cannot recall ever hearing [‘T’] scream as if he was in pain.”[182]At no point during her police interview or in her written evidence did the mother suggest that the father was responsible for any injury to ‘T’. iN February 2026, when reporting the father to police and knowing that the case against her was one of inflicting the injuries and that the father was now fully engaged in these proceedings, the mother for the first time, when asked whether the father ever hurt the children, responds, “Yes, yeah he has hurt my baby, that's why I had them taken away, I woke up and he had a bump.” This account in February 2026, three months after the index event, is contrary to all other accounts given by the mother and formed no part of her case during this hearing.[183]The mother points to no evidence that could lead to a proper conclusion that the father perpetrated ‘T’s injuries. The Court takes into consideration also the fact that the father, on his own admission, was a perpetrator of domestic abuse. Further, on his own admission, he used nitrous oxide balloons and other substances. While the father’s forensic history is also a factor the Court should take into consideration, the father’s offences took place over a decade ago when, on his account, he was groomed by drug gangs. In this Court’s judgement, that history does not provide weight to support a theory that he caused harm to the child.[184]The Court does not need to identify a motive in order to identify the perpetrator. Further, the Court recognises that opportunity alone is not a sufficient basis upon which to make a perpetrator finding. The background evidence is of the mother experiencing poor mental health which was not being regulated at the time and the mother was not engaging with any community mental health team. The mother was feeling overwhelmed following the birth of her second child. She has a background of suffering depression and anxiety. There was a history of persistent illicit drug use. Moreover, the mother was experiencing bereavement following her grandmother’s death and was receiving no direct support in that regard. Furthermore, on her own case, she and both children were experiencing flu-like symptoms at the time of and immediately prior to ‘T’s admission to hospital. The existence of the mother’s vulnerabilities does not lead the Court to a conclusion that she must have consequently harmed the child. Trauma and mental illness are not indicators of propensity. This Court does not infer from the existence of mental illness or trauma that a parent is likely to injure a child. On the facts of this case, however, there is weight in the submission made by Miss Munroe KC and Ms Dixon, that the combination of the mother’s personal, mental, social and psychological crises were compounded and likely coincided with a period of significantly increased personal pressure and acute stress in the period from November to December 2025. The combination of factors when considered alongside the totality of the evidence leads the Court to conclude that there was an increased vulnerability to the mother becoming overwhelmed and to exercising impaired judgement. These matters do not establish perpetration However, when considered alongside the timing evidence, opportunity, inconsistent explanations, the father’s limited access to the child, the father’s evidence of hearing the child’s distress and the mother’s concealment, they form part of the overall evidential picture.[185]Considering the mother and the father separately and together and comparing the probabilities in respect of each of them, in this Court’s judgement, the evidence establishes on the balance of probabilities that the mother caused all the injuries to ‘T’. In this Court’s judgement, on the evidence available, the mother is more likely to have been responsible. On all the evidence, it follows that the Court must conclude that the mother is in fact responsible for all ‘T’s injuries.[186]Having regard to paragraph 6, 7 and 8 of the Local Authority’s pleaded threshold statement, the Court must conclude properly on all the evidence that it is probable that ‘T’ would have been in pain and distress and may have lost consciousness from some or all these injuries. Further, the Court finds that the mother, being the person caring for ‘T’ when these injuries occurred, should have sought immediate medical attention for him and would have been alerted to his discomfort, pain and distress. Reasonable inference can be drawn that the mother must have known of the earlier injuries, however many occasions were involved. The Court must also find on the evidence that failure to obtain prompt medical attention will have prolonged ‘T’s pain, distress and discomfort. The Court is not satisfied on the evidence that the father was under the sway of a dominant partner such that he was fearful to seek medical intervention. On all the evidence, the Court finds 6, 7 and 8 of the Local Authority’s pleaded threshold statement to be proved.[187]The Guardian, in written submissions, invited the Court to make a finding of a failure to protect. In making that submission, the Guardian noted that the Local Authority had not pleaded a failure to protect by the parent who did not inflict the injuries. The Guardian submits that, if the Court finds the mother inflicted the injuries, the Court should make a finding that the father failed to protect ‘T’. The Court respectfully rejects that submission. King LJ observed in Re L-W Children [2019] EWCA Civ 159 that failure to protect comes in innumerable guises. 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. King LJ further observed that any Court conducting a Finding of Fact Hearing should 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. In this Court’s judgement, a finding of failure to protect, without the Local Authority pleading the allegation and without the parties being afforded the opportunity to address it in evidence or in submissions would be wrong and would offend the principle articulated by King LJ that the Court should avoid bolting on such finding to the central issue. Conclusion[188]Having surveyed the wide canvas, standing back and assessing the behaviour and credibility of each parent in the context of their accounts on a full overview of the evidence, having had the unique benefit and advantage of hearing and observing the parents, together with the substantial amount of expert evidence, the Court finds each of the Local Authority’s pleaded allegations proved. The Court concludes that the mother is responsible for all ‘T’s injuries. His Honour Judge Middleton-Roy