Judge concern at ‘adequacy of protection’ in Brighton toddler case

By The Press Association2nd June 2015News EnglandChild Protection, East Sussex, Local Authorities, News England

A family court judge has raised concerns about the “adequacy of protection” given to a two-year-old boy being monitored by social services staff.

Judge Claire Jakens said a “worrying pattern” of suspected bite marks and bruises had been found on the toddler.

She suggested “non-medically qualified professionals” had assumed that explanations given for the youngster’s injuries were true – and said “opportunities” had been missed.

Detail of the case has emerged in a ruling by the judge following a family court hearing in Brighton.

The judge did not identify the boy – who she said was living with a grandparent – or his family.

But she indicated that the child’s parents were separated and she said the local authority involved in the case was East Sussex County Council.

Judge Jakens said local authority bosses had asked her to make decisions about “bruising” the youngster had suffered when he was in the care of his mother – who had mental health issues, including “poor anger control” – and having contact with his father.

Bite marks had first been seen on the little boy’s arm when he was 11 months old – and his father believed that he had been bitten his mother, said the judge.

Bruising had been spotted three months later and more bruising and a bite mark were noticed when he was about 18 months old.

The toddler’s mother had offered an “explanation” of “rough tickling” and “grabbing to avoid a fall”.

But a paediatrician had examined the little boy and concluded that his injuries were “likely to be non-accidental”.

And the paediatrician had raised concerns about the “inadequacy of investigations” undertaken, said the judge.

Judge Jakens concluded that she “could not say” that the little boy had been “deliberately” injured by his mother – and could not be sure how the injuries had been caused.

But she said “whatever happened” had gone beyond “normal, careful and appropriate” handling.

“There are child protection implications and lessons arising from this case,” said the judge.

“More should have been done to ensure that (the boy) was fully protected.”

She said bruises were “not a matter for interpretation by those without expertise”.

“In a case such as this, where there is a considerable background of child protection concerns, it is clearly inadequate for non-medically qualified professionals to assume that a parent or carer’s explanation for bruising or suspected bite marks is true,” she added.

“An expert medical eye is required to analyse bruising, proper records need to be kept.”

She said opportunities had been missed and went on: “This case … has left me with real concerns about the adequacy of protection afforded to this little boy.”