Drug-taking parents who killed baby did not have to be tested

TWO magistrates ruled that a couple who smoked large amounts of cannabis and later went on to kill their baby were not required to undergo drug testing when the child was returned to their care, it can be revealed.

Despite the pair having repeatedly lied to social workers about the amount of cannabis they consumed, the magistrates ordered that Shannon Marsden and Stephen Boden, of Old Whittington, near Chesterfield, be given custody of the child.

Within weeks of the decision, 10-month-old Finley Boden, who was also known as Finley Marsden, suffered multiple injuries at their hands and died on Christmas Day 2020 – just 39 days after Derby Family Court returned him to their care. Ms Marsden and Mr Boden were last month found guilty of murder and will be sentenced on Friday.

It can also now be revealed that in making their decision to return Finley, the Family Court magistrates rejected a plea from social workers that as well as drug testing, Mr Boden and Ms Marsden should undergo a four-month supervised transition to establish if they were capable of looking after him. Instead, Mrs Susan Burns and Mrs Kathy Gallimore, the JPS, ordered a twomonth transition plan, saying it was a “reasonable and proportionate length of time” to protect his welfare.

The reasons the magistrates gave for giving full custody of Finley to his parents can only now be reported, after The Telegraph jointly won a legal battle for their ruling to be published.

In their ruling of Oct 1 2020, which the High Court ordered should be published, the pair of JPS stated: “The local authority asks the court to direct that further drug testing of the parents would be a prudent step in providing the court with concrete evidence of the parents’ drug misuse. It is noteworthy that the parents have been dishonest about their drug use and this additional evidence would assist the court.”

But they concluded: “The parents and guardian oppose such testing as it is not necessary. We conclude that while such information may be beneficial, it is not necessary to ensure the proceedings are concluded appropriately.”

Toby Perkins, MP for Chesterfield and Staveley, said: “It is deeply significant that this case was heard in front of magistrates. It’s legitimate to question that entire process.” He questioned whether “the magistrate and that process was robust enough to ensure that the child’s needs were protected” and “clearly we know that they weren’t”.