A Council v Mother & Ors [2026] EWFC 33 (B)

IN THE FAMILY COURT AT CHESTER CASE NO:[2026] EWFC 33 (B)IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN ACT 1989AND IN THE MATTER OF CBEFORE HER HONOUR JUDGE HESFORD
Between
A COUNCILApplicantMOTHERRespondentFATHERRespondentTHE CHILD C(BY HER CHILDREN’S GUARDIAN)3rd Respondent____________________________________________FINAL JUDGMENT FOLLOWING FACT FINDINGHEARING ON 19 TO 22 JANUARY 2026JUDGMENT DATED 29 JANUARY 2026____________________________________________Ms Edmunds for ApplicantMs Meyer KC & Mr Carey for First RespondentMr Twomey KC and Mr Steward for Second RespondentMr Povoas for Child via her GuardianDate 2026-01-29

HHJ Hesford :

[1]INTRODUCTION This judgment concerns C a girl of almost 11 months of age. Sadly C is not a healthy child, having suffered catastrophic injuries which have left her with lifelong disabilities.[2]I have not set out all the evidence which I have heard and read (the complete bundles are approximately 5000 pages) but have highlighted particularly relevant matters. Nevertheless, all evidence has been considered and taken into account.[3]This judgment is structured as follows: Section 1: Introduction Section 2: The proceedings Section 3: The nature of the hearing and participation Section 4: The parties’ positions Section 5: The Local Authority evidence and findings sought Section 6: The timeline relevant to the injuries Section 7: Ms M’s evidence Section 8: Mr F’s evidence Section 9: Submissions Section 10: The legal principles regarding fact finding Section 11: Additional analysis and findings Section 12: Decision[2]THE PROCEEDINGS[4]The application before the court is the Local Authority’s application for a care order which was issued on the 17 April 2025.[5]This is a finding of fact hearing with the Court tasked with determining whether C has suffered non-accidental/inflicted injuries and if so, then to determine the perpetrator of the injuries if possible. Depending upon my findings and the parties’ positions thereafter, I will consider the welfare of C at a future hearing.[6]In the early hours of [a date] an ambulance was called to the parents’ home as C was non-responsive and she was taken to hospital presenting as acutely unwell. It transpired that she had suffered a number of serious and significant injuries with the treating clinicians believing the constellation of injuries were highly indicative of non-accidental injury. The Child Protection Medical reported a considerable number of injuries including bruising, dried blood around her lips, various fractures to ribs and clavicles and haemorrhages to her brain and left eye.[7]Prior to her hospital admission, C had lived with her mother and father and was not known to children’s services. Whilst at hospital the police exercised their powers of protection, followed by the parents consenting to S.20 accommodation. On C’s discharge from hospital on 6 May 2025 she was placed in the care of her maternal aunt. On 31 July 2025, C moved into her grandparents care where she remains.[8]The parents deny being responsible for the injuries and have not been able to offer credible explanations. They are no longer a couple. Having considered the timeline and the totality of the evidence, the Local Authority reached the conclusion that the only people who had a reasonable opportunity to cause the injuries to C were her parents. The Local Authority did not seek findings against any other person.[9]At times during these proceedings the court has been dismayed by the disproportionate and acrimonious manner in which these proceedings have taken place. The court has received a very significant number of additional C2 applications and thus extra hearings, many of which should have been capable of resolution by open discussions outside the court arena rather than seeking a hearing. The court also recorded the excessive correspondence (including 160 emails sent by Mr F’s legal team to the Local Authority alone within a 4 month period) and was forced to restrict, in the recital of an order, this disproportionate and unnecessary level of communication. The lawyers are firmly reminded of the overriding objective.[3]THE NATURE OF THE HEARING AND PARTICIPATION[10]The hearing took place as an attended hearing over four days plus written submissions. Special measures were in place during the hearing and a separate Ground Rules Hearing took place as well as a Pre-Hearing Review.[11]I had the opportunity of seeing the parents give evidence in the witness box, over a day each, and to form my own opinions about their evidence and credibility. It was extremely useful to do so. Alongside the medical evidence, their evidence was crucial for me in coming to my decisions. Much of the evidence was not controversial and it serves no purpose to repeat it. I have addressed only the most pertinent issues and further analysed the most relevant evidence in detail in the “analysis” section. In view of the particular relevance of this to my decisions I have of course considered “Lucas” and all other relevant law throughout.[12]The medical experts did not give oral evidence and their written evidence was not challenged. Oral evidence was heard from the Health Visitor Ms H, the “Body Worn Footage” (BWF) of the police was viewed at the beginning of the hearing and the 999 phone call was also played during Mr F’s evidence.[13]The proceedings for care now at week 40, beyond the 26 week target and the delays were caused by the need to obtain expert medical evidence due to the complexities of the injuries and thereafter to list the hearing when the experts were available as initially they were to give oral evidence. There will be further delay for C following this hearing as there are a number of possible outcomes; the parents’ responses to my judgment and the findings made together with reflection by the Local Authority and Guardian will be crucial within final care planning. SPECIAL MEASURES & GROUND RULES[14]Ms M is autistic and struggles with communication. She has processing and sensory issues. Her cognitive ability is in the borderline range and she has significant difficulties with verbal reasoning, memory and processing speed. All these impact on her ability to effectively participate in court proceedings and she required specific adaptations.[15]Mr F has limited vision in his right eye. He has some learning difficulties, a diagnosis of dyslexia and significant impairment in his verbal and language abilities. His poor verbal comprehension can be masked by his stronger abilities in other domains such as working memory, processing speed and perceptual reasoning. His retention of information is likely affected by his poor verbal comprehension ability. Mr. stated that he is diagnosed with anxiety and depression.[16]Both parents have been the subject of intermediary assessments, as well as cognitive/capacity assessments as appropriate. Intermediaries have been provided for both parents however at times Mr F did not fully benefit from the support, it appeared to add to his difficulties rather than assist with them. Nevertheless one was provided at this hearing. He has also had support from his mother.[17]A Ground Rules Hearing took place on 13 January 2026. The order set out the ground rules for the parents and they were applied throughout this hearing, with breaks taken in line with the rules even if not sought by the parents. They are attached at the end of this judgment as an appendix.[18]There was insufficient time during the hearing to hear oral closing submissions from everyone due to the evidence running longer than expected. I therefore received written closing submissions a few days later. This draft written judgment was circulated to the advocates via email on 29 January 2026 with permission for them to disclose it to the intermediaries and their clients. It was formally handed down on 4 February 2026 at 1pm.[4]THE PARTIES POSITIONS[19]The Local Authority initially sought findings against both parents in relation to the injuries as set out in the schedule of findings. Their case was straightforward: in relation to the event that led to C’s collapse and hospital admission on [a date] only her parents know what happened. One or both was being untruthful. The same applied for the other findings. Following the conclusion of the evidence, the court was informed that a further schedule of findings was being prepared and the Local Authority confirmed in their written submissions that their case had changed and that they no longer sought findings against Ms M as a perpetrator of the injuries. They still sought findings against Ms M for failure to protect and failing to seek appropriate medical advice or treatment. They submitted that Mr F was the sole perpetrator of the injuries.[20]Ms M and Mr F both denied causing the injuries and stated that they had no knowledge of any cause. Ultimately they blamed each other. Mr F admitted in his oral evidence that a “fall” may have injured C. They denied failure to protect or failing to seek appropriate medical advice or treatment. I will address their precise positions in my evidence review and analysis sections.[5]THE LOCAL AUTHORITY CASE AND FINDINGS SOUGHT[21]The Local Authority provided a very useful written opening for this hearing and set out within its schedule of allegations the findings it sought. They changed following the oral evidence and I have attached only the final schedule below. They relied on the whole of the evidence in the bundle, but particularly the evidence of the experts. The evidence given by the parents was also relevant to the findings.[22]THE FINAL SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS Allegation One: Rib Fractures1.1 Allegation: C suffered significant physical harm in the following way:a. C was physically assaulted on a date unknown but likely between 28 February 2025 and 10 March 2025;b. Mr F physically assaulted Con this occasion;c. C was squeezed around her upper and mid chest area using significant force.1.2 Injuries: As a result of the forceful squeeze to C’s chest area it caused the following injuries: a. fractures to the left side of her 8th and 9th ribs (posterior aspect).1.3 Presentation: C was in significant distress at the time and it would have been obvious that she had been hurt and was in pain; a. Mr F, was aware at the time that C had suffered significant harm; b. Ms M heard C scream at point of impact.1.4 Failures: a. Mr F and Ms M failed to obtain prompt medical advice and treatment; b. Mr F and Ms M agreed not to inform the health visitor of his event; c. Mr F and Ms M failed to tell the GP about this event;d. Mr F has lied to the police, social services, the court and his family in asserting that he was not responsible;e. Ms M has not been wholly honest with the court as to what she heard and when. Allegation two: Torn Frenulum2.1 Allegation: C suffered physical significant harm in the following way: a. Sometime before 12 March 2025, Mr F physically assaulted C causing her frenulum to become torn; b. It is likely that Mr F used excessive force when attempting to place a feeding bottle into C’s mouth.2.2 Injuries As a result of excessive and unreasonable force being used C suffered the following injuries a. C’s mouth started to bleed immediately; b. Her lower lip frenulum was torn.2.3 Presentation C was in significant distress at the time and it would have been obvious that she had been hurt and was in pain; a. Mr F , was aware at the time that he had caused C to suffer significant harm; b. Ms M was aware at the time that C was significantly distressed and bleeding from her mouth.2.4 Failures: a. Mr F failed to obtain prompt medical advice and treatment; b. Ms M was aware that C had been hurt or had an unexplained injury to her mouth and failed to obtain prompt medical advice and treatment; c. Mr F and Ms M agreed not to inform the health visitor of his event; d. Mr F and Ms M D failed to tell the GP about this event; e. Ms M was aware that Mr F had hurt or caused an unexplained injury to C’s mouth and failed to take any steps to protect her. Allegation three: Bruises to C’s face3.1 Allegation C suffered physical significant harm in the following way: a. C was physically assaulted on or before 19 March 2025; b. Mr F physically assaulted C on this occasion; c. C was forcibly grabbed around her face.3.2 Injuries: As a result of the forceful grab to C’s face she suffered from the following injury: a. a bruise to her right cheek and a bruise under her left eye.3.3 Presentation: C would have been in significant distress at the time and it would have been obvious that she had been hurt and was in pain; b. Mr F, was aware at the time that C had suffered significant harm.3.4 Failures: a. Mr F failed to obtain prompt medical advice and treatment; b. Mr F has lied to the police, social services, the court and his family in asserting he was not responsible; c. Ms M was aware that C had been hurt or had an unexplained injury to her face and failed to obtain prompt medical advice and treatment; d. Ms M was aware that the Mr F had hurt or caused an unexplained injury to C’s face and failed to take any steps to protect her. Allegation four: Further injury to the already torn Frenulum4.1 Allegation: C suffered physical significant harm in the following way: a. Sometime between 21 and 22 March 2025, Mr F physically assaulted C causing her frenulum to become torn /damaged for a second time; b. It is likely that Mr F used excessive force when attempting to place a feeding bottle / dummy into C’s mouth.4.2 Injuries As a result of excessive and unreasonable force being used C suffered the following injuries a. C’s mouth started to bleed immediately; b. Her torn lower lip frenulum was further damaged.4.3 Presentation C was in significant distress at the time and it would have been obvious that she had been hurt and was in pain; a. Mr F, was aware at the time that he had caused C suffered significant harm; b. Ms M was aware that C had suffered a further bleed to her mouth.4.4 Failures: a. Mr F failed to obtain prompt medical advice and treatment; b. Ms M was aware that C had been hurt or had an unexplained injury to her mouth and failed to obtain prompt medical advice and treatment; c. Mr F has lied to the police, social services, the court and his family in asserting he was not responsible Allegation five: The collapse with multiple injuries and lifelong disabilities5.1 Allegation: C suffered significant physical harm resulting in lifelong disabilities in the following way: a. On [a date] 2025 C was violently assaulted by Mr F in that; i. C had her face squeezed; ii. C had her lower lip forcefully pulled away from the gum; and iii. C was squeezed around her upper and mid chest using significant force. C had forceful pressure applied from fingertips and thumbs around her chest and pressure applied to her left and right collar bones; and iv. At time same time as being squeezed around her chest area, C was repeatedly shaken, with significant force, in a backwards and forwards motion. Such force was unreasonable and dangerous; b. C immediately collapsed suffering from an acute and profound alteration of her brain function; c. Thereafter, C suffered from multiple and widespread injuries; d. As a result of this assault C will be permanently disabled and will have lifelong additional needs.5.2 Injuries at the time of collapse Immediately after the violent assault C suffered from the following: a. She was bleeding from her mouth / had blood around her mouth; b. She went unresponsive, limp, pale and showing significant breathing abnormalities; c. She was not breathing and was completely unconscious at the time the paramedics arrived (0047 hours on [a date]); d. She was bleeding from her mouth when in the ambulance; e. At hospital C became very irritable and very agitated and was in respiratory distress;f. She was placed on external ventilation because without it she could not sustain her own breathing;g. Upon transfer to [a] Hospital she was hypertensive with a bulging head circumference with intracranial and spinal bleeding;h. She had and continued to have seizures whilst in hospital;5.3 Injuries to her face As a result of significant forceful pressure being applied to C’s face and lip she sustained the following injuries: a. A further rupture to her lower lip frenulum (which was already torn and in the process of healing); b. A bruise to her right cheek.5.4 Injuries to the chest area: As a result of the significant squeeze around her upper and mid chest C suffered the following injuries: a. Fractures to the left and right collar bones; b. Seven fractures of the posterior aspect of her right ribs (1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th ribs); c. Five fractures of the lateral aspect of her right ribs (3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th ribs); d. Bruising and swelling to the right shoulder; e. Brusing to the left collar bone; f. Redness over her left lower neck; g. A bruise over the left side of her chest.5.5 Injuries to her brain, spine and eye As a result of the repeated and forceful shaking of C her brain was starved of oxygen for a prolonged period of time resulting in a significant brain injury. She suffered from multiple intracranial and spinal abnormalities causing very significant functional and structural, permanent disruption of the brain function. This includes the following injuries: a. Subdural collections: Bleeding and extravasation of watery fluid in vast areas around the brain / subdural space; b. Subarachnoid bleeding; c. Damage to the superficial veins (thrombosis of the cortical / bridging veins); d. Widespread petechial intracerebral bleedings; e. Linear intracerebral injuries: Several sizeable areas of bleeding / mechanical neuronal damage in the frontal and temporal lobes; f. Global Hypoxic Ischemic Injuries [‘HII’]: which was more severe around the central areas of the brain controlling movements and processing sensorial stimuli; g. Spinal subdural haematomas; h. Retinal haemorrhage (bleed) to her left eye.5.6 Long term injuries: As a result of Mr F physically hurting C she has the following lifelong conditions or is at risk of developing the following lifelong conditions: a. Moderate to severe long-term disability with significant learning difficulties (this may include her vision be affected, feeding, speech and language and being double incontinent as well as requiring a wheelchair); b. Cerebral palsy (at the intermediate or more severe end of the spectrum); c. Neurodevelopmental delay; d. Significant problems with understanding and emotional regulations as well as behavioural problems; e. The development and continuation of her epilepsy; f. There will likely be a poor level of independent and social functioning; g. C will require medications and community services like physiotherapy.5.7 Failures a. Mr F has lied to the police, social services, the court and his family in asserting he was not responsible. Allegation six: cumulative failure 6.1 Failure by Ms M a. From on or around 10 March 2025 onwards Ms M became increasingly aware that C was suffering harm whilst in the care and control of Mr F . b. Each time she became aware of each incident / injury she chose to ignore it and as a consequence failed to protect C . THE MEDICAL EVIDENCE[23]As well as the documentation from the treating experts, independent reports were obtained from several eminent experts in relation to C’s health and the injuries. These experts were Dr Fionnan Williams, Consultant Neuroradiologist, Dr Karl Johnson, Consultant Paediatric Radiologist, Dr William Newman, Consultant Paediatric Ophthalmologist, Mr Amedeo Calisto, Consultant Paediatric Neurosurgeon and Dr Jonathan Cardwell, Consultant Paediatrician.[24]The medical evidence provided by the single joint experts is unanimous, overwhelming and unchallenged. The constellation of injuries suffered by C were all inflicted injuries. This was also the opinion of the treating medics.[25]Rather than analyse and repeat the contents of the reports in lengthy detail, I will set out the summary from the written opening document followed by the “Schedule of Agreed Facts arising from the Experts Meeting”. There may be some overlap. There were no areas of disagreement between the experts and they each appropriately deferred to each other’s expertise where appropriate.[26]WRITTEN OPENING MEDICAL SUMMARY: Dr Newman – Ophthalmologista. Report dated 29 July 2025;b. Addendum report dated 01 October 2025;c. Addendum report dated 24 October 2025;d. Schedule of agreed facts dated 27 November 2025. He confirms that C sustained a small retinal haemorrhage adjacent to the left optic disc in the left eye only. If the court finds this was caused a result of trauma the force required would be significant. Critically, he states, ‘taking into account the constellation of other injuries and if the court considers these are of inflicted origin, the eye findings would be consistent with an episode of significant non-accidental trauma, such as shaking, from a current and disclosed event.’ Dr Williams – Consultant Neuroradiologist a. Report dated 07 July 2025; b. Schedule of agreed facts, dated 28 November 2025 He confirms C suffered a severe brain injury that included extensive intracranial and spinal injuries, as per the following multifocal subdural collections. a. A bridging vein injury – a combination of bridging vein avulsion and bridging vein thrombosis; b. A posterior fossa haemorrhage; c. A subarachnoid haemorrhage; d. Cortical clefts in the brain;e. A diffuse shearing injury;f. A diffuse axonal injury;g. A diffuse hypoxic-ischaemic brain injury;h. A cervical ligamentous injury; andi. A relatively large volume lumbar subdural hematoma. From an imaging perspective, he opines that the brain injury is unlikely to be significantly old and unlikely to be more than a few hours before the CT scan. Clinical timing is consistent with per a memorable event, a sudden and very marked change in the child's demeanour around midnight or slightly after midnight on [a date]. He states acceleration and deceleration trauma is the only realistic possibility. With such severe brain injuries, C would immediately present with a constellation of signs and symptoms like those exhibited at the point of her admission. Mr Calisto – Consultant Paediatric Neurosurgeon a. Report dated 24 August 2025; b. Addendum report dated 05 October 2025; c. Schedule of agreed facts, dated 27 November 2025 He largely agrees with the findings of Dr Williams save he adds to the list of multifocal subdural collections, subdural collections over the brain convexities, disagrees with the finding of a diffuse shearing injury and defers on the suggestion that there is a cervical ligamentous injury. In his addendum report he says, ‘having reviewed the medical documents and the scans whose reported abnormalities I substantially agree on, I have not found any natural explanation for C’s severe multiple and widespread injuries. Taken as a whole, the only plausible explanation seems to me to be severe head trauma by a mechanism of very vigorous head acceleration-deceleration with or without impact against a semi-yielding surface.’ His report makes for sad reading when he concludes the child will be significantly disabled for life. Dr Johnson – Consultant Paediatric Radiologist a. Report dated 29 July 2025; b. Addendum report dated 08 October 2025; c. Email dated 04 November 2025 d. Schedule of agreed facts, dated 25 November 2025. As of [a date], C had : a. angulated fractures of both clavicles i. as of [a date] no older than 8 days; ii. caused by a blow or impact around the collarbone. Alternatively, caused by transmitted forces up the arm. It is also possible that severe traction and pulling around the clavicle may result in a fracture; iii. At the time C sustained these fractures, it would have been apparent that she was in pain and distress to the person in whose care she was at the time. It might be relatively short-lasting, and if she was soothed, she may not display ongoing pain for any significant amount of time. However, when she was being handled, perhaps dressed when her arms were lifted up to dress her again, that would have been uncomfortable for her, and carers may have noted that; iv. Not birth related. b. fractures of the posterior right ribs (1st to 7th inclusive) i. all these occurred at the same time from a single episode of chest trauma; ii. as of [a date] no older than 11 days but as of 27 March 2025 possibly older than 5 days; iii. the amount of force required to cause these fractures would be significant, excessive, and greater than that used in the normal care and handling of a child. Rib fractures are typically the result of a severe, excessive squeezing or compressive force applied to the chest; iv. at the time C sustained these fractures, it would have been apparent that she was in pain and distress to the person in whose care she was at the time. It might be relatively short-lasting, and if she was soothed, she may not display ongoing pain for any significant amount of time; v. not birth related. c. Fractures of the lateral right ribs (3rd to 7th inclusive). i. all these occurred at the same time from a single episode of chest trauma; ii. as of [a date]no older than 8 days; iii. the amount of force required to cause these fractures would be significant, excessive, and greater than that used in the normal care and handling of a child. Rib fractures are typically the result of a severe, excessive squeezing or compressive force applied to the chest; iv. at the time C sustained these fractures, it would have been apparent that she was in pain and distress to the person in whose care she was at the time. It might be relatively short-lasting, and if she was soothed, she may not display ongoing pain for any significant amount of time v. not birth related d. Fractures of the posterior left ribs (8th and 9th) i. occurred at the same time from a single episode of chest trauma; ii. as of 24 March were in the region of being 2-4 weeks old; iii. birth is a possible cause but unable to determine the probability; iv. if not birth then the amount of force required to cause these fractures would be significant, excessive, and greater than that used in the normal care and handling of a child. Rib fractures are typically the result of a severe, excessive squeezing or compressive force applied to the chest; v. if not birth related, at the time C sustained these fractures, it would have been apparent that she was in pain and distress to the person in whose care she was at the time. It might be relatively short-lasting, and if she was soothed, she may not display ongoing pain for any significant amount of time vi. The presence of multiple fractures which have occurred on at least two separate occasions and are the result of numerous applications of force, increases the suspicion of inflicted non-accidental injury. Dr Cardwell – Consultant Paediatrician a. Report dated 01 September 2025; b. Addendum report dated 03 October 2025; c. Schedule of agreed facts, dated 28 November 2025. Frenulum: a. if the court accepts Mr F's account that a week or so before admission to hospital, C was bleeding from the mouth, then she is likely to have sustained an injury to her lower lip frenulum at that time; b. she is also likely to have sustained a further injury to her lower lip frenulum in the hours before being admitted to hospital; c. normal handling does not cause this injury; d. there would have been bleeding and some initial discomfort. The discomfort would be quite short-lasting. Once the bleeding had subsided, it would not necessarily have been obvious to a non-perpetrating carer. Bruising a. the documented bruises (above) are the result of forceful pressure to those areas of the body that they were found on; b. C would not have had the physical strength or developmental abilities to cause the bruises herself; c. normal handling and care would not cause bruises to her body; d. the bruises to C’s chest and both clavicles are most probably from forceful pressure applied from fingertips and thumbs when holding her around her chest with pressure also applied to both the left and right clavicle; e. the bruising to C’s chest and both clavicles may have occurred at the time she sustained her other injuries. However, they may have also occurred at a different time. As a result of this violent episode, C has the following life-long conditions or is at risk of developing the same: h. Moderate to severe long-term disability with significant learning difficulties (this may include her vision be affected, feeding, speech and language and being double incontinent as well as requiring a wheelchair); i. Cerebral palsy (at the intermediate or more severe end of the spectrum);j. Neurodevelopmental delay;k. Significant problems with understanding and emotional regulations as well as behavioural problems;l. The development and continuation of her epilepsy;m. There will likely be a poor level of independent and social functioning;n. C will require medications and community services like physiotherapy.[27]SCHEDULE OF AGREED FACTS ARISING FROM THE EXPERTS MEETING I BRAIN SEVERE BRAIN INJURY: extensive intracranial and spinal injuries as per the following multifocal subdural collections:• A bridging vein injury- a combination of bridging vein avulsion and bridging vein thrombosis;• Subdural collections over the brain convexities• A posterior fossa subdural haemorrhage;• A subarachnoid haemorrhage;• Cortical clefts in the brain;• A diffuse axonal injury.• A diffuse hypoxic ischaemic brain injury;• A cervical ligamentous injury (I defer); and,• A relatively large volume lumbar subdural hematoma TIMING: on the basis of the acute haemorrhage: < 7days from [a date] (1st CT scan at 4:14am); however, a very significant diffuse brain injury is unlikely to be significantly old; unlikely to be more than a few hours before the CT scan as referenced. Clinical timing is consistent as per: a memorable event, a sudden and very marked change in the child's demeanour around midnight or slightly after midnight on [a date] (assuming the 999 call was not delayed) The injuries can be explained as one event but does not exclude more than one event (of lesser severity); CAUSATION: an inappropriate level of force in excess of normal handling and rough play or rough handling; The pattern is highly unusual in straightforward domestic impact trauma. The mechanism of a fall (as per father) would not produce these injuries and doesn't account for an abrupt clinical deterioration in the timeframe in this case. Although there might be some small amount of birth associated subdural haemorrhage, it would not account for the totality of the injuries and imaging findings. [Where there is no causative account given by the parents] acceleration/deceleration trauma is the only realistic possibility, although an impact against a hard or soft surface or object cannot be excluded (although the lack of soft tissue swelling or skull fracture might militate against it being a hard surface). SYMPTOMOLOGY: it is expected that with such severe brain injuries the child would immediately present with a constellation of signs and symptoms like those exhibited on [a date]; and, otherwise described as ‘a short period of severe distress and inconsolable crying, followed by excessive quietness, confusion, vacant appearance and behavioural changes, with reduced level of alertness similar to abnormal sleepiness, intermittent periods of feeble whimpering, up to complete loss of consciousness, responsiveness and muscular tone (going limp) et seq’ To a non-perpetrating carer, given the severity of the symptoms, it would be obvious that something was profoundly wrong with the child and that immediate medical attention was required; although they would not have any idea what was happening:
‘because the head is a closed space’
II EYE A single small retinal haemorrhage adjacent to the left optic disc in the left eye only; No other evidence of other eye abnormalities or subconjunctival haemorrhage or bruises on the eyelids or adjacent areas If the court considers the haemorrhage was due to a traumatic cause, the minimum force required is not known but it is considered to be significant as I have outlined in my report: I Such a haemorrhage may occur during birth; and, whilst most retinal haemorrhages would resolve within 2-3 weeks of occurrence, it is possible that this haemorrhage could date back to birth. II Taking into account the constellation of other injuries and if the Court considers these are of inflicted origin, the eye findings would be consistent with an episode of significant non-accidental trauma such as shaking from a currently undisclosed event: (I) at or around the time C became unwell which only generated a single retinal haemorrhage visible in the left eye; or, (ii) prior to [a date] 2025 where if C had had her eyes examined shortly after ‘this’ trauma then many more retinal haemorrhages may have been identified, but they had in the main resolved naturally in the period between the time of the incident and the time of the examination on [a date]. III In the alternative that the Court finds that the bruising and skeletal changes have a reasonable explanation then the retinal haemorrhage would be nonspecific and unexplained; There is no relevance to the observations of the MGM relating to C’s eyes. III BONES X-RAY: [a date] There are angulated fractures of both clavicles (no older than 11 days of age on [a date]; There are fractures of the posterior right 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th ribs (no older than 11 days of age on [a date]); all these posterior right rib fractures occurred at the same time from a single episode of chest trauma; There are fractures of the lateral right 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th ribs (no older than 11 days of age on [a date]); all these lateral right rib fractures occurred at the same time from a single episode of chest trauma; There are fractures of the posterior left 8th and 9th ribs (in the region of 2 - 4 weeks of age on [a date]); these posterior left rib fractures occurred at the same time from a single episode of chest trauma. X-RAY [a date] [Email dated 04 NOVEMBER 2025] There is no x-ray evidence of bone healing around the rib and clavicular fractures. X-RAY [a date] [Email dated 04 NOVEMBER 2025] There is possibly some early evidence of bone healing around the right lateral 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th ribs. The radiological appearances are equivocal, however. it is possible that the right lateral 3rd – 7th rib fractures were at least 5 days of age on [a date]. The other rib and clavicular fractures could be of a similar age to the right lateral fractures, or they could have occurred on a different occasion(s). It is still possible that those fractures which do not show any evidence of healing on [a date] are still older than the right lateral fractures. There can be variation in the appearance and timing of the healing response around fractures even in the same individual. The other rib and clavicular fractures do not show any evidence of a healing response on [a date] and [a date], in my opinion, it would indicate that these fractures are no older than 11 days of age, on [a date]and therefore no older than 8 days of age on [a date]. • There is no radiological evidence of underlying metabolic bone disease or other disorder which would predisposeC to fracturing. • The amount of force required to cause these fractures is unknown, but it is significant, excessive and greater than that used in the normal care and handling of a child. • Rib fractures are typically the result of a severe excessive squeezing compressive force applied to the chest. • The left and right clavicular fractures are each the result of a blow or impact around the collar bone. Alternatively, transmitted forces up the arm may result in a clavicular fracture. It is also possible that severe traction and pulling around the clavicle may result in a fracture. • There is no causative account given by the parents; birth injury is a possible cause of the left posterior rib fractures; I am unable to determine the probability of this; the incidence of these fractures occurring at birth is unknown but is believed to be relatively low. It is my understanding that fractures of this nature are more likely to occur from difficult or instrumental deliveries. • The right lateral and posterior rib fracture and both clavicular fractures occurred on a later occasion and are not old enough to be birth related injuries. SYMPTOMOLOGY: Painful at the time that she sustained a fracture, which would be apparent to that she was in pain and distress at the time she sustained the fracture to parents and carers in who’s care she was at the time. It might be relatively short lasting, and if she was soothed, she may not display ongoing pain for any significant amount of time. I think with the rib fractures . . . it may have been noted that when she was picked up cuddled because she had so many rib fractures when she was handled, even in normal handling, if pressure was applied to a rib cage at the time, that might have been uncomfortable for her and . . . carers may have noticed that. [Ibid] The clavicular fractures as well when she was handled, perhaps dressed when her arms were lifted up to dress her again, that would have been uncomfortable for her and parents may have noted that. [Ibid] The difficulty is that all the injuries may have occurred at around the same time, and she may have been significantly affected because of the anticranial (sic) injuries that she suffered and so a response would have been altered because perhaps the level of consciousness was impacted because of the severity of intercranial (sic) injuries. So, there's variability and variation as to how she may present it. [Ibid] • The presence of multiple fractures which have occurred on at least two separate occasions and are the result of numerous applications of force, increases the suspicion of inflicted non-accidental injury. IV FRENULUM • No medical photography of this injury. • If the Court finds that the report (by father) of bleeding from the mouth, occurred the week before she was admitted to hospital on the [a date], she is likely to have sustained an injury to a lower lip frenulum at that time. • C is also then likely to have sustained a further injury to a lower lip frenulum in the hours before arriving in hospital on the [a date]. • The injury was not caused by normal handling. • There would have been bleeding and some initial discomfort; the discomfort would be quite short lasting. • If the bleeding had subsided it wouldn't necessarily have been obvious: to a non-perpetrating carer. V BRUISES • A brown coloured bruise 0.8 cm x 0.5 cm over the right cheek. • A bluish/brown coloured bruise measuring 1 cm x 0.5 cm above the outer part of the right collar bone, approximately 2.5 cm from the right shoulder tip. • A very feint reddish coloured bruise 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm in size over the outer part of the left collar bone, approximately 2.5 cm from the left shoulder tip. • A small area of redness 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm over the left lower neck, just above the mid collar bone. • A brown coloured bruise measuring 0.8 cm x 0.6 cm over the left side of the chest, below the armpit. • There are no organic causes for the bruises. • The bruises are the result of forceful pressure to those areas of the body that they were found. • C would not have had the physical strength or developmental abilities to cause the bruises to herself. [The possibility that the bruise to her cheek was the result of her pinching her own cheek (as per father) is not the cause of that bruise. • Normal handling and care would not cause bruises to her body. • There are no other mechanisms offered to account for the other bruises. • The bruises sustained are the result of inflicted force and pressure. • The bruises to C’s chest and both clavicles most probably from forceful pressure applied from fingertips and thumbs when holding her around her chest with pressure also applied to both the left and right clavicle. • They may have occurred at the time she sustained her other injuries, ribs and clavicular fractures, intracranial injuries and retinal haemorrhage. However, they may also have occurred at a different time. • C had blood tests at various points in [the first] Hospital at the time first presented and in [a] Hospital during her initial stabilisation and treatment. • These included blood clotting studies. • The collection of these studies identified she had normal clotting. OTHER EVIDENCE[28]POLICE BODY WORN FOOTAGE: The BWF shows initial conversations with both parents and with the doctor at A Hospital. In the footage of Mr F, almost the first thing he says is “I’m almost certain I know what’s caused it as well and that’s what pisses me off even more cos it was a complete accident cos I tripped”. He appeared very keen to get this off his chest. He described C as being completely normal until he turned round and she was just unresponsive lying on the bed. He said he knew where “the fractured whatever it is” had come from, being from “the fall he had last week” although he said that she had not hit the floor and he had protected her. She was screaming but there was no injuries and she calmed after 2 minutes. He said he “felt like shit… he blamed himself”. He asked what was going to happen to himself and about police custody issues. He did not enquire about C’s health at any stage during the recording.[29]In the footage with Ms M, her distress is almost tangible and she shows considerable concern about C . She repeats what father has told her about the events leading to the hospital admission and also his description of his unseen fall. She accuses Mr F of lying to her in the past. She describes the events of the night including going downstairs to get a bottle, Mr F taking C to be changed and her crying as she was changed which was normal. Then Mr F came to the door of the bathroom to say that C was not well, he was panicking.[30]THE 999 PHONE CALL: was played to the court. It was necessary to do this as Mr F had denied in oral evidence that much of the transcribed narrative in the call was actually spoken by him. These related to comments or questions about blood loss from C’s mouth, her having a cut gum, tongue-tie and reference to blood loss volume compared to an egg cup. He said that he did not think he had made the comments, however it was clear from the recording that he had. When his denials were not accepted during cross examination, but then confronted with proof he instead claimed that he could not remember. His denials and his constant apparent lack of recall, often following immediately upon each other, are relevant to his credibility as I will address later.[31]POLICE INTERVIEWS WITH MR F: Mr F undertook two formal police interviews on [a date] and 9 April 2025. He was represented by a solicitor at both interviews. In the first interview he describes the events of the [a date] in some detail, setting out clearly that C was completely fine and normal during the day of [a date] and that there was nothing untoward or of concern at all until he noticed her being quiet after he had changed her nappy at around midnight. He also said that he had had a fall about a week earlier when he was holding C but that he had protected her, she did not fall out of his arms or “get hurt in any way, shape or form” and that she was “quite herself” afterwards and “no different”. There was discussion of C having a tongue-tie and he stated that the health visitor had said this. His second interview was mainly a “no comment” interview with significant intervention by his attending solicitor but he did answer some questions. It is clear from his solicitor’s continual interventions and comments that she was unaware of the significance of C’s injuries.[32]POLICE INTERVIEWS WITH MS M: Ms M was also interviewed on two occasions, also with a solicitor being present and additionally an Appropriate Adult. On the first occasion this was the same solicitor as Mr F. She confirmed that C had been fine all day and that she was unaware of anything wrong until Mr F knocked on the door whilst she was on the toilet (after making and taking a bottle into the room for him to give to C) at around midnight, saying that C wasn’t breathing. She had not heard anything other than C’s normal cries when she has her nappy changed and was in the bathroom around 4/5 minutes. Mr F was holding C when she opened the door and she was limp with flickering eyes. She saw some fresh blood on the inside of C’s bottom lip when putting her on the bed. She had also seen blood and been told by Mr F that C had cut her lip when he was feeding her a few days earlier, when she “sucked too hard”. She recalled Mr F telling her about tripping up a week or so earlier whilst holding Cand falling on his knees but she had not seen or heard anything and he told her about it approximately an hour afterwards. C was fine. In her second interview she confirmed these events. She confirmed that C had been seen by a GP (20 March) due to concerns about constipation and the GP confirmed she was fine. She stated that the health visitor had told both of them that C might have a tongue-tie. She also told the police about a number of matters where Mr F had lied, including about owning property, his mother’s health, living abroad and said, “he lies through his teeth, always has done to me”.[33]MOBILE TELEPHONE ANALYSIS: I will address this where relevant.[34]MATERNAL GRANDMOTHER: She described events told to her by her daughter of Mr F making a banging noise (on an unknown date) and stating that he had fallen when holding C but had not dropped her, she was fine. She was also told that C was checked by her daughter and was fine and fed and slept as normal. There had then been a feeding issue on 20 March 2025 when Mr F was reluctant for C to be taken to the doctor, but mother over-ruled him and took her, she was checked over. She was also fine the next day.[35]MATERNAL GRANDFATHER: He provided an account of Ms M describing to him on around 14 March 2025 of Mr F having a fall holding C the night before. C was unharmed. Ms M told him that she had heard the fall.[36]HEALTH VISITOR MS H: Ms H met C on only one occasion, 12 March 2025. She has filed one statement dated 12 June 2025 in this matter and her notes were also in the bundle as well as details of her input at two strategy meetings. There is no mention in her statement or notes of C having tongue-tie or her having discussed this with the parents despite detailed notes about the matters discussed in the 60-minute meeting. Telephone contact was made by Mr F on 20 March concerning C not taking milk or opening her bowels.[37]In her oral evidence she confirmed that she could not remember specifically discussing the issue of a tongue-tie with the parents and she did not check to see if C had this. C was already taking formula and the discussion was more abut the type of formula and mother’s perineal pain rather than problems with breastfeeding. It was clear both from her evidence and Ms M’s, that any discussion about tongue-tie was in general terms about potential baby feeding issues and was not suggestive or directly related to C herself.[38]Ms B, PARAMEDIC: I have read both the statement and notes of Ms B. Most of her evidence is factual but she also expresses quite strong personal opinions about the parents’ demeanour and behaviour, including Mr F’s calm/blasé demeanour, and Ms M’s lack of verbal comment and her decision not to go in the ambulance with C. I am aware that both parents have individual personal psychological profiles, with mother being autistic and father also possibly being neurodiverse. These have been explored during the assessments including the intermediary assessments. I am also aware that the treating paediatrician at the hospital confirmed that the parents’ behaviours and reactions to the events, witnessed whilst at the hospital, had been seen in previous cases and he did not read anything into these.I agree with him and I do not read anything positive or negative into their behaviour at the time, it was a period of high stress and their reactions are likely affected by their profiles. They do not, in my judgment, impact upon the decisions which I am making in this matter and are certainly not evidence of guilt or otherwise.[6]THE TIMELINE RELEVANT TO C’S INJURIES[39]In line with the medical evidence, the Local Authority assert that Mr F hurt C as follows: Allegation one: Between 28 February 2025 and 10 March 2025 C was squeezed by her father around her upper and mid-chest area using significant force leading to fractures on the left side of her 8th and 9th ribs; Allegation two: Sometime before 12 March 2025 Mr F used excessive force when attempting to place a feeding bottle or dummy into C’s mouth, causing her lower lip frenulum to be torn; Allegation three: On or before 19 March 2025 C was forcibly grabbed around her face or her dummy was forcibly pushed into her mouth by her father, causing a bruise to her right cheek; Allegation four: Sometime between 21 and 22 March 2025, Mr F used excessive force when attempting to place a feeding bottle or dummy into C’s mouth, causing her lower lip frenulum to be torn or damaged again Allegation five: On [a date], (around midnight) C was violently assaulted by her father, causing a number of significant injuries.[7]MS M’S EVIDENCE[40]Ms M has filed one statement dated 22 May 2025 and a response to threshold. She maintained her position of denying responsibility and being unaware of any cause for the injuries. I found her to be a basically honest witness, confused about precise dates and timings but overall she appeared to be trying her best to assist the court. She corrected some errors where there had been lapses in memory, confusion or she had recall. She was clearly traumatised on the evening of C’s admission to hospital. Thereafter, she was faced with stressful and frightening, events concerning C, taking place in the light of her autism and having only very recently given birth. I am not persuaded that she either lied or omitted information deliberately, particularly having seen her give lengthy oral evidence.[41]Ms M gave slightly different accounts in relation to the fall claimed by Mr F in both her written and oral evidence. As I have already addressed, in her police interviews Ms M said that she had seen and heard nothing about the fall until afterwards and this is the same as the description she gave during the police BWF and to the hospital when she arrived. However in her statement within these proceedings dated 22 May 2025 she stated that she heard a thud and shouted upstairs to investigate. Her father reported (his statement 27 June 2025) that she told him around 14 March that she had heard a loud bump from upstairs. In her oral evidence she clarified that she had heard a thud and shouted upstairs but was reassured when Mr F said that everything was fine. She accepted and relied upon his word that C had not fallen and was fine. She had not heard C crying at the time, but C did usually cry whenever she was being changed as she did not like having no clothes on. She also asked Mr F about it an hour later and briefly checked C , who was sleeping in her crib. She was concerned enough about him falling to mention it to her mother and was angry that he had gone into a dark room holding C and not put the light on. I am satisfied that she heard a noise but that it was not a significant or concerning noise.[42]Ms M gave her evidence in an open manner. She became frustrated and upset at times with the questioning but did her best to answer fully. She was deeply concerned about her daughter and very upset that she could be accused of hurting her. Ms M was clearly an inexperienced mother and very trusting of Mr F. Despite admitting that the relationship was unbalanced she did not challenge his behaviour and even when accepting that if not her, then Mr F must be the perpetrator she seemed reluctant to blame him. She was not drawn towards blaming him, instead replying honestly that she had not seen him do anything to harm C and therefore could not say for sure that he had. I give her considerable credit for this honest approach. Overall she appeared to be a rather naïve young woman who was trusting and accepting of Mr F’s explanations to her. She avoided disputes, had not challenged his selfish behaviour within the relationship and this continued after C’s birth.[43]She was very unsure of the precise dates or order of events but this is understandable due to her psychological profile and having very recently given birth; I did not get the impression that she was seeking to mislead, lie or avoid matters at any time. The psychologist Dr Wood in his assessment of Ms M confirmed that she functions in the borderline intellectual range and presents with a combination of neurodevelopmental and cognitive difficulties that include significant weaknesses in verbal reasoning, working memory, processing speed and executive functioning. Her evidence about matters other than precise dates was more detailed and easily recalled andit was apparent that her primary memory difficulties related to recalling the timing and sequencing of events. She was simply unable to say when something had happened for sure although she could remember what had happened and she appeared to try her best to answer. She was confused about C’s bruise as referred to in the Schedule, saying that she had never seen it though she was aware of a different bruise to C’s face beneath her left eye. Her naivety and inexperience were evident in her still held belief that C, at a few weeks old, was capable of causing bruising to herself with her hands or with a dummy. She was certain that she had never seen the bloodied bib in the basket in the photograph.[44]She was absolutely adamant that she had not picked C up nor taken C from her crib and passed her to Mr F when she awoke on the [a date] as he suddenly alleged via his counsel at the start of her cross examination. Her story was and remained that C, then she, had woken, she woke Mr F, then went to get the bottle whilst Mr F took C to her room. I accept her version of this, Mr F’s account is simply not credible as I will address later.[8]MR F’S EVIDENCE[45]I will address Mr F’s evidence in more detail in my analysis and findings section. He was a most unimpressive witness even taking into account his cognitive and other issues.[46]Mr F has filed one statement dated 12 May 2025 and a response to threshold. Like Ms M he maintained his position of denying responsibility and being unaware of any cause for the injuries until the commencement of the hearing. He then accused Ms M of setting him up by harming C herself whilst he was asleep and handing her to him before going downstairs. He offered no evidence for this and in cross examination admitted that it sounded ridiculous.[47]Mr F evidence in relation to his “fall” differed, with him claiming on the BWF that he had told no-one but the doctors that Ms M had heard and shouted up to him and saying there was a detailed conversation between them. In his first police interview he again repeats that Ms M heard and they had a conversation about it and in his statement within these proceedings dated 12 May 2025 he claimed he told Ms M straight away. In his oral evidence he accepted that he may have caused some fractures with his “fall,” but then said he was not certain and denied squeezing her. He did admit that her cry was different and he was panicking.[48]He appeared throughout his evidence to have better recall and answer fully on issues which may not be directly damaging to his case. He frequently avoided answering questions and I cannot accept that this was simply due to memory issues. He was easily able to answer questions which were more tangential to the injuries but when pushed further, his instant responses were “I don’t know” or “I don’t remember”, without any apparent attempt to answer or think about events. He was evasive, avoidant and dishonest throughout his evidence as I will address. Examples are when asked if he knew that the supervisors were worried about how he handled C on occasions at contact, he replied that he was “not sure” despite the clear evidence that they had specifically discussed this with him, confirmed in the parenting assessment. When asked about the tongue-tie issue, he insisted that he had spoken to someone about it but said he didn’t know who or even where.[49]He was revealed as being a secretive person. He had not told Ms M of his disciplinary issues at work, nor that he had a new interview on the day she gave birth. He admitted a history of self-harm, depression and anxiety when confronted with his medical records but then had no memory of specific matters put to him from his records suggesting a potential for anger. When challenged about meeting and asking the police officer “how long he might get”, he claimed that this was general research. I cannot accept this. If he was entirely innocent as he claims, why would he feel the need to research this let alone ask a police officer. It is clear and shows that he must have been worried about the possibility of prison, as he in fact admitted. He made numerous internet searches about issues which were concerning him and did not communicate with Ms M about any of these.[50]Mr F was asked a series of questions when very skilfully cross examined by Mr Povoas which I will summarise. Because the questions were capable of being answered with a simple yes or no, answers like ‘I don’t know’ or ‘I don’t remember’ were not reasonably open to him. He seemed to cope better with such questions and was unable to avoid answering. The initial questions were:
“At the time Ms M saw blood in C’s mouth the first time, who was feeding her?”
He replied “me”. “If there was a fall which caused C’s ribs 8 and 9 to be fractured, who was holding her?” He replied “me”. “If C’s collapse, which according to Mr Callisto report would show a sudden and very marked change in the child’s demeanour and a sudden significant change in behaviour, who had care?” He replied “me”. “You are the one who had care at those three points?” “Yes”. “For the three significant injuries?” “Yes”. There was no other person present at the relevant times, according to Mr F’s own evidence.[51]In his oral evidence he continued to insist that he had been told of a tongue-tie but finally admitted that this was not the injury suffered by C in any event, it was a torn frenulum. He continued to maintain his innocence of using any force and attempted to minimise his text message exchange with his mother about bleeding.[9]SUBMISSIONS[52]I received written submissions from all parties and I have carefully considered these when coming to my conclusions and writing this judgment even if I do not specifically address all points made. Those on behalf of the Local Authority no longer sought findings against Ms M in respect of the injuries but still sought other linked findings such as failure to protect. Ms M’s submissions supported the Local Authority position regarding the injuries and urged caution regarding other adverse findings again her. Mr F’s submissions were that the court should make a pool finding. The Guardian aligned with the Local Authority and Ms M and expressed some caution about the allegations of failure to protect, although mainly linked to how Ms M would acknowledge any perceived failings on her part, particularly taking into account her profile.[10]THE LEGAL PRINCIPLES REGARDING FACT FINDING[53]The legal framework resolving the schedule of findings sought is now well settled and I will set out a summary here. All has been applied.[54]The core principles are summarised by Baker J (as he then was) in Re JS [2012] EWHC 1370 (Fam) and approved in many cases since. “36. In determining the issues at this fact finding hearing I apply the following principles. First, the burden of proof lies with the Local Authority. It is the Local Authority that brings these proceedings and identifies the findings they invite the court to make. Therefore, the burden of proving the allegations rests with the Local Authority. 37. Secondly, the standard of proof is the balance of probabilities (Re B [2008] UKHL 35). If the Local Authority proves on the balance of probabilities that J has sustained non-accidental injuries inflicted by one of his parents, this court will treat that fact as established and all future decisions concerning his future will be based on that finding. Equally, if the Local Authority fails to prove that J was injured by one of his parents, the court will disregard the allegation completely. As Lord Hoffmann observed in Re B:
"If a legal rule requires the facts to be proved (a 'fact in issue') a judge 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 in which the only values are 0 and 1." 38. Third, findings of fact in these cases must be based on evidence. As Munby LJ, as he then was, observed in Re A (A Child) (Fact-finding hearing: Speculation) [2011] EWCA Civ 12: "
It is an elementary proposition that findings of fact must be based on evidence, including inferences that can properly be drawn from the evidence and not on suspicion or speculation." 39. Fourthly, when considering cases of suspected child abuse the court must take into account all the evidence and furthermore consider each piece of evidence in the context of all the other evidence. As Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss P observed in Re T [2004] EWCA Civ 558, [2004] 2 FLR 838 at 33:
"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." 40. Fifthly, amongst the evidence received in this case, as is invariably the case in proceedings involving allegations of non-accidental head injury, is expert medical evidence from a variety of specialists. Whilst appropriate attention must be paid to the opinion of medical experts, those opinions need to be considered in the context of all the other evidence. The roles of the court and the expert are distinct. It is the court that is in the position to weigh up expert evidence against the other evidence (see A County Council & K, D, &L [2005] EWHC 144 (Fam); [2005] 1 FLR 851 per Charles J). Thus, there may be cases, if the medical opinion evidence is that there is nothing diagnostic of non-accidental injury, where a judge, having considered all the evidence, reaches the conclusion that is at variance from that reached by the medical experts. 41. Sixth, in assessing the expert evidence I bear in mind that cases involving an allegation of shaking involve a multi-disciplinary analysis of the medical information conducted by a group of specialists, each bringing their own expertise to bear on the problem. The court must be careful to ensure that each expert keeps within the bounds of their own expertise and defers, where appropriate, to the expertise of others (see observations of King J in Re S [2009] EWHC 2115bFam). 42. Seventh, the evidence of the parents and any other carers is of the utmost importance. It is essential that the court forms a clear assessment of their credibility and reliability. They must have the fullest opportunity to take part in the hearing and the court is likely to place considerable weight on the evidence and the impression it forms of them (see Re W and another (Non-accidental injury) [2003] FCR 346). 43. Eighth, it is common for witnesses in these cases to tell lies in the course of the investigation and the hearing. The court must be careful to bear in mind that a witness may lie for many reasons, such as shame, misplaced loyalty, panic, fear and distress, and the fact that a witness has lied about some matters does not mean that he or she has lied about everything (see R v Lucas [1981] QB 720). 44. Ninth, as observed by Hedley J in Re R (Care Proceedings: Causation) [2011] EWHC 1715vFam: "
There has to be factored into every case which concerns a disputed aetiology giving rise to significant harm a consideration as to whether the cause is unknown. That affects neither the burden nor the standard of proof. It is simply a factor to be taken into account in deciding whether the causation advanced by the one shouldering the burden of proof is established on the balance of probabilities." The court must resist the temptation identified by the Court of Appeal in R v Henderson and Others [2010] EWCA Crim 1219 to believe that it is always possible to identify the cause of injury to the child. 45. Finally, when seeking to identify the perpetrators of non-accidental injuries the test of whether a particular person is in the pool of possible perpetrators is whether there is a likelihood or a real possibility that he or she was the perpetrator (see North Yorkshire County Council v SA [2003] 2 FLR 849. In order to make a finding that a particular person was the perpetrator of non-accidental injury the court must be satisfied on a balance of probabilities. It is always desirable, where possible, for the perpetrator of non-accidental injury to be identified both in the public interest and in the interest of the child, although where it is impossible for a judge to find on the balance of probabilities, for example that Parent A rather than Parent B caused the injury, then neither can be excluded from the pool and the judge should not strain to do so (see Re D (Children) [2009] 2 FLR 668, Re SB (Children) [2010] 1 FLR 1161).”[55]In Lancashire County Council v C, M and F (Children; Fact Finding Hearing) [2014] EWFC 3, Jackson J, after citing Baker J above, added this:
“To these matters, I would only add that in cases where repeated accounts are given of events surrounding injury and death, the court must think carefully about the significance or otherwise of any reported discrepancies. They may arise for a number of reasons. One possibility is of course that they are lies designed to hide culpability. Another is that they are lies told for other reasons. Further possibilities include faulty recollection or confusion at times of stress or when the importance of accuracy is not fully appreciated, or there may be inaccuracy or mistake in the record-keeping or recollection of the person hearing and relaying the account. The possible effects of delay and repeated questioning upon memory should also be considered, as should the effect on one person of 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”
. These comments are particularly relevant in this matter where the parents’ evidence and credibility are of great pertinence.[56]In Re A (Children) (Pool of Perpetrators) [2022] EWCA Civ 1348, King LJ re-emphasised that judges should apply the simple balance of probability standard when determining whether it is possible to identify a perpetrator from a list of those who could be responsible. In coming to a conclusion each person should be considered individually by reference to all of the evidence. Glosses such as 'straining' to identify a perpetrator should be avoided. The unvarnished test is clear:
“following a consideration of all the available evidence and applying the simple balance of probabilities, a judge either can, or cannot, identify a perpetrator. If he or she cannot do so, then, in accordance with Re B (2019), he or she should consider whether there is a real possibility that each individual on the list inflicted the injury in question.”
[57]In Re A (A Child) [2020] EWCA Civ 1230, the limitation of oral evidence was once again highlighted and the courts warned to assess all the evidence in a manner suited to the case before it, and not to inappropriately elevate one kind of evidence over another.[58]In Re H-C (Children) [2016] EWCA Civ 136 the Court of Appeal reminded judges in family cases of the proper approach to witnesses who tell lies as originally set out in R v Lucas [1981] QB 720. There are many reasons for this which do not denote guilt, for example, fear, shame, loyalty, panic and distress. An innocent person may lie to bolster their case. A lie should never be considered as direct proof of guilt. In criminal proceedings, to be capable of amounting to corroboration a lie must be deliberate, relate to a material issue and be motivated by a realisation of guilt and a fear of the truth. The same principle applies here. This point was emphasized again in Re A, B and C (Children) [2021] EWCA Civ 451.[59]In Re L-W (Children) [2019] EWCA Civ 159 the Court of Appeal overturned a finding of failure to protect, where it had not been shown that on the particular facts of that case, a person should have identified a risk to the child. Lady Justice King stated:- “62. Failure to protect comes in innumerable guises. It often relates to a mother who has covered up for a partner who has physically or sexually abused her child or, one who has failed to get medical help for her child in order to protect a partner, sometimes with tragic results. It is also a finding made in cases where continuing to live with a person (often in a toxic atmosphere, frequently marked with domestic violence) is having a serious and obvious deleterious effect on the children in the household. The harm, emotional rather than physical, can be equally significant and damaging to a child.[60]Such findings when made in respect of a carer are of the utmost importance when it comes to assessments and future welfare considerations. A finding of failing to protect can lead a Court to conclude that the children's best interests will not be served by remaining with, or returning to, the care of that parent, even though that parent may have been wholly exonerated from having caused any physical injuries.[61]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. As Aikens LJ observed in Re J, "nearly all parents will be imperfect in some way or another". Many households operate under considerable stress and men go to prison for serious crimes, including crimes of violence, and are allowed to return home by their longsuffering partners upon their release. That does not mean that for that reason alone, that parent has failed to protect her children in allowing her errant partner home, unless, by reason of one of the facts connected with his offending, or some other relevant behaviour on his part, those children are put at risk of suffering significant harm. This professional and realistic approach allowed the Court to focus on what was, in reality, the only live issue, namely; was GL's history of violence sufficient to lead to a finding of failure to protect upon the mother's part?” Similar points were made in G-L-T (Children) [2019] EWCA Civ 717.[62]I have also considered the recent case of Hayden J, Lancashire County Council v M, F, A & J [2023] EWHC 3097 where the judge found the father to be the perpetrator contrary to the submissions of the Local Authority and the Guardian after considering propensity. Hayden J addressed in detail the issue of propensity evidence and criminal matters at paragraphs 37 to 42 and in family matters from paragraphs 43 to 51. Mr Justice Hayden underlined the duty on judges to draw on the totality of a wide canvas of evidence and, where that evidence permits, to identify the perpetrator of significant harm. He reminded us that this evaluation is carried out on the balance of probabilities (nothing more, nothing less) and, while this builds in a risk of error, lawyers and judges should not shirk that obligation out of an abundance of caution. The wide canvas of evidence invariably includes a variety of evidence, including hearsay and evidence of propensity to cause harm. Drawing together that evidence and properly drawing inferences from it assists in building a picture of the family’s life at the point at which significant harm is caused. Identifying the perpetrator avoids tainting the non-perpetrator parent while also providing the foundations for constructive and safe strategies for a child’s future care.[63]Finally in relation to issues of fact finding there are many allegations in the very detailed schedule In this regard, I have also had in mind the recent appeal decision in Re K and G (Care Proceedings: Fact-Finding) [2025] EWCA Civ 910 which addressed the fact that whilst in some fact-finding hearings, judges structured their judgment in line with a Local Authority's threshold document that set out the findings it sought, they were not obliged to do so. Provided the judge in a fact-finding hearing ensured that the parties had a fair hearing and delivered a judgment covering the ground within the known parameters of the case, it did not matter that the structure of the judgment departed from the threshold document. Noting this, I will address my reasons for making the findings as I consider to be necessary.[11]ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS[64]I have considered all the evidence which I have read, watched and heard and it has all been taken into account in performing my analysis.[65]The standard of proof required to identify the perpetrator or perpetrators of C’s injuries is the balance of probabilities and if I am able to identify the perpetrator to that requisite standard it is my duty to do so. C has a right to know who injured her and needs to know the truth, if possible.[66]Much is made, particularly by Mr F, of his “fall” with C prior to her admission to hospital but the experts are agreed and clear that the description of a fall as given by Mr F, with his claimed protective measures in holding C, would not account for any of her injuries in any event. There are many discrepancies around the event including the nature of it, whether mother heard it, whether they spoke about it and whether C cried or mother heard her crying. There are also discrepancies about the timing – “the other week” according to Ms M’s BWF, a week before the hospital admission, a few days before, or if Ms M’s evidence to her father and Mr F’s recollection is correct, it happened around 10 days before the admission. Mr F’ evidence on the BWF seemed to suggest that the Health Visitor had been round and seen C after the fall, with him saying that she had visited the last Tuesday or Wednesday and said that all was fine. The Health Visitor’s visit was in fact on 12 March, some 12 days before the hospital admission. Whatever the timing, Mr F remained adamant that the fall had not hurt C in any way. On her limited inspection an hour later, Ms M was also satisfied that C was fine. The timeframe certainly does not fit for the later injuries leading to her collapse. The time frame could potentially fit for the fractures of the 8th and 9th ribs which Dr Johnson dated as being 2 - 4 weeks old as of 14th March. An incident shortly before the visit of the Health Visitor would be within that period. It would, however not be described incident, but something very different.[67]We only have the word of Mr F that he had a fall at all or that the fall was as he described, and that C did not fall. Ms M merely heard a noise and not a loud noise as she would have expected to hear if someone of Mr F’s size had properly fallen over, but a “creak”. All her evidence relied upon what she was told by Mr F and she clearly believed him. I treat his evidence, however, with considerable caution. His descriptions varied “I instinctively pulled her towards me to try and stop anything. I fell down to my side but I didn’t… she didn’t hit the floor” in the BWF and then later “Erm, she was screaming. Erm, so first, first of port of call was pick her up, make sure she was okay and she calmed down after like two minutes. So…” The second statement suggests that C did indeed fall, otherwise there would be no need for her to be picked up. Ms M also reported that he had told her that he had not fallen but merely steadied himself. In his statement for the court he stated “I tripped over some storage boxes, and a blanket at the end of the bed. I did fall but C didn't fall out of my arms or get hurt in any way.”[68]There is thus no cohesive or corroborated evidence of Mr F falling other than his own word and that has varied. If an incident had occurred at this time which had injured C, then by the time Ms M came to bed an hour later, it is likely that she would not be showing outward signs of the same and a cursory inspection would not show fractured ribs for example. Dr Cardwell was clear that rib fractures were painful at the time and “would be apparent to that she was in pain and distress at the time she sustained the fracture to parents and carers in who’s care she was at the time. It might be relatively short lasting, and if she was soothed, she may not display ongoing pain for any significant amount of time”. Such fractures may not have been obvious to a non-perpetrator over and above a child that might be more difficult to settle which could have been put down to a number of different reasons such as feeding, constipation and colic, which were troubling C at the time. It is also noted that neither the Health Visitor on 12 March nor the GP on the 20March noted the fractures and they undertook examinations. I am satisfied that C was injured, fractures of the 8th and 9th ribs, in the care of her father in the period before the visit by the Health Visitor on 12 March. I am further satisfied in accordance with the experts’ unanimous opinion that Mr F will have known of the injuries and covered up the same to Ms M, the health visitor and the doctor and he did not seek any medical advice or treatment. Ms M had no knowledge of any injuries.[69]Regarding the events of [a date], much of the submissions on behalf of Mr F centred around criticising Ms M’s behaviour and were designed to fall behind and support Mr F’s very late change of both his evidence and position, in suddenly alleging to his legal team, and then the court, that Ms M had woken earlier in the night, shaken C , put her back and then specifically and deliberately passed her to her father to try to frame him and set him up for C’s injuries. This was the case that Mr F unexpectedly put to the court to try to exonerate himself and this was no doubt somewhat problematic for counsel shortly before the hearing commenced and having to present a different case at very short notice. Neither the suggestion that the mother had hurt C nor that C was taken out of the crib by Ms M had ever been mentioned previously. Mr F was recorded by the police on BWF in the early hours of [a date] and made no mention of Ms M passing C to him, nor did he mention this in either of his police interviews and it was also never mentioned in any of his court statements. In contrast, he specifically told the police “I’ve gone… I’ve gone round and taken her out of her sleeping bag. Erm, Ms M’s gone downstairs to get a bottle as I’ve gone into the other room to change her.” Further, Mr F was clear to the medics that C’s waking cry was a completely normal feeding type of cry. Dr Calisto was clear that this normal behaviour would not be likely if she had been already injured at that time. This significantly damages Mr F own already “ridiculous” and inherently improbable hypothesis. In my judgment, Mr F was clearly and obviously fabricating and lying and this significantly damaged his credibility, particularly in the face of the expert evidence.[70]In line with Mr F’s instructions and his new “set up” theory, his written closing submissions suggested issues such as it being extraordinary that Ms M did not inspect C before going downstairs (but with no rationale for this), that is was unusual for her to prepare the bottle and would have been an unusual exception for her not to feed C (this less than 2 weeks into bottle feeding with both parents admitting that there was no proper routine as yet and that they worked together), that she could have just left Mr F to sleep (they shared care) and that her leaving the milk bottle in a different room (in fact their bedroom where she was usually fed) was suspicious. Clearly these were designed to support Mr F’s theory but I simply do not accept them as having any rational basis. Further, if Mr F’s accusations were correct, the court is expected to believe that Mr F simply slept through Ms M waking and suddenly attacking and shaking her child with “an inappropriate level of force in excess of normal handling and rough play or rough handling” whilst lying next to Mr F and he saw and heard nothing. I do not accept this, it is unsustainable and the hypothesis is unevidenced. It further damages Mr F’s credibility.[71]There are other issues where Mr F’s credibility is very poor and where he has lied, deceived, and attempted to obfuscate or to excuse or justify his behaviour. I do not just refer to his constant answers of “don’t or can’t remember” and “don’t know” when challenged, I have already addressed the quality of his evidence and I have of course taken into account both the cognitive assessments and the intermediary assessment – this is a man with complex personality issues. However, when reading the submissions on behalf of the Guardian, a phrase was used which echoed the thoughts which I had already about Mr F – being “a Walter Mitty”. I have already mentioned the 999 call denials and other inconsistencies and I will address more of these. There are the issues of whether Mr F ever lived or worked in Japan or Korea (the police said not), whether he had claimed ownership of his sister’s house, owned and had stolen from him a £75000 car (down to £55000 in oral evidence) and the question of his mother’s health. In response to the questions about whether his mother had one or two lungs, his response was that it was one lung “from my knowledge yes”. This struck me as an unusual response and indicative of the way he deliberately avoided answering questions properly. He spoke to his mother daily and they are very close. He would know and the answer should have been a simple “yes“ or “no”.[72]We then turn to the issue of “D”. “D” first appeared in this matter whilst Mr F was at the hospital being recorded on BWF and being asked by the officer about his fall, and whether he sought any medical opinion. His reply was: ‘I did speak to a family friend, who is a nurse, and they said, as long as she’s settled down afterwards. [Okay, who’s that family friend, Mr F?] Erm, his name’s D. [D. Is he a nurse here?] No. He’s, erm, retired now. [Okay]. He was a nurse back in 90 something or other.” D reappeared again in his police interview on [a date]: [Is there somebody called D?] Mr F: Yes, he’s, erm, one of my mum’s friends, or a friend of the family or something like that. [Tell me about him. Did you tell D, then?] No. I, it was… I was only asking him about, er, a tongue tie, but I haven’t seen him since I was, like, six…” Mr F mentioned D to the medics at the hospital during the Child Protection Medical: “Who is D…? Mum’s friends of family. Told D… about the tongue tie, he said nothing to worry about. This was in person, at Mums house. Didn’t have the baby with me at the time.” Mr F’s mother’s police statement revealed that he had a childhood friend called D. In Mr F’s court statement, addressing the Child Protection Medical there is yet another version whereby it seems as if the person is a complete stranger “I don’t actually know who the person referred to as ‘D’ is. I thought this was someone I knew but is in fact someone I don’t know. I was visiting my mother and had been into town. As I was coming back from town, I’ve bumped into this person who initiated conversation with me. I have discussed this with my mum and described the person as best as I can and we don’t know who it is.” Mr F’s oral evidence was even more bizarre in that he suddenly announced that the person he thought was D had been dead for three or four years. There are so many contradictions and I am satisfied that all this evidence from Mr F is untrue, fabricated and said in an attempt to make him look good and caring, in seeking medical guidance. It started with a simple lie which grew and changed with each version; it became unsustainable. It simply did not happen, there was no “D” contacted by Mr F. It is all lies.[73]There is then the issue of the “tongue-tie”. There is no evidence whatsoever that C ever had a tongue-tie. Mr F, it appears, became obsessed with the idea of a tongue tie after it was mentioned in passing by the Health Visitor, possibly as a manner of explaining the blood after his first rough handling of her when feeding. He may even have believed it himself for a while but the experts’ evidence is clear that there was no diagnosis of the same and the blood was from separate damage to her mouth, to her lower lip frenulum. It also appears from the evidence that there have been at least 2 and possibly 3 incidents of blood in C’s mouth following feeding by Mr F. These are the first incident prior to the Health Visitor attending (both parents being confused about the precise date), the blood when she was taken to hospital and also the significant amount of blood on C’s bib placed in the laundry basket at the time of the police photographs. The blood in her mouth on [a date] was witnessed by the paramedics, Ms M and Mr F himself during the 999 call and then during the Child Protection Medical. Dr. Cardwell was of the clear opinion that ‘Cis also then likely to have sustained a further injury to a lower lip frenulum in the hours before arriving in hospital on the [a date]”. A potential mechanism for both incidents would include forceful feeding or forceful insertion of a dummy into the mouth. Mr F admitted in evidence that sometimes he struggled to feed C . He accepted that he was feeding C on the first occasion. He denied feeding her on the night she was taken to hospital but there was no suggestion that Ms M had fed her on that occasion and he was alone with her. Dr Cardwell was clear that for the injury to the frenulum (each occasion) “I would think a likely cause was that the lower lip has been pulled away from the gum and that can be could happen by intentionally pulling the lower lip away, by someone pulling on the lip, another way would be by forcefully placing a feeding bottle with a teat into the mouth and putting significant pressure on the lip. Between the lip and the gum and forcing the lip away and tearing the frenulum in that way.” There is no accidental mechanism possible for a child of her age.[74]Mr F’s credibility is further damaged by his internet searches and then his almost complete denial of any recollection of the same in oral evidence. These relate particularly to the issue of the bloodied bib, something which Ms M stated that she had not noticed before the photographs. It can only have been present for a short period as it was on the top of the laundry basket. In the few days prior to C’s admission to hospital she had been unwell and had visited the doctor. In the early hours of 22 March, Mr F is googling various issues about baby health including in particular “newborn split gum during fee” at 00:17 and again at 1:01 “newborn split gum during fee”. He claimed not to recollect these and said that they were just from curiosity. He also failed to remember exchanging messages with his mother at 1.51 “She’s somehow cut her gum on something that we both have no idea how or on what so she’s very restless tonight.” His mother, then responds “could be her nails”, to which Mr F replies “no like corner to corner of her mouth it’s really weird NHS site says it could be because she has a bit of a tongue tie and when feeding she’s put her tongue in front of the bottle and sucked too hard causing it to rip.” Ms M was unaware of these searches. The timing of these searches and the messages suggest a third very recent occasion for C to have bled from her mouth whilst being fed by Mr F, with the bib being used to wipe the blood being left in the laundry basket. With the timing of the searches and texts, it is entirely reasonable to assume that the bleeding event was either that night or in the previous few days – certainly after the first incident before the Health Visitor came on 12 March. The only person aware of the blood was Mr F and I am satisfied that it was caused by his clumsy or forceful feeding of C or by rough insertion of a dummy. Furthermore, having already injured her when feeding on a previous occasion he had failed to take steps to not hurt her again. This is finding number four sought by the Local Authority.[75]The main injurious event for C took place around midnight on [a date] and this has left her with lifelong changes, she will be significantly disabled, as a result of her many and severe brain injuries, requiring a considerable amount of care and support going forward. Mr F’s version of events places himself alone with the care of C throughout the collapse, discounting the “set up” scenario. Again he was caught out in a lie, when he claimed that he had put C down on the bed so he could put the light on. In his police interview he admitted that Ms M light was already on – as was the light at the top of the stairs. He claimed that this was so he could feed C but the plan had been for Ms M to feed her. Given that C had a torn frenulum and blood in her mouth on admission to hospital, similar to the previous injuries, it is clear that there was some attempt to feed her. Ms M was in the bathroom and as C had already collapsed when she came out it would be preposterous to suggest that Ms M had attempted to feed an almost unconscious baby who was clearly in tremendous trauma. In the 999 call he admits intending to feed her “I have just come back to the bedroom to start feeding her and she has gone a completely dead weight and basically lost all consciousness.” The only person who had the opportunity to feed C, roughly again or otherwise damage her frenulum was Mr F and in my judgment he had either roughly commenced feeding her prior to her collapse, or had roughly inserted a dummy to quieten her, injuring her frenulum again. This is supported by Ms M’s evidence that C had gone quiet and she believed that Mr F was feeding her, as the reason for her sudden silence. I accept that.[76]I make the following findings on the basis of the evidence, reasoning and decisions which I have addressed throughout this judgment. I am satisfied that Mr F was responsible for all of the injuries suffered by C save for the bruising upon which I make no findings. The reality is that I must exclude Ms M as a potential perpetrator for the injuries. She had no suitable opportunity, no reason or motive to injure C, no relevant propensity and the evidence simply does not support such a proposition. That leaves Mr F on his own in the pool of perpetrators, a pool now reduced to one. I am entirely satisfied that the Local Authority has proven their case and satisfied on the burden of proof that Mr F was responsible for the injuries to C. He had opportunity, motive and the evidence does not support his case that it was Ms M.[77]Allegation one: Between 28 February 2025 and 10 March 2025 C was squeezed by her father around her upper and mid-chest area using significant force leading to fractures on the left side of her 8th and 9th ribs; I make this finding as stated for the reasons set out throughout this judgment. There are no other events described by either parent which could be responsible for these injuries in the time period. I do not accept the description of the fall given by Mr F as accurate nor as a cause. I am unaware of whether C was injured deliberately or maliciously or whether she was squeezed using significant force during feeding or nappy changing or another incident where there was a loss of control and temper. I neither need nor intend to speculate. C will have shown significant distress at the time and it will have been obvious to Mr F that she was in pain, indeed his evidence to the police specifically mentions her screaming, not crying, for a period of time. Mr F failed to obtain prompt medical advice and treatment; did not inform Ms M, the Health Visitor or the GP about this event. Mr F has lied to the police, social services, the court and his family in asserting that he was not responsible. I make no findings against Ms M in respect of Allegation One. I am satisfied that she was not present and knew nothing about the event and it was not unreasonable for her to be unaware of C’s injuries.[78]Allegation two: Sometime before 12 March 2025 Mr F used excessive force when attempting to place a feeding bottle or dummy into C’s mouth, causing her lower lip frenulum to be torn; I make this finding as stated for the reasons set out throughout this judgment. Mr F has admitted that C’s bleeding happened during his feeding of her. Mr F used the word “push” in relation to feeding with C’s bottle in his police interview before correcting himself when he realised what he had said. I am satisfied that he meant push and this was accurate and not a slip. The injury was caused by him forcing an object in her mouth (likely to be her bottle as she did not have a dummy at this stage) and was not caused by normal handling. Dr Cardwell stated that at the time C’s frenulum was torn it would ‘have been painful at the point’ it occurred and C would ‘have been tearful and upset, at that time, in a way that would have been memorable for her parents or carers’. Neither parent noticed this marked difference in C’s presentation yet both parents noticed blood and they were concerned enough to discuss telling the Health Visitor about it. There is no evidence, however, that Ms M actually saw or heard a changed presentation in C . The distress may have lasted a short time and concluded before feeding had been completed, before Ms M saw C. I accept Ms M evidence that they forgot and it was, according to both parents, a very minimal amount of blood and very quick, a minor thing for Ms M. This was an inexperienced mother who had no knowledge of what Mr F had done as there is no evidence she saw the actual insertion for feeding taking place but was very easily, perhaps naïvely, prepared to accept his explanations in relation to potential tongue tie. There is no evidence that the failure to tell health professionals was deliberate or planned by Ms M and I make no such finding. Mr F failed to obtain prompt medical advice and treatment, did not inform Ms M, Health Visitor or GP of this event.[79]Allegation three: On or before 19 March 2025 C was forcibly grabbed around her face or her dummy was forcibly pushed into her mouth by her father, causing a bruise to her right cheek; The only tangible evidence of a bruise is a snapshot photograph which is dated 19 March 2025, although a “small pink mark on her right cheek” was mentioned by MGF in his police statement on the day they went out. Neither parent saw the “bruise”. C was seen by her GP on 20 March and given a full clinical examination but it is not mentioned in her notes. As the Guardian stated in her closing submissions, “It follows that either the GP has missed it, or the bruise had disappeared to the point of being indiscernible or the mark was not a bruise at all.” This Court must be cautious about interpreting a ‘mark’ from a photograph, that has not been seen by any professional in person and, in fact even on the evidence, has been seen only in passing by the maternal grandfather as a small pink mark: never mind a medically trained professional. In my judgment it is not necessary or appropriate to determine the issue and I do not do so. I make no findings as to this allegation[80]Allegation four: Sometime between 21 and 22 March 2025, Mr F used excessive force when attempting to place a feeding bottle or dummy into C’s mouth, causing her lower lip frenulum to be torn or damaged again I make this finding as stated for the reasons set out throughout this judgment. I am satisfied according to the civil burden of proof that there is sufficient evidence to make this finding on the basis of the medical evidence and Mr F’s own evidence, googling and texting history and conduct on 22 March 2025 together with the finding of the previous similar injury on the previous occasion and propensity. The mechanism was the same as that for the first frenulum injury. There is additional support for a third injury by the presence of the bib at the top of the laundry basket. Mr F’s evidence in relation to this issue was particularly unsatisfactory, with many answers being “don’t remember” but then somehow managing to remember that his unrecalled search on the internet at that time about bleeding was just out of curiosity. He later said he did not remember the night. I am satisfied that these were further attempts by Mr F to avoid difficult questions. It is clear that Mr F caused these injuries by rough feeding in line with the uncontested medical evidence. There is no evidence that C ever bled when fed by Ms M. Dr Cardwell was also clear that if the bleeding had subsided it wouldn't necessarily have been obvious, so Ms M may never have seen the second occasion.I also find that Mr F has caused the similar third injury on 24 March by either attempting to feed C before her collapse and admission to hospital, or by inserting a dummy to quieten her and this similar injury is again relevant as propensity. There was no evidence from the parents that C’s level of bleeding was significant on [a date] and the bloodstained bib was unseen by Ms M, who had care of C from the spotting of the blood on [a date] until she was taken in the ambulance. Mr F failed to obtain prompt medical advice and treatment, did not inform Ms M, or any health professional of this event.[81]Allegation five: late on [a date]/early hours of the [a date], (around midnight) C was violently assaulted by her father, causing a number of significant injuries. I make this finding as stated for the reasons set out throughout this judgment. Dr Williams confirmed that C’s injuries were severe and not explained by any natural condition, birth, rough handling or a common fall. They resulted from at least one episode of very recent forceful shaking and squeezing. Dr Johnson noted that the fractures to the 1st to 7th ribs and to both clavicles were a single episode of chest trauma “significant, excessive and greater than that used in the normal care and handling of a child”. Mr Newman confirmed that the eye injury was in keeping with a shaking injury. Dr Calisto confirmed that “C seems to have suffered an acute and profound alteration of her brain function…Significant head trauma involving a considerable degree of acceleration/deceleration forces, occurring moments before the onset of the symptoms described above would be able to explain C’s presentation.” “At least one memorable event involving strong head acceleration/deceleration, with or without impact against a semi-yielding surface.” All the experts were clear that Mr F earlier “fall” was not the cause. The only person who had care of C at the time of her collapse, on his own evidence, was Mr F. The medics confirmed that the collapse was not a delayed response to an earlier incident and Mr F was very clear that C was absolutely fine at first, including when he took her from her crib into her room. Dr Calisto described how C would have reacted thus:
“It is very likely that that at the time of the incident or in the subsequent moments C felt pain, showing one or more of the following signs, slowly or very quickly evolving: a short period of severe distress and inconsolable crying, followed by excessive quietness, confusion, vacant appearance and behavioural changes, with reduced level of alertness similar to abnormal sleepiness, intermittent periods of feeble whimpering, up to complete loss of consciousness, responsiveness and muscular tone (going limp). C of coursecould have just become immediately unresponsive, which seems more likely to me, given the severity and multiplicity of her injuries suggesting a very significant level of energy being discharged.”
This is in direct contrast to Mr F’s description of C as being entirely normal at waking. Dr Calisto stated:
“I think that… C collapsed straight away or instants after the event, due to the level of force…From a radiological point of view, the two CT scans taken a couple of hours apart on [a date] show evolving injuries. I agree with the expert neuroradiologist that this would suggest a very recent event, in keeping with the clinical dating above.”
[82]I accept the evidence of the experts as to both the critical timing and the causation of the injuries. The words of Mr Calisto are definitive and determinative: ‘Clinical timing is consistent as per: a memorable event, a sudden and very marked change in the child's demeanour around midnight or slightly after midnight on [a date]” (assuming the 999 call was not delayed). C was fine when Ms M awoke, and by the time Ms M came out of the toilet, C had been catastrophically injured, by the only person present with her – Mr F.[83]Sadly I am not able to conclude precisely how C was injured as Mr F has not explained what happened that evening, but he was the only person present when C suffered her collapse. When asked, he lied and deflected. She has suffered a repetitive acceleration and deceleration trauma, a “shake”, together with forcible squeezing of her chest and clavicles causing fractures and bruising. Her frenulum was torn again and I can conclude that there is an inherent probability that this was by Mr F attempting to feed her, by pushing the bottle into her mouth or by using a dummy. Mr F was tired when woken and he has admitted to previous difficulties feeding C. At some point he has become frustrated, angry and lost control and violently assaulted C by shaking and squeezing her and also by throwing her down onto the bed, either before or after or indeed during his attempts to feed or quieten her. He mentioned to his mother, according to her police evidence, that at the time of the incidence he was considering CPR on C and in evidence he described precisely how to do it to an adult. It is of course very different when applied to a baby. We do not know if he did this to C or not and I do not need or intend to resolve that issue. Mere suspicion is not sufficient. He has been unable to tell the truth because he is aware from his many internet searches that a prison sentence is a possibility for someone who seriously hurts a child. He has then attempted to frame Ms M for his own actions in a most devious, selfish and dishonest manner. He alone has been responsible for the plethora of injuries in this section resulting in the lifelong devastating impact upon C .[84]Allegation six: cumulative failures by Ms M from on or around 10 March 2025, becoming increasingly aware that C was suffering harm whilst in the care and control of Mr F and choosing to ignore them and as a consequence failing to protect C . I do not make this finding. Ms M was undoubtedly an inexperienced first-time mother. She is autistic with a complex personality profile and functioning and was a matter of a few weeks post-natal. Her ability to recognise risk will likely be affected by these issues. She was as I have already mentioned, naïve, and she put her trust in Mr F. She could be considered to be gullible but until [a date] there was no basis for real concern. It can be said that she was too prepared to believe him and failed to challenge him, but until the time of C’s collapse there had been no evidence of any significant or concerning injuries. Many people are willing and able to trust their partners and usually this trust is well placed. Occasionally it is not, but Ms M did not know that at the time. She had seen a little blood in C’s mouth on one occasion which they both thought may be linked to a potential tongue-tie and was minimal, stopped quickly, wiped away easily and they were not worried. I accept that she never saw blood again until the collapse. At worst, Ms M believed Mr F on the tongue-tie issue. She also accepted his description of his “fall” but even when accepting this she then asked more questions when she went upstairs and checked C over seeing no cause for concern. If C had been injured with broken ribs an hour earlier, then according to the evidence of Dr Johnson she may well not have shown pain in any event at that time, so Ms M may not have been aware. They should both have told the Health Visitor and the doctor about the “fall” and the blood in C’s mouth even if just mentioned in passing, but their explanation about forgetting (certainly in the case of Ms M) rings true. With the Health Visitor it was a long first appointment with a plethora of issues discussed and Ms M was mainly concerned about the feeding difficulties contributed to by her own health issues. When they saw the doctor they were again concerned about feeding and bowels. C was checked over both times and no concerns were noted so it cannot be said that it was unreasonable not to mention what she believed were trivial matters causing no harm. In coming to these decisions I have not considered Mr F to be an honest witness. Indeed I have found him to lack credibility and to have deliberately lied to the court and others. This includes Ms M, whose skill at detecting lies and deceit is adversely affected by her profile and functioning. Mr F has lied and deceived throughout but I am satisfied that she has not recognised this or has recognised very little. He has deliberately manipulated situations to his benefit, been secretive and hidden his behaviour. He has successfully persuaded Ms M of his own truth. Only occasionally was his behaviour of concern to Ms M – the incident of the keys being one issue where despite Mr F denying that he had thrown her to the ground and minimising matters, he admitted that she had indeed ended up on the ground. He consistently failed to answer questions or answered that he did not remember when the questioning was difficult, yet the next moment he had clarity and could answer specific questions about issues which were not averse to him. He was avoidant and I simply cannot accept that this was simply his poor memory, it appeared too selective for that. This mother, with her innocent trusting nature was not able to see and challenge these inconsistencies because they were in the main hidden from her by Mr F, who is acknowledged as being uncommunicative. She also was, as many new mothers are, concentrating on C and she appropriately sought guidance from the Health Visitor, over-ruled Mr F and took C to the doctors and on the night of the collapse immediately ensured that father called 999 whilst she looked after C. She had limited support from Mr F who spent a large amount of his time, long hours in the day, playing games on his computer. In my judgment there is no evidence that she either failed to protect or that she saw or ignored harm. She was and is clearly a loving and caring mother. There have been no concerns whatsoever about her care of C before or after the traumatic events of [a date].

DECISION

[85]I make the findings as stated. HHJ Hesford 29 January 2026 NOTE: Please ensure that the court appointed experts are provided with either a copy of the finalised judgment or at least the detail about their role and the findings, and that they are thanked by the court for their assistance. APPENDIX 1 – GROUND RULES Ground rules to be applied for Ms M at the finding of fact hearing commencing on 19 January 2026:a. Participation: i. Ms M shall be supported by her intermediary during all conferences and during the court hearing; ii. s legal team and the court staff shall work co-operatively to use their best endeavours for a conference room to be made available / reserved throughout the listing, for use of Ms M before and after the court hearing as a waiting area separate from Mr F, to use for breaks during evidence which may occur at any time and for consultations with her legal team and/or periods of recap of evidence heard by the intermediary iii. There shall be regular breaks (usually once every hour) with such breaks lasting approximately 15 minutes; iv. In court, Ms M shall remain behind a screen so as to ensure she does not come into contact with Mr F and the paternal grandmother; v. Should the intermediary need to capture the Judge’s attention s/he shall raise their hand.b. Giving of evidence: i. Ms M shall give her evidence from behind a screen; ii. The intermediary shall be permitted to sit next to her and assist with any navigation of the witness bundle; iii. There shall be regular breaks (usually once every 45 minutes) with such breaks lasting approximately 15 minutes; iv. All advocates shall be familiar with the toolkit; v. Questions shall be asked in accordance with the guidance given by the intermediary; vi. Should any party intend to refer Ms M to a lengthy extract from the court papers this shall be notified in advance to ensure it is tabbed up and to enable Ms M to refresh her memory; vii. Ms M shall have available to her visual aides / cue cards; viii. Ms M shall be permitted to use a fidget spinner, should she so wish; ix. Should the intermediary need to capture the Judge’s attention s/he shall raise their hand; x. The advocates shall, by 4pm on Friday 16 January 2025, send to Ms M’s legal team their sample questions for Ms M for review by the intermediary. Ground rules to be applied for Mr F at the finding of fact hearing commencing on 19 January 2026: a. Participation: ii. Mr F shall be supported by his intermediary during all conferences and during the court hearing; iii. Mr F shall be supported by his mother during all conferences and during the court hearing (save that whilst Ms M is giving evidence the paternal grandmother will not be present in the court room); iv. Mr F’s legal team and the court staff shall work co-operatively to use their best endeavours for a conference room to be made available / reserved throughout the listing for use of Mr F before and after the court hearing as a waiting area separate from Ms M, to use for breaks during evidence which may occur at any time and for consultations with his legal team and/or periods of recap of evidence heard by the intermediary vi. There shall be regular breaks (usually once every hour) with such breaks lasting approximately 15 minutes; vii. In court, Mr F shall remain behind a screen so as to ensure he does not come into contact with Ms M; viii. Should the intermediary need to capture the Judge’s attention s/he shall raise their hand. b. Giving of evidence: i. Mr F shall give his evidence from behind a screen; ii. The intermediary shall be permitted to sit next to him and assist with any navigation of the witness bundle; iii. There shall be regular breaks (usually once every 30-40 minutes) with such breaks lasting approximately 15 minutes; iv. There shall be additional time allowed for processing answers; xi. All advocates shall be familiar with the toolkit; xii. Questions shall be asked in accordance with the guidance given by the intermediary; xiii. Information shall be summarised into short chunks and there shall be no direct reading from the bundle or inviting him to read from the bundle; xiv. Mr F shall be permitted to use a fidget spinner, should she so wish; xv. Should the intermediary need to capture the Judge’s attention s/he shall raise their hand; xvi. The advocates shall, by 4pm on Friday 16 January 2025, send to Mr F’s legal team their sample questions for Mr F for review by the intermediary; xvii. The court day must conclude by no later than 4pm.

Cited in 1 later judgment