- Joined
- Apr 5, 2015
Re Baby A.
(If there is one body of knowledge I could excise permanently from all I have ever learnt, it would be everything I know about the forensic investigation and dating of non accidental injuries to children.)
Mr Justice Hayden is being exceptionally careful in that judgement to imply absolutely nothing that could then be used in the separate proceedings (which will be care proceedings) to say that the fact finding therein has been in any way biased by statements made during these DNR proceedings.
Trying to get even a civil finding in care proceedings, let alone a criminal prosecution (lol), that a parent has caused a non accidental injury to a child is nightmarishly difficult. If the parents are able to come up with any conceiavble alternate mechanism of injury, even tbh some deeply unlikely ones, the court is always strongly inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt because an NAI finding is dynamite in terms of its consequences. An NAI finding in care proceedings will not only ensure there are grounds to never return the injured child to parental care, but also any siblings, and indeed any future children of the parents. The court scrutinises those cases most anxiously, and they always turn on the expert medical evidence, which is both difficult, expensive and time consuming to get. You end up in a face off of eminent experts, and if the court doesn't clearly prefer one expert's evidence to another, they simply will not make an NAI finding.
The other issue with NAI cases is that there is rarely one injury on its own that you are looking to prove. There are usually a constellation of injuries to different parts of the body, possibly with different mechanisms of injury (this is almost always true where there has been a pattern of violent abuse of the child) and often of different ages and at different stages of healing. It is in the interests of the authorities to get as many of those injuries into evidence as possible. It is much more difficult to explain 53 fractures in various stages of healing to your 10 week old daughter than just one fracture. (Yes, this was a case I dealt with, and no, I do not like to think about it much.)
In the Baby A case, it's not just the nature of the injuries (although rib fractures and retinal haemorrhaging always attract a high level of suspicion), it's the fact all those injuries are present together, at different stages of healing, that greatly raises the likelihood that they were inflicted non accidentally. The age of Baby A is also a Soviet-worthy red flag here. Any fractures in a child too young to be ambulatory is immediately suspicious. We have a vast amount of data on what is a "normal" frequency, severity and pattern of injury for kids at each age/stage of development. For example, between the ages of 2 and 3, a 'normally' ambulant toddler will sustain about 260 bruises. Almost one a day. But the pattern is consistent: the overwhelming majority of them are between knees and ankles, or on the front of the head down to the chin, and a few on elbows and forearms. This seems like a vast number, but think about it; toddlers fall down all the fucking time. Dozens of times a day. And they fall down pretty much the same way every time: they trip over something and bash their leg, or they fall right over it and bash that big ol' head of theirs. So a toddler who comes into A&E with two dozen bruises in various stages of healing, if those are small to moderate bruises and confined to the legs with maybe one or two to the cheek/forehead, doesn't trip any SUS ALARM because that's normal for a toddler. But if the two dozen bruises are on the back but the legs are pretty clear, that's weird and the A&E doctor will and should ask what happened there. (Not least because there may be underlying medical issues causing that bruising.)
Now, rib fractures, even in adults, are normally caused by external trauma. This isn't absolute by any means, but it's the most common method of injury. Baby A is listed as three months old, but presented unconscious - with some of those fractures already healing - on 10 June. So, if my finger-counting arithmetic is right, that puts him at about 8 weeks old max when he was presented to A&E. No eight week old is capable of any movement sufficient to break their ribs. They can't turn over unaided at that point, which is directly relevant here as the first likely explanation parents in these circumstances offer is "the baby rolled off the couch/changing table/etc". A baby too young to roll can't do that. (Sidenote: this injury in slightly older babies absolutely can be caused by rolling off from a height onto a hard floor. Please change your baby on a mat on the floor. The first time every parent learns every baby has learnt to roll over is in the split second they look away to grab the clean nappy.) So the fractures are sus on their own. The retinal haemorrhaging is a screaming sus alarm on its own. As are the massive brain injuries. Babies do not randomly self-injure to the point of near death, and it is very difficult for eight week old babies to get into the sort of accident that Archie Battersbee got into. Babies get hurt by other people. It is more likely than not (and that is the standard of proof for the care proceedings) that someone hurt this baby.
But the identity of the someone may well be in question. It is quite possible the parents are saying (and it may even be true, remember) that the baby was in the care of another person when the injuries were inflicted. (Further sidenote: if this is the case, the culprit is 99% of the time the mother's partner. If you have a small baby, leave off dating for quite a while. And be extremely fucking careful who you let babysit.) It is also possible, sadly, that a sibling is suspected. It is possible that the parents are guilty of terrible judgement or were tragically deceived about someone else's character, but have not in any way personally harmed the baby. But until there is a finding in the care proceedings about how Baby A got injured, and by who, Baby A cannot go home whilst he lives.
So everyone waits. And a baby will probably not live, and if he does, he will almost certainly not have any reasonable quality of life.
The whole business is just so fucking tragic. And avoidable.
(If there is one body of knowledge I could excise permanently from all I have ever learnt, it would be everything I know about the forensic investigation and dating of non accidental injuries to children.)
Mr Justice Hayden is being exceptionally careful in that judgement to imply absolutely nothing that could then be used in the separate proceedings (which will be care proceedings) to say that the fact finding therein has been in any way biased by statements made during these DNR proceedings.
Trying to get even a civil finding in care proceedings, let alone a criminal prosecution (lol), that a parent has caused a non accidental injury to a child is nightmarishly difficult. If the parents are able to come up with any conceiavble alternate mechanism of injury, even tbh some deeply unlikely ones, the court is always strongly inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt because an NAI finding is dynamite in terms of its consequences. An NAI finding in care proceedings will not only ensure there are grounds to never return the injured child to parental care, but also any siblings, and indeed any future children of the parents. The court scrutinises those cases most anxiously, and they always turn on the expert medical evidence, which is both difficult, expensive and time consuming to get. You end up in a face off of eminent experts, and if the court doesn't clearly prefer one expert's evidence to another, they simply will not make an NAI finding.
The other issue with NAI cases is that there is rarely one injury on its own that you are looking to prove. There are usually a constellation of injuries to different parts of the body, possibly with different mechanisms of injury (this is almost always true where there has been a pattern of violent abuse of the child) and often of different ages and at different stages of healing. It is in the interests of the authorities to get as many of those injuries into evidence as possible. It is much more difficult to explain 53 fractures in various stages of healing to your 10 week old daughter than just one fracture. (Yes, this was a case I dealt with, and no, I do not like to think about it much.)
In the Baby A case, it's not just the nature of the injuries (although rib fractures and retinal haemorrhaging always attract a high level of suspicion), it's the fact all those injuries are present together, at different stages of healing, that greatly raises the likelihood that they were inflicted non accidentally. The age of Baby A is also a Soviet-worthy red flag here. Any fractures in a child too young to be ambulatory is immediately suspicious. We have a vast amount of data on what is a "normal" frequency, severity and pattern of injury for kids at each age/stage of development. For example, between the ages of 2 and 3, a 'normally' ambulant toddler will sustain about 260 bruises. Almost one a day. But the pattern is consistent: the overwhelming majority of them are between knees and ankles, or on the front of the head down to the chin, and a few on elbows and forearms. This seems like a vast number, but think about it; toddlers fall down all the fucking time. Dozens of times a day. And they fall down pretty much the same way every time: they trip over something and bash their leg, or they fall right over it and bash that big ol' head of theirs. So a toddler who comes into A&E with two dozen bruises in various stages of healing, if those are small to moderate bruises and confined to the legs with maybe one or two to the cheek/forehead, doesn't trip any SUS ALARM because that's normal for a toddler. But if the two dozen bruises are on the back but the legs are pretty clear, that's weird and the A&E doctor will and should ask what happened there. (Not least because there may be underlying medical issues causing that bruising.)
Now, rib fractures, even in adults, are normally caused by external trauma. This isn't absolute by any means, but it's the most common method of injury. Baby A is listed as three months old, but presented unconscious - with some of those fractures already healing - on 10 June. So, if my finger-counting arithmetic is right, that puts him at about 8 weeks old max when he was presented to A&E. No eight week old is capable of any movement sufficient to break their ribs. They can't turn over unaided at that point, which is directly relevant here as the first likely explanation parents in these circumstances offer is "the baby rolled off the couch/changing table/etc". A baby too young to roll can't do that. (Sidenote: this injury in slightly older babies absolutely can be caused by rolling off from a height onto a hard floor. Please change your baby on a mat on the floor. The first time every parent learns every baby has learnt to roll over is in the split second they look away to grab the clean nappy.) So the fractures are sus on their own. The retinal haemorrhaging is a screaming sus alarm on its own. As are the massive brain injuries. Babies do not randomly self-injure to the point of near death, and it is very difficult for eight week old babies to get into the sort of accident that Archie Battersbee got into. Babies get hurt by other people. It is more likely than not (and that is the standard of proof for the care proceedings) that someone hurt this baby.
But the identity of the someone may well be in question. It is quite possible the parents are saying (and it may even be true, remember) that the baby was in the care of another person when the injuries were inflicted. (Further sidenote: if this is the case, the culprit is 99% of the time the mother's partner. If you have a small baby, leave off dating for quite a while. And be extremely fucking careful who you let babysit.) It is also possible, sadly, that a sibling is suspected. It is possible that the parents are guilty of terrible judgement or were tragically deceived about someone else's character, but have not in any way personally harmed the baby. But until there is a finding in the care proceedings about how Baby A got injured, and by who, Baby A cannot go home whilst he lives.
So everyone waits. And a baby will probably not live, and if he does, he will almost certainly not have any reasonable quality of life.
The whole business is just so fucking tragic. And avoidable.
