England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges)

IN THE FAMILY COURT SITTING AT BOURNEMOUTH

		20 January 2015

1. This case concerns P, a girl, now approximately 18 months old. Her mother is AB and her father is RL.
2. This is a Fact Finding hearing in relation to injuries sustained by P in March 2014.
3. P suffered a fracture to her right humerus and further suffered fractures to her left tibia and fibula. The parents can give no explanations for these injuries other than that the mother alleges that the injuries must have happened when P was in the father's care or in the care of members of his family.
4. The mother also seeks to explore a case that the paternal aunts (R, K and E) may have caused the injuries. The mother also suggested that the paternal grandmother might have caused the injuries.
5. The father contends that the injuries must have occurred whilst P was in the care of the mother or her then boyfriend, S.
6. The important period in the history of his matter is the weekend of Friday 14^th March to Sunday 16^th March 2014. P was then 9 months old. She had recently begun to crawl.
7. P was in the care of her mother up to that weekend of 14^th March. She went to contact with her father from 14^th March to 16^th March. Over the course of the weekend with her father, P had contact with a variety of the paternal family members. The father is in full-time employment but sometimes works at weekends. On Saturday 15^th March he had to work.
8. On Sunday 16^th March P returned to the care of the mother. The mother reported that P was grisly from the point of her return. The father contends that P was perfectly well during the weekend that she spent with him.
9. The mother took P to the A & E Department of Bournemouth Hospital on the evening of 19^th March 2014. In the medical notes it is said that the mother reported that by Monday 17^th March P was no longer crawling.
10. When at Bournemouth Hospital Dr Leonard, a member of the A & E Team, who was the first doctor to see P arranged for her to have an X-ray. On examination of the image it was concluded by Dr Leonard and by a consultant in A & E medicine, Dr Martin, that P had not suffered a fracture to her elbow. The differential diagnosis performed by the doctors at Bournemouth included the possibility that P had suffered what was described as a pulled elbow. Consequently manipulation of the elbow was attempted to relocate the radial head from beneath the adjacent ligament. In fact, later examination of the images by Dr Fairhurst a consultant radiologist at Southampton Hospital, revealed the existence of a fracture on 19^th March 2014.
11. Dr Robinson, a consultant paediatrician was also instructed to review the case. In his report he came to the view that it was likely that P had suffered fractures by Monday 17^th March. It is important to note that at no time did anybody report the possible existence of the fractures to P's left leg. These were only discovered following a full skeletal X-ray and examination.
12. Dr Robinson reported that the two fractures were either non-accidental or suffered as a result of an accidental mechanism that the parents have not yet accounted for.
13. Dr Watt, a consultant paediatric radiologist, reports that in his opinion the humeral fracture occurred between 13^th and 19^th March. In respect of the fracture to the tibia and fibula Dr Watt suggests a window from 4^th to 20^th March.

The original Schedule of Proposed Findings

14. (i) In March 2014 P sustained a fracture of her right humerus, and fractures to her left tibia and fibula.

(ii) The two sets of fractures may or may not have occurred at the same time. If they occurred as part of the same incident, they arise from two separate and distinct applications of force to the child – one to cause the arm fracture and the other to cause a leg fracture.

(iii) The fractures would have been caused by considerable and excessive applications of force.

(iv) Any carer present at the time of the fracture(s) would have known that excessive force would have been applied to the child, and that the child had sustained injuries sufficient to warrant immediate medical attention being sought.

(v) The fractures were caused by the acts or omissions of the mother and/or the father. The Local Authority does not seek any finding that the fractures may have been caused by a third party.

(vi) The parents failed to seek medical attention or prompt medical attention for the injury.

(vii) A fracture to a baby of this age would usually be accompanied by a present carer giving an account to a notable event that caused the fracture(s). The parents have to date failed to give an account of any such notable event or events.

(viii) Following the arm fracture and/or the leg fractures the child is likely to have cried in pain and would be inconsolable for a period. For the first 72 hours or so following the injury the child would have not moved or would have been reluctant to move the fractured limb(s). The child would have been distressed when the fractured limb(s) were moved or manipulated in an out of clothing. There may well have been associated swelling around the fracture site(s).

(ix) According to Dr Watt (consultant paediatric radiologist) the arm fracture would have occurred in the window from 13^th to 19^th March 2014. The leg fractures happened within the time window 4^th to 20^th March 2014.

(x) In accounts given by the mother, upon the child's return to her care at around 5pm on Sunday 16^th March following contact with the father the child was whingey the arm was not swollen.

(xi) At times the mother has indicated that on Monday 17^th March 2014 the child was in a distressed state and would make no effort to crawl.

(xii) According to the mother on Tuesday 18^th March 2014 the child was making no effort to crawl. She was grisly and clinging and did not want to be put down.

(xiii) By Wednesday 19^th March 2014 the mother said that the arm was noticeably swollen and that the child cried when the arm was touched. The mother further reported that the child was not moving her arm at all and great care had to be taken when changing her.

(xiv) At 5.30pm on the evening of Wednesday 19^th March the mother took the child to the A & E Department of the Royal Bournemouth Hospital.

(xv) Whether or not the mother caused the fractures, the Local Authority seeks findings that:

(a) The mother's account is incomplete.

(b) At times her account has varied in detail significantly when given.

(c) The mother unreasonably delayed in seeking medical attention for the child given the child's presenting symptoms.

(xvi) The mother, or the father, or both parents know more about the injuries and the circumstances of the injuries than they have so far been willing to admit.

(xvii) Whether or not there was an incident of domestic violence between the parents in late 2013.

(xviii) Whether or not there was domestic violence or aggression from the mother towards Hayden (her partner at the time) during their relationship.

(xix) Whether or not the mother asked Hayden to lie about his whereabouts in the period in which P could have sustained injury.

14. It is contended on behalf of the Local Authority that by reason of the proposed findings the threshold criteria under Section 31(2) are satisfied and that P has sustained significant harm as a result of the care provided by her parents.
15. The Local Authority further contends that if the court is unable to make a finding as to who was the specific perpetrator of the injuries and concludes that the injuries may have been caused by the parents or others who may be in a pool of possible perpetrators, the threshold criteria remain satisfied.

Law

16. Pursuant to Section 31(2) of the Children Act 1989: a court may only make a care or supervision order if it is satisfied –

"(a) that the child concerned is suffering or is likely to suffer, significant harm; and

(b) that the harm, or likelihood of harm, is attributable to –

(i) the care given to the child, or likely to be given to him if the order were not made, not being what would be reasonable to expect a parent to give to him …"

"Harm" is defined in Section 31(9) as ill-treatment or the impairment of health or development, including impairments from seeing or hearing ill-treatment of another.

17. I agree that it is clear in this case that P suffered significant harm in the form of fractures to her arm and leg. The issue in this case therefore is:

Whether the harm was attributable to the care given to her not being what would be reasonable to expect a person to give i.e. whether the injuries were inflicted non-accidentally by the mother, the father or by some third party.

18. In the case of Re L and M (Children) [2013] EWHC 1569 (Fam) Baker J at 45 applied the well-established legal principles namely:

(i) The burden of proof lies with the Local Authority.

(ii) The standard of proof is the balance of probabilities.

(iii) Findings of fact in these cases must be based on evidence, including inferences that can be properly drawn from the evidence and not on suspicion or speculation.

(iv) When considering cases of suspected child abuse the court must take into account all the evidence and furthermore consider each piece of evidence in the context of all the other evidence. The court invariably surveys a wide canvas. A judge in these difficult cases must have regard to the relevance of each piece of evidence to other evidence and conduct an overview of the totality of evidence (the evidential jigsaw) in order to come to a conclusion whether the case put forward by the Local Authority has been made out to the appropriate standard of proof.

(v) Amongst the evidence received in this case there is expert evidence from a variety of specialists. This is important evidence but these opinions need to be considered in the context of all the other evidence. The court must remember that its role and that of the experts is distinct.

(vi) The court must be careful to ensure that each expert keeps within the bounds of his own expertise and defers, where appropriate, to the expertise of others.

(vii) Evidence of parents and any other carers is of the utmost importance. Added to the evidence of the parents in this case is that of the paternal relatives. It is essential that the court forms a clear assessment of their credibility and reliability.

(viii) It is common for witnesses in these cases to tell lies in the course of the investigation and the hearing. The court must be careful to bear in mind that a witness may lie for many reasons, such as shame, misplaced loyalty, panic, fear and distress and the fact that a witness has lied about some matters does not mean that he or she has lied about everything – see R v Lucas [1981] QB 720.

(ix) The judge in care proceedings must never forget that today's medical certainty may be discarded by the next generation of experts or that scientific research may throw a light into corners that at present dark.

19. It is further the case that the court must take into account, to the extent that it is appropriate in any case, the possibility of unknown cause. The possibilities are articulated by Moses LJ in R v Henderson-Butler and Oyediran [2010] EWCA Crim 126 at paragraph 1. Further in the case of Re R (Care Proceedings: Causation) [2011] EWHC 1715 (Fam) Hedley J said that there has to be factored into every case, which concerns a discrete aetiology giving rise to significant harm, a consideration as to whether the causes are known. Hedley J went on to say:

"That affects neither the burden nor the standard of proof. It is simply a factor to be taken into account in deciding whether the causation advanced by the one shouldering the burden of proof is established on the balance of probabilities".

20. At paragraph 58 of his judgment in the case of Re L and M (above) Baker J said:

"Finally, when seeking to identify the perpetrators were non-accidental injuries the test of whether a particular person is in the pool of possible perpetrators is whether there is a likelihood of a real possibility that he or she was a perpetrator. Nor did I make a finding that a particular person was the perpetrator of non-accidental injury the court must be satisfied on balance of probabilities. It is always desirable where possible, for the perpetrator of non-accidental injury to be identified both in the public interest and in the interests of the child, although where it is impossible for a judge to find on the balance of probabilities, for example that parent A rather than parent B caused the injury, then neither can be excluded from the pool and the judge should not strain to do so."

21. Further as was restated in the case of Re M (Fact Finding: Burden of Proof) [2012] EWCA Civ 1580, [2013] 2 ZLR 74, the court must guard against the danger of reversing the burden of proof. There is a danger of coming to the conclusion that if there is no parental explanation which is benign, there must be an explanation which is malevolent.
22. In Re S (A Child) [2014] EWCA Civ 25 at paragraph 19 Ryder LJ said:

"The term non-accidental injury may be a term of art used by clinicians as a shorthand and I make no criticism of its use but it is a catch-of everything which is not an accident. … A true distinction is between an accident which is unexpected and unintentional and an injury which involves the element of wrong. The element of wrong may involve a lack of care and/or an intent of a greater or lesser degree that may amount to a negligence, recklessness or deliberate infliction."

23. Mrs Hendry referred me to the judgment of HHJ Bellamy in the case of Re C and D (Photographs of injuries) [2011] 1 FLR 990 and that the court must be careful to scrutinise physiological evidence and balance it against evidence of parents and others.

Evidence

Medical Evidence

25. In the chronology of this matter the first doctor to come into contact with P was Dr Leonard. At the relevant time he was working in the A & E Department of the Royal Bournemouth Hospital.
26. Dr Leonard wrote a short statement at E44 in which he said that he agreed with the contents of the statement of Dr David Martin, a consultant in emergency medicine at the Royal Bournemouth Hospital whose statement is at E42.
27. With reference to section H of the bundle Dr Leonard explained that on arrival at the department on the evening of 19^th March P looked well. The mother told the doctor that P's right arm was painful and that P had not been crawling since the day before. On examination he found that P was tender round the right elbow where the doctor observed slight swelling and redness. There was nothing to show any sign of fracture to P's left ankle. The mother did not report any difficulty with the left leg.
28. Upon reviewing the X-ray of P's arm no fracture was apparent. Dr Leonard then attempted manipulation of the elbow. In his oral evidence Dr Martin also described the process of manipulation.
29. P was returned to hospital on the following day for Review. In his report Dr Martin expresses his concern at what he described as P's low grade fever and the progression of the swelling over the previous 24 hours.
30. .No report was made to Dr Martin about any injury other than to P's right arm.
31. In his statement at E43 Dr Martin accepts that it was unfortunate that the initial radiographs did not disclose a fracture. Had this been the case neither he nor Dr Leonard would have attempted manipulation but would have placed the arm in a cast and made an immediate referral to the orthopaedic team at Poole Hospital.
32. I am quite satisfied that both doctors acted properly and in good faith in the way that they treated P.
33. Dr G Guppy is a consultant community paediatrician working at Poole Hospital. At F1 is a letter written by the doctor dated 27^th March 2014 to P's G.P.
34. In her letter at F2 Dr Guppy wrote:

"P is reported to have been crawling for approximately three weeks although has not crawled in the previous week in relation to her arm injury. P is able to pull to her knees but not to stand. She is able to sit unsupported for two or three months".

Later in the letter:

"On examination P had decreased mobility of her right arm with some swelling evident. Otherwise she was well appearing with no significant abnormality … P was moving her other extremities well aside from the right arm.

She is recorded as having some bruising in the dimples of her right elbow joint and a two centimetre by one centimetre area of bruising on her right forearm about two thirds of the way down on the ulnar aspect. This appeared to be separate from any bruising which occurred in conjunction with her arm fracture and had linear patterning within it. No additional external injuries were visible on P".

35. Dr Guppy was able to look at photographs taken of P's arm by the mother on 20^th March 2014. It is reported that bruising was evident from midway down the upper arm to midway down the lower arm and is also visible on the anterior aspect of the arm particularly over the elbow crease. There was also visible bruising in the dimples of the elbow joint and on the posterior aspect of the arm. There was also an area of petechiae on the posterior arm covering roughly the same area as the swelling and bruising on the anterior arm. The bruise with linear patterning on the lower forearm and the linear patterning within it was also reported to be visible.
36. X-rays taken of P's arm on 24^th March 2014 showed supracondyler fracture of the humerus with posterior displacement noted. No callus formation was seen. Skeletal survey performed on 25^th March 2014 noted a fracture of the left lower tibia involving the lower diaphysis, upper metaphysis and a cortical buckle fracture of the left lower fibula at the same level. Soft callus formation was noted with was felt to indicate early healing.
37. The X-rays were referred to Dr Fairhurst, consultant paediatric radiologist at Southampton Hospital. Dr Fairhurst's report following her examination on 26^th March 2014 is dated 27^th March 2014 and appears at J81. Dr Fairhurst's reviewed the images obtained at Poole Hospital. Dr Fairhurst concluded that there was no evidence of osteogenesis imperfecta or metabolic bone disease. At J82 Dr Fairhurst reported:

"The presence of soft tissue swelling and absence of periosteal new bone formation in relation to the supracondyler fracture of the right humerus fracture between 12^th March 2014 and 24^th March 2014 indicates that this fracture was probably less than ten days old on these dates. This fracture is therefore most likely to have occurred between 14^th and 19^th March 2014. Provided, as I believe, radiographs dated 19^th March 2014 were obtained prior to manipulation then the fracture was already present before any manipulation was undertaken".

38. Dr Fairhurst reported that the majority of supracondyler fractures of the distal humerus are accidental, commonly resulting from a fall onto an outstretched hand. However in a non-ambulant infant this mechanism is highly unlikely. The doctor described a bending force applied to the arm which can also cause this type of fracture such as when the arm is gripped and forcibly bent. Such fractures may also result from the child being swung by the arm.
39. As to the tibial and fibula fractures Dr Fairhurst is of the view that they were probably at least ten days but no more than three weeks old and probably occurred between 4^th and 15^th March 2014. It is Dr Fairhurst's opinion that the tibia and fibula are paired bones and frequently fracture together. On this basis she thought that the two fractures are likely to have occurred at the same time from a single application of force. The doctor went on to say:

"In children under the age of 18 months fractures of the tibia and fibula are highly indicative of a non-accidental injury and in the absence of a clear history of a significant traumatic event, non-accidental injury must certainly be suspected. In conclusion, the finding of multiple fractures of different ages without plausible explanation in an infant of this age is highly indicative of non-accidental injury".

40. At I 61 dated 20^th March 2014 at 9.30pm there is a note of a discussion with the mother in which it is recorded that P was said to have suffered from a swollen right arm – "started last Sunday".
41. Dr Guppy was referred in particular to the passage starting at I196 which is the doctor's note of what the mother told her on 25^th March. In the Triage Note at H2 in reference to 19^th March (Wednesday) the mother is reported as saying that P had not been crawling on the Tuesday and the mother had noticed swelling on Wednesday.
42. Dr Watt is a consultant paediatric radiologist at the Royal Hospital for Sick Children in Glasgow. He was jointly instructed by the parties to review the X-ray images obtained at Bournemouth and Poole Hospitals. His report is dated 16^th October 2014 and is at E1. It was anticipated that Dr Watt would give evidence via a video link but during the hearing the parties all agreed that his oral evidence was not required.
43. In respect of the image of P's right upper arm, Dr Watt reported that the elbow shows irregularity of the distal humerus consistent with an undisplaced fracture. No bone healing was then evident. The Poole Hospital image dated 20^th March 2014 also shows an undisplaced supracondyler fracture of the right distal humerus again no evidence of bone healing is present. The further image dated 24^th March 2014 the supracondyler fracture appears more displaced. The skeletal survey dated 25^th March 2014 shows greenstick transfer scratches of the left distal tibia and fibula. There is evidence of healing by new bone formation.
44. Starting at E9 Dr Watt performed his differential diagnosis and excluded brittle bone disease, nutritional deficiency, obstetric trauma, bone disease of prematurity, underlying blood disorder or malignancy, bone infection and variant anatomy. Having discussed earlier in his report potential accidental explanations, it is Dr Watt's opinion that no adequate accidental explanation or incident has been identified that could account for the presence of the fractures.
45. At paragraph E6 it is said that the fracture of the elbow occurred between 13^th March 2014 and 19^th March 2014. This is on the basis that the fracture was present on 19^th March and there was lack of bone healing on 24^th March. The mechanism for such an injury is a fall onto an outstretched hand or hyperextension of the elbow joint beyond its normal range of movement. It is said that in mobile children such injuries are common and usually the result of minor falls.
46. As to the fractures of the tibia and fibula, they showed evidence of early healing on 25^th March. Dr Watt's view later reported that these fractures could have occurred as 20^th March as new bone formation would not be evident radiographically if the fractures had occurred after this date. The earliest approximate date that the fractures could have occurred was approximately three weeks before 25^th March (4^th March 2014). This is because only very early healing is evident on 25^th March. The range therefore when this injury could have occurred is between 4^th March 2014 and 20^th March 2014.
47. In the doctor's view the most common mechanism for undisplaced greenstick fractures is an indirect bending force to the ankle joint. The amount of force required to cause such fractures in a child of P's age is not known but is beyond normal or even vigorous handling of a normal child.
48. Dr Watt suggests that the elbow and ankle fractures occurred at the same time within the windows given even though different limbs are affected and different mechanisms would have been required.
49. Dr Watt had read the statement of Dr Fairhurst and agrees with her findings and comments. The only difference between the two experts is the latest stage that the tibial and fibula fractures could have occurred. Dr Watt thinks that they are at least five days old on 25^th March. Dr Fairhurst thinks they might have been at least ten days old on 25^th March. It is generally accepted that the dating of fractures can only be approximate.
50. In his conclusion at E11 Dr Watt expresses the opinion that non-accidental injury, either intentional or unintentional is a possible explanation and, in this case, the probable explanation given the lack of another identified cause.
51. As to whether the manipulation carried out at the Bournemouth Hospital may have exacerbated the fracture, Dr Watt is of the view that the fracture remained unchanged in its position on 20^th March and that the worsening of the fracture position seen on 24^th March can be attributed to the cast falling off in the interim.
52. Dr Robinson is a consultant paediatrician in the neonatal intensive care unit at the Queen's University Hospital, Romford. His report in this case is dated 18^th October 2014. He is a jointly instructed expert.
53. In his report at E21 in relation to P's arm injury in November 2013 he comments at E21:

"At 6 months of age an arm injury is usually associated with a credible history of an event and its aftermath (e.g.: infant fell, grabbed her arm, she cried etc.). No history is available. There was both HV and GP follow-up although no examination details are available.

The above injury indicated carers presented P for medical care and took advice appropriately. The cause and nature of her arm injury on 19^th November 2013 cannot be determined on information provided".

54. In relation to the injury in March 2014 at E22 he discussed whether P may have had an infection. He said that an arm injury with resulting inflammation may cause a raised white cell count. He did not think it likely that P had an infection on this occasion.
55. At E26 Dr Robinson begins his review of the radiological evidence and the account given by the carers. Under his review of the chronology Dr Robinson suggests that the arm injury is likely to have occurred by 17^th March 2014 when P is reported as crying and not trying to crawl. The doctor points out that swelling after such an injury may evolve slowly and not be fully appreciated by a carer soon after the injury. The doctor was of the opinion that P should have been presented for medical care as soon as the swelling and tenderness were noted on Wednesday morning. At paragraph 4 Dr Robinson conducts his analysis of whether the two sets of fractures were accidental or non-accidental.
56. He points out that such a fracture to the right arm in older children is commonly accidental. In an infant of 9 months in the case of a history of an accidental event and its aftermath is consistently given. These were not forthcoming in this case.
57. As to the fractures of the tibia and fibula: in the doctor's opinion such fractures are usually caused by a blow, impact or bending action applied around the ankle. An infant may fall or be accidentally impacted against a hard surface and again in such an instance a credible history of a memorable event and its aftermath is provided.
58. At E29 Dr Robinson wrote that at the age of 9 months P was unable to walk independently but had begun to crawl. There is no history of any accidental events or their aftermath apart from the mother's descriptions. He concludes that both sets of fractures are to be considered non-accidental or as a result of un-disclosed accidental incidents.
59. As to the force required it is the doctor's opinion that such fractures are not associated with normal childcare or even rough handling. Significant forces are required to cause fractures of any kind in the absence of underlying bone disease. Further, Dr Robinson advises, that an infant of 9 months could not self-inflict such injuries either in her cot or otherwise.
60. As to the aftermath of an injury sufficient to cause a fracture an infant screams in a manner not heard previously by a carer. The carer may comment on this unusual scream. Such screaming may continue for five to ten minutes and thereafter the child will show discomfort and increased crying for 72 hours and occasionally up to 96 hours after the injury. Tenderness to direct pressure over the fracture sight persists for ten to fourteen days and a reluctance to use the limb is usual.
61. The perpetrator or observer would immediately know that excessive forces had been applied accidentally or otherwise. Someone who did not see the incident but who saw the infant later would appreciate a reluctance to use the limb and a fractious, crying child.
62. At E37 Dr Robinson considers the bruises on P noted on 21^st March the 2 to 3mm and the dimples on P's right elbow joint. He thought these were consistent with pressure from adult fingers or thumb. The bruising seen is large, multiple and in a common sight for NAI.
63. As to the petechiae seen over the back of P's arm, such are generally caused by the application of a blood compression, a squeezing or suction force to an area of the skin. They develop within a few minutes of injury and may either coalesce to form a bruise or disappear within 24 to 48 hours.
64. In the doctor's opinion petechiae are commonly associated with NAI. It is the doctor's view that considerable force is required to cause bruising.
65. In his analysis of the events at Bournemouth Hospital on 19^th March Dr Robinson notes that no bruising was documented either before or after the manipulation procedure. Bruising was not documented at Bournemouth Hospital on 20^th March but was documented on 21^st March. In his written report the doctor came to the view that it was more likely that the bruising was a result of medical intervention or caused after discharge home on 19^th March. In his oral evidence, having heard that the manipulation was conducted by a senior doctor, he accepted that such a professional would not use excessive pressure and therefore would not have caused the bruising on 19^th or 20^th March.
66. In his oral evidence he again considered the question of the timing of the injury to the arm. By Wednesday 19^th March the signs were consistent with a fracture having occurred. A swelling will appear within hours rather than days of the fracture and if therefore the swelling was first seen on Wednesday morning, in the doctor's opinion that suggests the injury had occurred shortly before that. One also has to consider, however, that there may have in fact been a swelling on Tuesday 18^th which was not noticed.
67. Given P's age and that she had only recently started to crawl, Dr Robinson did not think that P's reported reluctance to crawl was more than a weak indicator of the existence of a fracture. The non-use of her arm however is a stronger sign of injury.
68. As to the arm fracture Dr Robinson thought that probably no such injury had occurred by Monday 16^th March.
69. As to the ankle injury she would have screamed in pain but given that there is a lack of a credible history, or memorable event and its aftermath, there is suspicion that this was a non-accidental injury. It is possible that the two fractures may have occurred at the same time but with different mechanisms or there were two separate applications of force.
70. In relation to the mechanism for the injury to the elbow Dr Robinson described a pulling action and an over extension of the elbow. He had never witnessed such a fracture being caused in play by mistake without an explanation of a memorable event and its aftermath. He accepted that to some extent Calpol can mask a child's pain response but children in hospital who suffered fractures are generally treated with morphine. Calpol in P's case would not have sufficiently masked the pain to prevent an observable reaction when the injured area was moved.
71. As to the ankle injury if this fracture had occurred on 7^th March and the father saw her on 14^th the fracture would have stabilised by that time. The area would still be tender and P would have shown a response if pressure was applied on the fracture site.
72. A non-perpetrator would therefore have noticed some re-action on 14^th March but if no pressure was applied to the fracture site the non-perpetrator might have missed it. The arm fracture was more likely to be noticed as arms generally move about more than legs.
73. The doctor was shown a text message sent from the mother to the father on Tuesday. The message from the mother read as follows:

"Rob, P isnt moving her arm at all. Did she do something when she was at yours?"

Father replied:

"Really, no, she fine. She was with you all of yesterday."

Later the father sent a message to the father:

"Is P ok now? Sorry, I missed your call. Just finished work late".

Mother replied:

"Yes, she's alright now. I just got a bit worried, ha, ha. She's fine, thanks for asking".

Later text from mother:

"P's top tooth has come through."

Father replied:

"O, that's good."

74. From this account Dr Robinson suggests that an injury had occurred by the morning of Tuesday 18^th March. He pointed out that there are a number of worrying inconsistencies in what has been reported.
75. The social worker in this case is Sarah Langley. Her statement is dated 9^th July at C1. She was taken to section P which contains the Local Authority case notes. She referred to the incident in November 2013 following which there was an unannounced visit to the mother's home on 20^th November. There were no further concerns on the part of the Local Authority about this incident. In relation to the incident in November 2013 there is a note by a Health Visitor made at that time to the effect that the mother was "competent".
76. At P33 is a record of the referral which started the Local Authority's current investigation. This was Monday 24^th March. At that stage nobody was aware that there had been a fracture to P's arm. There is no mention of an injury to her ankle. The only apparent symptom was an unexplained swelling to P's right arm.
77. At P43 is a record of the visit by Sarah Langley with DC Darkin to the mother at Poole Hospital. There was not a clear and explicit conversation with the mother about what she said about P's arm. She was clear that she had only noticed the difficulty following P's return from her father.
78. In Sarah Langley's discussions with the father she understood that he had been at work on the Saturday (15^th March) and that he had been alone together with P at his home on the Sunday. The father said that P had been perfectly well over the period 14^th-16^th March. Nothing was said to the effect that she had been whingey on the Sunday. At no time had anybody offered an explanation for the fracture to P's ankle.
79. At P66 is a record of the visit by Sarah Langley and DC Darkin to the school attended by E and K, P's aunts. This visit has become controversial for two particular reasons: first that no mention is made to the social worker and the police officer of the visit of the two aunts with P to their maternal aunt on the afternoon on Saturday 15^th March. Secondly, although this was a prior investigation and a not a formal interview, it is contended that the social worker and particularly the police officer should not have interviewed the girls separately and on their own in the absence of an adult.
80. Sarah Langley reported that H had told her when seen at the school that P had arrived at the paternal grandfather's home in Swanage on the Saturday morning following which E went to work and returned at about 16.00. At that time E had reported that P had left. It later emerged that E had in fact returned earlier than 16.00 and that there was a family visit to the maternal aunt (Helen Scott).
81. At P73 is a record of a meeting on 27^th March at Poole Hospital which was in part connected with the process of obtaining agreement to the accommodation of P under Section 20CA. It was at this time that the father first learned of the fractured ankle. Sarah Langley told him of this. His re-action as reported by Sarah Langley was to turn quickly to the mother and say "What's been going on?" Sarah Langley thought that this seemed a very natural and plausible re-action in the father. The mother replied to the effect that she did not know. She then became very distressed about the Section 20 procedure.
82. At P114 is a note of an unannounced visit to R (P's adult paternal aunt).
83. It is recorded that on the Saturday R saw P with E walking from Helen Scott's house. This is inconsistent with what E had formerly apparently asserted to the effect that when she returned home from work on that day about 16.00 P had been collected and was no longer there.
84. In relation to the father Sarah Langley reported that he (the father) had been consistent in his worry about the sleeping arrangements for P when she and the mother stayed at Hayden Sebago's flat. The mother and Hayden parted shortly after the injuries to P. .
85. The maternal great grandmother is JB whose statement is at C35. She had seen P on 13^th/14^th March and noted nothing unusual. JB had worked on 14^th March. On 13^th March she had the day off from work. She changed P's nappy and saw no sign of injury to her arm or leg. JB was then away in Yorkshire and returned on Saturday 22^nd March having spent the night of 21^st March with her sister in Midlands on the journey south from Yorkshire. She did not know about the fracture to P's arm until she returned on the Saturday.
86. The mother had reported words to the effect that when she had picked up P on Sunday, P was not good and had telephoned the father. The father had said that P had been fine throughout the weekend.
87. R described the mother as one who speaks her mind and was aware that in September 2014 Hayden had had enough of the mother and described her as a "nutter".
88. C is P's paternal grandfather. His statement is at C45. He lives in Swanage with his two daughters K and E. He and his wife, Sheila have separated.
89. His children R and the father (his son) lived in Acton and his wife's sister, Helen Scott, lives in Swanage about five minutes walk from C's house.
90. He described how his wife (Sheila) has suffered from depression for a number of years. At the time of these incidents Sheila was spending most of her time alone in her room and was taking various medications. C described her as shaky. Because of her condition P was never left alone with Sheila although there were times when she was allowed to hold P in a carefully controlled and monitored situation. On Saturday 15^th March C was at work all day from about 09.15 until about 19.30 by which time P had left. On 14^th March he had collected P at about 17.30 and took her to his home in Swanage. He, P, the father, R, her partner N, K, E and two friends all had dinner together. Following that P and her father returned to Acton. Because P's father was working on the Saturday E and K looked after P at C's house in Swanage. He had no concerns that K and E were able to look after P. In spite of the estrangement between himself and Sheila, there was no difficulty about K and E visiting their Aunt Helen. As far as C could understand, there was no reason why they should conceal such a visit from him. He could not explain why they had both omitted to tell the social worker and the police officer of this visit when seen at school. He thought the procedure on that occasion was wrong.
91. He described an incident on 22^nd March when he was at the father's home in Acton. P was there and the mother turned up with as he put it "all guns blazing". C was holding P. It was necessary to lock the door to keep the mother out and call the police.
92. Helen Scott gave evidence whose statement is a C48. She is the paternal great aunt of P. She was anxious not to get involved in family disputes and had given her statement to the guardian's solicitor. She was therefore called by the guardian. She was present at home when P arrived with K, her boyfriend Ben and E. P's outer clothing was removed without difficulty and she stayed for about two hours. She described how K, E and P were playing. P was crawling on the floor, laughing and cruising around the furniture. She was happy and showed no sign of difficulty with her arm or any sign of upset or what might be described as whingeing. E changed P's nappy on the floor on a changing mat in Helen Scott's presence. Nothing unusual occurred during that process. P's leggings had to be removed and there was no difficulty about that. She did not see P holding her arm awkwardly or across on her tummy.
93. As far as her sister Sheila is concerned there was no reason for the visit of K and E to be kept secret. She was aware that Sheila at this time was very poorly. She had understood that Sheila had come downstairs on the Saturday morning and saw P asleep in her car seat. She did not know if Sheila had held P on that occasion.
94. As far as the father was concerned she described him as passive and reliable. She had seen the father and P together and he was always calm, unflappable and organised. She does not know the mother very well but would not disagree with the description of her as forthright.
95. In section K8/9 there are photographs of P at Helen Scott's home on the Saturday.
96. DC Darkin is a member of the child abuse investigation team. She confirmed that the police investigation had been closed and there are to be no criminal charges against anybody.
97. She was closely cross-examined by Mr Pitt on behalf of K and E. An appropriate adult had been present at the formal interviews of the two girls as recorded at F24 and F9 in August. A deliberate decision had been taken not to tell their father of the proposed visit to the school on 27^th March or to require the presence of an appropriate adult. The expressed rationale for this decision was that the investigation was at an early stage and the girls were not suspected. Because at that stage there was no idea who might have injured P it was decided not to alert any member of the family. The officer said that she was not aware of any guidance relating to the process when seeing children in these circumstances at school.
98. By the time of the interviews in August it was said that the girls' status had changed from being a significant witness to a possible perpetrators of the injury.
99. I am uneasy about what happened on 27^th March. Whereas I can understand that the police might not wish to alert the family before the interviews took place with K and E, I think that someone from the school should have been asked to sit in.
100. I turn to consider the evidence of the mother. She has put in three statements at C13, C27 and C59. In assessing her evidence it is important to remember that she is young and will have found the time since March of 2014 particularly stressful. Further she had injured her hand shortly before giving evidence. She had broken two fingers. She was taking a course of painkillers and antibiotics and her arm was in a sling. It was not surprising therefore that during her evidence she was on occasions very distressed and needed a break in order to recover.
101. She described her relationship with the father as good to begin with but she said that he became increasingly controlling. She enjoyed being a mother although it was quite a stressful experience. Because the father worked long hours she told me that she felt on occasions like a single mother. In March 2014 the general pattern was that P went to her father each weekend from Friday to Sunday. This did not always occur and sometimes P was looked after by the paternal family if the father had to work on a Saturday. The mother could give no explanation for the cause of either of P's fractures. She had done nothing which might have caused either of those injuries.
102. The mother told me that on Monday 17^th March P was not crawling. She was described as not wanting to do anything, wanting to be held and whingeing.
103. The mother said that on Monday 17^th March she and Hayden had been out shopping with P and gone to B and Q and Tesco. There was no swollen arm to be seen on that day. There was no difficulty with dressing or changing until the morning of Wednesday 19^th March.
104. At T1 is a text message exchanges between the parents on 18^th March at 09.17 and to which I have already referred.
105. The mother told me in evidence that she had said to the father that P was alright because she did not want the father involved. She said that he had been nasty to her (the mother) and in her words he had never done anything for P.
106. It was later on 19^th March that P went to hospital, the mother having noticed the swollen arm earlier that day. She could not explain why it was that she had not taken P earlier to the hospital. On the previous evening she had sent a message to Hayden asking him to return from London because she was worried about P's condition.
107. At T27/28 dated 23^rd March 2014 at 20.07 is a further text from mother to the father saying that she was going to delete his number from her records. She went on to say:

"You don't see P from now on! You can go through the courts! It's getting too much and I'm not happy!"

108. When asked why she had sent this the mother initially said she did not know but then went on to say that she was not happy with the father because in her words "he had put the social services onto me". She said that since 23^rd March she has not spoken with the father.
109. At H2 is part of the hospital record which relates to 19^th March (Wednesday). The note records that P had not been crawling for one day. The mother said the note was wrong. She was unable to explain why there was no mention in the notes that P had not been using her arm on Tuesday 18^th March. At I63 is a further hospital record dated 21^st March 2014 (Friday) which records the mother as saying that P had not been using her right arm since Monday (17^th March).
110. The mother confirmed that it was on the morning of Wednesday 19^th March that, having seen P's swollen right arm, she realised that something was seriously amiss and that P should receive medical attention. She had not previously thought (on the Monday and the Tuesday) that the situation was bad enough to call the doctor as she thought that P had been fine in herself. The mother thought that P was teething. At this point P and the mother were living at the home of the maternal grandmother and her partner Mr S.
111. There are a number of discrepancies in the mother's various accounts of P's condition in the week beginning Monday 17^th March. Some may be the result of genuine misunderstanding and confusion. Some may be an attempt to paint a more favourable picture.
112. The mother told me that she was not aware that on Saturday 15^th March the father would be working and that therefore P would not be in his care. She told me if she had known that she would not have let P go to the father or his family that weekend. She was critical of the fact that the father's two sisters K and E were looking after P on the Saturday morning. She told me that she was not aware that this had happened before. I am afraid that I do not believe her as to that.
113. The extent of the paternal grandmother's (Sheila) medical and mental history became increasingly apparent during this hearing. The mother was aware that Sheila had suffered from depression for some years. The result of this was that she lacked motivation and spent a considerable amount of time alone in her room or in bed. It also appeared that Sheila suffered from shaking as a result of her medication. The question therefore arose during the hearing as to whether at some stage during Saturday 15^th March an accident might have befallen P when being held by her paternal grandmother. At a chance meeting between the mother and Sheila in May/June 2014 the mother asked Sheila about the events of Saturday 15^th March. According to the mother Sheila told her (mother) that she had held P on Saturday 15^th March.
114. The mother therefore said during the course of her evidence that she wished to add Sheila as a possible perpetrator of the injuries to P.
115. The mother was asked why she called Hayden on the evening of Tuesday 18^th March and asked him to return from London. The mother said that on the Tuesday night she was worried things were not right with P because she was not crawling.
116. She had contacted Hayden because he was the closest person to her. She did not feel able to confide in Mr. S who was frequently out of the house and whom she only saw in passing. Because she had noticed that P was not crawling and that she was not moving her arm on Tuesday she had called Hayden. She had not thought anything was seriously amiss on the Tuesday. The mother told me that P exhibited no pain response when being changed. She was unable to explain why it was that having called Hayden back from London, he arriving in Dorset in the early hours of Wednesday 19^th March, P was not taken to hospital until the afternoon of 19^th March.
117. It is clear from her answers to Mrs Hendry, who acts on behalf of the father, that there were occasions when the mother lost her temper with people. She admitted pushing and pinching Hayden. She accepted that she threw a glass or glasses onto the floor in a rage but not deliberately at him. She denied trying to stab Hayden. She denied biting either him or the father. She denied attacking father's sister R.
118. There was an occasion when it was reported by Mr S.that the mother shouted at P one night when P would not go to sleep. The mother admitted that she did so on one occasion. Generally P slept well and the mother volunteered that she would never have hurt P.
119. The mother accepted that no harm had befallen P before she went to the father on Friday 14^th March. Further, if the evidence of Helen Scott is correct, P was well when she left Helen Scott's house on the evening of 15^th March. The mother collected P from the father at 17.30 on Sunday 16^th March and they all went to Hayden's flat. The mother then went to J B's house arriving at approximately 20.30. The mother said that P was grisly from the time that she was collected on the Sunday evening and did not agree with Hayden's assertion that P was not showing any signs of distress on the evening of Sunday 16^th March.
120. With reference to a photograph taken of P in the bath on 18^th March at 10.06 the mother agreed that P looked happy. There was no sign of any swelling. There is a further photograph taken a little earlier by the mother at 09.33 on 18^th March which shows P wearing a cardigan over her babygrow. P seems well and happy.
121. A further question arose as to the sleeping arrangements when the mother and Hayden were in a relationship. Hayden lives in a flat in Wareham. He has a 4 year old son. It was suggested to the mother that on occasions P slept at Hayden's flat and either shared a bed with the son or slept in the same bed as Hayden and the mother. The mother said that whenever P visited Hayden's flat she slept in a carrycot. A new one had been bought on about 7^th March. The mother was clear that no accident had befallen P at Hayden's flat.
122. In relation to the father's contact which was due to start on Friday 21^st March P was transferred to her father in the car park of a pub between Corfe Castle and Wareham. The mother told me that she later regretted allowing the contact. She denied this was because she was concerned that father would alert the Local Authority because he was worried about what had happened to P. The mother agreed, however, that she forced her way into the father's home in order to retrieve P. She denied trying to snatch P from C's arms or that she was shouting and swearing in front of the children.. The mother called the police because she wanted to get rid of the father and wanted to retrieve her belongings from that house.
123. I am afraid that was another example of the mother's intemperate behaviour. She also in evidence referred to Sheila as "the bloody mother".
124. In the statement of R dated 1^st December 2014 at paragraph 6 R relates that Hayden told her on 15^th September that the mother had asked Hayden to lie about the events of the week beginning Monday 17^th March and to say that Hayden was with her during that week. It is reported that Hayden refused to lie as requested. The mother denied asking Hayden to lie as suggested.
125. As to the events of Wednesday 19^th March the mother reported that Hayden collected his son from school between 15.30 and 16.00. They then all went to the home of Susan Bush (the grandmother) who immediately advised that P should be taken to hospital. Hayden and the mother drove with P to Poole and then to Bournemouth Hospital. The explanation for this is that Hayden became aware that his former partner had been involved in a road traffic accident and was in the A & E Department of Poole Hospital. In order to avoid a scene between the mother and his former partner Hayden decided to drive on to Bournemouth Hospital.
126. It is still not clear to me why it was that the mother, having called Hayden back from London because of her concerns about P's condition on the Tuesday evening, P did not arrive at hospital until 17.30.
127. Hayden's statement is at C62. He has had a difficult career. He is barred from most of the pubs in Wareham and in 2012 was convicted of wounding. He was sentenced to seventeen months in a young offenders' institution and was released on tag on 24^th June 2013. He has no offences or investigations in relation to children.
128. With reference to his police interview he confirmed in his evidence that he went to London on the evening of Monday 17^th March. During the previous week he had been on holiday from his job in Dorset. His father works in the London area as a self-employed builder and asked Hayden to help him. He told me that he left Dorset between 19.00 and 20.00 on Monday 17^th.
129. At C68 to C69 are two statements from Hayden's parents. His father says that Hayden was working with him on Monday 17^th March till 18^th March. His mother's statement says that Hayden stayed at his parents' flat on Monday 17^th March and left on Tuesday 18^th March "at night time". Clearly if, as Hayden said in his evidence, he left Dorset on the Monday evening he could not have been working with his father in the London area earlier that day. Hayden was clear in his evidence that his father had made a mistake and that he was not due to arrive at his parents' address until the Monday evening he was to work with him from Tuesday. I accept that evidence.
130. Having worked on the Tuesday (18^th March) Hayden first heard from the mother at about 16.00 when she called him saying that something was wrong with P's arm. She asked him to return because she needed help. She wanted him to return immediately but he did not do so because be was still working with his father. There was a later call from the mother. Hayden described her as quite stressed and worried in both calls.
131. Having returned to Dorset in the early hours of the Wednesday morning Hayden told me that he slept in late and collected the mother between 15.00 and 16.00. He could not recall why there was a delay until the visit to hospital. When he did eventually see P her arm was noticeably swollen. He described his re-action as being "shit she needs to go to hospital". The mother was distressed.
132. Hayden was adamant that there was an agreement between him and R to meet at her home in September 2014 when he told R about the mother's violence. He firmly denied that the mother had asked him to lie for her. He denied so telling R.
133. It is clear from Hayden's evidence that there were serious incidents of rows and arguments between him and the mother. He described an occasion how when they were together in bed he discovered that the mother had been cheating on him. He took the mother's phone and locked himself in the bathroom and went through her messages. The mother banged on the door. She managed to get into the bathroom and, according to Hayden, came at him with a kitchen knife. He pushed her into the bath. Generally he described her as jealous and controlling.
134. He supported the mother in her assertions that there were proper sleeping arrangements for P when she came to his flat in Wareham. He was not there during the weekend 15^th 16^th March.
135. R has filed two statements at C40, C61(a) and C61(e).
136. She is a care worker and in March 2014 was living at Acton, near Langton Matravers. It is about a ten minute drive from Mr C's address in Swanage. He described how early on in the time of the mother's relationship with her brother (the father) she and the mother were good friends. She described a number of incidents when, it is said, the mother lost control of herself. In November 2013 it is said that the mother lost her temper with R. She had pulled her hair and dragged her from one room to another. There was another incident in December 2013.
137. R described how on Friday 14^th March she returned at about 20.00 from a holiday in Ireland. There was a family gathering at C's home. The case recording sheet at P114 which recounts an unannounced visit by a social worker and DC Darkin suggests that P was not present at this family gathering when Mr C cooked dinner for everybody. When asked about this R explained that she was confused at the time of the visit on 11^th April. She was due to have a Scan and was in a rush to leave. The family had not put their heads together in order to concoct a story about the weekend of 15^th/16^th March.
138. R recounted that following the dinner R her partner, the father, and P returned to Acton. On the following day (Saturday 15^th March) R put P into her car seat and took her back to C's house at about 07.45. R herself was due to start work at 08.00 and finish at approximately 14.00. Later she returned to C's house in order to collect P. She met E pushing P in her pram returning from Helen Scott's house. Ra then accompanied P and E back to the house and then took P back to Acton. She strapped P into the car seat in R's car. There was no sign of distress. Having returned to Acton she and her partner went out and she did not see P again over that weekend.
139. R was of the view that her mother Sheila would not pose a risk to P and that K and E were well aware of their mother's difficulties.
140. R's sisters P's aunts: K is aged 15 and E is 14.
141. They described how P arrived at about 07.45 on 15^th March. K fed her and E left for work at 10.45, C having left at about 09.00. Sheila was ill in bed. Consequently K undertook the main care of P. She changed her nappy on two or three occasions.
142. At one point Sheila came downstairs to have a cup of tea. She handed P to her for a cuddle. P was then returned to K and Sheila went back upstairs. K noticed nothing amiss with P.
143. E returned home at about 4 whereupon they both went to their Aunt Helen's home. K left that home with her boyfriend Ben to catch the bus to Wareham. The bus left at about 17.05, the bus stop being close to Helen Scott's house.
144. Both K and E describe the circumstances of the interview with social worker and DC Darkin on 27^th March at school. They had received no warning and nobody sat in with them. During that interview neither mentioned the visit to Helen Scott's house. They had forgotten this visit when seen by the WPC at school.
145. Both girls asserted that nothing had happened to cause P any injury while in the house nor was there any accident when E was pushing her in her pram on the return from Helen's house.
146. Neither of the aunts noticed anything amiss with P's arm. Ben and K left Helen's house at about 16.55. E left at about 17.40. R arrived at approximately 18.00 to collect P.
147. The father has made two statements at C15 and C52. Since late March 2014 he has lived at his father's house together with K and E. C also has a new partner, Sheila having left.
148. The father is now aged 20 and is employed as a kitchen and bathroom fitter. When he was living with the mother he took home approximately £250 per week. He has no criminal record or other police involvement.
149. The father generally had contact with P every weekend from Friday evening. On occasions he worked on a Saturday. In such an event the father told the mother that P would be cared for by K and E. According to the father, the mother had never previously raised any objection to this. I accept that evidence.
150. Over the weekend of 15^th/16^th March P was alone with the father on the Saturday night and all day on the Sunday. He noticed nothing amiss and was not aware that P was in hospital until the evening of 19^th March.
151. He described P waking up on Sunday 16^th March between 07.00 and 08.00. He gave her her breakfast. They played together and went out for a walk between 11 and 1. He described how P was pulling herself up on the furniture and was surprised that the mother had not noticed that. When out for the walk P was in her baby carrier and nothing untoward occurred. She fell asleep during the walk and slept for a couple of hours in the afternoon. He said that there was nothing at that stage to indicate that anything was wrong with P. His attention was drawn to his statement at C23 paragraph 13 which reads:

"The following day, Sunday 16^th March, P had a big long sleep in the morning (which should read afternoon) which was unusual but I didn't really think about it. I just assumed that she might be under the weather. I took P for a long walk on the Sunday afternoon and (the mother) came to collect her at about 5pm. Again, I had no concerns at that time".

152. The father was not able to explain this discrepancy but was adamant that he had not harmed P and had not caused injury to her arm or ankle.
153. He described the mother as generally a good and loving mother to P but had concerns about the standard of care for P when he had heard about the mother's relationship with Hayden.
154. His descriptions of the mother's occasional disturbing behaviour generally coincided with that of others. He was not aware that the mother had bitten Hayden but demonstrated how she had bitten him on his lower left arm.
155. I accept the submissions of Mrs Hendry to the effect that the father was an impressive witness. He came across as sensible, placid and concerned about P. I find him to be a truthful witness. I think he made an honest mistake as to the point at which he took P out.

Stocktaking

156. The widest possible radiological window is 4^th to 20^th March (ankle) and 14^th to 19^th March (elbow).
157. On Thursday 6^th March P came to her father for an overnight stay and returned to JBl's house on the morning of Friday 7^th. There is no evidence of anything untoward with P at this time.
158. On Thursday 13^th March P was looked after by JB all day and is described by her as being entirely normal. P had a three hour sleep in the morning. JB left for Yorkshire on Friday 14^th March.
159. On Friday 14^th March P was collected by C and E at about 17.30 when she (P) is described as "absolutely fine".
160. On Saturday 15^th March P was delivered to C's home by Rebecca at about 07.45. She was mainly cared for by K until shortly before 17.00 when E took over. The evidence suggests that any contact between P and Sheila was limited. I accept that in any event there is no evidence that injury was caused during that period. This is confirmed by P's presentation at Helen Scott's house later that same evening. Helen Scott saw a nappy change as well as P's coat being taken on and off. Nobody reported any pain re-action.
161. It is approximately a ten minute walk for E to take P in her pram back to C's house. R passed them in the road. R was strapped into P her car seat and she was taken back to Acton. P was seen to be well.
162. She was in her father's sole care over Saturday night and all day on Sunday 16^th March until she left his care at about 17.30.
163. On Monday 17^th March the mother and P were together at the home of J B and Mr S. JB was still away in Yorkshire, and did not return until Saturday 22^nd. Mr. S did not notice anything untoward on the Monday. He said that he was out of the house between 1600 and 1800. The mother described P as fine in herself, just whingey and that she could deal with it. On Tuesday 18^th March the mother and P were together, the mother repeated that P was whingey but distractible. It seemed that this was thought to be consistent with P's teething. The photograph at K11 taken at 10.06 on 18^th March shows P in the bath and appearing normal. A further picture was taken at 15.21 on 18^th March (K12). In this picture P seems well.
164. According to Hayden at about 16.00 he received the first of the two calls from the mother. Hayden had left Dorset on the evening of Monday 17^th March.
165. On Wednesday 19^th March the mother described how she noticed the swelling when she dressed P at about 10.00. This was the moment when she realised for the first time that P was in pain.
166. Hayden appeared during the afternoon of Wednesday 19^th March and noticed that P's arm was badly swollen and was of the view that she needed to go to hospital.

Submissions

167. On behalf of the mother Mr Ward-Prowse referred the court to a number of entries in the Health Visitor records which clearly shows that the mother (although very young and inexperienced) was a "confident, competent mother" and is recorded as attending the Children's Centre and the Under 1's group. This is an important part of the evidence.
168. It is also submitted that the mother properly accepted during cross-examination that she can be too forthright, does not hold back and speaks her mind. I agree that such admissions go to her credit. Further she freely admitted that following removal of P from her care she was distressed and frustrated. She took out her anger upon Hayden. She admitted that she pushed him, pinched him and punched him. She admitted smashing a glass but denied throwing it directly at him or threatening him with a weapon.
169. In paragraph 26 of his written submissions Mr Ward-Prowse conducted a careful summary of the mother's evidence in tabular format. It is very helpful and I have taken it into account. He submits it is clear on the mother's evidence that P was not well upon her return from the father on the evening of Sunday 16^th March. He submitted that for example the text sent by the mother to the father at 09.17 on Tuesday 18^th March provides contemporaneous evidence of the mother's contention that she noticed something wrong with P's right arm at that time on that day.
170. The evidence suggests to me however that although P was whingey this symptom as described does not suggest that she had sustained the elbow injury by that time.
171. It is said that the mother felt isolated. I think that is right. Both her mother and her grandmother (JB) were in Yorkshire. She did not feel that she could confide in Mr S about her concerns in relation to P. Because of her youth and inexperience she did not know what to do but in due course contacted Hayden about 16.00 on 18^th March asking him to return immediately from London to Dorset.
172. Mr Ward-Prowse accepted that he is in difficulty in explaining why it was that both the mother and Hayden delayed until 17.30 on Wednesday 19^th March when taking P to hospital. It is, indeed, a curious history if the mother was so concerned to telephone Hayden at about 16.00 on Tuesday 18^th March asking him immediately to return to Dorset because of her concern about P.
173. Mr Ward-Prowse submits that these events have to be considered in the context of the mother's age, her lack of life experience and her dependence upon Hayden Sebago. I accept that submission.
174. In paragraph 38 of his submissions Mr Ward-Prowse considers the position of the paternal family. He says that there are a number of matters over the weekend 15^th/16^th March which are worrying.
175. It is worrying, it is submitted, that the father sent a text message to his sister K on Monday 10^th March asking her to care for P on Saturday 15^th March while he was working. Secondly there is an inconsistency between the father's assertion that he had previously asked K and E to look after P while the aunts themselves told the police that K may have done so once and that E never had.
176. In paragraph 38(c) Mr Ward-Prowse refers to the events of 15^th March and the various times given in relation to the comings and goings of the family in C's house. In particular it is suggested that the paternal family was engaged in a "cover-up" because K and E failed in the interview at school on 27^th March to say that both had been to their Aunt Helen's house with P on that Saturday afternoon. This became an important part of the evidence later in the case. It is suggested that something happened at the paternal family home which caused the injury to P. Particularly important, it is submitted, is the role of Sheila. Her husband denied at the initial child protection conference on 10^th April that Sheila had ever had contact with P. It later emerged that on occasions, including 15^th March, Sheila had, from time to time, held P although this was always said to be under supervision and for brief periods of time.
177. Although there are inconsistencies in the accounts of members of the paternal family, I find having heard from Helen Scott that P did not sustain any injury while at C's house or on the walk back from Helen Scott's house.
178. It is also pointed out that P was in the sole care of the father during the evening of Saturday 15^th March and for the whole of Sunday 16^th March. It is also pointed out that in his statement dated 10^th October C23 paragraph 13 the father stated that P had had a long sleep in the morning which he confirmed in the witness box. During cross-examination, however, it emerged that he had taken P for a walk in the morning between 11 and 13.00 and said that P had slept in the afternoon.
179. In summary therefore submits Mr Ward-Prowse there are serious inconsistencies and variations in the evidence of the paternal family. He says that their accounts at best cannot be relied upon and at worst amount to a deliberate attempt to conceal the fact that P suffered her injuries while in the care of one or other of the members of the paternal family.
180. Starting at paragraph 47 Mr Ward-Prowse reviews the medical evidence. In particular the court is asked to approach the evidence of Dr Robinson with extreme caution.
181. The reasoning behind this that in another case in which Mr Ward-Prowse, Mr Hand and Miss O'Hara were involved before His Honour Judge Meston QC Dr Robinson's evidence in that case was that:

"Acute swelling of the limb was likely to have occurred close in time to the injury (within a few hours): the swelling would last for up to 72 hours during which time it would decrease, not increase; and the swelling would not suddenly have appeared three days later when it was first noticed … If injury had occurred on 8^th January, the swelling and inability to use the limb if was seen on 10^th January would have been noticed on 8^th and 9^th January …"

182. In the present case in his report at E28 Dr Robinson said as follows:

"On Monday 17^th March 2014 P was crying/no efforts to crawl. This suggests an injury is likely to have occurred by this time (distress/reluctance to use the arm)".

183. It is pointed out that in his oral evidence in this case Dr Robinson said that if swelling was noted for the first time on Wednesday morning (19^th) that would suggest a quite recent event. He was asked about the increased swelling to P's arm that was observed on 20^th March and suggested that this gave a stronger indication of timing than the 72 hour window and thus on the balance of probabilities there would have been no injury by 16^th March. Later in his oral evidence he conceded that it was possible that the increased swelling seen on 20^th March may have been contributed to by the manipulation that P had undergone the previous day. It is pointed out that Dr Martin and Dr Leonard concurred with that opinion.
184. It is submitted that the change in Dr Robinson's opinion is very worrying. He had had the opportunity of reading the relevant passage of HHJ Meston's judgment in the earlier case. It is submitted that he should have put in his report what he had said in his oral evidence. On the basis of these two differing views as to the timing of the relevant injury it is unfair to the mother to exclude the father as a possible perpetrator.
185. In paragraph 86 of his written submissions Mr Ward-Prowse sets out the findings he invites the court to make. In particular it is submitted that the court should find:

(i) that the delay by the mother in taking P to hospital on 19^th March was due to her inexperience, naivety and her isolation at that time from her grandmother;

(ii) that the paternal family have been less than frank with the detail of the events over the period 15^th 16^th March;

(iii) that the humeral fracture had occurred by 17^th March;

(iv) that the incidents giving rise to P's injuries occurred at the same time albeit by different mechanisms;

(v) that the mother can be excluded as a perpetrator of either of P's injuries;

(vi) alternatively the cause of the injuries was unknown.

186. On behalf of the father (against whom the Local Authority seeks no finding) Mrs Hendry in her review of the expert evidence pointed out that Dr Robinson remained clear that an injury/fracture is usually associated with a credible history of an event and its aftermath. In the absence of such a history a fracture is considered non-accidental or as a result of an undisclosed accident.
187. Dr Robinson's oral evidence as to P's presentation on Wednesday 19^th March and the swelling, submits Mrs Hendry, amounts to the following:

(i) forensically speaking the first time the swelling is seen is likely to be close in time to the injury;

(ii) swelling starts within hours and goes down within 72 hours;

(iii) if there was no swelling on either Monday or Tuesday (17^th/18^th March) this points away from P's arm being injured on the Sunday;

(iv) on a balance of probabilities it is submitted no injury had occurred by that time;

(v) a fractured arm is more painful than a fractured ankle. It would be very painful for the first 72 hours;

(vi) in respect of the ankle, 72 hours post injury the fibrous tissue would be sufficiently stable for the fracture not to be noticed unless direct pressure is applied to the site of the fracture. This happens, for example, during a nappy change when a carer would be likely to notice a pain response.

(vii) being "whingey" at 9 months is not a helpful indicator in this context because such whingeyness can arise for a number of different reasons. An observed reluctance to crawl without more is of little assistance to the court in coming to a determination.

188. As to the wider canvas of evidence Mrs Hendry pointed to JB's description of the mother's character which it is suggested provides a picture of somebody that can be vociferous when upset. However it is pointed out that the mother did not contact JB at all during the week in question. P's paternal aunt R recounted details of the mother's behaviour and her treatment of the father.
189. It is pointed out that Mr S was not aware of any difficulty in relation to P during the week starting 17^th March. On behalf of the father considerable reliance is placed upon the evidence of Helen Scott. I agree that she was a thoroughly impressive witness and I accept her account of the events of Saturday 15^th March. Further her description of the father as placid and reliable coincides with the impression that he gave me when giving his evidence.
190. I also accept Mrs Hendry's point that K and E gave clear and composed evidence from the witness box.
191. Hayden was not a particularly impressive witness. It was difficult to discern what he knew from his own experience and what he had learned from others.
192. He denied that he was asked by mother to lie on her behalf and say that he was with her during the week of 17^th March. This assertion arose as the result of a meeting that took place between Hayden and R on 15^th September. Apart from that one point Hayden agrees with the context of the conversation as related by R.
193. Starting at paragraph 38, Mrs Hendry reviews the evidence of the mother. It is pointed out that she made some limited admissions as to her propensity for violence although the evidence of Hayden, the father and R took that point considerably further. These accounts included that of her behaviour on 22^nd March when following P being handed to the father for contact, the mother arrived at the father's house and demanded P's return.
194. It is also submitted that the mother had been inconsistent in her accounts as to P's presentation from the period between Sunday evening through to Tuesday. I agree. It is also important to note that notwithstanding the events of the week starting Monday 17^th March and the mother's accounts of the events of that week, she initially was prepared to allow the father to have contact on Saturday 22^nd March.
195. As to the father it is submitted that he demonstrated a level of genuine concern about P by visiting her in hospital, telephoning to check upon her progress and alerting professionals as to his concerns about P. Further, Mrs Hendry submits that the evidence as to the father's re-action when he heard of the extent of P's injuries on 27^th March is compelling and evidence of his shock and concern. I agree.
196. At paragraph 47 of her submissions Mrs Hendry concentrates on the events of Sunday 16^th March when P was in the father's sole care. She acknowledges the differences in the father's evidence about when it was that P slept. Further in oral evidence he denied thinking that P was under the weather which is contrary to what he said in his statement at C23.
197. Mrs Hendry submits that the court should focus on P's presentation. I agree that is an important point. The father was consistent in saying that P was "fine" both when in his care and when she left his care at about 17.30 on Sunday. It is against that, submits Mrs Hendry, the mother and Hayden were inconsistent about P's presentation on that Sunday evening. They both accepted that beyond being "whingey". P's demeanour, however, did not alarm either of them.
198. At paragraph 48 Mrs Hendry concentrates on the events of Monday 17^th March. The mother in her oral evidence was clear that P was "fine in herself, just whingey and I could deal with it". In her interview and oral evidence the mother described how she dressed and undressed P and that nappy changes were normal.
199. On Tuesday 18^th March in a text at 09.17 sent to the father (T1) the mother repeated how P was whingey but distractible. She referred in her cross-examination to the fact that P was teething. In her interview the mother was clear that P had not had a bath on that Tuesday and remained in her babygrow all day. In fact it is clear from the photographs at K11 taken by the mother at 10.06 and K12 taken at 15.21 that P was undressed and appeared well.
200. It was on Wednesday 19^th March that the mother described the swelling to P's arm at about 10.00 (C30).
201. In her final analysis starting at paragraph 51 Mrs Hendry submits that the decision of the Local Authority not to seek any adverse findings either against the father or any of the third party interveners is proper and consistent with the expert and lay evidence as to P's presentation prior to her being taken to hospital. It is submitted that the mother was not truthful as to P's presentation on Tuesday. It is further submitted that the Local Authority's stance is further consistent with the evidence of the mother's propensity and credibility. I accept those submissions. Having seen and heard the parties and their witnesses I prefer the evidence of the father and his family.
202. As to the additional findings requested by the Local Authority and set out at paragraph 10 of Mr Hand's closing submissions Mrs Hendry submits that the court can safely make those findings.
203. In oral submissions made in response to Mr Ward-Prowse's submissions about Dr Robinson's change of view, Mrs Hendry emphasised that in his written report Dr Robinson was relying upon the mother's own presentation of the timeline. The mother's evidence was to the effect that P was not crawling on the Tuesday and this was when that symptom was first noticed. Mother's oral evidence was to the effect that P was normal on the Monday and both these reports are consistent with what appears in the Triage Note at H2. Further in mother's interview and in her oral evidence she said that there was no difficulty on the Monday in changing P's nappy.
204. When Miss O'Hara on behalf of the guardian dealt with this point she accepted the inconsistencies between Dr Robinson's written and oral evidence. She said that if a swelling occurs it will be within hours rather than days of the relevant injury. In this case therefore the observation of the swelling as reported on the Wednesday is inconsistent with the infliction of injury on the Sunday. Miss O'Hara frankly accepts, and I agree, that Dr Robinson fell into error having been distracted as a result of the mother's description of the symptoms that she had noticed. In his statement Hayden asserted that P had not been using her arm on the Monday (17^th) and so informed the mother.
205. It seems to me that these difficulties are resolved by the pictures taken of P by the mother on 18^th March to which I have already referred. They show that P was well at that time. I agree with Miss O'Hara's submission that the effect of those photographs is to bring the point of injury away from the weekend of 15^th/16^th March and closer to the Wednesday, the swelling occurring within "hours rather than days" of the relevant event.
206. In his submissions on behalf of R, K and E Mr Pitt reviewed the involvements of the sisters between 14^th and 16^th March 2014. It is pointed out that their involvement in the relevant events ceased on the evening of Saturday 15^th March. By then nothing amiss had been observed in respect of P.
207. It is accepted that Sheila was in poor mental health and remained chiefly upstairs. It is agreed that at some point she came down to make a cup of tea and may have held P for a short cuddle. As I have already found I accept that no injury befell P on the Friday evening or on Saturday.
208. E finished work and returned home at approximately 16.15. K and E left shortly thereafter to walk the short distance with P to Helen Scott's house. Following this visit P was strapped into her buggy and taken on the ten minute walk by E back to the paternal family home.
209. Mr Pitt referred to the two photographs at K11 and K12 and the clear evidence of Dr Robinson that swelling begins soon after a fracture injury. If such swelling (according to the mother) was visible on the Wednesday morning, the most likely time of injury was after the second photograph taken on Tuesday 18^th March at 15.21. I agree.
210. Both Mr Pitt and the other advocates have pointed out that there has been little concentration on the injury to P's ankle. No evidence has emerged that P had suffered injury to her ankle on the Friday night or during Saturday.
211. Insofar as the aunts are concerned I think they had cared for P on previous occasions and the mother was aware of this.
212. It is the case that K and E did not mention on 27^th March the visit to Helen on the afternoon of Saturday 15^th March. That discussion with the social worker and the police officer was close to the event. On their behalf it is pointed out that at the time they were aged 13 and 15. They were abruptly removed from class at school and the interview took place in what is said to be a clear breach of the Codes of Practice under PACE. I have seen the relevant extracts of the guidance.
213. Mr Pitt points emphasised that there might have been substance in Mr Ward Prowse's submission that P had suffered injury on the Saturday if there was any logical basis for it, for example that there was later evidence that P had suffered injury at about that time. It is clear to me that she had not.
214. I accept the evidence that the girls were taken by surprise at their interview on 27^th March. It is quite clear that they did visit Aunt Helen's house. The evidence was to the effect that C did not disapprove of such a visit. It is clear that P had not suffered injury before she arrived at aunt Helen's house.
215. Given the amount of toing and frowing that happened on Saturday 15^th March I accept that it would be surprising if there were not some inconsistencies in the evidence of the various witnesses as to the timing of people's movements.
216. On behalf of Hayden Mr Coombs submits that his client can safely be excluded as a possible perpetrator of the injuries to P. I agree. It is pointed out that the father and his family do not assert a positive case against him and neither does the mother. During the relevant week he had limited contact with P. He was uncertain as to whether he was aware that P was not using her arm after her return from contact on Sunday. Although it is the case that Hayden has a conviction for a Section 20 offence for which he received a 17 month custodial sentence and is also the subject of an ABSO, there is nothing to suggest that he has committed or is likely to commit any offence against children.
217. Hayden went to London in the latter part of Monday 17^th March. At the end of the working day on Tuesday 18^th March he received a call from the mother who, he said, sounded worried and upset because something had happened to P's arm. The mother telephoned later emphasising that she wanted him home. It was shortly after 16.00 on Wednesday 19^th March Hayden saw the state of P's arm and was clear that she needed to go immediately to hospital.
218. Mr Coombs points out that the mother and Hayden ended their relationship in June 2014 in circumstances of considerable acrimony. It is submitted that in those circumstances if Hayden had known that the mother had caused injury to P it is inconceivable that he would try to protect her. However, it is said, the same applies to the mother. If she had known that Hayden had harmed P it is likely that she would have said so. I agree.
219. I am satisfied on a proper consideration of the evidence that Hayden can be properly excluded as a possible perpetrator of the injury sustained by P.
220. On behalf of the guardian Miss O'Hara set out the relevant legal principles.
221. As to the evidence Miss O'Hara set out a helpful schedule in tabular form by way of a selective analysis of the history of the relevant events. I am grateful for that.
222. In her survey of the wider canvas of evidence Miss O'Hara reminded the court that a deliberately inflicted injury of this sort is inherently improbable although that in itself cannot be determinative. Negligently or recklessly to cause injury of this sort is less inherently improbable. Both parents although young appear to have been essentially caring competent parents.
223. As to the manipulation performed by two hospital doctors on P's elbow whilst the fracture was present, the medical evidence, which I accept, is to the effect that although this could have contributed to the rate of increase in the swelling of the arm it would not have caused the initial swelling as seen by the mother, Hayden and his aunt on the evening 19^th March 2014.
224. I accept the general thrust of the submission that the mother has difficulty at times in regulating her emotions and maintaining control of herself. I accept that she has always maintained that she is a different person when caring for P and indeed this is borne out by the entry in the HV records to the effect that she was a caring and competent mother. I bear that in mind as an important counterbalance to the other matters upon which the Local Authority relies in asserting its case against the mother.
225. In written submissions on behalf of the Local Authority Mr Hand referred to the revised schedule of proposed findings.

(a) In March 2014, P sustained a fracture of her right humerus, and also fractures to her left tibia and fibula.

The existence of these injuries is confirmed by the medical evidence and there has been no challenge.

(b) Two sets of fractures may or may not have occurred at the same time. If they occurred as part of the same incident then they arise from two separate and distinct applications of force to the child – one to cause the arm fracture and the other to cause the leg fracture.

Following a consideration of the medical evidence I find that it is likely that there were indeed two separate applications of force. It seems unlikely that one mechanism could account for both fractures. Dr Robinson did proffer the possibility that if P had fallen from a height with outstretched limbs, one mechanism might account for both fractures. There is no history of such a fall.

(c) The fractures would have been caused by considerable and excessive applications of force.

This has not been challenged.

(d) Any carer present at the time of fracture(s) would have known that excessive force would have been applied to the child, and that the child had sustained injury sufficient to warrant immediate medical attention being sought.

I accept the submission that this is confirmed by the medical evidence. Also it is clear to me that these injuries amounted to significant harm.

(e) The fractures were caused by the acts or omissions of the mother and/or the father. The Local Authority does not seek any finding that the fractures may have been caused by a third party.

In the support of the Local Authority's contention that a specific finding can be made that the mother was the perpetrator of P's injuries Mr Hand submits the following

(i) That the evidence from the paternal family clearly shows that P was well over the course of the weekend 14^th-16^th March. Mr Ward-Prowse has suggested that the paternal family may have put their heads together and organised a cover up of an incident that occurred in the paternal home. I reject that. Such a scheme would have required the cooperation of C, the three aunts, Helen Scott and the father. I accept the point made by Mr Ward-Prowse that it is at first sight, strange that K and E did not mention the visit to Helen Scott when first seen by the police and social worker on 27^th March. Such inconsistencies as have emerged in their evidence does not in my judgment establish Mr Ward-Prowse's point. I accept the paternal evidence about the events of that weekend.

(ii) Mr Hand further submits that the effect of the evidence of Dr Robinson, and the mother's assertion that it was noticeable that P had stopped using her arm on the morning of Tuesday 18^th March is consistent with an injury in the mother's care. I agree that the medical evidence was to the effect that following a fracture a swelling would emerge in hours rather than days and that generally by the end of 72 hours after the injury the swelling will have gone. In this case the swelling is noted by the mother for the first time on the morning of Wednesday 19^th March. This was when the mother said she realised something was seriously amiss.

(iii) It is curious that on the morning of Tuesday 18^th March the mother sent a text to the father suggesting that P's arm had stopped working but then sent a further text on the morning of 19^th March saying that the arm was better. This does not fit with the injury as seen on Wednesday morning.

(iv) When considering the mother's evidence which, in some respects, was untruthful, I remind myself that this does not mean that everything she said cannot be relied upon R v Lucas (Above). This mother was young. She had shown herself in some ways to have been a good mother. Having said that, however, the mother's various assertions and the long gap between Wednesday morning and the visit to the hospital in the afternoon strongly suggest that she knew that she had something serious to hide in respect of her conduct towards P.

(v) When considering the question of the perpetrators I do not think that there were two, one causing the elbow injury and one causing injury to the ankle.

(vi) I find that the mother, while alone with a whingey child, lost her self control and a fit of temper or exasperation caused the injuries to P. No one else was responsible for the two fractures.

(f) The parents failed to seek medical attention or prompt medical attention for the injuries.

This allegation is now made only against the mother. While it may have been the case that P was indeed teething and as a result was clingy and whingeing on the Monday the evidence suggests that by Tuesday morning P had stopped using her arm and the mother so informed the father by text. The mother and P were at JB's home all day together on Tuesday but the mother informed no one of any difficulty until she called Hayden at about 1600/30 on the Tuesday afternoon. Until around 16.00 hours on Wednesday the mother sought no help for P from anybody. It is surprising that she did not try to contact JB. It is submitted and I agree that the delay in seeking medical attention is clear.

(g) A fracture to a baby of this age would usually be accompanied by a present carer giving an account of a notable event that caused the fracture(s). The parents have to date failed to give an account of any such notable event or events.

No account has been given.

(h) Following the arm fracture and/or the leg fractures the child is likely to have cried in pain and would be inconsolable for a period; for the first 72 hours or so following the injury the child would have not moved or would have been reluctant to move the fractured limb(s); the child would have been distressed when the fractured limb(s) when moved or manipulated in and out of clothing; there may well have been an associated swelling around the fracture site(s).

It is submitted on behalf of the Local Authority that this allegation is satisfied on the face of the evidence. I agree.

(i) According to Dr Watt the arm fracture would have occurred in the window from 13^th to 19^th March 2014. The leg fractures happened within the time window of 4^th to 20^th March 2014.

The medical evidence as to this has not been challenged. It is submitted that the mother's text message to the father on the morning of Tuesday 18^th March indicates that the arm fracture had probably occurred by that time. I think that is a correct analysis.

(j) In accounts given by the mother, upon the child's return to her care at around 5pm on Sunday 16^th March following contact with the father; the child was whingey but the arm was not swollen. Further at times, the mother has indicated that on Monday 17^th March 2014 the child was in a distressed state and P would make no effort to crawl. According to the mother on Tuesday 18^th March 2014 the child was still making no effort to crawl, and she was grisly and clingy and did not want to be put down. By Wednesday 19^th March 2014, the mother said that the arm was noticeably swollen, and that the baby cried when the arm was touched. P was not really moving the arm at all, and great care had to be taken when changing the baby. At 5.30pm on the Wednesday 19^th March the mother took P to the A & E Department at the Royal Bournemouth Hospital. Regardless of whether the mother caused the fractures, the Local Authority seeks a finding that

(i) the mother's account is incomplete;

(ii) at times her account has varied in detail significantly when given, and

(iii) the mother unreasonably delayed in seeking medical attention for her child given her presenting symptoms.

The evidence as to these contentions is clear. I find them proved.

(k) The mother, or the father, or both parents in truth know more about the injuries and the circumstances of the injuries then they have so far been willing to admit.

The Local Authority limits this allegation to one against the mother. It is submitted that the mother knows what happened to P but has chosen not to tell the truth. I am satisfied that that is the case.

226. The Local Authority brought three others factual matters to the court's attention:

(a) Was there a DV incident between mother and father in late 2013? It is said after separation that there was indeed such an incident, and it is alleged that the mother assaulted the father and the police were called.

It is clear from the mother's own evidence that she accepted on occasions punching and pinching the father although she denied biting him. R further described two occasions when she says the mother had assaulted her. I find that allegation proved.

(b) Was there DV or aggression from the mother towards (Hayden) during their relationship?

I have already commented that Hayden was not generally a reliable witness. His account of the attack in the bathroom, however, carried the ring of truth. Having learned from the mother's mobile phone that she was conducting an affair with another man, he locked himself in the bathroom to read the messages on the mother's phone. The mother broke into the bathroom carrying a knife. He pushed her into the bath tub. This account is consistent with the experiences relayed by the father and R.

(c) Did the mother ask (Hayden) to lie about his whereabouts in the period in which P could have sustained injury?

The evidence is not clear on this point. I do not think that resolution of this issue one way or the other takes the main part of this case any further. I make no finding as to this.

Dated this 20th day of January 2015

…………………………………………..

HIS HONOUR JUDGE BOND