Hertfordshire County Council v Mother
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Richard Clarke |
| Judgment Date | 12 September 2022 |
| Neutral Citation | [2022] EWFC 106 |
| Docket Number | Case No: WD21C00698 |
| Court | Family Court |
[2022] EWFC 106
HIS HONOUR JUDGE Richard Clarke
Case No: WD21C00698
IN THE FAMILY COURT SITTING AT WATFORD
DECISION
Contents
| INTRODUCTION | 2 |
| REPRESENTATION AND PARTIES | 2 |
| ESSENTIAL BACKGROUND | 2 |
| ALLEGATIONS | 9 |
| THE WITHDRAWAL APPLICATION | 10 |
| THE LAW AND LEGAL PRINCIPLES | 12 |
| THE TRIAL | 20 |
| THE EVIDENCE AND WITNESSES | 20 |
| FINDINGS AND DECISION | 36 |
| DISCLOSURE | 44 |
INTRODUCTION
This is the decision of the Court, following a fact-finding hearing, on an application by Hertfordshire County Council (referred to as the Local Authority) for Care Orders issued on 5 July 2021 in respect of the following child(ren):
1.1. [Older Sibling] born on XXXX 2018 (the older Sibling); and
1.2. [Child] born on XX November 2020 (referred to hereafter as the Child).
The trial of this matter has taken place over 6 days commencing on 21 March 2022, with evidence being heard from 21 March 2022 to 25 March 2022 and submissions on 28 March 2022. This decision was circulated in draft on 26 April 2022 and formally handed down on 12 September 2022.
REPRESENTATION AND PARTIES
The Local Authority was represented by Mr Holmes of counsel.
The first respondent is Mother (referred to as Mother), who was represented by Mr Barraclough QC assisted by Miss Baruah of counsel.
The second respondent is Father (referred to as Father), who was represented by Miss Stone QC, assisted by Miss Quinn of counsel.
The children's guardian is Claire Chambers (referred to as Guardian), who was represented by Miss Homer of counsel.
Given the potential for wider distribution of this judgment, I have anonymised the names of the children and family members. I have already provided a schedule of anonymised names so that anyone working with this family can readily identify the people referred to it in the decision.
The court has also decided to anonymise any reference to the professionals and majority of experts who provided evidence for the benefit of the Court, with substantive reasons being given in a separate decision.
This decision involves discussion of significant injuries sustained by a relatively new-born child. They are not a complete description, have been drawn together in some places with attempts to simplify for ease of understanding and do not seek to stand in the place of the extensive medical reports which have been considered. They also refer to research often conducted abroad and are reproduced using the original, published, spelling of terms such as paediatric.
ESSENTIAL BACKGROUND
The family was not previously known to social services and no concerns had ever been raised by professionals (including medical, police or social services) regarding the care provided by either parent. The essential background is therefore limited and can be summarised as follows:
10.1. The parents are married, having met in 2011 and marrying in XXXX.
10.2. The Child was born at 37 weeks gestation by emergency Caesarean section, due to concerns about his growth.
10.3. On the evening of [Day 1], when the Child was 7 weeks old, the parents state they were in the kitchen of the family home. It is their case that while Father was cuddling the Child he picked up the Older Sibling, who was about to go for a bath and bedtime, at the same time. They say Father then dropped the child, tried to catch the Child, but missed, and the Child tumbled to the floor.
10.4. The kitchen floor is a hard wood floor on a concrete base. The Child clearly sustained injury to his head upon impact. The parents left to take the Child to their local hospital, calling 999 (at 18:24 hours) on the way.
10.5. The Child was presented at the accident and emergency department of his local hospital the same evening with a report of having sustained injury in a fall from Father's arms onto a wooden floor from a height which was estimated, by the hospital staff to whom the initial history was given, to be approximately 5 feet. The Child had a short seizure after arrival at the hospital. Initial assessment took place at 18:30 hours.
10.6. The paediatric sign-in sheet, completed at 19:00 hours on [Day 1], recorded a “fall/dropped from height of approximately 2 feet”. Subsequent trauma team notes by the Emergency Department Consultant recorded “fall onto floor from father's hands about 3–4 feet high”. Record of the discussion between the general paediatric consultant and Father recorded the Child “arched his back fell over dad's arm (approx. 5ft)”
10.7. A neurosurgical on-call referral was made to Great Ormond Street Hospital (GOSH) that evening, by which time the history was that the fall had occurred at 19:00 hours and was from a height of 4 to 5 feet onto a carpeted floor. There is a letter to GOSH, from the local hospital, from the same day stating it was a drop from 4 feet onto wooden flooring. There is also a record of a call to an anaesthetist at GOSH, from the local hospital, noting a drop onto a wooden floor at 19:00 hours.
10.8. The Child was transferred to GOSH in the early hours of the next morning, with ongoing intermittent seizures. There was a further concern as Father had previously presented the elder Sibling at hospital a few years previously, having stated he had fallen down the stairs with her and was concerned she may have hit her head, but no significant injuries had been noted to the Sibling. Both of the parents' children were made subject to Police Protection Orders on [Day 2].
10.9. The Child was found to have sustained bilateral (both sides) parietal skull fractures (the right-sided fracture being complex, with the fracture edges separated and multiple fracture fragments) each with associated areas of scalp swelling, traumatic subdural effusion (escape of fluid), traumatic subarachnoid haemorrhage (bleeding) and a large area of haemorrhagic contusional change which has led to permanent structural brain damage.
10.10. On [Day 2] the Child's grandfather is recorded as reporting Father tried to pick up the Sibling and (the Child) fell out of his arms, but there is nothing to indicate the grandfather was present at the time (the court has not heard from the grandfather, no party requiring either grandparent to give evidence). A nurse also reported that Mother had been upstairs and Father downstairs, and Father tired to pick up the Sibling and the Child fell out of his arms, but the source of the information is not provided. The same day there is a note in the GOSH records questioning the consistency of the parents' account on the basis of the record the Child had fallen onto a carpeted floor.
10.11. Mother is recorded as providing a history to [RG] and [Watford Neurosurgeon] on [Day 3] which was generally consistent with the initial report. The only mention of height is Father himself being about 6 feet tall.
10.12. Father provided a recorded account of events to the police on [Day 4]. The initial view of the medical professionals at GOSH, at a strategy meeting which took place on [Day 4], was that the injuries sustained were compatible with the mechanics of a fall, but it could not be confirmed if this was accidental or non-accidental. [Dr TM] explained it was possible for a single impact to cause bilateral fractures, but she could not rule out a second impact to the left side.
10.13. On [Day 7] Mother was informed the Child had sustained permanent brain damage and there were concerns of Non-Accidental Injury (NAI). The follow-up strategy discussion from that date recorded Father's explanation as him picking up the older Sibling whilst holding the Child and the Child slipping from his grasp and falling to the floor. The right side of the brain was showing significant injury. No concerns had been noted by ward staff in respect of either parent's interaction with the Child or presentation at GOSH. The neurological team felt the degree of injury to the brain was extreme given the history, the injuries could be the result of 2 separate trauma impacts, there were perceived discrepancies in the accounts provided by the parents and while accidental injury was not impossible it was considered to be unlikely. The complex pattern of fractures from one single event was regarded as highly suspicious. Whilst the view of the Consultant Neurologists appeared to differ, and it was possible the injuries were accidental, on the balance of probabilities, and considering literature and experience, it was felt that the baby had suffered NAI.
10.14. There is a record from GOSH of [Day 10] where Father was noted to be expressing his concern that the medical team had not got the full account of exactly what had happened. Father was recorded as stressing it as not “a simple fall”.
10.15. On [Day 12] there was a discussion between Father and [Dr SD], who explained to Father why the incident had been questioned as NAI....
To continue reading
Request your trial