Order issued to protect child with fractured skull

Monday 23 October 2017

A judge has has explained why he issued an emergency order to protect a 10-month-old child who suffered ‘a very serious, potentially life-threating, injury’ even though there was no direct evidence the parents had caused it.

In a written judgement, the Royal Court Commissioner Julian Clyde-Smith outlined the background to the case, and the evidence he had to weigh up.

The child – referred to as ‘Jack’ – was taken to the hospital by his parents very late on the night of 26 September, after his father had come home from work and noticed the child had a lump to the right side of his head.

A series of tests including a skull X-Ray, CT scan and skeletal survey revealed ‘Jack’ had suffered a fractured skull and that it was unlikely to have happened accidentally. The only explanation the parents could offer was that he’d been sleeping in a new cot and may have hit his head on the bars. But evidence from a hospital doctor said this was unlikely. He said the, "...very serious, potentially life-threating injury, would have required considerable force, consistent with a fall or blow’, and that ‘the child could not have sustained the injury at his own volition."

Lawyers acting for the parents argued there was no evidence to suggest they would intentionally injure their child and that they should be allowed to take him home. But, while Commissioner Clyde-Smith acknowledged the family was not known to the Children’s Service, and there was no evidence of domestic violence, mental illness or substance abuse, it was a serious injury and he was concerned no one had witnessed the incident, the inference being no one was looking after the child.

The case had come to court because the parents had refused to allow ‘Jack’ to be put in foster care whilst the Children’s Service carried out more investigations. That forced the Minister for Health and Social Services, acting on the child’s behalf, to ask for the emergency protection order because he feared, "...the child would suffer significant harm if he was not removed."

Summing up, Commissioner Clyde-Smith said, "...in my view, the nature of the injuries was such that there were compelling reasons to intervene. His safety required it, and removal into temporary foster care was both necessary and proportionate."