Re DD and DD
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | Her Honour Judge Smyth |
| Judgment Date | 30 April 2013 |
| Neutral Citation | [2013] NICty 5 |
| Date | 30 April 2013 |
| Year | 2013 |
| Court | County Court (Northern Ireland) |
1
Neutral Citation No. [2013] NICty 5
Ref:
2013NICty5
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down
Delivered:
30/04/2013
(subject to editorial corrections)*
In the Family Care Centre sitting at Belfast
Re DD and DD
Her Honour Judge P Smyth
1. The children’s names have been anonymised by the use of pseudonyms.
Nothing should be published which would identify the children or any
member of their extended family.
Introduction
2. This is an application by the Trust for care orders in respect of two children,
David and Daniel, who were born on the 12th May 2010 and the 9th March
2012.
3. Daniel was born six weeks premature, and spent the first six weeks after birth
in the neo-natal unit. He has Down’s syndrome and in common with many
children with this condition, he suffers from hypotonia which means that he
has very poor muscle tone. Hypotonic babies are often described as ‘floppy’
and require differing handling from a normal baby.
4. On the 13th June 2012, Daniel who was then aged 13 weeks and 5 days was
brought to the accident and emergency department suffering from
pneumonia. A chest x-ray was taken, and Daniel was found to have two
healing fractures of the anterior 7th and 8th left side of his ribs. All experts
agree that these fractures are likely to have occurred between the 21st May
2
and the 31st May 2012, and that they are likely to have occurred at the same
time.
5. Daniel’s parents do not present as a couple, but at the material time they had
a cordial and supportive relationship. It is accepted that there were two
incidents of domestic violence between the couple, one which occurred prior
to Daniel’s birth and one which occurred after the Trust became involved.
The mother explained that the first incident related to the discovery of the
father’s infidelity, and the second was a consequence of the pressure of the
present proceedings. The mother denied that there was any other history of
violence between the couple and accepted that on the second occasion she
had assaulted the father. The mother also accepted that she had felt
depressed after Daniel’s birth.
6. The parents agree that the mother was the primary carer and that she was
present when the father visited the children, apart from very short periods of
time when she may have gone to the shops. The father looked after Daniel
overnight on one occasion only, and the mother noticed nothing untoward
afterwards. The maternal grandmother was a regular visitor to the home. At
that time she worked full time and visited perhaps every other day, before or
after work and on days off. However, she gave up work in order to care for
both children as a consequence of these proceedings.
7. On 13th June, both parents were asked to provide an explanation for the
fractures. The mother recalled that on occasion Daniel stretched his arm out
of the cot. The father could not recall any incident which could have caused
the injuries. He believed that the mother handled Daniel very carefully.
8. On 14th June, and subsequently on 21st June, the grandmother gave an
account to medical personnel of an incident that had occurred two or three
weeks previously. She repeated this account in evidence. She described how
she was present in Daniel’s home along with her two daughters and her other
grandchildren. She was in the living room, sitting in an armchair and nursing
To continue reading
Request your trial