Case No: MK14C80021
IN THE FAMILY COURT AT NORTHAMPTON 

85-87 Lady’s Lane
Northampton
Northamptonshire
NN1 3HQ

29th May 2015
BEFORE:

HIS HONOUR JUDGE HUGHES
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

BETWEEN:

 	Northampton County Council	           Applicant	
 	- and -		
 	MZ                                                            

FD

FL	   1st Respondent

  2nd Respondent

  3rd Respondent	
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The Transcription Agency, 24-28 High Street, Hythe, Kent, CT21 5AT
Tel: 01303 230038
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Miss Lucy Fairclough (Counsel) on behalf of the Applicant

 Miss Hannah Mettam (Counsel) on behalf of MZ – 1st Respondent
 Ms Hayley Mears (Solicitor) on behalf of FD – 2ND Respondent 
Miss Michelle Christie (Counsel)  on behalf of the 3rd Respondent
Mr Kit Fairbank (Counsel) on behalf of the E, L & M -  4th to 6th Respondents. 

Judgment date: 29th May 2015
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Judgment
His Honour Judge Hughes:

1.	The children with whom I am concerned and whose welfare is my paramount consideration are E, aged eight months or so, L, aged three years and four months or so and M, aged six years and four months or so.  All these children are subject to an application for care orders made by Northamptonshire County Council, the Local Authority.

2.	This is a fact finding hearing following E suffering an injury which was suspected to be non accidental and for the purposes of this judgment I am primarily concerned with him.  The Local Authority are represented by Miss Fairclough of Counsel.  The father of the two elder children, L and M, is FD.  E’s father is FL.  FD is represented by Miss Mears, a solicitor.  FL by Miss Christie of Counsel.  

3.	During the course of this hearing and when FL gave evidence he made a number of admissions which were heard by the parties for the first time when he gave his evidence and which have resulted in agreed findings.  I shall come to that in due course because it is necessary in this judgment to set out the background to this matter, the medical chronology and how it came to be that E’s father admitted to causing his injuries.

4.	The mother of all the children is MZ and she is represented by Miss Mettam of Counsel.  The children are represented by their guardian, Andrew Ferguson, by Mr Fairbank of Counsel.  I record at the outset that these children were, prior to the events that concerned E, unknown to Children and Young Person Services and it is an important consideration of this case that this is a single incident.

5.	I read the file documents by way of statements, medical reports and police disclosure.  I have heard from a number of witnesses live, namely Mr Elston, one of the experts, the mother and the father of E.  Miss Fairclough, from the Local Authority has set out in a careful, considered and efficient way the background to E’s admission to hospital.  His medical presentation, the historical accounts of the lay parties and the explanations given in relation to E’s condition as well as a careful rehearsal of the key elements of the medical evidence.  I can do no better than to replicate what she has set out in her comprehensive document, which is set out in the following background section particularly as these in no way conflict with the findings that I have been asked to make.

Background

6.	E was born on the 17th July 2014.  Save for slight jaundice following his birth there were no medical or developmental concerns noted until the 24th September 2014.  On the 24th September 2014, when E was aged nine weeks old, mother booked and took E to an appointment with his General Practitioner, Dr Supple at about 11.15 in the morning.  The Mother and E attended the appointment alone.  Mother raised concerns in respect of poor feeding by E and reported that E had vomited three or four times overnight.

7.	Mother further reported that the previous evening while she was shopping at Tesco, father had fed E who started to choke after a small vomit.  I pause there, it actually transpired the mother was out seeing an elderly lady who she was supporting at that particular time.  She reported that father had patted E high up on the back, just below the neck.  Dr Supple’s initial diagnosis was that E’s symptoms could have been an early presentation of infectious gastro enteritis.

8.	At 12.52, together with the maternal grandmother, mother telephoned 999 to request an ambulance reporting that E had been sick all night and his arms were now jerking.  Paramedics attended and E was transferred to Northampton General Hospital by ambulance.  On admission to Northampton General Hospital E was believed to have an infection.  However following a further left sided seizure at about 7.30 intravenous anti fit medication was commenced and a decision taken to perform a CT scan of his head.  

9.	The CT scan performed during the course of that evening noted an acute extra axial haemorrhage on the right side of the brain mainly superiorly, near the vertex.  The CT scan has been reviewed by Dr Sprigg who stated there was an acute subdural haemorrhage around both sides of the cerebellum and over the superior aspect of the right cerebral hemisphere.  Mr Jayamohan, one of the experts, noted some sub arachnoid bleeding as well as an acute subdural bleeding over the tentorium and surrounding cerebellum.  There was evidence of localised hypoxic ischaemic changes in the right cerebral hemisphere.  

10.	There were no fractures, no bruising or marks to E’s body.  Subsequent skeletal survey performed on the 30th September identified no bony injuries.  MRI scan the next day confirmed the acute subdural bleeding over the surface of the right cerebral hemisphere.  This had become more diffusely spread with some blood visible over both cerebral hemispheres.  There was evidence of sub arachnoid blood over the vertex of the right cerebral hemisphere and evidence of focal hypoxic ischaemic changes in the right cerebral cortex.

11.	It is a sad feature of this case that E went on to suffer a number of seizures between admission and the 26th September and had to be transferred to the Queen’s Medical Centre Intensive Care Unit at Nottingham at about seven o’clock in the evening on the 26th September.  On the 27th September retinal haemorrhages were observed in E.  

12.	An ophthalmology review by Mr Thomas, who is a consultant ophthalmologist, on the 29th September at about 13.20 showed six deep retinal haemorrhages, three superficial haemorrhages, a sub hyaloid haemorrhage in his left eye.  E also had eight deep retinal haemorrhages, multi flame shaped haemorrhages and a sub hyaloid haemorrhage and a vitreous haemorrhage in his right eye.

13.	He was transferred back to Northampton later that evening and subsequently it emerged that the mother and FL were interviewed by police.  There were a variety of different explanations proffered as to the events proceeding E’s admission to hospital for which I attribute no particular blame or no blame at all to the mother because it is apparent from this judgment that she was totally unaware of the true events that had occurred the preceding evening to E’s admission.

14.	One was that FL when holding E bent down to pick up the changing mat and E slipped from his shoulder, was caught in FL’s arm, falling towards his chest.  E was reported to be not distressed by that incident.  Another that on the 22nd September, E was rocked vigorously by his half sibling while in a car seat.  Another that L may have hit E on the head with one of his toys.  We know now, of course, that all those explanations were rejected by the medical experts as a cause for his injuries.

15.	More crucially, the parents reported that on the 23rd September, E was at home with FL whilst mother was out between 8.30 and 9.30 or so.  Shortly after the mother left father reported that he had given E a bottle of milk.  E had choked on his feed.  The father had jiggled E on his knee to try and clear his airways and patted his back.  E presented as being floppy for about 30 seconds and recovered.

16.	Similar accounts were given to hospital, the police and within their statements within these proceedings.  MZ on her return at about 9.30 reported father as being white as a ghost and neither parent called an ambulance or sought medical attention for E and once again I reiterate that no criticism should be attached to the mother in relation to that for the reasons that this judgment makes plain.

17.	Mother and FL sent a number of WhatsApp messages between them on the morning of the 24th September when mother reported E as crying excessively and crying when moved and FL expressed concern that E’s presentation was caused by his actions.  I shall come to those text messages again a little later on.

18.	On the 6th October 2014, E was discharged from Northampton General Hospital into foster care pending assessment of the maternal grandmother, placed in the care of the grandmother on the 17th October 2014 and remained in her care until the 4th April 2015 whereupon happily, and it was a happy event for this mother, E was returned to the mother’s care under a strict written agreement.

19.	E was returned to mother’s care following the Local Authority confirming at a hearing before me on the 30th March that findings that mother had caused the injuries to E were no longer pursued.  But it remains a fact that the mother remained in the pool of perpetrators for many months until the Local Authority took that very helpful, responsible and child centred decision.

20.	E was reviewed by Dr Anne Smith who is a paediatrician on the 15th January and thankfully he appeared developmentally normal and the consultant appears to be happy with his progress to date.  There was a time also when he was seen by a physiotherapist in about January.  This raised a suggestion, and it was no more than a suggestion, that he showed some generalised increased flexibility at his joints throughout.  His muscle tone was slightly reduced at the lower end of the normal range.

21.	I mention that because hypermobility and its contribution to the extent to which that may have exercised some influence on the rotational forces used to injure E has been raised as an issue but I have to say if it is a contributing factor, it is almost so negligible as to be non existent.  Expert’s reports have been obtained in the proceedings and I am going to rehearse the evidence of John Elston largely because it is part of the father’s case that that was, after hearing that evidence, that was one of the things that assisted him in relation to making the admissions that he did in the witness box.  

22.	But I also rehearse that Mr Jayaratnam Jayamohan who is a consultant paediatric neurosurgeon, Dr Alan Spring who is a consultant paediatric radiologist and Geoff Debelle, consultant paediatrician, all have given evidence in writing by way of report.  Only Mr Elston was required to give live evidence.  One of the other doctors, I think it was Mr Jayamohan was scheduled to give evidence but for reasons that we all know, the proceedings took a turn in a different direction.  A helpful and constructive turn I have to say and it was not necessary for me to hear from the consultant paediatric neurosurgeon.

23.	John Elston is a consultant ophthalmic surgeon.  He gave evidence by way of video link and his views in relation to causation remained unchanged and coincided, I have to say broadly, with that of his professional colleagues.  Central to his evidence is his assessment that a significant degree of force would be used to cause the acceleration deceleration force resulting in E’s injuries to his eyes and presentation of the damage to the retinas.

24.	It is not necessary for the purposes of this judgment happily for me to rehearse every aspect of his evidence save to record perhaps a positive.  He says that in fact the retinal haemorrhages as described in the case do not impact on E’s prospective visual function and therefore that is something that is reassuring perhaps for the mother to hear.  Crucially and this was a part of his live evidence that I feel that it was important for everyone to hear, he disagreed with the proposition that the father’s account of jiggling up to ten minutes would have accounted for these injuries.

25.	In relation to the father’s more detailed account in his police statement and the movement effectively described by the father therein of holding E by one hand and raising his body with head unsupported from waist to shoulder height, would not seem to him to be sufficient for the required level of trauma.  But he said, and this was a crucial observation, much depended on the degree of force involved in that movement.

26.	However I record, as has helpfully been pointed out to me, that in the police interview the father himself described that movement as not being fast.  He was open to the possibility that E’s increased flexibility and some hypermobility in his joints could have reduced the amount of effective force required but I am bound to say that if that is a consideration, it is a very minor consideration and does not in, my judgment, seem to be especially significant.

27.	Effectively he was taken if may say so, commendably and efficiently, through his evidence particularly in relation to whether or not the retinal haemorrhaging could be attributable to any other cause and I am bound to say without me rehearsing it in any particular detail, he was adamant that it could not.  I have in mind in particular issues such as raised inter cranial pressure or any linkage between the seizures that E suffered and his retinal damage.

28.	In my judgment central to Mr Elston’s evidence is what he said regarding the level of force required to generate this type of presentation in E’s eyes.  Of course his evidence is part of the medical evidence as a whole.  He acknowledged, as indeed we all know in this jurisdiction, that the degree of force is not known but said:

“It is generally agreed to be significantly in excess of the forces involved in ordinary or even clumsy handling of an infant.  Forceful shaking, albeit for a short period of time, is required.”

29.	His report of the 27th December is a significant document and his observations remain intact.  He says:

“The presence of multiple bilateral retinal haemorrhages documented in particular on the 29th September make it statistically likely dependent on the view of other experts, that the unifying cause of his illness was a non accidental or inflicted head injury.  The current consensus is that the injury is likely to have been inflicted by way of shaking the infant or a shaking impact injury.”

30.	We know from other evidence that he gave that the retinal evidence is consistent with an event on the evening of the 23rd September.  Not necessary for the purpose of this judgment because it has been so well rehearsed by all Counsel in their opening statements and in the opening statement of Miss Fairclough. 

31.	Mr Jayamohan’s observations and indeed in relation to Dr Sprigg and Dr Debelle.  It is fair to say that all those experts, and there is an element of broad consensus, take the view that a degree of force would have been necessary and, and I paraphrase I hope not clumsily, that the explanations proffered to date would not be sufficient to explain E’s injury and his presentation in hospital thereafter.

32.	So far as the father’s account which he had given to that time, Dr Debelle states:

“It is not possible to give an opinion on whether FL exerted a degree of force to cause such rotational forces to cause E’s injuries without being sure of what actually took place during the incident described by FL.  If E’s head was left unsupported and subject to rapid acceleration deceleration movements, this would be, in my opinion sufficient to generate the rotational forces to cause E’s injuries.  The lack of any evidence of impact would in my opinion support such a mechanism.”

33.	I mention that particular aspect of Dr Debelle’s evidence because it would be clear from what transpired later when FL gave evidence that that is precisely what happened and that precisely accords with the medical view.  That, if I may say so, was a missing piece of the jigsaw until FL told us out of his own mouth, exactly what had happened.

34.	It was therefore with some interest that the Court heard from FL.  I say that because from the beginning of his evidence in chief, questions helpfully introduced by his Counsel, Miss Christie, he made it plain that he had more to say in relation to an explanation.  His account prior to giving evidence, it was confined to what I have already said, earlier in this judgment.   Namely that he panicked when feeding E.  E was choking and he amongst other things jiggled him on his knees, tapped his back because he was panicking and he said at that time he found E’s presentation terrifying.  I think he used the word absolutely terrifying and describes himself as being in a blind panic and not recalling whether E’s head was supported.  Of course, a similar account he gave to the police.  That falls short of what in my judgment was any proper explanation and therefore from the moment that FL went into the witness box he conceded right from the outset that what he said in his statement was not true or accurate and in fact said:

“The police interview was not entirely true and there was more to be told.”
 
35.	He described his feelings in the witness box as being scared and scared of losing his family.  He then proceeded to give an account in the witness box of the events of the 23rd September which he says is a truthful account.  On the 23rd September he said that MZ went out at about 8.30 for an hour to help an elderly lady, which apparently she was doing on a regular basis.  

36.	He described how he was on the sofa in the living room and E was in his bouncer and he went to the kitchen to operate the machine for E’s bottle.  He got E out of the bouncer, started to give him his feed, cradling him with his left arm, feeding him with his right hand.

37.	When approximately an ounce of milk was left, E started spluttering.  I get the impression from FL’s evidence that E had drunk his milk rather too quickly.  When E started spluttering FL removed the bottle.  E started to choke with milk coming out of his nose.  FL started to panic.  This had not happened before.  E continued to cough and splutter and FL was panicking.

38.	He lifted E up and put him across his knee so that he was facing him.  E continued to choke badly.  He continued to choke and splutter.  He then patted him on the back with his left hand while supporting his midriff.  It was then, he said, that E projectile vomited and he described this as forceful in speed.  It then happened again fairly shortly afterwards.  He had not seen this before.  There was one vomit after another.  

39.	He was panicking at this stage, even more particularly when E started to go floppy and changed colour.  His arms and head went floppy and his face was pale.  His eyes were glazed over:

“Like he was out of it.”

He did remain breathing.  By this stage the panic really had set in and he picked E up with his hands under E’s arms and he accepted in the witness box that he shook him but he could not say for how long, maybe five or ten times.

40.	E projectile vomited once again.  At the time that he was apparently shaking E he was feeling scared and anxious and did not know what was going on.  He was trying to wake E up.  He cannot explain the force that was used but he was quite clearly prepared to accept the medical evidence in relation to the degree of force.  E’s head would be going backwards and forwards and his arms and legs would be moving.  

41.	E then vomited again and FL reported that E appeared to be a bit better although FL remained frightened but was relieved that E appeared to have recovered.  That perhaps explains the mother’s observation that FL was as white as a ghost when she came back.  He said that he had been afraid to give MZ a full account.  He said that she would not have been happy with him and would have shouted at him.  

42.	During the course of the night, E vomited again on at least two occasions and part of the discussion between the parents, not unreasonably, and I say not unreasonably on the part of the mother because she did not know what had happened, was that that could have been attributable to M having a sick bug at school.  It has to be emphasised that this was the first proper account he has given in relation to the matter and the proceedings, to the considerable misery of the mother, have been going on for eight months or so.  

43.	He was challenged, and challenged fairly forcibly, as to why he had not said anything to police or indeed the experts or indeed the treating clinicians and he emphasised he was scared about losing his family and about people thinking that he was a monster.  He was scared about losing everything he loved.  

44.	He told the Court that he was in no doubt that he caused E’s injuries and neither am I.  His early accounts were always dubious in my judgment and this perhaps explains from the various indications that I gave from the bench over the course of the last eight months or so in an attempt to bring this unhappy matter to a close.

45.	There are however a number of illuminating text messages which show some level of father perhaps knowing at the time that he had caused E some harm and that is to the negative but to the positive is this.  That they clearly are concerned about E and there is no doubt that FL loves his son very much.

46.	What emerges from these text messages is not only the fact that it must have been at the back of father’s mind that his inappropriate handling at the very least could have been contributing to E’s presentation but, as I have said in fairness to him, the evident love and concern that he felt for E.

47.	On the 24th September at 7.15am he says:

“How’s our baby boy doing?  I feel sick with worry right now.”

After being told by the mother that he had kept the last bit of feed down, he said:

“Oh, that’s positive.  At least hopefully it will stay that way.  I’m really panicking that it’s my fault.”

Shortly afterwards he said:

“In hindsight, smacking him on his back and bouncing probably wasn’t the best of ideas from I’ll learn from here never to that again.”

48.	About an hour or so later when the mother indicated that she needed to take E to the doctors, he said:
	
“God, I hope me panicking last night hasn’t hurt him.  I’d never forgive myself”.

Again at 8.22am:

“I’m really panicking too.  Keep thinking if I had his head protected at all times, which I can’t promise I did due to me panicking.  All my fault.”

49.	When told there was an appointment at eleven o’clock or so with the GP, he said:

“I hope they won’t think that we were harming our baby.”

And again later that morning:

“I’m hoping it’s just a sick bug and not me thinking I was doing my best by him.  I love him to bits.  I would never hurt him.  Our family is my world.”

50.	It is plain from these text messages that there was a concern that he could have hurt E although plainly the extent of E’s injuries could not have been known by him.  His part in E’s injuries would have become increasingly obvious as the medical situation developed and he failed to step up to the plate and say what he knew.

51.	The father told me in the witness box that he would never intentionally harm E and his reasons for not disclosing the full truth was that he was:

“In a bit of denial.”

That of course as he must know falls short of a proper explanation.  In fact in my judgment it was lack of courage, fear of the variety of consequences that caused him not to disclose the extent of what had happened.

52.	He has been helped, he said, by hearing the expert’s explanations but it is particularly concerning that it has taken so long.  That something like the truth has only emerged at trial all be it, and I emphasise this in terms of where we are going with this case in the future, better by far that he did that than the Court having to make findings in the teeth of his continued minimisations of the events.

53.	He feels mortified by what he has done.  His confidence is:

	“Shot.”

He is worried that he will never be a proper father and scared to hold E.  He accepted that he was protecting himself.  He accepted that there were ample opportunities to give a full account.  He accepted that by not telling the truth he was not protecting E and that E had exposed to various medical procedures unnecessarily and that the medical staff would have been able to deal with E’s difficulties a lot earlier on had they known the whole truth.

54.	He said:

“I have never hurt anyone in my life.”

I am sure he is right about that.  He presents as an unaggressive, mild mannered man.  He does not drink but accepted that he was prone to panicking.  He said he is a panicky man.  He was challenged by the guardian’s Counsel as to why he had not been truthful from the start and perhaps his answer illuminates where the truth lies in relation to this case:

“I couldn’t face having hurt my baby.  I haven’t been brave enough.”

55.	He is clearly devastated by all that has happened and his part in it.  He is committed to doing anything that is necessary to reunite his family and I accept that he is.  Although his admission comes very late in the day, I emphasise this again.  It is far, far better in my judgment that he had the courage to say it in the witness box in the presence of the mother rather than the Court be constrained to make findings in what I have always considered to be overwhelming evidence.

56.	MZ is E’s mother.  She has made one statement, been interviewed by police and she produced the text messages to which I have already referred.  As a consequence of the father’s lack of candour she has, for a long time, been in the pool of perpetrators and importantly been deprived of the day to day care of her son in the first crucial months of his life.  She has been the subject of proceedings but no blame attaches to her at all in relation to her conduct.

57.	She said that it has been humiliating to have social workers involved and having to tell the school.  She heard FL’s account for the first time in Court and described herself, unsurprisingly if I may say so, as being shocked, upset and angry.  She told the Court that she had been through hell without her son and I am sure she was right.

58.	It emerged that she has been constantly questioning FL over the course of the last few months as to what in fact happened, but it was only when FL gave his account from the witness box that she has had a real explanation.  She was able to accept from the witness box that FL loves E and he is not an aggressive man but clearly she will need some time to process in her own mind why it was that FL did not tell her the truth from the outset.

59.	She agreed with the suggestion from the Court, I think I made this suggestion to her, that perhaps FL was frightened of losing her and his family and she agreed, and I admire her for her candour, that she could be fairly uncompromising.  I suspect she will take a little time to process what happened in Court and the future of her relationship.

60.	I have no doubt, however, and this is a part of the judgment that I would like to have underscored, that she will be a protective force in E for the future and I was pleased at least that he could be reunited into her care prior to the fact finding hearing and the Local Authority did not seek findings against her of any sort.  I am bound to say, even if they had done so, I would not have made any.

61.	She leaves the proceedings without any stain on her character and I have little doubt she is a caring and conscientious mother.  In these proceedings it is normally necessary for the Court to concentrate on what is called the burden standard of proof.  I do not really have to do that in relation to this case save except to be sure, of course, that on the balance of probabilities in relation to the agreed findings that they cover the evidential threshold.

62.	The burden of course has always laid on the Local Authority of proving the allegations.  Thanks to the father’s admission, his ready acceptance of the schedule of findings, the threshold criteria is passed and it is not necessary for me to rehearse the established law for the purposes of this judgment although I’m very grateful to all Counsel for their contributions in that respect.

Conclusions and Findings

63.	By the time the closing submissions were made in this case the Local Authority had reduced their proposed schedule of findings to six.  All these findings are directed against the father.  All go to satisfy Section 31 of the Children Act so far as the threshold is concerned and importantly all are accepted by the father.  That is to his credit.

64.	He has accepted that the injuries caused to E were as a consequence of forceful shaking by him when he panicked when E was choking.  This caused a bleed in the brain, bleeding in the eyes.  E was so ill in hospital that he had to be put into a coma because of his consequential seizures.  It is accepted that the force used was not compatible with normal behaviour and at the appropriate time he should have known that what he did amounted to a significant and traumatic event, notwithstanding his panic.

65.	Consequential findings follow that he should have sought medical advice knowing what he did.  Perhaps just as importantly in this case has been the fact that the father has not been completely truthful until the time that he went into the witness box and even then I detected, but not to a great extent, a further attempt to distance himself from what had really happened by some minimisation until and unless he was pressed by Counsel.  However, his acceptance of the findings is a vital first step to rehabilitation. 

66.	I am afraid however his explanation for his delay that he had to wait and hear what the medical evidence was saying is not an attractive proposition.  What I am drawn to however, in fairness to him, are firstly, his real fear that he would lose his relationship with his child, his relationship with the mother who he describes as his soulmate, fear of the consequences and fear of recrimination.

67.	I also find that inevitably, and maybe this is a defect in our system, that he would have clung to the hope that some explanation may have been forthcoming from outstanding medical testing or indeed any question for example, over E’s hypermobility.  He clung unrealistically to other potential solutions and in doing so has considerably extended the proceedings and caused the mother untold anxiety.

68.	If he had been truthful at the time of admission to hospital, then E would not have been exposed to unnecessary testing and the treating clinicians would have perhaps been able to take appropriate steps sooner.  All this I am sure he now knows.  He presents as truly remorseful and grief stricken.  There are many positives in relation to what his Counsel has called the wider canvas.

69.	FL has no convictions.  He has an established employment record.  He is consistently described as a calm, patient and mild mannered individual.  He has always had a good and positive relationship with E and E was, until this event, a happy, healthy and contented baby.  There have been no concerns expressed about the parenting of the father.  

70.	He has of course undergone a full and comprehensive psychological risk assessment in relation of the case but I am afraid this is somewhat devalued by the fact that he misled the psychologist in relation of what he did.  For example, he emphatically denied shaking E to the extent that his head went backwards and forwards.  

71.	Secondly, and subsequently in the witness box, and this was an illuminating feature, he did describe himself as a panicky and anxious man and having seen him, I believe that he is right about that and that profile certainly does not emerge from the psychological report.  

72.	By his actions, he has undoubtedly put his own fear first and broke the bonds of trust that are necessary in relation to the discharge of his responsibility as a parent.  Once again, to his credit, I am acutely conscious that he is aware of that and accepts it.  I have been invited to define if possible the extent of his culpability.  Certainly no findings have been sought that this was a deliberately inflicted injury.  

73.	I am fully satisfied it was not.  It was however, an injury inflicted at a time when he was in a panic on a very vulnerable child causing life threatening injuries and to that extent culpability is clear, notwithstanding the lack of premeditation.  The term “reckless” is not helpful in this context because that implies an act carried out by someone not caring, one way or the other as to the consequences. 

74.	In this case I find that the father’s mind was so overridden with panic and fear that he shook E and caused him damage.  It would have been apparent to the father certainly by the time of the admission to hospital, that he could be responsible and, to a limited extent, I record he accepted culpability form the outset.  That is clear from the text message, it tracks, but it is unfortunate to say the least that his official explanations fell short of what in fact did.

75.	I turn now to the mother.  I can say without contradiction that this must be the worst eight months of her life.  When she gave evidence I found her to be fiercely protective of her children.  I find for the avoidance of doubt that she is an exceptionally good mother.  I have little doubt that she will cast her protective shield around E in the future.  

76.	She is in no way to blame for the events of the 23rd September.  She sought in vain for explanations from the father in the months that followed and it must have been devastating to hear his explanation for the first time from the witness box.  That is a curious aspect of this case bearing in mind the apparent closeness of the mother and the father and the apparent strength of their relationship.

77.	I remain however most deeply troubled by the fact that the father’s lack of candour from the outset, accepting as I do the father always said that it was “his fault”, but his lack of what I describe as an open account remains inexplicable in the context of him no doubt attempting to keep family, his dignity and his relationship.  But I also suspect that there is more than a hint of macabreism, mainly that something positive may be illuminated by the medical evidence and that something would turn up to assist him.  

78.	I say this at the conclusion of this judgment.  It is important for the mother and the children at least for normal life to be resumed.  Family proceedings are traumatic particularly for those innocently caught up in them.  I await proposals in relation to how this case can best be concluded and managed in the welfare stage, this of course always having been a single issue case.

79.	Let me finish on a positive note if I may.  The father has done the right thing by giving his evidence from the witness box in relation to what happened and accepting the findings.  E, notwithstanding the events of the 23rd September, is apparently fit and well and thriving.  Notwithstanding also the findings that I have made against the father, I have no doubt he loves E and the mother’s love for E is beyond question.  All that remains is that there should be a child centred conclusion to these proceedings.