Battered baby seized from parents to stay in care with brother, judge rules

parents of a Northern Ireland baby brought to A&E with multiple broken bones failed to protect him from harm, a High Court judge ruled yesterday.

Mrs Justice Keegan held both the mother and father could have deliberately inflicted injuries on their son that left him in “excruciating pain” on more than one occasion.

She ordered that the infant and his five-year-old brother must both remain in care due to the risk of harm.

Describing the mother and father’s evidence as “contrived”, the judge said: “The reality is that this child sustained serious injuries whilst in the care of both parents.”

The baby, referred to as ‘Tom’, wasfourweeksoldwhenhewas taken to a casualty unit in March 2016. Examinations revealed that he had sustained bruising and up to 17 fractured bones, including a femurcompletelybrokeninhalf. A consultant paediatrician who treated the child described it as a “truly dreadful injury” that must have been caused by significant force.

Realising another child, ‘Ned’, was at the family home, he contacted police — telling the court it was an unprecedented step in his career.

The doctor’s report concluded that Tom’s injuries were most likely caused by physical abuse.

Bothparentsaresubjecttoongoing criminal investigations.

With their sons sent to live with their grandparents following the incident, a health trust was seeking full care orders. It argued that Tom suffered non-accidental injuries while being looked after by his mother and father.

The parents put forward alternativetheoriesthatthefractures were either accidental or due to the inherited bone-weakening condition Ehlers Danlos Type 3 Syndrome (EDS).

In evidence, the father said he may have crushed the baby when he tripped and stumbled forward with him in his arms.

The director of a bone density clinic in the United States con- tactedbythemothersaidhewas convinced both parents had EDS, the court heard.

Contrary to other expert opinion, he claimed this would explain Tom’s injuries, and referred to the child’s ribs as being “like toothpicks”.

The mother accepted that she gave no explanation at the hospital but denied being “unemotional” at the time. She said her husband told her the following day about tripping on stairs at their home.

As well as the alleged tripping incident, Tom’s father claimed the baby’s injuries may also have happened when Ned fell on him weeks earlier.

In a newly published judgment, Mrs Justice Keegan said she was unconvinced the couple or their child had EDS.

Rejecting the parents’ accounts, she held the completely broken femur cannot have been caused by normal handling.

She said: “I accept entirely the evidence of the paediatricians who said that to cause this injury would require considerable force and that the child would be in excruciating pain.”

She characterised the potential explanations as lacking credTHE ibility, adding that it was totally unbelievable for the husband not to have immediately mentioned any innocent trip incident to his wife.

“Unfortunately, I consider that the parents’ evidence had a contrived quality to it,” Mrs Justice Keegan held.

“In my view they both wantedtomakeexplanationsfittheir own narrative.”

Despite being unable to conclude which parent inflicted “serious multiple injuries... which occurred on more than one occasion”, she concluded that both are “in the pool of perpetrators”.

Backing the trust case, she said Tom and his brother are both likely to suffer significant emotional and physical harm as a result of their treatment.

She added: “These injuries were attributable to the care given by the parents given the timeframe in which they occurred.

“Each parent has failed to protect that child from harm.”