F (A Child), Re (fact finding) [2013] EWCC B23 (Fam) (04 November 2013)

[ Home ] [ Databases ] [ World Law ] [ Multidatabase Search ] [ Help ] [ Feedback ] [ DONATE ] England and Wales County Court (Family) You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales County Court (Family) >> F (A Child), Re (fact finding) [2013] EWCC B23 (Fam) (04 November 2013) URL: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCC/Fam/2013/B23.html Cite as: [2013] EWCC B23 (Fam) [ New search ] [ Printable RTF version ] [ Help ] IN THE FAMILY COURT SITTING AT MILTON KEYNES. In the matter of Section 31 of the Children Act 1989 04 November 2013 B E T W E E N: THE LOCAL AUTHORITY . Applicant -and- MOTHER st Respondent -and- FATHER nd Respondent -and- F (Minor, through his Children’s Guardian) th . Respondent -and- JR AND SH. th . and 6 th . Respondents -and- MR. S Intervener. APPROVED JUDGMENT. This judgment was delivered in private. The judge has given leave for this version of the judgment to be published on condition that (irrespective of what is contained in the judgment) in any published version of the judgment the anonymity of the children and members of their family must be strictly preserved. All persons, including representatives of the media, must ensure that this condition is strictly complied with. Failure to do so will be a contempt of court. Mr. Miller for the Local Authority. Mr. Cronshaw for the Mother Father not present, not represented and playing no part in the proceedings. JR in person (SH not able to be present for the fact finding hearing due to work commitments.) Mr. S in person as the intervener. Ms. Gilling for the Child. (By their Children’s Guardian Mrs. Diane Clarke) Publishing of judgment delayed due to criminal trial. Before Her Honour Judge Brown. These proceedings are in respect of F born in 2005 now 8 years old. His parents will be referred to throughout this judgment as mother and father. Father has not had contact with F since January 2013 and has played no part in these proceedings. Mother is present in court and represented by Mr. Cronshaw. The other parties to these proceedings are the local authority, the maternal uncle JR and his partner SH, the child through the Children’s Guardian Mrs. Diane Clarke. Mother’s previous partner Mr. S, is an intervener. He is unrepresented but has present throughout the trial and has given evidence. Mr. S has a son called A with whom he had fortnightly staying contact between Thursday to Sunday. A therefore stayed with Mother and F on alternate weekends between January and May 2013. He is two years old. This is a fact finding hearing. In short the local authority’s case is that between January and May 2013, F suffered serious emotional and physical abuse caused by Mr. S and that Mother failed to protect F from such abuse, knowing that it was taking place The only two possible perpetrators of the injuries are Mother and Mr. S. I will turn to the specific findings sought by the local authority in due course. The only three witnesses from whom I heard during this hearing were Dr. Kenny, Mother and Mr. S. There are six lever arch files which form the case papers in this case. I have read and considered them all. The police have been very proactive in gathering evidence in this case. The local authority received disclosure from the police, namely transcribed text and “WhatsApp” messages between Mother and Mr. S and third parties at the beginning of October 2013. It has been made clear to me that the two sets of messages, text messages and Whatsapp messages are two distinct messaging services. All disclosed messages between mother and Mr. S dated between January and May 2013 are Whatsapp messages. No text messages between those dates have been disclosed and it has not been made clear by the police as to whether this is because they have not been accessed or there were none. Therefore where messages are referred to in this judgment as being dated between these two dates they are in fact Whatsapp messages. Mother and Mr. S also sent photographs of F and his injuries to each other and to third parties. I say at once that this evidence has shone light on what was happening within the home and in particular on the mindset of these individuals. It is regrettable that such key evidence has only been available through the efforts of the police rather than from candid and open statements made by Mother and Mr. S. In addition to the photographs taken by Mother and Mr. S, there are two sets of photographs. There are photographs taken of the injuries at the hospital on 17.5.2013 and by the police on 19.5.2013. I should say something about the involvement of Mr. S. By order of the court on 4 th June 2013 ( B43 paragraph 3 ), the Local Authority were to serve notice of these proceedings on Mr. S and invite him to intervene no later than 4pm on 11 th June 2013. At ( B43 paragraph 4 ), Mr. S was directed to attend the hearing on 1 st July 2013. It was recorded in the order dated 1 st July 2013 ( B50 paragraph 5 ) that ‘ Mr. S did not attend this hearing and ... not legally represented ’. Following this order, serving notice on Mr. S was not possible, because the Local Authority had no address or contact number for him. The address provided by Thames Valley Police referred to the mother’s current address where Mr. S was previously residing. The Solicitors for the mother were asked to confirm whether the mother was aware of any other telephone number or addresses for Mr S. The mother said she does not know his current whereabouts. The Solicitor for the Local Authority had contacted Mr S’ criminal solicitors and asked if they could contact Mr. S urgently asking him to contact the Local Authority and for him to give his Solicitors permission to give the Local Authority his contact details. The criminal Solicitors agreed to contact the Local Authority Solicitor once they had made contact with Mr. S. No response was forthcoming. At the hearing on the 1 st July 2013, at which Mr. S did not attend, HHJ Hughes ordered his criminal Solicitors to provide the local authority with his contact details ( B51 paragraph 7 ). In addition, the Department of Work and Pensions was ordered to disclose to the local authority the last known and /or current address of Mr. S by 4pm on 12 th July 2013. Mr. S was ordered to attend Milton Keynes County Court on 5 th August 2013. On the 15 th July 2013, the court wrote to local authority saying they had been informed by HMRC that ‘ they are unable to trace Mr. S ’ ( B55 ). On the 22 nd July 2013, HHJ Hughes made an order ( B56 ) reinstating the hearing on the 5 th August 2013 to deal with the intervener status of Mr. S. It is recorded in the preamble of the order dated 5 th August 2013 ( B75 ) ‘ UPON hearing ... from Mr. S in person ’. At ( B78 paragraph 1 ), Mr. S was ‘joined to these proceedings as an Intervener ’. Mr. S attended at the hearing in person on 30 th September 2013. He informed the court that he had identified a firm of Solicitors and was going to see them later that day. He was ordered ( B112 paragraph 4 ) to ‘ file and serve his responses to all the findings sought by the Local Authority and his witness requirements, including times for cross-examination, no later than 14th October 2013, regardless of whether or not he has instructed solicitors ’. The court made it clear to Mr. S that it was of the greatest importance that he seeks legal advice and that the fact finding would commence on 21 st . October 2013. He told me that he understood and that he would be contacting his solicitor directly after that hearing. No responses were received from Mr. S and so the local authority successfully applied for a witness summons to be issued. Mr. S attended at court on the first day of the hearing. He told me that he had tried to contact his solicitors but was somewhat unclear as to whether they had consented to act for him. At the commencement of trial he had not filed any evidence. Prior to him giving evidence I adjourned the case for him to write and file a statement if he wished to do so. He wrote some notes but told me that they did not form part of his formal evidence and he did not wish to file them. However on the third day of trial when he was part heard he filed written responses to the findings of fact sought. I have accepted those responses as his written evidence in this case. There is a transcript of his police interviews which I have also considered at length. At no point in the proceedings did Mr. S apply for an adjournment and I have received no communication from any solicitor acting on Mr. S behalf. I should also note that on the second day of Mother giving evidence she asked that Mr. S be excluded from the court room. I allowed this and Mother gave an hour of evidence with Mr. S waiting outside. I have to say that the tenor of her evidence did not change and her evidence did not significantly depart from the case she had been putting. She did state that she was “terrified” of Mr. S now particularly as she is living alone. I made a non-molestation injunction prohibiting Mr. S from attending at Mother’s home and from contacting Mother. When the case resumed on 30 th . October 2013 I took the view that I could not exclude Mr. S again. I ensured that Mr. S was screened from Mother as she gave evidence. Mr. S was given the opportunity to listen to the one hour of evidence that he missed on the previous Friday but he declined to listen to the tape. I had given him an oral summary of the evidence at the end of court on Friday. I have seen the PNC in respect of Mr. S. He has convictions for battery and possession of cannabis. In respect of Father he has played no part in the proceedings. He is named on the birth certificate, which is found at ( J1 ). He has therefore been made an automatic party to these proceedings. On the 5 th June 2013, DJ Hickman made an order ( B47 ) directing the Department for Work and Pensions to disclose to the Local Authority the last known address of Father, which was duly sent to the Local Authority. He has not engaged with the court proceedings by attending any hearings or contacting Children's Social Care. Father has a criminal conviction for battery and possessing a controlled drug, for which the PNC can be found at ( H8 – H11 ). The police documents relating to him can be found at ( H22 – H64 ). The history to these proceedings. F was born on the XXX. At 9 months of age it was apparent that there was a delay in F’s developmental motor milestones. He was subsequently diagnosed as having cerebral palsy mainly affecting his legs, known as spastic diplegia. Throughout his life he has had input from therapists, paediatricians and hospital specialists including regular orthopaedic review. At 4 years of age he was statemented as having special educational needs. Mother believes him to have a reading age of 6 years. He walks with a frame or crutches and is unstable on his feet. If the frame or crutches are removed from him without him having support from something or someone else he will fall over. Within the home he will crawl on his hands and knees. Mother told me he is very fast. He cannot run. As of January 2013, he was able to control his bladder and bowel to some extent but sometimes misjudged the need to go to the toilet and would not get to the bathroom quickly enough. At night he wore nappies or “pull ups.” Prior to May 2013 Mother has always been his primary carer. Mother has been a Family Support Worker with the local authority since October 2010. Her role is to go into homes and assist families who are vulnerable or there may be a concern about child protection issues. Mother has had basic training in child protection and first aid. I have seen certificates showing successful completion of these courses see H964 and H966 . I say at the outset there is no evidence before the court that Mother emotionally or physically neglected F prior to January 2013. He is a child who has needed regular medical monitoring and overview and it appears that Mother has been conscientious in ensuring that F received the medical care and attention that he has needed. The one area of concern that is highlighted in the care arrangements for F prior to January 2013 is that there has been a history of domestic violence between Mother and Father. On the 29 th September 2008, 17 th September 2009, and 30 th November 2010, XXX Social Care received domestic incident reports from Thames Valley Police, concerning allegations of violence perpetrated by Father towards Mother ( C3 paragraph 5 ). On the 1 st December 2010, a concern was raised by XXX Social Care that due to long-standing concerns in respect of Father’s alcohol use and domestic violence, an assessment was required to consider the impact on F and to identify what support would be helpful. On the 9 th December 2010, the case was transferred to the Children’s With Disabilities Hospital Team. Attempts were made to contact the mother by Mrs. S (social worker), but without success, until on the 13 th January 2011 an appointment was made for Mrs. S to carry out a home visit and initial assessment on 22 nd February 2011. This assessment concluded that Father had left the family home, and the mother felt she was in control of the arrangements for contact between F and his father. The assessment indicated that the family did not require any additional support and the case was closed. On the 6 th July 2011, XXX Social Care received a police report of an assault, following a verbal argument between Father and the mother. It was reported F was not present during this incident. On the 21 st July 2011, a decision was taken for the case to be reassessed. This took place on 6 th September 2011, with an outcome of no further action. Mother had always been the main carer for F and there had been periods of separation between the parents with Father coming and going from the property. Father finally left the family home in December 2012. In January 2013 he assaulted Mother for which he was convicted in April and sentenced to a suspended sentence of imprisonment for 18 months in June 2013. Mother’s evidence is that she suffered a great deal at the hands of Father. I have not heard from Father. However, there is the fact of the conviction. This background is relevant because what has emerged through the case is that Mother met Mr. S when she was at a very “low ebb” and it would appear particularly vulnerable. Mother met Mr. S through an internet website in January 2013. They met on a Sunday in January 2013 and the next day, a sexual relationship commenced and Mr. S moved in. Both Mr. S and Mother told me that they were open with each other about their past and Mother told Mr. S of the domestic violence she had suffered from Father. From the outset, Mr. S was aware of Mother’s fears and vulnerabilities. Between January and May 2013, F started to suffer a series of increasingly serious injuries. F was seen by various professionals during that time and continued to attend school. Finally on 14 th . May 2013 Mother took F to High Wycombe General Hospital for a pre existing appointment. By that time F was covered in bruises and had suffered a burn to his left hand. Doctors at the hospital saw the burn and transferred F to Stoke Mandeville Hospital where after treating him for a severe infection of the burn he underwent a skin graft. Further investigation by medics uncovered a series of injuries to F which are now considered to be inflicted. The local authority applied for and was granted an Emergency Protection Order on 24 th . May 2013. An interim care order was made on 5.6.2013. F was discharged from hospital and placed with foster carers on 29.5.2013 where he remains to date. The local authority has been represented at this hearing by Mr. Simon Miller of Counsel. I say at once that he has presented this case with great care, skill and sensitivity and his written work has been a model of its kind. His knowledge of these papers has been impressive. I openly acknowledge that I have been able to use parts of his written opening to set out the history and key parts of the evidence in this judgment. He has made my task in this difficult case much easier and I am extremely grateful to him. The findings sought. At the outset of the trial the local authority sought the following findings which were modified by the end, in particular in respect of the identity of the perpetrator. GENERAL 1. There are no underlying medical causes or disorders to account for easy bruising or bleeding to F. 2. Since March 2013, there has been no alteration in the overall physical activity of F or deterioration in his cerebral palsy. 3. Up until March 2013, no professional agencies, including the school and health professionals, have expressed any concerns regarding the physical presentation of F. 4. Mr. S and Mother have been living together since the end of January 2013. 5. F started to suffer bruising and swelling in March 2013 up until his presentation in hospital on 13 th May 2013. LEFT HAND 6. Mr. S has deliberately held the top of the left hand of F under excessively hot running water from the bathroom tap, which has caused a large, evenly deep, burn with a well circumscribed edge. 7. Whilst holding the left hand of F under the running tap water, Mr. S has deliberately stood on the foot of F. 8. Mr. S has told F to lie to his mother about how the burn occurred, by instructing him to tell her it was caused by hot tea falling onto his hand. 9. Mr. S, knowing the severity of the burn, failed to seek immediate medical attention for F. 10. Mr. S has lied to a number of professionals, including Health Professionals, the Police, the Court and Children's Social Care about how the burn occurred. 11. Mother, on being told of the burn and observing the burn, has not sought immediate medical attention for F. 12. Mr. S and Mother have colluded together to hide from the relevant authorities how this injury was caused. BRUISES 13. F has had, since March 2013, extensive non-accidental bruising on different parts of his body, which are in excess of those seen from medical causes of easy bruising and everyday accidents and falls and from a most active and clumsy, accident prone, child. 14. This bruising has been caused by Mr. S on different occasions, which have been caused by a variety of mechanisms, including severe squeezing and grabbing, by picking F up and throwing him on the floor, by throwing him against a chair, by standing and stamping on his hand, and by standing, and stamping, on his right foot and ankle. 15. Mother has failed to protect F from these physical assaults perpetrated by Mr. S. 16. Mother and Mr. S have colluded together to hide from the authorities the true causation of these injuries. BITE TO UPPER BACK 17. F has been subject to a non-accidental bite-mark to his back by an adult. 18. This bite-mark has been caused by Mr. S. 19. Mr. S has lied to the authorities by blaming his two year old son as being the cause of the bite-mark. 20. Mother and Mr. S have colluded together to hide from the authorities the true causation of this injury. NASAL SEPTUM INJURY 21. Mr. S has intentionally injured F by gripping the nasal septum of F and squeezing hard, thus causing it to bleed and split. In addition, this assault has caused his lower lip to swell and has caused ulceration. 22. Mr. S and Mother failed to seek immediate and appropriate medical attention for this injury to F. 23. Mr. S and Mother have colluded together to hide from the authorities the true causation of this injury. GROIN & PENIS 24. F has suffered extensive bruising to his groin area, which has been inflicted non-accidentally by Mr. S. 25. F has suffered an injury to his penis, which has been inflicted non-accidentally by either Mr. S or Mother. 26. Mr. S and/or Mother have failed to seek immediate, and appropriate, medical attention for these injuries to F. 27. Mother and Mr. S have colluded together to hide from the authorities the true causation of these injuries. OTHER 28. Mr. S has forced F to eat his own faeces on at least one occasion. 29. F, having been fed by Mr. S, was later sick into a cup and was then forced to drink from that cup by Mr. S. 30. F was assaulted in the car by Mr. S by being thumped on his hand. The mother was present when this assault occurred. 31. On at least one occasion at bed-time, Mr. S put his hand around the neck of F saying ‘I don’t want to hear a word from you’. Following receipt of text messages and WhatsApp messages and pictures from Thames Valley Police that were found on the mobile phones of the mother and Mr. S, the Local Authority filed a document, dated 7 th October 2013, setting out further findings it asks the court to make ( A43 – A44 ) namely, 1. The mother has provided money on a regular basis to Mr. S to enable him to purchase ‘skunk’. She has allowed him to smoke ‘skunk’ in her home, and has been aware that he has been cultivating plants to grow skunk within her home. ( Text Nos : 69531 – 69532, 69854 – 69859, 70223, 72227 – 72230, 72371, 72387, 73218, 73222, 73305 - 77306, 74394, 74664 – 74665) . 2. The mother has known that on at least one occasion Mr. S has slapped and pulled F whilst in his bedroom. ( Text Nos. 74605 – 74614 ). She has failed to protect F from this assault. 3. Mr. S has assaulted F on one occasion by slapping and pulling him whilst in his bedroom ( Text Nos. 74605 – 74614 ) 4. Mr. S has told the mother on various occasions, and over a period of time, his feelings towards F. The mother, in spite of this, has chosen to prioritise, and continue, her relationship with Mr. S rather protecting the welfare and safety of F. TEXT NUMBERS DATE 64874 – 64939 th February 2013 65267 – 65269 th February 2013 65908 – 65912 nd March 2013 65938 – 65960 nd March 2013 6 th March 2013 6 th March 2013 67888 – 67936 th March 2013 68030 – 68031 th March 2013 68036 – 68047 th March 2013 9 th April 2013 11 th April 2013 69953 – 69966 th April 2013 70746 – 70778 th April 2013 71068 – 71081 st April 2013 71092 – 71093 st April 2013 26 th April 2013 27 th April 2013 27 th April 2013 2 nd May 2013 13 th May 2013 5. From around February/March 2013 to 13 th May 2013, Mr. S has used ‘hurtful words’ ( ) and ‘names’ ( ) to the mother in describing F, which have included : ‘spoilt shit-bag’ ( ), a ‘fucking piss taking little shit’ ( ), a ‘brat’ ( ), ‘nut case’ ( ), ‘embarrassing’ ( ), ‘the weediest boy I have ever met’ ( ), ‘why can't he be a normal child like anyone else’ ( 67922) , ‘I can't live with you if I hate your son’ ( ), a ‘dirty little shit’ ( ) & ( ), ‘I’ve done enough and he shits on me’ ( ), ‘sulking little shit’ ( ), ‘two words fuck up’ ( ), ‘I can't be arsed anymore with him’ ( ), ‘fucking cry baby deserves to be the way he is, not normal, not human ...’ ( ), ‘the prick’ ( ), ‘... that fuck up not human person’ ( ), ‘how the fuck can you even be proud to say he is your son ... I would be ashamed’ ( ), ‘spaco legs’ ( ) and a ‘miserable fucker’ ( ). The Injuries and the medical evidence. The parties instructed Dr. Patricia Kenny, a Consultant Paediatrician. A summary of her qualifications and experience are at E64. She is a professional of great experience. She told me that she jointly ran a “burns clinic” with a plastic surgeon for 9 years during her career and therefore has particular experience in treating burns. The evidence of Dr. Kenny. Dr. Kenny set out her opinion in respect of the injuries to F in her report. Dr. Kenny reviewed the medical evidence and in particular the opinions of the treating doctors Dr. R and S. Given the importance of the medical evidence in this case, I can do no better than to insert Dr. Kenny’s responses to the specific questions asked of her. Included in this section of her report is a note of the findings of the treating doctors and Dr. Kenny’s opinion about those findings and opinions. Response to specific questions 1. Please undertake a paediatric overview of the child and the injuries he has sustained. As far as can be ascertained there has been no past concern about an excess rate of injury despite F’s disability. The range of injuries is described above in both Mother’s accounts and documentation by healthcare professionals. He had recurrent severe bruising that appears initially to have been under recorded and holistically poorly investigated by healthcare professionals, resulting in continuing episodes of harm. 2. From a paediatric perspective, do you concur with the opinions stated by each of the paediatricians who have reported in respect of the child? Dr R, in medical report Summary of admission 15.04.13-17.04.13 Referred for bruising, facial swelling, extensive bruising right foot and leg and recurrent nose bleeds X-ray foot showed no fracture No diagnosis was reached but is was felt a clotting disorder should be excluded by an extended clotting screen that was normal Conclusion Marks over left arm appear like finger marks but size of imprint does not appear to be that of adult size hand/finger and F denied being grabbed F was unable to recall how he sustained bruises on his body All other bruises were on bony prominences other than the bruises on outer aspects of thighs and I think they are likely to be accidental Cause of swelling to right foot is not clear I have described above recognised characteristics of accidental and non accidental injury generally accepted by paediatricians. I do not agree with the comments that the bruises were likely to have been accidental nor that the cause of the leg swelling was unclear; trauma seems not to have been considered a possibility. Dr S’s report dated 23.05.13 Bruises all over his body of various colours from dark purple to faint yellow none of them appeared to be tender He had peeling skin on his nasal bridge and blood crusted nostrils He had ulceration of the mucous membrane on left lower lip There was a red mark just below his left clavicle (explained by mother from scratching) There were linear scars on left flank explained by mother as from a fall a few weeks earlier Bite marks from his brother present over right scapular Excoriation on penis from scratching Swelling and bruising around old operation scar in left groin Swelling to side right ankle and to top of foot that according to mother had come down Hand and forearm in dressing and surrounding area red and inflamed Explanations Burn on hand full thickness and opinion of plastics team unlikely to be caused by spilling hot tea Mother did not seek medical advice, suspicious of NAI Bruises all over F’s body appeared with no obvious history of trauma appear non tender I feel F would say if someone has been hurting him All investigations for clotting or connective problem have been normal Some of bruises could be accidental due to cerebral palsy and he falls over but the extent cannot be explained by accidental falls and are suspicious of NAI Excoriation on penis could be result of excessive scratching F had extensive injuries in excess of those generally seen from medical causes of easy bruising and everyday accidents and falls. I do not agree with Dr S’s acceptance of implausible accidental explanations and his overall comments that bruises could be due to cerebral palsy. I consider the two statements “suspicious of NAI” to seriously underplay the degree of inflicted harm. 3. Please consider and comment on the explanations for the bruises provided by the adults. Mother has offered a range of explanations, few if any of which are plausible for the extent of bruising sustained. Short falls and knocks as described would not have resulted in more than the occasional red mark or modest bruise to a prominent bony part of the body. A could not have been responsible. Mr S similarly described a number of episodes allegedly the cause of bruises that are equally improbable. 4. From a paediatric perspective, are you able to comment, where appropriate, on the significance of the parents’ inability to account for the bruises sustained by the child? As a paediatrician I have respect for the likely veracity of young children’s spontaneous disclosures suggesting that his stepfather had reason to deny the extent to which he was involved in F’s care and fail to provide adequate explanations and accounts of events that resulted in injuries. F’s mother was active in pursuing a medical explanation and repeatedly denied knowledge of the causes of his injuries but it is unlikely she was totally unaware of what had been happening given F had asked her to stop XXX hurting him. 5. From a paediatric perspective please comment on whether you are able to draw any conclusions in respect of the cause of the injuries due to the number of occasions that bruising has been reported. As discussed above, it is my view that very many of F’s injuries were likely to have been non accidental, supported by the absence of a past history of significant bruising and normal haematological investigations. 6. From a paediatric perspective to what extent, if at all, are you able to comment on the likely timing of the presenting bruises or the burn? It is not possible to age the bruising accurately but when initially photographed most was probably between 2 and 10 days old. The appearance of the burn was consistent at presentation and on photographs with injury a few days earlier and I am not aware that there is any dispute about the likely timing. 7. Please consider and comment on any explanations for the burn to the child’s hand which has been provided by adults. Mr. S has explained his supposed reasons for suggesting to F he explain the burn as the result of scalding by hot tea until he later change his story to hot water from the bathroom tap. Mother states she reported only what she had been told by Mr. S and F. The characteristics of the burn were more in keeping with F’s disclosure that his hand had been deliberately held under excessively hot running water. 8. Please provide from a paediatric perspective the likely mechanisms and any differential diagnosis for such a burn and bruising in the light of the explanations given. I have covered the diagnostic considerations and likely causation of bruising above. There is no differential dermatological diagnosis for the burn. There are few injuries mechanisms that result in well circumscribed, deep areas of skin loss other than thermal injuries and the only diagnostic possibilities are a scald, a dry burn from direct contact with a hot object at least the size the size of the area injured or chemical burn from a strong acid or alkali. There has been no evidence to indicate a chemical was involved; there has been concern that a hot iron might have been responsible but even had this been the case it would not have been an unusual accidental injury. In children accidental burns from contact with hot objects are more likely to occur to the palmar surface rather than the back of the hand. 9. Please advise as to the likely reaction of F to any of the injuries sustained and whether it is likely that a perpetrator or carer would be aware of the gravity of the injury. I have discussed this above in Para 4.11 The perpetrator would have been fully aware of causing pain and distress at the time. It seems more likely than not that a non perpetrating, regular carer must have had some suspicions about the causes of F’s injuries. 10. Please consider and comment on the medical attention sought by the adults following the burn. I am not certain whether Mother’s account of seeking earlier advice from the GP or perhaps an out of hour’s service has been verified or discounted. There was a significant delay in final presentation for what was a significant burn, particularly as burn injuries always look worse in the first few days than when first sustained because of slough and oozing that develops. Reasonably responsible parents/carers seek immediate medical attention for serious or potentially serious injuries and it appears Mother was particularly reluctant to mention this on the telephone to Dr Ak and the delay may have been deliberate. 11. Please comment on any other matters within your expertise that you consider of relevance bearing in mind that the determination of any disputed factual issue is within the province of the judge only. I prepared the main body of my report before reading F’s later disclosures to his foster carer at the end of July and concluded that the range of injuries present were not only likely to be non accidental but represented frequent, sadist physical abuse. If F’s account is correct, and as a paediatrician I have no reason to disbelieve it, these later disclosures confirm that opinion. 6 Summary of my opinion Having previously been well F began to sustain an increasingly severe pattern of bruising initially thought to be possibly due an underlying bruising/bleeding medical disorder. It was not until he sustained a severe hand burn and presented late to healthcare that concern was raised about non accidental injuries. The characteristics of the burn and the majority of severe bruising, nose bleeds, and soft tissue swelling and injury were consistent with non accidental causation. The absence of a previous propensity to injury as a result of cerebral palsy, along with normal medical investigations, adds weight to the probability of physical abuse. The many injuries would have been painful at the time sustained and a period of time afterwards indicating unquantifiable but likely considerable suffering that might have been averted had health professionals considered NAI a diagnostic possibility at an earlier stage. In her oral evidence, Dr. Kenny stood by the opinions expressed in her report. She was clear that in her view F had been the victim of repeated and sustained physical abuse over a period of time. She pointed out that a key feature in this case had been that F had never been reported as suffering from multiple bruising prior to January 2013 nor since being removed into foster care in May 2013. Subsequent tests have ruled out a medical cause of the bruising such as leukaemia and blood clotting test and ruled out any genetic disorder. She was clear, “bruises don’t appear spontaneously without a reason.” She told me that any part of the body can be bruised but in unusual sites for an accidental bruise, there should be an explanation. In her report Dr. Kenny had produced two diagrams showing sites usual sites for accidental and non accidental bruising. She is particularly concerned in this case about the number of bruises, indeed the majority of F’s bruises being in unusual sites. Dr. Kenny made the point that the only relevance of F’s disability would be if his cerebral palsy rendered him pre-disposed to having accidents i.e. to tripping and falling. If that were the case then he is more likely to have bruises in places common for accidental bruising. However, his cerebral palsy does not offer an explanation for these particular injuries in these sites and of this number and severity. The groin. In respect of the groin injuries, Dr. Kenny told me that bruising to the groin and damage to the genitals is extremely unusual. The septum. Again Dr. Kenny considered this to be an unusual injury. She told me that it is easy to have an accidental causing a “squashed nose” but that would not cause the degree of damage seen to F’s nose. Dr. Kenny considered the injury to the septum as being some sort of crushing or twisting injury. She had not seen this particular injury before in a child. She considered F’s explanation that his nose had been squeezed and crushed hard as consistent with the injury seen. She rejected as improbable the suggestion that F had picked his nose to such an extent that he could have caused this injury although she was open to the idea that he may have picked at the injury once it had occurred. Dr. Kenny told me that the injury could have been one very serious injury or a series of repeated injuries with an original tear being constantly reopened. The bite mark. Dr. Kenny told me that pre-school children do bite each other. However if marks are left at all the marks are little red dots. She has not known of small children leaving deep bruising that lasts for days. She was shown photographs of a mark on F’s right shoulder. ( H87 and 88. ) She told me, “It looks like a bite mark.” Mr. S’ explanation that his two year old son A caused this bite mark was put to Dr. Kenny. She did not accept that a two year old could leave a lasting bite injury as seen on F. At most, in her opinion, a two year old may leave small red marks that would quickly disappear. She considered that a bite leaving the deep bruising seen on the photograph would have been, “really quite painful” but it would be, “impossible to quantify” the exact degree of pain. Under cross examination Dr. Kenny stated that she did not have the requisite expertise to state whether the size and shape of the bite mark is consistent with a child’s or an adult bite. However, she remained of the view that the bite mark was not caused by a child of two given the depth of the bite. She pointed out that such a bite would be painful and F would have prevented A from continuing to bite him. It is probable that only someone bigger and stronger than F could have inflicted such a bite. The burn on the hand. Dr. Kenny was asked about the burn to F’s hand. She described this as a significant, serious, deep burn. The explanation now put forward by Mr. S, namely of an accidental scalding under the tap and F’s explanation that his hand was forcibly held under scalding water by Mr. S were both put to Dr. Kenny. Dr. Kenny told me that if the burn was caused by hot water it would have to be very hot to cause that level of burn. Dr. Kenny told me this was an unusually deep burn the hand would have had to have been held under the water for a period of time. She did not believe that a simple splash of hot water would have caused the severity of burn. She considered that the burn may have been an immersion injury given the well defined tide mark on the hand. Further she had not been told of any neurological impairment of F which would render the normal reflex arc reaction unable to trigger an immediate withdrawal of the hand from the hot water. Dr. Kenny told me that she considered F’s explanation of his hand being held under the hot water by Mr. S as consistent with the burn. She told me that the burn should have received immediate medical attention. She was shown photographs showing the progression of the burn. A photograph was taken on the day of the burn (10 th . May 2013) on Mr. S’ phone. It is at B623. I suggested to Dr. Kenny that it looks raw, angry and painful and Dr. Kenny agreed. The top layer of skin has come off. Dr. Kenny explained that one of the first actions to take in first aid is to protect the burn, sometimes simple cling film is put over the burn, in order to protect it and to prevent further pain. A further photograph was taken on either 11 th . or 12 th . May 2013 and is at L437. Again this was taken by either Mother or Mr. S. Dr. Kenny told me that this photograph is consistent with the burn being one or two days old. Dr. Kenny described the burn as, “yellow, gunky, stinky and horrid.” She told me that burns often look far worse one or two days later as shown in this photograph. At the time the photograph was taken she did not think the hand was infected because there was no redness. She told me, “It is very difficult for anyone to ignore that type of appearance with it getting progressively worse until the state of it on admission. In terms of the pain caused by the burn Dr. Kenny made the point that sometimes the deeper the burn, the less painful at first, only because the nerves have been more damaged. Again, she felt unable to quantify the degree of pain save to say that the burn would have been painful. I was interested to note that when cross examined by Counsel for Mother, it was put to her that Mother undertakes regular exercises with F to strengthen his hands and that his reflexes have never been tested. Dr. Kenny remained of the view that there is no evidence of F’s normal reflexes being so compromised that he would not automatically withdraw his hand from being burnt. As Dr. Kenny said, “No one has described muscle wasting or significant neurological deficits of the upper arms.” Bruising generally. Dr. Kenny was cross examined at some length about Mother’s belief that F was suffering from some illness or infection which pre-disposed him to easy bruising. Dr. Kenny effectively rejected that explanation as plausible. Firstly for the reasons already stated, namely that this child had no history of easy bruising and this bruising had suddenly started to appear. Secondly, Dr. Kenny pointed out that on 16.4.2013 the clotting test results had been received showing that F had no abnormal; clotting test results. In those circumstances, Dr. Kenny considered Mother’s stated belief that F’s bruises were caused by a medical condition implausible, albeit she accepted that the final clotting test result was not received until June 2013. (I should also note that the evidence before the court is not entirely clear as to when the results dated 16.4.2013 were in fact communicated to Mother.) Dr. Kenny stated, “By the middle of April Mother would have been reassured that F did not suffer from a clotting disorder. F suffered a sickening number of injuries over a significant period of time.” Bruising to the groin/injury to the penis/foreskin. Dr. Kenny told me that the photographs show extensive bruising to the supra pubic area ie. The lower part of the tummy and the area around the penis. F’s explanation as set out above was put to Dr. Kenny. She considered that the bruising to the groin is consistent with being punched. Dr. Kenny was asked about the injury to F’s penis. The photographs show skin torn and/or skin loss on the top of F’s penis on his foreskin. Dr. Kenny told me that this represents traumatic injury to a delicate area of the body. She considered that given the degree of skin loss she considered it unlikely that this would have occurred through a punch. She considered that it is likely there was some sort of twisting injury to the skin, either someone grabbing the genitals and twisting them or pinching and twisting the foreskin around the penis. Dr. Kenny noted that this injury took several days to heal. She found it unsurprising that F could not remember separate mechanisms and believed that the bruising of the groin and the injury to the foreskin of the penis may well have occurred during the same assault but with different mechanisms employed. The extent of the bruising represents a series of bruises consistent with multiple assaults. Dr. Kenny stated that she did not think “for one moment” that this injury was caused by the penis being caught in a zip not least because no such explanation had been given. She continued to emphasise how unusual extensive accidental groin injury is. Bruising to the body in particular the marks to the arms. Dr. Kenny was asked about the bruising to the arms. She commented that different hands and fingers apply different degrees of pressure. She considered that the bruising to his arms is consistent with F being grabbed on multiple occasions which is also consistent with F’s disclosures of being grabbed by Mr. S many times. She told me that considerable force would have been required for the level of bruising seen to be present on F’s arms. Bruising and swelling to the ankle joint and lower leg. Dr. Kenny considered this injury to have required a significant amount of force given the amount of swelling which would have needed a significant amount of swelling underneath. Boggy swelling to the head. Dr. Kenny considered these were consistent with F being thrown against a hard surface such as a wall or the floor. The views of the treating doctors. Dr. Kenny did not wish to comment further on the views of the treating doctors other than the comments she had already made in her report. However she was specifically taken to the report of Dr. R typed on 7 th . May 2013. At the end of the report Dr. R makes the following comment, “I have discussed with my colleague Dr. S who has been following up F for some time and he is in agreement that F is old enough to confess to his mother if he has been assaulted by someone.” Asked to comment on that opinion Dr Kenny said, “How naive is that. You cannot make those sorts of assumptions about a child.” Asked her view about the level of peril this child was in Dr. Kenny told me that, “It doesn’t take much more I don’t think.” Within these proceedings this medical evidence was not effectively challenged. Mother accepts that F has sustained these serious and repeated injuries and that they have been caused by Mr S. Mr. S has not sought to challenge the medical evidence although I of course take into account that he is unrepresented. I have had to consider, in the light of this compelling medical evidence, how it came to pass that this little boy suffered such extensive injuries over a significant period of time. The position of the parties. Mr. S denies that he has caused any injuries to F. He has accepted in evidence that he may have called F unpleasant names and shouted at him but he denies causing any of the injuries. If he has inadvertently caused any of the bruising it is through “play fighting.” He does not believe Mother has caused the injuries and can give no explanation for how F sustained them save the burn. His case is that F accidentally suffered the burn by scalding himself with hot water from the tap whilst in his care. He accepts Mother was not in the house at the time. He states that he treated the burn. Mother’s case has “evolved” throughout the proceedings. By the conclusion of the proceedings her case is that she accepts the injuries sustained by F are non accidental and have been inflicted by Mr. S. She maintained that at the time the injuries were being inflicted she had, “no inkling” they were inflicted injuries and certainly no suspicion that they were being inflicted by Mr. S. She accepts that she failed to protect F and that she should have sought medical attention for the burn to F’s hand much earlier. Looking at the evolution of her case, Mother filed an initial response to the local authority’s first threshold document on 21 st . June 2013. The mother has provided a response, dated 21 st June 2013 ( A4 – A6 ). She accepted F had sustained a burn to the back of his hand. She said she was told by Mr. S and F that the burn was sustained by him knocking over tea. She says she was not at home when this happened. She says ‘ that her partner has given a different explanation for the injury but she has always been advised by her partner that this was caused by tea being spilt’ ( A3 paragraph 1 ). In respect of the bruising, the mother said she has been concerned for some time regarding the bruising and had sought medical advice on numerous occasions. In relation to some of the bruising, she said this had been caused by falls which she had witnessed, but in respect of other bruising, she is not sure how F sustained these bruises. She said she has not caused these bruises and is not aware of anyone else having done so ( A4 paragraph 2 ). In respect of the injury to the septum, she said she was aware F had a problem with his septum. She was not aware of any serious head trauma he had suffered ( A4 paragraph 3 ). The mother accepted that she did not initially obtain medical advice as F had said it did not hurt, and whilst it looked red, it did not look too sinister ( A5 paragraph 5 ). What is interesting about this response is that as of 21 st . June 2013, Mother was not accepting that the injuries to F were inflicted and was not pointing the finger at Mr. S. This despite knowing that Mr. S had lied to her about the cause of the burn to F’s hand and the fact that F had been removed from her care. In terms of the relationship between Mother and Mr. S both accept that the relationship ended in May but resumed in June. Mother’s case is that the sexual relationship ended in August but Mr. S told me that their relationship (including sexual) ended on 2 nd . October 2013. More about this will be said in due course. Mother’s case is that she has no intention of reconciling with Mr. S. Chronology of the injuries. It has been extremely important in this case to consider the emergence of the injuries in the context of the other evidence. I have paid great attention to Mother’s four statements and to the medical evidence. However, of particular interest is placing this evidence in chronological order together with the text and WhatsApp messages. This exercise is time consuming but illuminating and an extremely concerning, indeed harrowing picture emerges. In his written opening, Counsel for the local authority, Mr. Miller discharged this time consuming exercise in a detailed and meticulous way. I cannot better his chronology and I have used the chronology in his written opening as part of this judgment which I have amended and added to. Once again I am indebted to Mr. Miller for his assistance in this regard. Mr. Miller took both Mother and Mr. S through the text and WhatsApp messages in great detail. I cannot type out all of the relevant messages but I have included a selection of some of the messages to show the “dialogue” between the parents and the extremely worrying dynamic within the household by March 2013. In cross examination Mr. Miller took Mr. S and Mother through WhatsApp messages commencing in January 2013. The first message referred to is at L106. On 25 th January 2013 Mother texts Mr. S asking, “So do u still want to move it x.” There is no dispute Mr. S moved in shortly thereafter. Interestingly on 30.1.2013 there is a message from Mr. S at L109 , “Babe, can I ask a massive favour, could you ring my nurse at work for me and explain that ive been signed off work for depression please and say I’ve been really bad. Just say its been building up for a while as I have a lot of personal problems and I’m sewing a councillor. It would be better coming from you. Sorry for asking babe.” Mother told me in evidence that she made the call. She told me that Mr. S was capable of work but gave rather sympathetic evidence about how she could understand why he did not want to go to work because of the way he had been “treated like a slave.” I asked Mother the question, “So within only two weeks of knowing Mr. Steven you were prepared to lie for him. Mother answered, “Yes.” From February 2013 there is a string of messages, several are extremely abusive, from Mr. S to Mother accusing her of being unfaithful to him. At L120 there is a string of messages which read as follows; “ BS “Are you going to cheat on me D R-H “Never x BS “How do I no that D R-H “Because Ur my everything “I love u so much XXX “Never want to have the feeling on loosin u ever again” At L123 on 21 st . February 2013 there is an exchange of message between Mother and Mr. S as follows; BS “Glad I met u, just worried with what’s happened” D R-H “Don’t be Ur all I need and want and the thought that I nearly lost u killed me never want to feel that again Ur my family now my life XXX love u so much.” These messages show that after only a very short period of time Mother appeared to be utterly devoted and loyal to Mr. S. From L134 there is a particularly concerning set of messages between Mother and Mr. S sent on 24 th . February 2013. I do not intend to write them out in full but I have read carefully the full exchange. An example of the messages are as follows; Mr. S writes about F the following, Mr. S “ Your son as soon as he came in that door I wanted to go, he treats you like shit and you let him get away with everything fucks Me off had such a nice week and now back to this shit . Mother “I’m sorry.” Mr. S “Don’t be not your fault he is a spoilt shitbag. I don’t even wanna go anywhere with him that’s how much he annoys me, if he was mine he wouldn’t be that way, your still gunna be wiping his arse when he is 18 (Mother sends messages apologising to Mr. S) Mr. S “Be more strict or I will take every fucking light bulb out, now he wasting batteries and fucking electric pisstake, if he don’t go downstairs on his own leave him he will learn of he crys I deal with him FUCKING PISS TAKING LITTLE SHIT A will never be like that.” Mr. S “I will go Mother, it don’t bother me I could happily come round once he is asleep, you better tell him not to piss me off and stay the fuck away tomorrow sorry but as soon as he came through that door you was running after him disabled or not he is a lazy child” Mother’s response to these abusive messages is to apologise. At one point she writes, Mother “OK its my fault 100% I will have to change and that should impact him.” “It’s not him XXX its me I’m the one that’s made him this way.” Mr. S writes, Mr. S “Mother if it doesn’t change I will go.” Mother “I’m going to try – It’s all down to me XXX.” Mr. S “I will never love him, its got to the point now I don’t even want A near him you have to understand I don’t want him influencing A I want A to be complete opposite.” Page Ref : L142 Text No : 65267 - 65269 Time : 08:01:03 – 08:09:59 Mr. S You should tell him if I’m hear later he can go straight upstairs when he is back cause I’m not in the mood for his Fucking whinging tonight in fact I don’t even wanna see him so if you want I will go cause I will kill him the mood I’m in Mother When I get back I will go straight upstairs give u some space Mr. S I don’t mind being around you just your brat Page Ref : L143 Text No : 65281 - 65285 Time : 08:22:47 – 08:24:28 Mr. S Do you want a mcdonalds and did you tell F Mother Tell F what Mother And no thank you not hungry feel a bit sick Mr. S What I messaged Mother No I will speak to him later. On 26 th . February 2013 there were the following messages. Page Ref : L161 Text No : 66544 Time : 21:33:41 Mr. S He is the weediest boy I’ve ever met but that will change Mother, I will do anything to help him. Text No : 66559 Time : 21:38:57 Mr. S I know he pisses u off but he cares for u a great deal A further note of interest is that within only a few weeks of Mr. S moving in, she realised money started to go missing from her purse. At L117 there is a message dated 9.2.2013 from Mother to Mr. S which reads, “Really stressing about money there was about £70 in my pocket last night.” The first evidence of F suffering bruising is from March 2013. In her first statement Mother writes, ‘ F started to suffer bruising and swelling in March 2013 ‘ ( C33 paragraph 11 ). On the 12 th March 2013 F attended at school (XXX School) with bruising to his legs. ( C9 paragraph 31 ). A member of staff asked to check these bruises. In my judgment this is a significant point in the case and it is worth recording the note from school of that day which is at I8 . “Asked if we could have a look at the bruises on his leg to check them. Kept saying “no I’m not allowed to show anyone.” When we asked who said that he said “my mum said I can’t lift my top up.” He kept saying, “you have to ask my mum and she will tell you. I don’t know how I got this pointing at scratches. He said, “my mums boyfriend comes upstairs and squeezes my legs to make the bruises come out. I’ve asked mum to tell him not to because he disturbs my sleep and I need my sleep but he still comes up every night.” F eventually showed us 2 bruises on front of right leg above knee. None on back of leg or back or tummy. He did say “I don’t know how I’ve got this pointing to a cut on side of head scab, v raised looks like had bled.” When asked F about cuts on his neck he told me Mrs. R know that he mustn’t say it was his mum’s boyfriend.” th . March 2013. Page Refs : L175 – L177 Text No : 67350 Time : 12:50:03 Mother School have contacted me for a meeting today won’t tell me why but it’s about his bruises freaking out Text Nos : 67363 – 67365 Time : 13:17:17 – 13:18:24 Mother Thank u needed to hear that keep crying xx Mr. S Why babe Mother Fs school Text Nos : 67372 – 67389 Time : 13:42:39 – 14:05:29 Mother School phoned again won’t tell me what’s wrong and bow want to see me half 5 today Mother They are going to say I’m hurting F I’m.in floods of tears Mr. S If they do they can fuck off, I no what your like, I scratched his, neck with my long claws the other morning lol, they want to see what its like here with you and I, think we have loads of fun,xbox play fighting going out playing with A.dont worry babe. Mother I crumble in meetings going to be a ... Mother They see bruises and blame me I know what they are like that’s what I do for a living Mother His covered and won’t tell me why Mr. S Its only his legs babe, some he might have done falling over down the stairs, you see what he was like the other day when he just dropped to the concrete on his knees Mother His thigh his back his head and his chest and his nose Mr. S Head?chest?nose? Mother Got small bruises on his chest one the side of his head and one on his nose Mr. S Am I too rough when we play fight?I will leave him alone from now on,I did throw him over my shoulder the other day when he was playing up didn’t I Mother I grabbed him from u he had no marks from that I think his like his dad a bruises just from a touch and now his doing more himself maybe that’s why but I know they are going to blame me I wouldn’t touch a hair on his head Mother I feel so stupid as bloody crying now and stressed now Mother Headache is not helping Mother sorry to tell u all this Shit u don’t need it Mr. S If they blame you or me then I’m going,my life was peaceful before I met you now it just seems to be shit everyday I no you wouldn’t hurt him I no I wouldn’t hurt him, maybe I’m a bit rough when I play with him hence I’m not going to anymore will just play xbox and chat Mother They won’t blame you Mother I’m sorry I’ve fucked ur life up Text No : 67425 Time : 16:31:17 Mother Just waiting for Fs teacher Text No : 67431 Time : 16:57:08 Mother I’m out In my judgment this disclosure is extremely significant for several reasons. Firstly Mother knew that F was a source of extreme irritation to Mr. S. He had sent extremely abusive and unpleasant text messages stating in clear terms that he did not like F and did not want him near him. Mr. S’s lack of empathy and care for F was absolutely clear. Secondly what is also clear by 12 th . March 2013 is that Mother’s loyalty and devotion towards Mr. S appeared to be absolute. She had made it clear that she did not want Mr. S to leave and considered him to be “her family and her life.” She was prepared to blame herself for any irritation Mr. S felt rather than to consider whether Mr. S’ behaviour or conduct was reasonable. Against this background the disclosure by F on 12 th . March 2013 is the first independent evidence this court has that F has stated that he has bruising which has been caused by Mr. S. It is clear that Mother was well aware by this time that F had suffered bruising and that she was concerned about being questioned about it by professionals and the school. In my judgment of particular concern is that despite F being bruised, Mother appears to be very anxious in her communications with Mr. S to reassure Mr. S, apologise to him and reassure him of her loyalty to him. Mother was spoken to and she advised the school staff that he has said the same to her but Mr. S never goes upstairs. She always puts him to bed, and she confirmed she was worried about the bruising too and had made a doctor’s appointment and advised that Father has a condition and bruises easily. Mother told me in evidence that she spoke to F at school in the presence of another teacher and he “retracted” this disclosure and told her he had simply said that he does not like Mr. S making a noise on his X box. I am concerned that Mother either deliberately or sub consciously was not prepared to listen to what F was telling her namely that he was being physically abused by Mr. S. Had she done so and protected F at that stage she would have protected her son from a dreadful two months of abuse which were yet to come. Further injuries are then seen on F. The next series of concerns focus on the weekend of 23 rd . – 24 th . March 2013. Mother sets out in her statement at ( C34 paragraph 12 ) that on 23 rd March 2013 F suffered with swelling to his face and eyes. She says she telephoned NHS Direct. The record from NHS Direct for the 23 rd March 2013 is found at ( G23 – G27 ). The note states, “eye swelling 2 hours, also bridge of nose tonight.” Although Mother telephoned NHS direct, F was not taken to the GP or A and E on that day. On the 24 th March 2013, Mother states that she noticed the swelling to his face had become much worse and she therefore took him to the medical walk-in centre. Mr. S attended with them. She says that F was not complaining that his face or eyes hurt and it took approximately 8 days for this to eventually subside. A picture text of F ( No : 68398 ) ( L199 ) dated 24 th March 2013 was sent by the mother to Mr. S at 13:36:29 . The picture is found at ( L490 ). I have to say that from a lay person’s perspective F looks as though he has been punched directly to the face. The medical note at ( G567 ) records this visit. However, there is no detail about the child or the visit. On 29 th . March 2013, there is a diary entry from the mother at ( H138 ) which states ‘ Fs head still swollen ’. The mother says at ( C34 paragraph 13 ), that on the week of 1 st April 2013, F suffered a swollen foot and he commented that his foot hurt. The mother says blood spots started to appear on the sole of his foot. On 2 nd . April 2013, an entry in the mother’s diary records ‘ F’s foot started to swell ’ ( H139 ). Mother records in her statement that on the 4 th and 5 th April 2013, that F suffered with nose bleeds, and in particular on the 5 th April 2013, he had a nose bleed all day ( C34 paragraph 13 ). On 6 th April 2013, the mother says she went into town to do some shopping, and whilst away from home, she says received a text message from Mr. S indicating that F’s nose had split ( C32 paragraph 7 ). At ( L223 ) no Whatsapp messages are shown as having been received from Mr. S by the mother on 6 th April 2013 or having been sent by Mr. S to the mother ( M348 ) regarding his nose. However, as explained I do not have before me any evidence as to whether or not text messages were sent and I therefore cannot discount the possibility that Mother’s account of receiving a text message is correct. Mother states that on receiving this text, she immediately telephoned Mr. S, and when she returned home, F’s nose was swollen and he had bruises on his face. She says that she was not aware of any trauma that F has suffered which could have caused the injury to the septum ( C32 paragraph 7 ). On 7 th . April 2013 Mother noticed bruising to F’s groin. In her statement she writes at ( C34 paragraph 13 ), the mother says that A threw cars at F which resulted in some bruising to F. She goes on to say : At the end of the day when I took F’s clothes off for him to be put into his pyjamas, I noticed that his groin was severely bruised in a black and purple colour which had not been there in the morning. His penis was also swollen. On the 7 th April 2013, mother said F said that he needed to get some bed rest and rest his foot which was still swollen ( C34 paragraph 13 ). In her most recent statement dated 16 th October 2013, mother says the following ( C151 paragraph 8 ) : There was one occasion when Mr. S did slap F and bring him to the floor. I believe this was approximately April 2013. F and A were playing in F’s room and they were both squealing. A started the thrown his metal cars and they both become boisterous. F was being cheeky to Mr S. Mr S lightly slapped both of the boy’s legs by way of chastisement. When he did this F became unbalanced and Mr S then brought him to the floor to stop him falling over. I immediately checked the boys, who had not reacted, and they did not have any marks on them, they just wanted to continue playing. By 8 th . April 2013 Mother states ( C34 paragraph 14 ), that F’s foot was still not right and F had said it was sore and felt like his skin was splitting. The mother says she thought the foot looked worse. She says she telephoned the GP and went with F that day. In a text message she sent to Mr. S at (L226) (Text No : 69514) (Time : 10:59:45) she says ‘ Taking F to the drs at 11.50 today his foot is huge’ . At ( G566 – G567 ) the GP record shows a visit by the mother with F to see Dr. H. It states : Bruising symptom tends to bruise easily – note recent OOH – swelling to R foot dorsum. Mum denies contact with any other. Older bruise to face on R cheek – as noted by OOH, 2 smaller bruises on bdo wall. d/w Paeds reg on call – for clotting. This note is interesting for three reasons. By this point Mother knew the following; i. Mr. S had expressed extremely concerning views about F as set out above in the text messages. He had described F in the most abusive terms and had effectively made threats against him. ii. There is no medical evidence that F bruises easily and certainly not to the extent seen on F on 12 th . March and on 24 th . March 2013. Mother must have known that the bruising seen to F’s face was a radical departure from anything she had seen before. iii. Mother knew that F had made a clear disclosure on 12 th . March 2013 that Mr. S had caused him bruising, something that she did not inform the GP of. There is an entry in Mother’s diary for the 9 th April 2013 that, ‘F’s nose bleed & split’ ( H140 ). On the 9 th April 2013, the mother sent Mr. S this text ( L229 – L230) : Text No : 69635 Date : 9 th April 2013 Time : 14:42:46 Mother I’m trying to get money and keep F out of your way from constant moaning the names u call him sometimes go over his head but hurt the hell out of me In her statement dated 16 th October 2013, she states ( C152 paragraph 14 ) : I accept Mr S did used to say unpleasant things about F. I never heard Mr S say unpleasant things to F directly but I cannot be sure that F never overheard Mr S call him unpleasant things when Mr S was talking to me. I would never have allowed Mr S to say those things directly to F. On 12 th . April 2013 there is a diary entry from the mother records ‘F’s foot larger’ ( H141 ). On the 11 th April 2013, a text at ( L234 ) from mother to Mr. S is recorded as follows : Text No : 69762 Time : 01:08:32 Mother Thanks night I really do love u, it upsets me that I think u don’t know or think I do Ur amazing XXX and I want u forever I had a feeling I was loosing u this week it hurt so bad and was so happy to see u when. I get home still here u said to me at the weekend that u will love me forever and want to marry me it goes over my head every day since and a huge smile comes on my face sadly all I think about is u and F Ur also my rock at the mo keeping me together as its so hard to see F in pain its breaking my heart but u have made him a little tough boot and battle pass it xxxx Text No : 69763 Time : 09:13:43 Mother Ur comments have been really hurting me over these past couple of days A diary entry from the mother records ‘ F’s nose split and cut ’ ( H141 ). Mother says she sent Mr. S a picture text of F, which is a side profile of his nose. This can be found at (L245) (Text No : 70163) The picture is found at ( L416 ). I have to say that this photograph is shocking. There is clear damage to F’s septum which appears effectively to be missing. It is hard to understand how F was not taken to the GP for this injury. There is a diary entry for 13 th . April 2013 from Mother’s records, “ F all day in bed rest swell in groin” H141. Mother takes F to the GP on 15 th . April 2013, Mother states the reason for this is because F’s foot is swollen ( C35 paragraph 15 ). Prior to the letter set out below, there is no particular reference to bruising contained within the medical notes. The first reference to bruising referenced in the medical notes comes in a letter dated 15 th April 2013 from the Priory Surgery to Ward 7 Wycombe General Hospital ( G168 – G169 ). This note refers to F being seen at the ‘ end of last week ’. It states : Reason for Referral : Bruising Thank you for seeing this 7 year old with known diplegia and C.palsy. He came in towards the end of last week with bruising on his face and foot. After discussing with Paeds Registrar I sent him for clotting profile and FBC – which have come back normal. He is complaining of generalised myalgia. Unfortunately he continues to bruise. His feet, scrotum, face and arms are affected. I am not aware of any other social factors which need to be considered. I would be grateful for your assessment and advice on further management. In the report from Dr. S (Consultant Paediatrician), dated 23 rd May 2013 ( G8 – G12 ) he sets out at ( G8 ) the following history : F was referred to the Wycombe Ambulatory Care Unit on 15 th April 2013 due to unexplained bruising and swollen right ankle and foot. About seven weeks previously he had sustained bruising of the right elbow and hip following a fall. 7-10 days after the fall, he presented with facial oedema which took about two weeks to resolve. He was seen in the Minor Injuries Unit at Wycombe Hospital and thought to have had an allergic reaction for which he was given Piriton. 5 days after the swelling had resolved, he developed swelling of the right ankle with extensive bruising of the calf and lateral aspect of the right foot. He had also been having daily nose bleeds for about seven days. He was reviewed by the Paediatrics Team at the Wycombe Ambulatory Unit on 15 th April 2013. The Wycombe General Hospital clinical notes from the 15 th April 2013 are found at ( G261 – G265 ). From the 15 th – 17 th April 2013, F was an in-patient at Stoke Mandeville Hospital, where he was initially seen by Dr. R (Consultant Paediatrician). The doctor notes in their report, dated 7 th May 2013, at ( G175 ), the reason for his admission – ‘ excessive bruising and swelling of right ankle? haemarthrosis ’. The clinical notes are found at ( G266 – G277 ). The ‘Paediatric Discharge Summary’ is found at ( G178 ). It states : Main Diagnosis Requiring Admission : Bruising, nosebleeds, swollen right foot with large bruise + reduced movement Significant Findings on Examination : swollen right leg to just below knee. Widespread haematoma on foot initially tense but gradually softened during stay. Crusting under nose from bleeding. Investigation Results : Clotting + FBC ® normal ... extended clotting screen awaited ... x-ray right ankle ® no bony injury The mother says at ( C35 paragraph 17 ) that F was released from hospital with no extra medication to take and she was advised she would receive a telephone call with an appointment for F, but that she never heard in respect of this. Following his discharge from Stoke Mandeville Hospital, a review appointment was made at Wycombe General Hospital on the 19 th April 2013, for which F was not brought. At ( C35 paragraph 18 ), the mother says F returned to school on the 22 nd April 2013 in his wheelchair and was only able to undertake light activities as his foot was still swollen. At ( C35 paragraph 19 ), the mother says that F told her his head hurt and that he was itchy all over his body. On 30 th . April 2013 a diary entry from the mother records ‘ F played on slide bumped heads with A. Caught side of legs on slide bruises opened ’ ( H145 ). On 1 st . May 2012, a diary entry from the mother records ‘ F fell over hit side on broken toy box. Feel like crap mum ’ ( H145 ). Mother says at ( C35 – C36 paragraph 20 ) she took F for a hospital appointment and was told this was his annual review for orthopaedics. She says she told the outpatients’ department that she was waiting for blood tests that had been taken whilst F was previously in hospital and she says she was informed that once she had been to the orthopaedics appointment, she should bring the file back to speak to the doctor in the outpatients department. She says she raised the issue of F’s foot with Dr. Hand reports that Dr. H said that she did not know what would have caused the swelling in F’s foot. Due to the swelling, the mother says Dr. H could not undertake F’s review. A text mother sent Mr. S is found at ( L332 ) : Text No : 73392 Time : 15:58:13 Date : 1 st May 2013 Mother The appointment wasn’t for the results its his yearly leg check so I said I’ve had enough not having been given an appointment about the main reason for him being in hospital. Further texts follow when the mother is at the hospital, which are found at ( L332 – L336) (Text Nos : 73392 – 73540) . In particular Mother asks Mr. S, D R – H “ Baby where did F bang his head on Friday – was it the place the swelling came up” BS “I can’t remember babe sorry.” On the 1 st May 2013, F was seen in the Children’s Outpatient Department by Miss H (Consultant Paediatric Orthopaedic Surgeon) for annual review. Her report is found at ( G179 ). Her clinical notes are found at ( G279 ), which state : seen in paed.ortho clinic – v. bruised and swollen but no orthopaedic issue – needs his bleeding disorder under control before he can go back into splints. The nurse in the outpatient department suggested that F, along with his mother, be reviewed later in the Children’s Day Unit, due to the non-attendance on the 19 th April 2013. At around 17:30 hours, F was seen by Mr. R (Consultant Paediatrician) at Ward 7 at Wycombe General Hospital. He made the following observations in his report dated 7 th May 2013 ( G176 – G177 ) : F had a fluctuant swelling about 6 x 4cm over the right parietal eminence. I felt that that was a haematoma. The overlying skin was not bruised. F mentioned that he had banged his head coming down a slide at home (the usual way he comes down the slide). He banged his head against his two year old step-brother Aidan. His mother noted the swelling on/around Sunday 28 April 2013 and was not aware that he had banged his head. F also had a purple/pink bruise in the centre of his forehead measuring 4 x 2cm. This injury had been sustained on 29 April 2013 as he fell when getting out of the car, hitting his forehead. F also had a bruise over the right shoulder and over the spine of the right scapula, the lateral aspects of both thighs and over the shin. His right foot was very swollen and warm, the overlying skin had patchy discolouration and was purple in areas. There was a small scab over the dorsum of the right foot. He also had a bruise with 3 marks over the outer aspect of his left upper arm which looked like finger marks. His mother had noticed these five days previously, and questioned F how it occurred, F denied that he had been grabbed by anyone. The marks over the outer aspect of the left upper arm do appear like finger marks. The size of the imprint doesn’t appear to that of an adult hand/finger and besides F said very clearly that he had not been grabbed/struck by any adult or another child at school. He was unable to recall how he had sustained the other bruises on his body. All the other bruises were on bony prominences, other than the bruises on the outer aspect of the thighs, and I think they are likely to be accidental. The cause of the swelling of his right foot is not clear. We shall seek an opinion from the paediatric rheumatologists regarding this ... The clinical notes for this examination, dated 1 st May 2013, are found at ( G280 – G282 ). At ( G282 ) Dr. R sets out the following : Impression All injuries / bruises likely to be accidental as well as scalp haematoma. Right ankle and foot is still extremely swollen · needs rheumatology opinion · Dr Ratogi will arrange In a series of texts between the mother and Mr. S found at ( L339 ) : Text Nos : 73667 – 73669 Date : 2 nd May 2013 Time : 12:15:53 Mr. S Forget last night Mr. S Back to normal Mother The thing with F is forgotten I saw how hurt u was Page Ref : (L340) Text No : 73709 Date : 2 nd May 2013 Time : 20:31:39 Mother He said he knows yesterday was a big accident as u said sorry more than once and no one has done that before. Page Ref : (L340) Text No : 73714 Date : 2 nd May 2013 Time : 20:33:18 Mother I will put all my effort into making him happy from now on instead of shouting at him I promise. On 3 rd . May 2013, a diary entry from the mother records ‘ F fell landed on broken box cut side ’ ( H146 ). The mother says that both F and A were playing together and bumped heads. The mother says she noticed marks on F’s legs from playing on the slide ( C36 paragraph 21 ). On 6 th May 2013, Mother says that F fell over when at the Natural History Museum ( C36 paragraph 22 ). A diary entry from the mother records ‘ London with F fall in museum ’ ( H146 ). On 7 th May 2013, Mother says that F fell whilst outside and hit himself on his walker ( C36 paragraph 22 ). A diary entry from the mother records ‘ F second fall by the bins caught his face on walker ’ ( H146 ). On 8 th . May 2013, Mother says F returned from school with a bruise, and informed Mr. S he was being bullied. The mother says she spoke to the school the next day but they indicated they had no idea how F sustained the bruise ( C36 paragraph 23 ). A diary entry dated 8 th May 2013 from the mother records ‘ F bruise of left arm when home from school??? ’ ( H147 ) On the 8 th May 2013, the mother exchanged texts with Mr. S ( L348 ) : Text No : 74046 – 74050 Date : 8 th May 2013 Time : 18:04:48 Mother Ask why does he get scared and cry when I leave the room Mr. S Love you xxx Mother Love u XXX xxx Mother Ur not hiding anything from me are u Mother Unless it was major I would never stop loving u A diary entry dated 9 th May 2013 from the mother records ‘ F feels tired. F stck in bath. F home from school with bruise on arm worse today ’ ( H147 ). On Thursday 9th May 2013, F was due to attend Wycombe General Hospital for a review, for which he did not attend. On the 9 th May 2103, the following note is found in the clinical notes at ( G282 ) : 12:40 attempted to contact mum as she has not attended review. Landline – no answer mobile – message left for them to contact us. 17:50 still no contact on either phone. A diary entry dated 9 th May 2013 from the mother records ‘ F woke up fat lips dry marks on face cut lip nose bleed stayed off split tea over on his hand burnt ’ ( H147 ). With this concerning history the chronology then moves to one of the most serious and distressing injuries casued to F. Mother leaves F in the care of Mr. S. Mother’s reason for this as set out at ( C32 paragraph 6 ), is that F was not well enough to attend school. She later says at ( C36 paragraph 24 ) that F had a swollen lip along with a nose bleed for most of the day. He was extremely run down and had a sickness and a temperature. th . May 2013, the day of the burn to F’s hand. Mother left for work in the morning. At On the 10 th May 2013, the clinical records note the following ( G284 ) : 09:40 phone message left on mobile number to contact Wd 7. D/W Dr KKS – written letter to parents. Left message for HV A letter was sent on Friday 10 th May 2013, asking the mother to contact Ward 7 at Wycombe General Hospital ( G183 ). On 10 th May 2013, F’s GP was contacted by Dr. A (Specialist Registrar) to obtain another contact number ( G284 ). The mother tells the police in her interview that in respect of her work on 10 th May 2013, ‘ she had left at 0930 and arrived home about 1700 ’ ( H441 ). At ( H439 ) of her police interview, the mother gives her first account of Friday 10 th May 2013 and the burn suffered by F to his left hand : Mr. Said that he was going through the kitchen, and he spilt some tea over. I said was he all right? He said yeah, he.. XXX deals with burns on a daily basis really ... I trust him ... when I got home ... I looked at his burn, it was.. it was red, I... personally, I didn’t see any concern ... F was alright, he was quite happy talking away ... In her statement dated 21 st June 2013, she sets out at ( C37 paragraph 28 ) her version of events. ... I was at work when F suffered the injury he was at home with my partner as he was off school unwell ... I received a message from my partner that F had burnt his hand and I was told that F knocked tea over on to his hand. I was told F was using the work surface in the kitchen to get to the bathroom and he spilt the tea over which was on the side. I asked if F was okay and my partner re-assured me that he was and that he had put cold water on the burn ... I went home in my lunch hour to see if F was okay but he was sleeping so I did not see the burn. My partner sent me a picture of the burn to me and F’s hand was red. I showed the picture to a colleague to see what his opinion was. When I got home after work the hand was still red and there was a small blister. I asked both F and my partner again how it happened and they both said that F had split tea on his hand. I asked my partner if we should seek medical attention in connection with the burn and he said that there was no need. F never complained that he was in any sort of pain despite me asking throughout the night ... There is an exchange of texts between the mother and Mr. S found at ( L351 – L352 ) : Text Nos :74327 – 74332 Date : 10 th May 2013 Time : 09:59:01 Mr. S F gas just knocked over 2 cups of tea going through kitchen Mr. S Told him to wash glue off hands Mother Oh no all ok Mr. S He burnt his hand I’ve changed his tshirt and put it in cold water think he was trying to impress me walking to toilet from dining room Mother Bless him Ur so good. Dad of the year for you xx Mother U going to send me a photo Page No : (L352) Text No: 74344 - 74347 Date : 10 th May 2013 Time : 10:29:26 Mr. S picture text of hand Mr. S Do you think he needs to see a Dr?? Mr. S No Mother Ok xx worried about u XXX Page No : (L352) Text No : 74350 Date : 10 th May 2013 Time : 11:20:18 Mr. S His hand looks so much better Mother, not red anymore just put some spray on it The photograph sent to Mother shortly after the “incident” is of a bright red hand. To a lay person it looks raw, angry and extremely serious. It is worth emphasising at this stage that Mother knew at 10.29 on 10 th . May 2013 that her son had suffered a burn and she had seen a photograph of that burn. Her actions thereafter need to be carefully scrutinised. In his police interview under caution, Mr. S gives the following account in respect of the 10 th May 2013 and the burn sustained by F ( H451 – H452 ) : The two boys were playing erm obviously covered in glue and paint. Next thing I went to wash my hands and they washed their hands. Obviously F went and washed his hand. The thing with the cup of tea was me panicking and ... F burnt his hand when he was washing his hands but the water in that tap comes out absolutely scolding so but MOTHER ... I said to MOTHER about this last night cos she said ... and I was too scared and F, he’s already been in trouble before about using taps so I just, you know, I just ... I don’t know why I did it, I just panicked I guess ... F has made reference to a boiler ( G337 ). A specialist report has been produced, dated 14 th June 2013, and attached to it are photos of the boiler contained within the property ( H151 – H165 ). At ( H157 paragraph 7.4 ) it states : The temperature of the hot water being discharged from the hot water tap was recorded at 82.3°C; this temperature was achieved in one minute and 5 seconds. At ( paragraph 8.6 H158 ) it states : Given the hot water temperature from the basin tap of 82.3°C in a time limit of one minute and five seconds, it will be for the medical fraternity to establish the degree of burns to F and the time of exposure to such temperatures in relation to the injuries sustained. Mr. S in police interview says the following ( H467 ) : I’ve never lived in a house that’s had a tap as hot as that water has come out of that ... it’s like a kettle honestly it’s that bad ... He is asked the question of how long it would take to heat up once the water is turned on. He responds ‘ a minute and a half max and that’s pushing it ’ ( H467 ). He goes on to say that the mother returned home around lunch time, the incident happening around 9.30am ( H475 ). Police Officer MA has filed a s.9 statement dated 13 th May 2013. He states that on the 16 th May 2013 at ( H597 ) : At 2050 hours I ran the hot tap in the kitchen and placed my left hand in the stream of water to monitor the temperature of the water. I left my hand under the hot water for 5 minutes. Although when the water initially came out it was cool, it soon warmed up and then remained at a constant temperature. I am unable to tell what the actual temperature of the water was, but I was able to keep my hand comfortably in the flow for the full five minutes without any discomfort or pain. The water did not cause any injury what so ever to the skin on my hand. th – 14 th . May 2013. There is a diary entry from the mother records dated 11 th May 2013 which reads ‘ treated with burns pack ... all day bed rest ... ’ ( H147 ). The mother says that F was fine. She says she treated his hand with burn packs that she had from work. She says F continued to play throughout the day and did arts and crafts ( C37 paragraph 29 ). A diary entry dated 12 th . May 2013 from the mother records ‘ all day bed rest ’ ( H147 ). The mother says F was the same and did not say his hand was hurting. She said that F fell out of bed a few times on Sunday evening, and she noticed red patches on the tops of his cheeks that looked a little like sunburn which had started to peel ( C37 paragraph 30 ). On 12 th . May 2013 there is a series of messages between Mother and Mr. S at L360 in which Mother tells Mr. S that F, “Came into the bedroom asking me to call his dad to get him.” On 13 th . May 2013 a diary entry from the mother records ‘ Treated with burn pack lips/chin bleeding nose bleeding bum bleeding at 11pm temp again more photos ’ ( H148 ). The mother says that on Monday morning F had woken up with a bloody nose and his lip was swollen, which had happened through the night. He did not attend school and stayed at home with Mr. S. The mother says she left work early to return home. She says she received a call from the hospital to arrange an ultrasound for the Tuesday to investigate F’s bruising. She says she told them how he had been unwell throughout the weekend, about his nose, nose bleeds and him losing weight along with his skin and the burn to his hand. On the evening of that Monday the mother says she heard F whimpering and he told her his hand was sore and she told him it would be looked at the next day at hospital ( C38 paragraph 31 ). On Monday 13 th May 2013, the mother was spoken to by Wycombe General Hospital, Ward 7. The clinical note of that conversation is found at ( G284 ). There is no note of the mother informing the hospital that F had sustained a burn to his hand. In her Police interview on the 16 th May 2013, the mother tells the police officer she had mentioned the burnt hand ‘ and ... if that could be assessed as well. They said yeah ’ ( H438 ) and at ( H441 ) ‘ I got a phone call on Monday and told them about the burn ’. Whilst no findings are being sought on this issue there is no independent evidence that Mother mentioned the burn to any professional until F was seen in hospital on 14 th May 2013. The mother’s case is that she changed the bandage on F’s hand first thing on 14 th . May 2013 before they went to hospital and his hand looked worse that it had done before ( C38 paragraph 32 ). On 14 th . May 2013, Mother arrived with F at the Wycombe Ambulatory Care Unit. This appointment was in order to have further blood tests and an ultrasound scan of his right foot/ankle. The clinical notes are found at ( G285 – G288 ). The mother gave the following history, which is found in the clinical notes at ( G285 ) and set out in the report of Dr. S at ( G10 ), which summarises as follows: Thursday 9 th May 2013 – mother said he went to school with a few bruises and when he came back he had some more bruises over his body. No history of trauma reported by either F or his mother. He had also felt run down and started vomiting that evening. He stayed at home on Friday 10 th May 2013, with Mr. S. In the afternoon F tipped over a cup of black tea over the back of his left hand. When asked, F gave the same explanation as his mother. Mr. S held the hand under cool water for a while and then dressed the hand with a burn pack gel type dressing. e Saturday 11 th May 2013 – F developed diarrhoea The following injuries were noted: · bruises as set out on body maps ( G1 – G7 ) · peeling skin on his nasal bridge and blood crusted nostrils · ulceration of the mucous membrane in the left edge of his lower lip · red mark just below his left clavicle (according to his mother from scratching) · linear scars on his left flank (mother said due to a fall with his Walker a few weeks ago) · bite marks on his right scapular area (according to his mother from his brother) · excoriation in the ventral aspect of his penis (mother said from excessive scratching) · old healed operation scar in his left groin and swelling and bruising observed · swelling to the lateral aspect of his right ankle · swelling to the dorsum of his right foot · full thickness deep burn covering the entire dorsum of the left hand. Very swollen and erythema in the surrounding area. F was admitted to hospital on 14 th . May 2013 and was later transferred to Stoke Mandeville Hospital. The ‘Paediatric Transfer Form’ is found at ( G189 – G190 ). When at the Stoke Mandeville Hospital, the mother says she informed the doctor that F had spilt tea on his hand ( C38 paragraph 33 ). The Stoke Mandeville Hospital clinical notes for the 14 th May 2103 are found at ( G296 ) onwards. It is noted at ( G296 ) the following : Patient walking through the kitchen, knocked cup of tea (no milk) onto dorsum of left hand – immediately cold water applied. Mother contacted on call GP at the time and sent photograph (which she has on her phone) to the GP who advised not to go to hospital as the patient had diarrhoea and vomiting. At ( G298 – G299 ), the clinical notes record the following : I am concerned re : injury + delayed presentation of burn + fact that GP was contacted + advised patient not to seek medical attention. Phone call to GP – Dr G @ 24-26 Priory Av. Advises that there is no record on their system of mother making contact out of hours GP regarding burn to the hand. A further conversation took place with the mother at 19:20 on the 14 th May 2013, which is set out at ( G301 ) : Further conversation with patient’s mother Mother; states she sent the photograph to the GP through NHS mail – GP on call through NHS mail ... mother feels upset as she is a social worker herself ... On the 15 th May 2013, the mother refused to give her consent to the hospital to photograph the bruises. The clinical notes set out the following at ( G304 ) : Mum is now happy for burn to be photographed but not of the bruises. · says she feels judged · says bruises are being investigated and he is not in hospital for the bruises. · refusing consent for photographs of the bruises · says she doesn’t want him to go through extra photographs On the 15 th May 2013 (14:00), the following is recorded in the clinical notes ( G305 – G306 ) : Mr G feels there is some inconsistency in the story as burns from hot tea are usually a superficial scald not a full thickness burn. He is also concerned re: delay in presentation despite advice from out of hours NHS. Mr. G feels the burn itself is so severe that medical attention should be sought @ an earlier stage. At a recorded time of 19:40 on the 15 th May 2013, the clinical notes record the following ( G321 ) : F started shouting at mum saying “it’s all your fault, it’s all your fault”. Mum replied “it’s no one’s fault, it was an accident”. F then mumbled something back to mum finishing his sentence, with the word ‘iron’. Unfortunately I wasn’t able to make out the rest. No more was said after this comment. In his Police interview dated 16 th May 2013 at ( H482 – H483 ), Mr. S is asked when he told the mother that he had told her it was not the tea which had caused the burn. He says he told her on the 15 th May 2013, and states the following ( H483 ) : Yeah. I just said like just I’ve got to tell you like it wasn’t the tea, it was the tap you know. Q : Has she told the doctors? A : I don’t know I’ve not been there at all ... Q : Did she tell you she was gonna have to tell the doctors now? A : No, she didn’t tell me. On the 15 th May 2013, Dr. M (Consultant Paediatrician) made a ‘ Request to supply Health Records or Data held by NHS Direct in cases of Safeguarding Children ’. He writes at ( G192 – G193 ) [1] : The child has presented with an infected burn to his hand. There was a significant delay in A/E presentation. Mum has explained the delay by saying she phoned GP DOH Service and was advised not to take him to hospital in view of his D+V. We need to confirm that this conversation occurred. If the conversation did not occur I would have significant concerns regarding the veracity of the story and would initiate a child protection case conference. Mother says that it was only on the Wednesday evening, when she was talking to F, that he told her it was not the tea that he burnt his hand but hot water from the tap. She says she immediately sent Mr. S a text message to ask him about this and he was certain it was tea that had burnt F’s hand ( C38 paragraph 33 ). The exchange of texts can be found at ( L387 ) : Text Nos : 75678 – 75704 Date : 15 th May 2013 Time : 19:57:02 Mother F just said the bathroom tap really burnt his hand Mr. S (smiley face) Mother What happened Mr. S What do you mean what happend? what’s he on about bathroom tap Mother He said that he was in the bathroom the eater got hot and burnt his hand Mother But u said to say it was tea as he is worried that I would tell him off for playing with the taps Mr. S The bathroom tap was cold water he kept it in there for over half an hour Mother no he said that he didn’t knock over tea Mother he burnt it in the bathroom Mr. S Wtf is he on about? Mother Haven’t a clue Mother He said he was worried he was going to get in trouble so u protected him Mr. S He knocked over the red cup Mother I think his getting confused as u rushed him to the water Mother and when his hand came out it was red Mother said he doesn’t want you to feel bad It is therefore important to note that even at this stage, Mr. S is lying to Mother about the cause of the injury. On the 16 th May 2013, F was interviewed by Police Officer L ( H596 ). The notes of the ‘pre-video assessment are found at ( H619 – H622 ), dated 16 th May 2013. The transcript of his ABE interview, also dated 16 th May 2013, is found at ( H623 – H632 ). Q : ok, alright, so, F, what happened to your hand? A : it just, I tripped and a cup of tea fell on my hand ... Q : Where were you? A : in the kitchen. Both the mother and Mr. S were arrested on the 16 th May 2013. The bail conditions of the mother are set out at ( H1 – H2 ), which were originally made on the 16 th May 2013 : · No unsupervised contact with F unless under the direction of Social Care · Not to contact directly or indirectly Mr. S The bail conditions for Mr. S are found at ( H3 – H4 ) and were also made on the 16 th May 2013 : · Not to attend XXX itself · Not to contact directly or indirectly Mother · Not to contact directly or indirectly F · Not to have unsupervised contact with any persons under the age of 16 years old The mother underwent an interview with the police under caution ( H422 – H450 ). Mr. S underwent two interviews with the police under caution 16.5.2013 which both appear in the bundle at H451 – 510 and H659 – 704. His third interview on 13.8.2013 is at H776a – H776dd . At ( H451 ) he states : ... the thing with the cup of tea was me panicking and ... F burnt his hand when he was washing his hands but the water in that tap comes out tap absolutely scolding so but Mother ... I said to Mother about this last night cos she said ... and I was too scared and F, he’s already been in trouble about using the taps ...’. At ( H482 – H483 ) he further states : 2220 Tell me when you told her that it wasn’t the tea. Tell me about the conversation, where were you, how did that happen? BS I was talking to her on the phone. She popped home yesterday about 5 ... no about 4 o’clock she popped home and she was home for about an hour. She had a shower and I had a chat to her then and she went back...got back about ten past 7 cos of traffic and then I was talking to her then and just said look ... 2220 On the phone. Okay so what did you say? BS Yeah. I just said ‘I’ve got something to tell you like it wasn’t tea, it was the tap’ you know. She knows what that tap is like as well so its not right, its not right. At ( H604 ) it is recorded in the statement of DC Taylor that ‘ he admitted that he told the child to lie to his mother by telling her he had burnt his hand by knocking over a cup of tea’ . On the 17 th May 2013, F had an operation to his left hand where a skin graft was taken from his left thigh. On the 19 th May 2013, the clinical notes record the following ( G337 ) : ... F said “They’re keeping us apart”. I asked who and F replied “Not the Police, mummy can’t stay with me, because I burnt my hand on the new boiler”. On the 20 th May 2013, the clinical notes record the following ( G340 ) : ... F held up his hand and he said “this is what happens with hot water”. On the 27 th May 2013 at 10:15, the clinical notes record the following ( G371 ) : O/E unable to examine bruises. ‘Not allowed’ as mummy said. On the 27 th May 2013 at 19:00, the clinical notes record the following ( G375 ) : ... he has mentioned once “mum is going to Milton Keynes tomorrow to find out if he can go home” F was discharged into the care of the Local Authority from Stoke Mandeville Hospital on the 28 th May 2013. Further blood tests were carried out and are found at ( G389 – G433 ) and ( G450 – G454 ). In a report dated 29 th May 2013 from Dr. S, reference is made to the extended clotting screen. The report states at ( G585 ) : During the admission no diagnosis was reached, but it was felt that clotting disorder should be excluded by extended clotting screen ... extended clotting screen showed normal prothrombin time with INR of 1.0 and EPTT 21.8 and Von Willebrand screen was negative. His FBC was within normal limits, apart from ESR which was raised at 43. His compliment levels and ANA were negative. Factor 8 was also normal. This is therefore a detailed chronology of the events leading up to F’s admission into hospital on 14 th . May 2013. Once admitted to hospital F begun to make disclosures which continue to date and indeed I received further notes from the foster carer in respects of comments made by F in respect of his injuries. F’s formal account starts with his first ABE interview. I record that I have read the three transcripts of F’s ABE interviews and seen the DVD recording of them. F undertook a pre-ABE interview on the 16 th May 2013. The handwritten notes are found at ( H619 – H622 ). He says at ( H619 ) ‘I burnt myself ... knocked a cup of tea over ...’. When asked about how he got his bruises he said ‘I don’t know’ ( H621 ) Later that day, F undertook an ABE interview ( H623 – H632 ). When asked what happened to his hand he replied at ( H626 ) ‘ it just, I tripped and a cup of tea fell on my hand ... in the kitchen ... ’. When asked at ( H630) ‘ So, tell me how you got your bruises? ’, F responds ‘ I fell over playing ... I just tripped ... ’. At ( H613 – H614 ), a s.9 statement sets out the following disclosure made by F to the daughter of the foster carer on the 1 st June 2013 : Mummy was at the centre at work. Mummy’s boyfriend was at home in the bathroom with me and my hand went under hot water. But it’s ok because mummy’s boyfriend knows first aid. F underwent an ABE interview on the 3 rd June 2013 ( H5a – H5bk ). The following was said by F : H5f line 30 I burnt it on a tap H5g line 6 the hot tap H5g line 11 in the bathroom and it was right on the top H5x line 22 he was just turning the tap on when it was hot H5y line 29 it was on purpose H5aa line 4 it was like the boiling, it was hot H5az line 19 – 24 DC Taylor you told them that you got a cup of tea spilled on you – who told you to say that? F My mum’s partner The hand-written notes of the foster carer in respect of the disclosures made by F are found at ( H618 ), which are dated 5 th June 2013 (18:02). The foster carer has provided a s.9 statement. It states at ( H607 ) : I was just about to strip wash him when he said to me “his foot was on my foot and he kept my hand under the hot tap” It further states at ( H612) , when F was asked to repeat what he had said : His foot was on my foot and he kept my hand under the hot tap and the bruises he kept on throwing me around ... my mummy’s partner. F underwent a further ABE interview on the 12 th June 2013, a transcript of which is found at ( H278 – H765 ). He disclosed the following : H743 line 5 do you know my mum’s partner? He done the swelling[?] and the burn. H743 line 18 he did the burn, and, and the swollen. H743 line 21 like the tap went under the burn ... and he stamped his foot on my foot to do the swollen H748 line 17 He put my hand under the water H7489 line 32 he put my hand under the water H750 line 19 like I was washing my hands and he just comed [sic] in and turned the hot water H752 line 27 Okay what happened to your feet? H752 line 28 – 29 He stood on it, made this swollen thing H761 line 20 Okay how did you get those bruises? H761 line 21 – 22 Like ... like XXX was throwing me around and things H761 line 23 What, and when did that happen? H761 line 24 I don’t know he was just throwing me. H762 line 4 he burnt my hand On the 21 st July 2013, F made further disclosures at the home of his foster carers. The contemporaneous hand-written notes are found at ( H785 – H791 ). It is important to have regard to the entirety of this statement. F makes a series of disclosures about the treatment he suffered. In a s.9 statement dated 22 nd July 2013 ( H772 – H774 ), the following is stated : (H772) ... If I was at home, XXX would kill me right now he would pick me up and throw me on the floor ... hold me ceiling and let go, like wrestlers do ... Mum went to work with A and I was not well with bandages on my hand, he forced me to eat my poo, he did. (H773) when we were in the care ... I ... lent forward to my Mum’s seat where XXX was sitting coz he was driving, he forced me to put my hand forward and thumped it again F showed how XXX had pinched the inside / middle of his nose (nasal septum) ... after lunch I was sick in my cup and he forced to drink it ... that was the day he throwed me at the chair ... (H774) when I am crawling his foot is on my hand ... A note typed on 22.7.2013 at ( H776 ) (hand-written notes are found at H793 ) reads, When I was on the potty to save me going downstairs in the dark, he wouldn’t stop going like that with his foot on my left hand with his trainer on (pressed his left hand with his right hand) Then mum’s partner would do that (F put his hand around front of his neck) and my head was on the top of the bed and then he said “I don’t want to hear a word from you”. A further typed note typed on 28.7.2013 is found at ( H775 ) which is a record made by the daughter of the foster carer at about 17:15 on 28 th July 2013. In relation to disclosures made by F, it states : ‘I wasn’t allowed in bed. If I got into bed, Mum’s partner would tell me to get out again ... I was on the floor because my mum’s partner put me on the floor ... .. when XXX came he did his things like throwing me on the floor and not giving me time to get my clothes on. every time I got up and my mum went to the shop, I’d be leaved with him and he’d throw me on the floor. The note from the foster carer reads, H804. “Getting ready for bath – we noticed a bruise on F’s left leg – outside knee cap area and three small bruises to right side, between rib cage and hip. F said, “He punched my groin until it went red. I spent the day in bed, I only got out to go to the toilet and went back to bed and he came and punched me lots of times like fifty eight so you have to write fifty eight. It was my mum’s bed. Mum saw it later, it was night time. If mum’s partner was here now, if I was in the lounge you’ve already wrote this down, he’d be throwing me on the floor lots of times and then he’d be punching me while I was in bed. That’s it.” The evidence of Mr. S and Mother. The court had heard the evidence of Dr. Kenny before Mr. S and Mother gave evidence. Mr. S was called to give evidence before Mother. As he is unrepresented he had the opportunity to say anything that he wished to prior to cross examination. He told me that he had not caused injury to F but they would “playfight.” He said, “I haven’t caused him injury and I do not think Mother has caused F injury.” In short he could give no explanation for the catalogue of bruising and other injuries F suffered save his explanation for the burn. Mr. S confirmed that he had met Mother through an internet site called “Plenty of Fish” in January 2013. By the end of January 2013 he had moved into the home. Previously to that he had been living with his parents in Marlow. He was asked why he had photographs of Madeleine McCann and April Jones on his telephone. He told me that he had bought the telephone second hand and “If they are on there they are nothing to do with me.” However I later asked him when he had bought the phone. He told me last summer and certainly before September 2012. I put to him that April Jones had gone missing after that in October 2012 and therefore the photograph of April Jones must have been put onto his phone when it was in his possession. To this he had no answer. This may be something that the police may wish to consider in due course but I do not make any finding about it or place any weight on it in making any findings within these proceedings. Mr. S stated that his relationship with Mother ended in about May. However on June or July he sent Mother the letter which is at H915 declaring his love for her. This seems to have triggered a resumption in the relationship. Mother told me that the last time she had had sexual intercourse with Mr. S was in August 2013. This is partly she states because she was undergoing assessment and treatment for cervical cancer, which thankfully has been successful. However Mr. S told me that their sexual relationship (including sexual intercourse) continued through September and October ending “3 weeks ago.”, ie. On 2 nd . October 2013. Both Mother and Mr. S accepted that from August 2013, when they text each other they referred to each other by different names, XXX being called N and Mother being called E. This was a rather naive and amateurish attempt to hide messages from the police should any investigations be undertaken. Mr. S told me quite openly, “I didn’t want anyone finding out we were in a relationship.” Unsurprisingly the police realised who the messages were from and to without difficulty. Mr. S told me that Mother had once again him a key to her home in August 2013. This came to light due to a text message at H910 dated 2 nd . October 2013 when Mr. S writes, “I will put the house key in the shed, will put it under the tub of paint.” Mr. S told me that he was last in Mother’s home on 1 st . October 2013 but since 2 nd . October 2013 he has not been back. On the first day of giving evidence Mr. S accepted that Mother “had probably heard me calling F names including Spaco legs, spoilt, piss taker.” Then he said, “To her, not to him – not sure.” Mr. Miller took Mr. S in detail through many text messages. What emerged from that line of cross examination is that Mr. S sent extremely abusive text messages to Mother about F, some of which are set out above. His lack of care and compassion for F shines though. Just one example of this is a text he sent on 18.4.2013, “ BS “One min its his foot then his nose then his maggot its really doing my head in.” Mr. S accepted that “maggot” is a reference to F’s penis. One particular theme throughout the text messages was Mr. S’ anger and disgust at F’s wetting the bed, or himself. In particular he was angry about his clothes being put in the same washing basket as F’s if F’s clothes had urine on them. Time and time again abusive text messages were put to Mr. S. His response was to be evasive, to say he “didn’t know or to try and effectively laugh off what he had said as a joke or not to be taken seriously. One example of this is the text message at BL262, BS “I don’t wanna hear any moaning from him and if he wets the bed god help him.” When asked what he meant by this message he said, “I don’t know.” One of the most concerning exchange of text messages put to Mr. S is at L269. It is worth setting these out in some detail. st . April 2013. Mr. S “That fucking cry baby deserves to be the wat he is, not normal, not human nothing like me or A and he never will be.” Mr. S “The next time he crys he is getting 1 slap across his arse so you better fucking tell him Mother “I get u, u snap and change Ur temper is crazy Mr. S “No that fuck up not human person winds me up – how the fuck can you even be proud to say he is your son lol I would be ashamed Mother “Words to hurt me again thanks XXX didn’t realise u fucking hated me that much Mr. S “I love you just telling you the truth – you need to discipline him or I’m gone Mother “Yeah OK well spat in his face – he screamed u flew of ur handle and I had no fucking clue what went on Mr. S “Can I come and talk to you in the garden Mother “If I would like to” When this exchange was put to Mr. S his only response was, “I was just being angry and saying stuff.” He showed no remorse or shame at describing F as “not human” and even at this stage his lack of compassion, care and understanding of F as a little boy with special needs shone through. Asked about the description of him “snapping and changing”, Mr. S told me, “Yes that has always been my downfall.” A statement from a neighbour was put to Mr. S which is a H808 of the bundle. This neighbour describes an incident occurring at the beginning of May. The neighbour states, “I was playing my guitar when I heard the slamming of some doors as the guy came out and was shouting at this child who it appeared to sound like he had wet himself. He was calling him a “Fucking bastard child.” Asked if he had called F by that name he stated, “Probably yes.” He accepted that he may have shouted and been rude. He accepted that he had slapped A and F on one occasion. Mr. S told me that in terms of opportunity to have harmed F he very rarely had the care of F alone. It is accepted that F was left in his care on 10.5.2013 and for three hours one evening in April but other than that, the periods of time F was left with him were short, possibly when Mother had popped to the shops in the evening. Mr. Miller carefully took Mr. S through each of the sets of injuries. At every stage he was given the opportunity to give an explanation as to how the bruises, the swelling to F’s head and feet could have been caused. Mr. S had no answers, nothing to say, as to how this little boy had suffered so grievously in his care, save in respect of the burn. In respect of the burn, Mr. S’ case is that he had been engaging A and F with arts and crafts. When they had finished F had gone to wash his hands and burnt himself. In harrowing evidence he told me that he had rubbed the burn and skin had come off before he had applied cream. He accepted that he had not treated the burn correctly. Mr. S accepted that he had lied to Mother about the causation of the burn by telling her that F had been burnt by spilling hot tea on him. He also accepted that he had told F to lie and F had done so. He accepted that he had reassured Mother that he would be able to treat the burn and had applied cream (Sudacream) and dressing to the burn. He said that he had also applied a gel from the first aid kit in the car. Asked why he had lied about the causation of the urn he told me, “I over reacted and panicked – I had the care of F and A.” Mr. S could not explain why he had fabricated an account at all if the burn had been caused by an accident. His evidence on this as on so many issues was entirely unconvincing. F’s account that Mr. S stood on his foot and deliberately held F’s hand under scalding water was put to Mr. S. He had heard the medical evidence given by Dr. Kenny that F is unlikely to have caused this burn by simply putting his hand momentarily under a hot tap. Mr. S denied F’s account but could give no convincing explanation as to how the burn could have happened and could not explain why F would have given the account that he did. In respect of the bite mark Mr. S’ case is that the mark identified as a bite mark to F’s right shoulder is in fact a bite mark caused by A. His case is that he saw A bite F. Both children were on the floor, A put his arms around F and bite him on the shoulder. Mr. S denied the allegation that he had hit F in the car on any occasion. A text from the mother dated 10.5.2013 was put to Mr. S at L354 that A had told Mother that Mr. S smacks F. Mr. S again tended to brush off this allegation and state, “He says a lot of things like that.” On other matters Mr. S accepted that Mother had given him money to buy cannabis. He told me that he smoked “skunk” and at times his habit has cost between £20 – 40 per week. He accepted that he smoked skunk when he had had the care of F and A. He told me he would “just chill and out and do nothing.” Asked how he cared for two children in those circumstances he said, “Yeh that doesn’t work does it.” Under cross examination from Mr. Cronshaw, Mr. S accepted the letter he sent to Mother in June/July 2013 was in effect a threat to commit suicide. He accepted that he knew Mother was vulnerable and distressed at that time and he knew that such a letter would have a profound impact on Mother. Asked if he accepted that he is controlling and manipulative he said, “I think I controlled Mother a little bit…. I maybe took advantage.” He denied that contacting her was to “keep her onside.” In terms of re-starting the relationship Mr. S said, “I blame myself for that – it was all me.” Asked whether he would reconcile with Mother he said, “With everything that has been going on I don’t think she would anyway.” Under cross examination on behalf of F, Mr. S was asked several times whether he had ever called F “spaco legs.” His answers, even within the space of a minute were contradictory. In the end Mr. S accepted that he had done so. However, by the next morning he had retracted this allegation and gave a wholly unconvincing account that the only time he had referred to someone as “spaco legs” was in respect of a man with cerebral palsy who worked in a supermarket. He said, “I thought about it last night.” Worryingly, Mother repeated the same account in her evidence. A message was put to Mr. S that he had sent on 13 th . May 2013. Mother had sent Mr. S a photograph of F. He is covered in bruises. It is an extremely distressing photograph. Mr. S response to this photograph is L367 , “Miserable fucker lol could have smiled Lo.” The series of allegations F made against Mr. S as set out in the statement of the foster carers daughter at H772 – 774 were put to Mr. S. Again he denied them all and could not account for why this child would make up such allegations. However he did accept, “I’ve put him over my shoulder before. A further disclosure by F was put to Mr. S which is at H799. On 29 th July 2013 F said to his foster carer whilst in a car, “He said if I’m with someone he will find me.” Mr. S could give no reason why F two months after being taken into care remained concerned that he would be found. Mother gave evidence over two days. Throughout she remained steadfast to her case that she did not know that her son was being repeatedly physically assaulted. She had “no inkling “ of the abuse. Through tears she told me that F never complained to her of any abuse, that he enjoyed Mr. S’ company, that he would confide in Mr. S and that she never saw any ill treatment. “They got on so well in front of me – they really did.” She told me that she had made every effort to seek medical advice to try and ascertain the causes of F’s bruising. She genuinely thought that F had some sort of infection/blood clotting disorder which would have caused the bruising. This case was maintained throughout. Mother was asked about aspects of her last statement when further matters have been included such as Mr. S calling F names, Mr. S slapping F, Mr. S spitting and Mr. S’ drug use. She accepted these matters should have gone into earlier statements. Asked about her relationship with Mr. S Mother told me at first that her relationship with him had been “on and off between June and 1 st . October 2013”. She did not spell out that she had ceased a sexual relationship with Mr. S from August 2013 which she later stated. She told me that she responded to Mr. S’ letter in June because “I was concerned about his mental state - a few times he wanted to end everything – I didn’t want blood on my hands.” Mother told me that she reconciled with Mr. S, including engaging in a sexual relationship because, “I needed to know – he’s my son – I need to know for him what happened – I thought mainly he would open up to me and tell me everything. He never spoke about this case – he spoke about how he felt…” Mother told me that when she was interviewed by the police on 2 nd . October and she went through the text messages with a police woman she told me (at this point she was distraught), “I felt I was being used and was never loved by XXX and it hurt. I personally thought that he loved me. I don’t think anything now – I’m just one big black hole” I was struck by the level of distress Mother showed when speaking of her own disappointment at the thought of a failed relationship in the context of a case when her son had been so grievously harmed. Asked about F’s injuries Mother told me that she had never seen Mr. S cause any direct harm to F, “never ever.” She told me that she had never harmed F and “the worst thing I have ever done was to remove sweets or DVDs.” Again through tears Mother told me, “I believe F has been hurt by XXX.” My concern about this part of the evidence is that Mother seemed to find it difficult to state this. Mother told me that the first she knew that Mr. S had lied about the cause of the burn was when her solicitor told her that Mr. S had admitted the lie to the police. Mother told me, “I didn’t want to believe he would hurt my son.” Asked about F’s disclosures, Mother told me, “F has never lied – ever – I know my son – he doesn’t know half of this. He used to tell me everything his Dad done” Mother told me that when she saw the bruises she would ask F, “I would prod the bruise and say “how did you get this” and he would say, “I don’t know – leave me alone.” Mother told me that F always said he wanted Mr. S to stay. Mother told me that F “saw me happy.” Mother admitted that she had told F she was happy with Mr. S. Mother denied that Mr. S had called F “spaco legs” but accepted he may have called him a “brat” or a “girl” or made fun of the plimsolls he has to wear. Despite Mother telling me that F does not lie, Mother denied that F had complained to her that Mr. S had caused bruising to his legs as disclosed on 12 th . March 2013 ( I8). Mother told me that she had never hidden F from the medical professional and had been keen to get answers. She told me that she had shown the GP photographs of F’s bruises. She told me that on 1.5.2013 Dr. H had asked her if anyone could have been hurting F and Mother burst into tears but did not make any allegations against Mr. S. In respect of the burn Mother accepted that she had received the photograph of the burn on the morning of 10 th . May 2013. She went home at midday. She went upstairs to see F. XXX was upstairs and gave her a cuddle. F was sleeping and she did not want to disturb him. Mother did not check the hand. Mr. S told her he had held the hand under cold water and “it was fine.” Mr. S told her it would heal and he had applied a burn pack. Mother told me that “Mr. Said no to it being checked – it will heal in a couple of days – Mr. S said it was fine.” According to Mother she did not see the burn until the evening of Monday ie. 13 th . May 2013 by which time the burn was badly infected. Mother also told me she saw the burn in the early hours of Tuesday morning. She said, “I screamed when I saw the hand.” Under cross examination, when Mother was strongly challenged on why she had not taken F to a doctors between 10 – 14 th . May she just kept telling me that Mr. S had reassured her that it would be fine. By Monday Mother was horrified by the look of the burn. It “looked like a piece of meat.” Even at that stage Mother did not take F to A and E “Because I was going to hospital in a few hours.” One of the saddest text messages in the entire bundle is a message Mother sends to Mr. S on 13 th . May 2013 which reads L365 , “I could hear him sobbing in his pillow.” Mother appears to be out of the house and Mr. S replies L365, “Sad for F, just went and see him he ok just hand hurts.” Even at this stage Mother does not take F to get medical attention. Mother accepts now she should have taken F to hospital on the Friday and certainly on the Monday. Under cross examination from the local authority Mother was asked to tell the truth and to say what actually happened. Mother told me, “I wish I did know but I didn’t know anything – I spoke to everyone I knew – I spoke to XXX constantly about the bruises – He didn’t get anything out of him – I thought my son was very ill – I would not put my son through all the needles and tests if I knew someone was touching him.” Mr. Miller asked Mother when she realised Mr. S was hurting F and she said, “When I wanted to believe it – over the last month – over September…. I need to know the truth – I need to know what happened – I need it for my sanity – he’s been hurt and hurt bad.” Asked whether Mother at any time suspected Mr. She said, “I blamed XXX that weekend of the burn.” Mother accepted that she had been, “blinded by love “ and that she had lied to professionals. She said, “I believe he has subjected him (F) to terror.” Asked why some matters have only appeared in her last statement Mother told me, “Many things I have blanked out – idiotically…. I didn’t want to think Mr. S or anybody had hurt my son.” Perhaps interestingly Mother said, “You see it on the TV all the time – why did it happen to me.” I was concerned that Mother even at this stage was thinking of herself – the injuries had in fact happened to her son. Asked again about her relationship with Mr. S, Mother accepted that he had been in her house as recently as 1 st . October 2013. Asked whether she was still in love with Mr. S in October 2013 she said, “I am not a spiteful person, I can see him in the room here, I didn’t love him I just wanted to know the truth.” Mother told me that she could not have had sexual intercourse since August because of her surgery, “I have only just been given the go ahead to have sex.” Mr. Miller put directly to Mother that she knew that F was being injured by Mr. S. Mother said, “That is bull – I’ll get cross – people saying I know what happened to F and I let it persist is just sick.” In one text message Mother writes that F looks like “an abused child” and Mother accepted to me that he did. Throughout her evidence Mother kept telling me that she simply had no idea what was going on. “I didn’t want ever to think that XXX would hurt my son. It never crossed my mind XXX would do this – he was so good with children.” Asked about lying for Mr. S to his work Mother told me, “XXX had had enough of work – he was treated like a slave – he wanted some time off – for him to have some slave time – he was trying to throw a sicky.” Asked about the series of abusive text messages and why she always apologised to Mr. S and took the blame Mother told me, “Because I’m a soft touch.” Mother told me that to her face Mr. S would be kind and apologise. When she asked him why he attacked her by text Mr. S replied because he knew it would hurt her. The text messages in which Mr. S threatens to kill F were put to Mother. She could not explain why she had not taken these threats seriously and seemed to think they had been a way to hurt her. Asked about text messages in which Mother had said to Mr. S she would keep F away from Mr. Sevens, she denied this was because she thought F was at risk of harm but because she didn’t “want confrontation” and she didn’t want Mr. S to “moan.” “I don’t like conflict – I have lived with conflict for too long.” Once Mr. S had left the court room Mother told me that she is terrified of Mr. S. I asked her whether she did not take F for medical attention for some of his injuries because she was scared Mr. S would hit her or because she was scared he would leave her. Mother told me, “Probably a bit of both.” Mother told me that Mr. S had threatened to punch her. In terms of the injury to the penis Mother told me she saw blood on the inside of F’s nappy/pull up on 13 th . May 2013. Mother told me that for the three days that F was in hospital from 15 – 17 th . April 2013, she stayed with F. When she returned she found some of her belongings damaged and put in the loft space. Some of the damaged items were DVDs of special occasions involving F. Mother felt particularly undermined and threatened because she thought someone had been in her home. She wondered if Father had returned to taunt or threaten her. She now believes Mr. S had moved and damaged these possessions. She believes that Mr. S had deliberately tried to unnerve and unsettle her by making her believe Father would come back and harm her. Mother told me she was going “Stir crazy.” Asked about the allegations made by F that Mr. S had made him put his hand down the toilet and eat his own faeces Mother said in great distress, “Why would you say that if it was a lie – why would you?” A further series of messages were put to Mother which are at L386. Mother messages Mr. S about F’s injuries and sends him a photograph of the injury to F’s penis. Mr. S writes L386 , “His willy makes me laugh.” After further messages Mother writes to Mr. S L386 , “Well u do have a huge one so a lot must look small and I’m not just saying that because Ur my partner.” Mother could not really explain how, when her son is in hospital covered in injuries, she felt it appropriate to continue a conversation by message in this vein. Analysis and findings. I say at once that this has been a distressing and disturbing case, even to the most experienced of child protection professionals. Whilst one must put emotion to one side and engage in a dispassionate analysis of the evidence before the court, the picture which has emerged must trouble the most hardened of those of us working at the child protection coal face. I heard submissions on behalf of the parties. Mr. S was given the opportunity to address the court further but told me that he had nothing more to add. He did not wish to make any submissions having heard Mother’s evidence. I am particularly grateful to Mr. Cronshaw who made careful and measured submissions on behalf of Mother. He urged me to consider that Mother has cared well for F prior to January 2013 and has shown herself to be a good mother. He submitted that whilst there is clear failure to protect on behalf of Mother because of the injuries, her culpability is at the lower end of the spectrum. He submitted that Mother was vulnerable and perhaps trusted Mr. S too much. He submitted that Mother “saw Mr. S as a saviour after the wreckage of the relationship with Father.” On that point I have to say I agree. Mr. Cronshaw submitted that Mr. S is a devious individual who recognised Mother’s vulnerabilities and manipulated her. Again to an extent I accept there is force in that submission. He submits that Mother may have been lulled into a false sense of security as he had his own son A stay with him for staying contact on alternate weekends. Mother was in touch with A’s mother and no alarm bells were rung. Mr Cronshaw also pointed out that Mother did not know or foresee that the text messages would ever been transcribed and there is no evidence within those messages of actual collusion. I accept that point. I accept that there is evidence of Mother asking Mr. S whether he is hiding anything from her. However, there is clear evidence within those texts that Mother knew of the serious injuries F was suffering. Mr. Cronshaw also submits that Mother took F to medical appointments and Dr. R effectively reassured Mother that the injuries were accidental. Mr. Cronshaw also submitted that care should be taken before placing too much weight on the text messages. Firstly he submitted that as much of the messaging took place when the two adults were in fact in the same house together there were probably many conversations going on at the same time and the text messages are simply snippets of those conversations. Even if there were not face to face conversations there were telephone calls in between. Mr. Cronshaw urged me to consider that I may not be aware of the true context of the messages and therefore to be cautious when trying to understand exactly what they may show. Mr. Cronshaw has represented Mother well and with care. I thank him and I have born all of these submissions in mind as I turn to my findings. In considering the findings I make I of course direct myself that the burden of proof is on the local authority. The standard of proof is the balance of probabilities. So what are the findings of the court? There are two aspects to Mother. On the one hand she is an intelligent woman who has trained and been accepted as a Family Support worker for a local authority. This is a position of trust to the extent that she enters into the homes of vulnerable families and assists them on behalf of the local authority. As part of this role she has undergone training and is aware, at least to a degree, of child protection issues. Mother has also shown that she is able to care for a special needs child. I have already commented that this mother was able to care for F and meet his physical needs. She has ensured that he has been taken to medical appointments and I accept that Mother has tried to empower F and lead as normal a life as possible despite his disability. Mother told me with delight how she took F to the Paralympics and what a positive experience it was for him. I have no doubt that it was. However, it is clear to me that Mother is an extremely vulnerable woman. I accept that she suffered from domestic violence from Father. I find that by January 2013 she was desperate for love, affection and attention, in short she was desperate for a relationship. It appears that she was deeply insecure and was suffering from low self esteem. These are matters upon which Dr. Blumenthal will be better qualified to comment. However, in her quest to find a partner, she unfortunately made contact with Mr. S. Without knowing him she allowed him into her life, her home and her bed. I gained the impression that she gave no thought to the type of father figure he would be to F, so overwhelming were her own needs. I accept that Mr. S had his own son and this may her given her confidence that he is a man to be trusted around children. However, that assumption should have quickly been rejected with the emerging evidence. The medical evidence in this case is clear, compelling and effectively unchallenged. Between January – May 2013, F suffered a series of injuries to many parts of his body. There is no plausible explanation for them save that they are traumatic injuries. F himself has given accounts both in his ABE interviews (in particular the third) and through disclosures to his foster carer, which are entirely consistent with the injuries found. There is no rational explanation for F being able to give these disclosures save that he is simply recounting what has happened to him. I accept his accounts. There is no credible explanation offered by anyone not to do so. Moreover when one considers the individuals who had the care of F and the mindset of Mother and Mr. S, it is easier to understand and indeed believe how such cruelty and abuse could have taken place and persisted over a number of weeks. Mr. S made clear to Mother in his text messages from February 2013 that he is a possessive and controlling man. His messages reveal an immature and almost insane jealousy and insecurity towards Mother, from a very early stage in the relationship. He clearly resented the time and attention F received from his mother. The text messages reveal Mr. S’ dislike, indeed hatred and contempt for F. Mr. S wanted nothing to do with F, he belittled him, made fun of him and viewed him as nothing but an irritation and annoyance to him, rather than as a little boy with special needs. Indeed Mr. S said in terms that he did not see F as human. Once a person is no longer seen as a human being, it is clear that any chance of compassion, empathy or kindness has gone. Mr. S makes direct threats about F to mother. How does Mother respond to this? Mother’s response is to apologise to Mr. S, to blame herself, to try and pacify Mr. S, to tell him she loves him, to tell him that he is wonderful and that he represents her family. She tells Mr. S that she will “give him space” and that any failings in F are her fault. Her responses to Mr. S appear to be those of a person who has lost all objectivity and rationality. She has lost all perspective of the needs of her child. She fails to recognise that the abusive text messages from Mr. S show an angry and damaged individual who poses a threat, at the very least, of emotional harm to her vulnerable son. Mr. S has not assisted the court in determining the truth. He did not give a truthful account and has sought to protect himself, I suspect, from likely criminal proceedings. His evidence was evasive and inconsistent. He gave no credible answers in the face of the compelling medical evidence and F’s disclosures. His own evidence, the information contained within the text and WhatsApp messages revealed his true egocentric and damaged perception of his life in Mother’s home. Turning firstly to the injuries, I find that Mr. S subjected F to systematic emotional and physical abuse and cruelty between March and 14 th May 2013. I can only imagine the distress, fear and pain which F suffered over those weeks. I find that Mr. S punched F to the face and head, threw him to the ground, grabbed him by the arms, kicked him and caused the bite mark to his right shoulder. I find that he punched him in the groin area and apply direct trauma to his genitals and causing skin loss on his penis. In respect of the burn, I find that Mr. S deliberately caused the burn to F. I accept F’s account that Mr. S stood on his foot and deliberately held his hand under scalding water to cause a burn. He engendered sufficient fear in F that F gave a false account of the incident, telling his mother he was accidentally scalded by hot tea. Mr. S persuaded Mother not to take F to hospital and seek medical attention thereby exacerbating a serious burn which needed immediate medical attention. Mr. S did not see F as a human being. He saw him as a worthless irritant who deserved to be treated with contempt. His actions towards F were little short of torture. His behaviour is inexcusable, unforgivable and criminal. The most difficult part of this case is to try and understand Mother’s actions At times I have found this frankly baffling. I have highlighted the positive aspects of Mother. However, the facts of this case cannot be ignored. It is accepted that Mother began to notice bruising to F in March 2013. Whilst I can accept that until 12 th . March 2013, Mother may genuinely have had “no inkling” that Mr. S was harming F (although F states he complained to Mother about this), on 12 th . March 2013 F made a clear disclosure to his teacher that Mr. S was causing bruising to his legs, a disclosure which was made known to Mother. It is clear from the text messages that Mother knew about the bruises and was worried about the meeting. Even at that stage, it is hard to understand why Mother was so worried about the meeting at the school if she really had no idea that Mr. S was harming F. However, even if I give Mother the benefit of the doubt on that issue, from 12 th . March 2013 mother should have been vigilant to ensure that no further harm would come to her son. By 12 th . March 2013, Mother knew that F irritated and annoyed Mr. S. Mother told me that F is not a child who lies. Mother could see the bruises for herself even if she did not know how they had happened. Mother knew that F had not presented with bruises of this severity on his legs prior to March 2013. In my judgment Mother had all the information, at the very least, to be put on notice that she must be concerned for F and be vigilant that Mr. S, who she had only known for three months, was not harming her son. I utterly reject Mother’s case that from March 2013 she had, “no inkling” that Mr. S was causing her son harm. Mother may not have wanted to hear what F had said, she may not have wanted to believe that Mr. S posed a risk to her son but she had been put on clear notice that this may be the case. In my judgment and I find, that from 12 th . March 2013 Mother knew and/or actively chose to ignore that Mr. S posed a risk of emotional and physical harm to her son. In making that finding I accept that Mother may not have understood the level of risk or could have imagined the severity or persistence of the abuse and cruelty that was to come, but even at that early stage she should have asked Mr. S to leave and taken the relationship more slowly until she had a better understanding of why F was being injured. From March 2013 I find that Mother prioritised her relationship with Mr. S despite clear and compelling evidence that F’s welfare would be compromised. Throughout March until May 2013, F presented with increasingly concerning injuries. One only has to look at the photograph at L458 to see the dreadful state that F was in prior to his reception into hospital and then care in May 2013, I accept the accounts of F and the medical evidence. I accept that Mother did not cause any direct physical abuse herself. I accept that the worst injuries were caused when Mother was not present, either was not present in the room or in the house. On behalf of Mother Mr Cronshaw has set out the references to F making it clear that his Mother was not present in the house when the serious assaults took place and I have inserted those submissions here. a) F has repeatedly made it clear that things would happen to him at the hands of Mr. S when M was out: i) Mum went to work with A and I was not well with bandages on my hand, he forced me to eat my poo, he did. Disclosure 21.7.13 [H782] ii) My Mum left and it happened again. Up/down ceiling/floor, watching Balamory til I was dead Disclosure 21.7.13 [H783] iii) Every time she went out and I wanted to go to the garden XXX would say `No and then drop me top to floor again and again’ 21.7.13 [H784] iv) The day after when my Mum wanted to go out, leave me and XXX, he did it every time Disclosure 21.7.13 [H784]. v) Mummy would give me a kiss when I went to bed and then she went to do what she needed to do. Then Mum’s partner would do that (F put his hand around front of his neck) and my head was on the top of the bed and then he said (`I don’t want to hear a word from you’). Disclosure 22.7.13 [H794] vi) Every night like tonight, last night, he used to do that. Then every night he would put me on the floor. My mum would put me back in bed. The next night, he would put me on the floor and it would go on like that again and again and again. Disclosure 28.7.13 [H799]. vii) Every time I got up and my mum went to the shop I’d be leaved with him and he’d throw me to the floor. Disclosure 28.7.13 [H799] viii) My mum’s partner used to put his hand under my mouth all the time, trying to knock my teeth together. Then he used to that against every time my Mum was out in the garden or out shopping and wasn’t with me. It wasn’t nice. Disclosure 3.8.13 [H803] b) F does not say that M was present and did nothing to help him. However, I am particularly concerned by one message sent by Mother to Mr. S. On 11 th . April 2013 Mother sends Mr. S the following message L234 69762 , “Thanks night I really do love U, upsets me that I think u don’t know or think I do Ur amazing XXX and I want u forever I had a feeling I was loosing you this week it hurt so bad and was so happy to see you when I get home still here u said to me at the weekend that u will love me forever and want to marry me it goes over my head every day since and a huge smile comes on my face sadly all I think about is u and F Ur also my rock at the mo keeping me together so its hard to see F in pain its breaking my heart but u have made him a little tough boot and battle pass it xxxx” When Mother was asked about this she told me that Mr. S was helping F “toughen up” in terms of being able to sleep at night with the light off rather than always on as he was used to. I found this a wholly unconvincing answer. Why would her heart break about that? Why would F be in pain? In my judgment and I find that this text is informing Mr. S of several matters. The first is that Mother is in love with him and needs him above all else. She describes him as her “rock.” She is happy when he thinks of her relationship with Mr. S but that happiness is clouded when she thinks of F. She is telling Mr. S that she finds it hard to see F in pain. In my judgment this text is clear evidence that Mother was tolerating a degree of emotional and physical abuse by Mr. S which she knew was distressing F. To justify it and turn it into praise for Mr. S that he is making F “ a tough little boot” demonstrates to me how distorted Mother’s thinking had become by 11 th . April 2013. Her protective ability was severely compromised to the point of being non existent. Putting all of these matters together I find that, Mother knew F was being injured and knew and /or actively chose to ignore that these injuries were being caused by Mr. S. A mother who had been close to her son, who had raised him from birth, could not have been so blind not to understand what was going on under her roof. Whilst I accept that Mother presented F for medical appointments after F had begun to be injured, Mother did not present the whole picture to the medics. Mother did not inform the GP or Dr. R of the disclosure F had made on 12 th . March 2013, nor did she disclose the abusive text messages sent by Mr. S, including the two in which he describes F as “not human.” If I had been in any doubt about Mother’s prioritisation of her relationship with Mr. S over F, they would have been dissipated by the events surrounding the burn. I criticise Mother for leaving F in the care of Mr. S on 10 th . May 2013. It must have been obvious to Mother that F was scared of him by that time and I reject Mother’s case that F appeared so happy in Mr. S’ care. Despite all that had gone on before, Mother went to work on 10 th . May. By 10.30am she was made aware that F had suffered a burn. She was sent a photograph of that burn. In my judgment it is obvious from that photograph that F needed medical attention. In my judgment any reasonable parent would have asked Mr. S to take F immediately to A and E and she would meet them both there. Failing that any reasonable parent would have returned home. Mother’s case that she did not check F’s hand when she returned at lunchtime beggars belief. Any reasonable parent would have gone straight to see their child and checked the hand. They would have insisted on medical attention. A woman of Mother’s intelligence and training would have known Mr. S would not have had the skills to treat a burn of this severity. In my judgment and I find, Mother knew that F needed medical attention and failed to take him to hospital. For Mother then to fail to take F for a further four days defies explanation and Mother has certainly not provided me with one with which I am satisfied. Her own text message describes F on 13 th . May, “sobbing into his pillow.” On 12 th . May F had asked his mother to get his father, who he had not seen at that point for five months, to come and get him. F’s condition and situation was tragic and pitiful. I cannot make a positive finding as to why Mother did not take F for medical attention before 14 th . May 2013. There are several possibilities. She may have been scared of Mr. S or she may have wanted to protect Mr. S. Whether her failure to act was as a result of overt collusion or an unspoken understanding that Mr. S did not want F to be taken to hospital, I cannot be satisfied of to the requisite standard. What I am satisfied of is that any of these explanations amount to a serious dereliction of maternal duty towards F. Mother accepts that she failed to protect F. It is obvious that she did so. It is urged upon me by Mr. Cronshaw that her culpability in that failure to protect is at the lower end of the scale. I profoundly disagree. Mother was on notice from March that her son was at risk. As the bruises and injuries emerged she could and should have taken action. She left her son in a placement where he was increasingly in peril. I have no confidence that Mother would have protected her son even by 14 th . May had he not been taken to hospital and then received into care. The question is why mother behaved in this way, did she actively collude with Mr. S and if so in what way and from what point? I do not believe that Mother has told the court all that she knows. I accept the submission of the local authority that Mother’s statements are rather sanitised and anodyne documents. The evidence which has been of real assistance to the court in considering the actions of Mother and Mr. S has been the transcribed messages, F’s disclosures and the medical evidence. Mother’s position has moved in the light of that evidence. I do not believe she would have moved as far as she has done without it. However, in my judgment, even at this stage, she is minimising the behaviour that she witnessed by Mr. S and is still protecting him to some degree. I have accepted that Mother is a vulnerable woman and had a desperate need for love and a relationship when she encountered Mr. S. The prioritisation of a relationship over a child is a common failing in parents who come before the care courts. However, this is an extreme case. Whether Mother’s devotion, almost obsession with Mr. S provides a complete explanation for allowing Mr. S to remain in the home when he was physically abusing F and I have found that Mother knew, remains an open question. The real answer may never be known. However, Mother’s attachment to Mr. S is clearly very strong. Despite all that happened, Mother resumed her relationship with Mr. S in June 2013. I reject Mother’s case that she entered into that relationship almost as a ruse to find out the truth. If that is the case then Mother is a far more scheming and manipulative woman than she has tried to present throughout this trial. In my judgment she resumed the relationship quite simply because she wanted to and once again she prioritised this relationship over the needs of her child. I am particularly concerned that Mother entered into the agreement with Mr. S to call each other N and E to try and evade detection by the police. In my judgment and I find, the relationship between Mother and Mr. S continued until 2 nd . October 2013. At H912 there is a transcript of a text message dated 1.10.2013 it appears from Mr. S to Mother, “I love you so bloody much its crazy.” On H913 there are text messages dated 1.10.2013 between the couple as follows, “All I really want to hear u moan and groan again.” “Blush cant wait.” Whether sexual intercourse was avoided for medical reasons between August and October I cannot make a finding about and I do not need to do so. I am satisfied that Mother and Mr. S were in a relationship which involved physical intimacy until October 2013. The intimate text messages of 1 st . October are compelling evidence of that. I was struck throughout Mother’s evidence that she found it very difficult even at this stage to be critical of Mr. S and was more animated and fluent when telling me positives about him. I am far from convinced that Mother is not still in love with Mr. S or that the relationship will not resume in time. On the evidence before me at the present time, I cannot make a finding that Mother sat down and verbalised a conspiracy to remain silent with Mr. S. In that sense I cannot and do not make a finding of active collusion. However I repeat and note again that I do not believe that Mother or Mr. S have been honest with the court or told me all that they know. However I am satisfied that Mother knew she should act to protect F and for some reason chose not to do so. Her inaction allowed Mr. S to perpetuate the abuse until 14 th . May 2013. The local authority has sought some findings based solely on disclosures made by F. Whilst I have placed weight on F’s disclosures, I do not consider it necessary to consider all of the findings sought in the context of the findings I am making. I therefore make the following findings; SUMMARY OF THE FINDINGS OF THE COURT (to be read together with the analysis and findings section above.) The court finds that between January - May 2013 F suffered significant emotional and physical harm. F suffered emotional and verbal aggression from Mr. S including verbal denigration. F was subjected to systematic, repeated and at times sustained physical abuse and assaults causing serious physical injury to him by Mr. S. These physical assaults were deliberate and can only be described as sadistic. F lived in terror of the threat of physical harm by Mr. S at least from March 2013 until his removal on 14 th . May 2013. Mr. S is a dangerous, devious and manipulative individual. There should be careful assessment before he is allowed any contact, including supervised contact with any child, including his own. Mother failed to protect F from this harm. Whilst the court accepts that Mother did not anticipate that Mr. S would cause F harm when she allowed him into her home, she prioritised her relationship with Mr. S above the needs of F by allowing him into the house when she did not know him. As clear evidence emerged of F being harmed and she knew or ought to have known that Mr. S was causing F physical injury she continued to allow Mr. S to remain in her home. From March 2013 Mother was put on notice that Mr. S was causing physical harm to F through the disclosure he made to his teacher on 12 th . March 2013. Mother was also aware of the dislike and contempt Mr. S felt towards F. The court finds that as the injuries emerged in April and May 2013 Mother knew and/or chose to ignore that these injuries were being caused by Mr. S. Mother knew on 10 th . May that F needed urgent medical attention for the burn to his hand but did not take F for medical attention until 14 th . May 2013. The court cannot make a finding as to the reason for this failure (although has considered whether it was due to an unspoken understanding that Mr. S did not want F to be taken for medical attention or through overt collusion.) Whatever the reason and it is for Mother to explain in due course, the court finds that she failed to take F for treatment. The court also finds that this is one of the worst cases of failure to protect and medical neglect seen by this court. Mother has not told the court all that she knows even at this stage. The reasons for her failure to act to protect F remain unexplained save that she clearly prioritised her relationship with Mr. S over the needs of and protection of her son. The court finds; GENERAL There are no underlying medical causes or disorders to account for easy bruising or bleeding to F. Since March 2013, there has been no alteration in the overall physical activity of F or deterioration in his cerebral palsy. Up until March 2013, no professional agencies, including the school and health professionals, have expressed any concerns regarding the physical presentation of F. Mr. S and Mother have been living together since the end of January 2013. F started to suffer bruising and swelling in March 2013 up until his presentation in hospital on 13 th May 2013. LEFT HAND Mr. S has deliberately held the top of the left hand of F under excessively hot running water from the bathroom tap, which has caused a large, evenly deep, burn with a well circumscribed edge. Whilst holding the left hand of F under the running tap water, Mr. S has deliberately stood on the foot of F. Mr. S has told F to lie to his mother about how the burn occurred, by instructing him to tell her it was caused by hot tea falling onto his hand. Mr. S, knowing the severity of the burn, failed to seek immediate medical attention for F. Mr. S has lied to a number of professionals, including Health Professionals, the Police, the Court and Children's Social Care about how the burn occurred. Mother, on being told of the burn and observing the burn, has not sought immediate medical attention for F. BRUISES F has had, since March 2013, extensive non-accidental bruising on different parts of his body, which are in excess of those seen from medical causes of easy bruising and everyday accidents and falls and from a most active and clumsy, accident prone, child. This bruising has been caused by Mr. S on different occasions, which have been caused by a variety of mechanisms, including severe squeezing and grabbing, by picking F up and throwing him on the floor, by throwing him against a chair, by standing and stamping on his hand, and by standing, and stamping, on his right foot and ankle. That on or before 23 rd . March 2013 Mr. S punched or slapped F directly on the face causing him to suffer bruising and swelling to both his eyes. Mother was aware of this swelling on 23 rd . March 2013. Mother took F to the GP on 24 th . March 2013. At the time of this consultation Mother knew F had made a clear disclosure on 12 th . March 2013 that Mr. S had caused him bruising Mother has failed to protect F from these physical assaults perpetrated by Mr. S. BITE TO UPPER BACK F has been subject to a non-accidental bite-mark to his back by an adult. This bite-mark has been caused by Mr. S. Mr. S has lied to the authorities by blaming his two year old son as being the cause of the bite-mark. NASAL SEPTUM INJURY Mr. S has intentionally injured F by gripping the nasal septum of F and squeezing hard, thus causing it to bleed and split. In addition, this assault has caused his lower lip to swell and has caused ulceration. Mr. S and Mother failed to seek immediate and appropriate medical attention for this injury to F. GROIN & PENIS F has suffered extensive bruising to his groin area, which has been inflicted non-accidentally by Mr. S. F has suffered an injury to his penis, which has been inflicted non-accidentally and by direct trauma by Mr. S. Mr. S and Mother have failed to seek immediate, and appropriate, medical attention for these injuries to F. Other. Mother has provided money to Mr. S to buy drugs. That Mr. S has stolen money from Mother’s purse without her knowledge. Mr. S smoked “skunk” in the house on at least one occasion. That Mr. S called F abusive names included “spaco legs” in the presence of Mother. From around February/March 2013 to 13 th May 2013, Mr. S has used ‘hurtful words’ ( ) and ‘names’ ( ) to the mother in describing F, which have included : ‘spoilt shit-bag’ ( ), a ‘fucking piss taking little shit’ ( ), a ‘brat’ ( ), ‘nut case’ ( ), ‘embarrassing’ ( ), ‘the weediest boy I have ever met’ ( ), ‘why can't he be a normal child like anyone else’ ( 67922) , ‘I can't live with you if I hate your son’ ( ), a ‘dirty little shit’ ( ) & ( ), ‘I’ve done enough and he shits on me’ ( ), ‘sulking little shit’ ( ), ‘two words fuck up’ ( ), ‘I can't be arsed anymore with him’ ( ), ‘fucking cry baby deserves to be the way he is, not normal, not human ...’ ( ), ‘the prick’ ( ), ‘... that fuck up not human person’ ( ), ‘how the fuck can you even be proud to say he is your son ... I would be ashamed’ ( ), ‘spaco legs’ ( ) and a ‘miserable fucker’ ( ). That Mr. S damaged and hid items of Mother’s and F’s in order to scare Mother and emotionally destabilise her. 6. The mother has known that on at least one occasion Mr. S has slapped and pulled F whilst in his bedroom. ( Text Nos. 74605 – 74614 ). She has failed to protect F from this assault. 7. Mr. S has assaulted F on one occasion by slapping and pulling him whilst in his bedroom ( Text Nos. 74605 – 74614 ) 8. Mr. S has told the mother on various occasions, and over a period of time, his feelings towards F. The mother, in spite of this, has chosen to prioritise, and continue, her relationship with Mr. S rather protecting the welfare and safety of F. TEXT NUMBERS DATE 64874 – 64939 th February 2013 65267 – 65269 th February 2013 65908 – 65912 nd March 2013 65938 – 65960 nd March 2013 6 th March 2013 6 th March 2013 67888 – 67936 th March 2013 68030 – 68031 th March 2013 68036 – 68047 th March 2013 9 th April 2013 11 th April 2013 69953 – 69966 th April 2013 70746 – 70778 th April 2013 71068 – 71081 st April 2013 71092 – 71093 st April 2013 26 th April 2013 27 th April 2013 27 th April 2013 2 nd May 2013 13 th May 2013 These are the findings of the court. The threshold criteria in respect of F are satisfied on the basis of these findings. Once again I thank and commend all the advocates in this case for their assistance. [1] A letter dated 18 th June 2013 was received in respect of the call record from NHS Direct. The only contact recorded is that from the 23 rd March 2013 ( G23 – G27 ). BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII URL: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCC/Fam/2013/B23.html