Gloucestershire County Council v Rh (1st Respondent) Ks (2nd Respondent) Js (by his Child's Guardian) (3rd Respondent)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | The Hon. Mr Justice Baker |
| Judgment Date | 29 March 2012 |
| Neutral Citation | [2012] EWHC 1370 (Fam) |
| Court | Family Division |
| Docket Number | Case GF11C00125 |
| Date | 29 March 2012 |
In the Matter of the Children Act 1989 and in the Matter of JS (A Minor)
[2012] EWHC 1370 (Fam)
The Hon. Mr Justice Baker
Case GF11C00125
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
FAMILY DIVISION
BRISTOL DISTRICT REGISTRY
Mr Christopher Sharp QC and Miss Charlotte Pitts (instructed by the local authority legal unit) appeared for the Applicant
Mr. Paul Storey QC and Mrs Alexa Storey-Rea (instructed by William Bache and Co) appeared on behalf of the First Respondent mother
Mr. Nkumbe Ekaney QC and Miss Linsey Knowles (instructed by Rowbis, Solicitors) appeared on behalf of the Second Respondent
Mr. Mark Horton (instructed by Humfrys and Symonds) appeared on behalf of the Third Respondent by his child's guardian
IMPORTANT — The judgment is being distributed on the strict understanding that in any report no person other than the advocates or the solicitors instructing them or persons named in the judgment may be identified by name or location and that in particular the anonymity of the child and the adult members of his family must be strictly preserved. If reported, it is the duty of the law reporters to ensure that this direction as to anonymity is followed.
Introduction
On 25 February 2011, a baby boy, whom I shall call J, then aged 15 weeks, was admitted to Gloucestershire Royal Hospital because of concerns about his excessive head growth. CT scans revealed that he had sustained subdural haematomas and he was transferred to the Frenchay Hospital in Bristol, where he underwent two operations in which the subdural collections were drained. Examination by ophthalmologists also revealed the presence of bilateral retinal haemorrhage.
Very fortunately J has made a complete recovery from these conditions and it is not anticipated that he will suffer any long term consequences, but the presence of subdural haematomas and retinal haemorrhage raises the question whether he has been the victim of a shaking, or shaking plus impact, assault, and the local authority and police embarked upon an investigation. Upon discharge from hospital, J was placed in the care of the local authority and, specifically, foster parents, where he remains to this day. The police have yet to reach any final conclusion in their investigation, but the local authority started care proceedings, arguing that J's intracranial injuries were inflicted non-accidentally by one or other of his parents, whom I shall refer to as his mother and father in order to preserve their anonymity. Although it was initially the local authority's case that the injuries were inflicted by one or other of his parents, in final submissions the local authority withdrew the allegation against the mother.
The case was transferred to the High Court and listed for fact finding hearing before me over 15 days in March 2012. This judgment is delivered at the conclusion of that hearing.
Background Summary
J's mother was born in 1973. She had a troubled childhood and her medical records reveal that she had a history of depression, bulimia and poor self image. She has two older children by previous relationships, whom I shall refer to as L, born [a date in] 1994 and therefore now aged 17, and X (I choose that initial because he shares the same initial as J), born [a date in] 2003 and therefore now aged eight. X suffers from cerebral palsy as a result of complications that occurred during his mother's pregnancy. The experts instructed in these proceedings have reviewed X's medical history and concluded that it has no relevance to the analysis of the injuries sustained by J. Both L and X have had regular contact with their respective fathers. The relationship between the mother and L's father remains cordial, but there have been ongoing difficulties between the mother and X's father. The mother suffered from post-natal depression following the births of both L and X. On each occasion she took an overdose whilst suffering from that depression.
J's father was born in 1969 and has worked as a driver for most of his adult life. His only other significant relationship prior to meeting the mother was with a woman some years older than he. That relationship lasted four years before they drifted apart, according to the father because he wished to have children. Following the breakdown of that relationship, at the point when he was heavily in debt, the father moved back to live with his mother in a prefab bungalow in Brockworth near Gloucester. The mother, L and X live next door in an adjoining bungalow. The parties met when the father offered to do some gardening and odd jobs around the house for the mother. Out of this they started the relationship, although they never lived together save for a few weeks at the end of 2010 in circumstances described below.
According to the mother, from an early stage in the relationship it was characterised by violence perpetrated by the father. In December 2009, the mother rang the police following an argument, but when the officers arrived she refused to speak to them and left the property. The police were involved in a further incident in April 2010, but again the mother declined to pursue her complaint. By this point the mother was two months pregnant and she claims that the reason for the argument was that the father was demanding that she have an abortion. That evening the father was admitted to hospital suffering from alcohol poisoning. He claims that this was an unusual incident for him and that he does not normally drink to excess. In September 2010 the mother attended the Accident and Emergency Department at the local hospital complaining of pain to the right ribs, saying that she had fallen five days previously in the kitchen and struck the sink. She denied that the injury had been sustained as a result of domestic violence. This incident has been the subject of evidence at this hearing which I shall consider below.
On 10 October 2010 the father was found on a motorway bridge saying he was depressed as a result of his problems, including debts. He was referred for medical help and in subsequent sessions with his GP complained that he was experiencing stress at home as a result of his debts, strains in his relationship and the fact that his girlfriend was pregnant. He saw the GP on a series of sessions in which he reported that he was continuing to experience stress. On one occasion his mother reported that he was demonstrating "bouts of anger" towards her and the mother which were "increasing in severity". Meanwhile, the mother herself was experiencing difficulties in the later stages of her pregnancy, suffering from a low-lying placenta and an irritable uterus.
On 11 November 2010 the mother gave birth to J at 37 weeks by caesarean section. Medical examination of the baby revealed no complications. His head circumference was recorded at 33.8 centimetres which, allowing for the fact that he was three weeks premature, placed him approximately on the 50th centile. According to the father, a day or so after the birth a doctor remarked that the plates in J's had not fused and that, as a result, the mother panicked, fearing a repetition of the problems she had experienced with X.
J was discharged from hospital on 14 November and he and his mother went to stay with the father at the paternal grandmother's home next door to the mother's property. The care of J was thereafter shared by the parents, including the night-time feeds. On 24 November the health visitor, BF, made her first visit to see the baby. All seemed well. She measured his head circumference and recorded in his notebook the measurement as 35 centimetres, also on approximately the 50th centile. Six days later the health visitor visited the baby again and recorded no problems. It seems that no head circumference measurement was taken
Meanwhile, the father's problems with stress were continuing. A record in his GP notes for 17 December state that on that date he attended complaining that he was still suffering from anxiety and feeling stressed, that he was finding the new baby difficult to cope with and that his bankruptcy was no further forward.
On 23 December the mother and J moved back next door to the mother's property. As they were living next door, there was a great deal of direct communication between the parties, but in addition they communicated very frequently by text message. A large number of texts sent by the mother to the father have been produced at this hearing and disclose that their relationship was extremely volatile. No text messages sent by the father to the mother during this time have been made available, although text messages sent by the father to the mother after J's accommodation in foster care have been produced. The mother alleges that on 24 December the father forcibly removed J from her care. The following day, Christmas Day, the mother (with the assistance of a lift from the paternal grandmother) took J to her mother's house. In text messages over Christmas, the mother alleged that the father had been violent to her again. In addition, over the Christmas period, there was an altercation between the father and his brother outside the properties when the brother attempted to take father's car keys, fearing that he was unfit to drive.
Thereafter, J spent the majority of his time with the mother, but on occasions was cared for by the father. The volatile relationship between the parties continued. The mother alleges that, during one argument on 4 January, the father punched her on the face, causing...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Westminster City Council v M (1st Respondent) F (2nd Respondent) H (3rd Respondent)
...light of my observations above, that in the fact finding process, the Local Authority bears the burden of proof, see: Re JS (A Minor) [2012] EWHC 1370Fam; the standard of proof is the balance of probabilities ( Re B [2008] UKHL 35). In considering allegations of the nature advanced in this ......
-
DR v Cambridgeshire County Council
...including the summary of the law applicable to fact-finding hearings in family proceedings set out in my judgment in Re JS [2012] EWHC 1370 (Fam). She said that she had been provided by the father's counsel with submissions on the law and a copy of the judgment of MacDonald J in AS v TH [20......
-
M (Children)
...summarised the legal principles she had to apply largely by reference to the ten principles set out by Baker J in Re JS (A Minor) [2012] EWHC 1370 (Fam), paras 36–45. No one has criticised her for doing this and she was, in my judgment, well justified in adopting this approach. Baker J's an......
-
Kn Petitioner v Mn Respondent
...where the truth lies without needing to rely upon the burden of proof.’ 15 In A County Council v RH, KS, JS (By His child's Guardian) [2012] EWHC 1370, a public law case involving allegations of non-accidental head injury, Baker J. at paragraphs 36–45 provided very useful guidance as to the......