Russell-Cooke’s children law team represents child in complex residential assessment centre injury case

The background was unusual. The child, a boy born in summer 2022, was living with his parents in a residential assessment centre. He was subject to an interim care order. It was while he was in the assessment centre that he suffered a number of injuries (a fracture to the wrist, 23 rib fractures and a torn frenulum). The clinicians considered these injuries to be non-accidental in nature. The child was around six months old at the time of the injuries. 

The parents were supposed to be monitored 24/7 when with their child in the residential assessment centre. There should have been no opportunity for injuries to be caused. As the Judge stated in her judgment, “the whole purpose of the centre is to safeguard” and the child was injured while staying there. 

Both parents denied causing the injuries to their son. Therefore, the questions for the court included how had these injuries occurred and how had they not been noticed by the staff in the assessment centre. 

The assessment centre was an intervenor in proceedings and many of the staff from the centre gave evidence. It was submitted on its behalf that the assessment centre staff had not caused the child’s injuries and that the staff had been diligent in their observations of the child. 

The case involved a large amount of evidence. Six medical experts were instructed in the case and a substantial amount of CCTV footage was reviewed. 

It was accepted by the assessment centre that there were blind spots in the CCTV in the parents’ bedroom. It was also accepted that there were times when the CCTV was not being monitored by a member of staff. 

The Judge found that the assessment centre did breach its agreement with the local authority and failed to monitor the child at all times. 

Having heard the evidence, the Judge found that it was likely that the father caused the child’s rib fractures, wrist fracture and torn frenulum. The Judge noted that the father had accepted that on occasion he was too rough when handling the child and was too rushed when carrying out care tasks. The Judge found that the father did not set out to harm his son but he was over confident in his own ability, too rough when handling his son and he took risks. He used inappropriate force when handling his son and he caused the fractures. 

In relation to the mother’s alleged failure to protect, the Judge found the mother did not perceive the father’s handling to be too rough and, although he did things she would not have contemplated doing herself, she did not perceive him to be a risk. The Judge took into account the fact that the assessment centre did not themselves consider that the father would have injured his son. The Judge noted that they did not intervene to remove the child or stop the father caring for him. 

Following the injuries, the child was placed in foster care where he remained at the time of the fact-finding hearing. He was reported to be thriving.