Judge finds father 'inflicted serious harm' on infant son

A judge has ruled that a father in the Royal Borough inflicted serious head injuries on his infant son –and made a 'deliberate and cynical attempt to conceal the true facts'.

In a case heard at Slough Family Court between the Royal Borough and the child’s family, His Honour Judge Richard Case found that the boy’s injuries were unlikely to be accidental.

The then three-month-old, who is referred to in the judgment as CC to preserve anonymity, suffered two skull fractures and brain bleeds at some point between January 26 and February 27.

Given the infant’s injuries, the impact would have been of greater force than one caused by an accidental fall.

The baby’s father repeatedly said he could not remember what happened – but Judge Case said he had 'at almost every turn, sought to evade and minimise his responsibility'.

The injuries

CC was admitted to hospital on March 8, suffering multiple unexplained injuries including cracks in his skull.

Medical professionals thought it unlikely these could be caused by a low-height fall, such as from a caregiver’s arms or a changing table.

CC’s mother testified that CC began to be unwell on around February 27. He appeared overly sleepy, vomited, and had other troubling symptoms.

Eventually, CC’s father accepted the boy must have been injured as a result of an accident when in his sole care on February 27 – but said he cannot remember how.

He wished to characterise the incident as ‘accidental but culpable’, as a result of alcohol and possible drug impairment.

CC received treatment and check-ups until April and was placed in foster care in March, where he remained at the time of the court case.

Background

The father said he was under stress after CC’s birth, with financial problems. Unable to support his drug habit, he felt guilty for not doing enough to help CC’s mother.

He said he lacked patience when CC was crying and could not find it within himself to commit the time and effort to spend time with CC, care for him, feed him, change his nappies.

The father said this felt ‘awful’ and it caused him to feel down and sometimes caused his alcohol and cocaine abuse to get worse.

He admitted that he can become angry when drinking, to such a degree that he would lose control and do things he would not ordinarily do.

The case

Giving evidence, CC’s father fumbled on a number of points, such as the extent of his addiction, and whether he ever drank while caring for CC and his two older siblings.

“As his evidence continued, I came to the gradual realisation I could place no weight at all on what he told me unless it was corroborated by other evidence.," said Judge Case.

The father eventually admitted to lying to the police and the court.

It was because he did not want the court to know he had behaved in a reckless fashion, and he wanted to avoid looking like someone who behaves dangerously around children.

Concluding, Judge Case said that an accidental fall is ‘much less likely than an inflicted injury.’

Penny Howe KC, legal counsel representing CC’s mother, stressed the negative impact of the incident and resulting events on CC, including his being taken into foster care.

“CC has lost vital months of maternal care during the most critical period for the development of his attachments,” she said.

“He may have incurred permanent emotional harm as a consequence.

“This is all because [CC’s father] was too cowardly to own his behaviours and accept responsibility for what he did, preferring instead to point a finger at [his mother] and keeping silent for months to protect himself. 

“What [he] has done is unforgivable.”

The judge agreed, saying the father had inflicted ‘significant harm’ both physically and emotionally on CC, and made it worse by lying.

“[He] has engaged in a deliberate and cynical attempt to conceal the true facts and has, at almost every turn, sought to evade and minimise his responsibility,” said Judge Case.

Judge Case said the father had 'admitted causing the physical injuries through culpable accident albeit I have gone further to find he inflicted them'.

The Judge was required to consider whether the Royal Borough had proved it had met the threshold to make a care or supervision order under the Children Act 1989. In light of his findings, he said there was 'no doubt' the threshold had been crossed.