Preston mum investigated after son’s face, jaw and chest injuries in their ‘dangerous’ home – Lancs Live

Lancashire social workers believed a mum or her partner were responsible for injuries caused to a young boy but were unable to convince a judge that this was the case, a court has ruled.

Workers from Lancashire County Council took the matter to court amid fears that one of the couple, who lived in the Preston area, had deliberately hurt the primary school-aged boy.

A hearing this month at Leyland Family Court heard the child suffered regular injuries at an unusually dangerous home environment, through a result of his difficult behaviour and weak supervision.

READ MORE: Blackpool man Alex Gibson drowned in the Irish Sea while bravely trying to save his girlfriend

Injuries sustained by the boy included bruises to his face, jawbone, chest and shoulder and an investigation was launched last year after he was taken to hospital.

It was, at the time, suspected they were inflicted deliberately.

The county council took the matter to court seeking a finding that the injuries were inflicted - and that either the mother or her partner were responsible. The adults denied responsibility and asserted that the injuries were caused accidentally.

With the burden of proof on the local authority, Judge Ross Duggan assessed both arguments on the basis that allegations must be proved on the balance of probabilities. In summing up the case, he also made damning comments about the investigation and the interviews carried out with the youngster.

The court heard that the mum lives in the Preston area with the boy and his younger half-sister and that her partner frequently stays over. The children, who are now in foster care, cannot be identified for safeguarding reasons.

It was stated that she was a very young mother and struggled to form an attachment with her son. She had an abusive ex-partner and was unable to shield the boy whose behaviour became difficult. Her own health also impeded her, particularly debilitating back pain and depression, which led her to using cannabis as a coping mechanism.

Impacts with floors, walls, patio doors, window frames and other children were all seen as evidence of a chaotic household in which there were times when she was unable to supervise and control children running amok.

When the boy was taken to hospital, he was examined and questioned by medical staff before an emergency social worker and police officer attended.

In his summary of the case, Judge Duggan noted that the social worker accepted that she had no Achieving Best Evidence (ABE) training and agreed that it would enhance her work even for a preliminary interview of this kind. This related to a lack of preparation before the interview compared to an ABE interview, although the unplanned use of the officers body-worn camera was praised.

No significant allegation emerged from this initial conversation and a detective constable saw the boy at hospital with a colleague the next day. In that conversation, which was not recorded other than through incomplete handwritten notes which contained an allegation that the mums partner had strangled him.

A day later, an allocated social worker visited and told the police that allegation was why she had come. She continued to question the boy but did not make notes until a couple of days later. Judge Duggan said: She knew that an ABE interview was planned but stridently asserted that she had a duty of care to her newly allocated client to conduct her own investigation. Later the mother and aunt spoke with the boy and were overheard by a nurse. The latter suggests that the discussion was more extensive than the family recall. It is impossible to be clear about this session but the family were clearly motivated by having learned from the detective constable that the boy was making an allegation of strangulation against the mothers partner.

"The aunt has unrelated social work experience but took it upon herself to investigate the boys command of truth and lies. It seems the boy concluded by alleging that it was his mothers fault as she knew that her partner had strangled him.

The detective returned to complete an ABE interview a week later but accepted that ABE guidance was not followed throughout, notably as her planning had ascertained that the boy was performing below average levels at school but not his reputation for dishonesty.

With hindsight she regretted that no intermediary had been engaged, the judge observed.

He continued: It was unsatisfactory that most of the rapport building preliminaries were off-camera and therefore not available for approval. On camera, free narrative was not encouraged as the detective proceeded to questioning which was sometimes of a leading and reinforcing nature.

Very serious was the opening steer when the detective ignored the childs account of accidental injury and told him to repeat what he had told her at the hospital. Overall there remained confusion as to the apparently developing number of incidents, who was involved and when. Eventually the detective accepted the childs suggestion that she guess the answer to one question!

This interview was recorded so its unsatisfactory nature is manifest. More important is the first interview when the first allegations were made and this was the unrecorded interview conducted by the same Detective Constable at the hospital. I am driven to conclude that the deficiencies in the recorded interview are likely to be present in the unrecorded interview. There had been no pre-planning. The detective had not seen the earlier interview recorded by the police body camera. She did not have the medical report.

She knew that the doctor had interviewed the boy but was under the incorrect impression that the boy had complained to the doctor about being strangled. Since the recorded ABE interview starts with a request to repeat what had been said previously my expectation is that the incorrect information about an allegation made to the doctor affected the unrecorded interview.

The judge later said that he was "driven to conclude that the succession of interviews from the first intervention of the detective are so flawed as to be unreliable and that the suggestions and leading infect everything that follows. As a result, he concluded he must consider the case on the basis of the other evidence.

In earlier interviews, the boy had not been able to account for all of his injured other than through rough and tumble but did not apportion any blame to his mum or her partner.

Dr Cleghorn, an independently instructed paediatrician, was asked whether the injuries were consistent with the allegation of strangulation and she explained that it was consistent with this but also with other causes. Strangulation could not explain all these injuries so another element must be present, while accidental causes were possible for all.

She added that the number of injuries and elements like a part linear pattern and involvement of protected areas drove her to conclude that inflicted injury and the alleged strangulation were more likely than not.

However, the judge argued there was clear evidence of a dangerous home environment caused by the boys behaviour and a lack of supervision. He pointed to an example of an incident in which the boy was stuck climbing through a window and the mum was unaware until it was revealed by his sister.

He stated it was improbable that any injury inflicted by the partner, who was highly spoken of by the family and has a good relationship with another child elsewhere. He is also said to have had a particularly good relationship with the boy at a time when the mother accepts that her relationship with the boy was a poor one.

Judge Duggan said: Nobody in the family contemplates that he assaulted the boy.

With all this considered, he said the possibility the mother caused the injury needs more consideration but ruled it was more likely that this challenging boy when poorly supervised and controlled, brought on himself an unusual number and range of accidental injuries. The medical evidence does not drive me to reject this proposition which would not be so compelling in a less chaotic household.

He said: My conclusion is that the local authority have not established on the balance of probabilities that these injuries were inflicted. They are however in part attributable to the supervision and control provided by the mother not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give.

This proposition must be added to the otherwise agreed threshold statement. The outcome of the case has not been in issue in that it is agreed that the children must be subject of Care Orders and must remain in foster care with contact to their mother. She will engage with support and services while pursuing her ambition to secure the return of the children in due course. Her ex-partner is discharged.

A spokesperson for Lancashire County Council said: Lancashire County Council has received a copy of the judgement and is considering its contents. We are an organisation that is committed to learning and developing our services. We will read and reflect on the judgement, and what learning may be required to improve our response to the children and families of Lancashire.

Download the LancsLive app for free on iPhone here and Android here.

To keep updated, follow LancsLive on Facebook and @LiveLancs on Twitter.

Have you got news for us? Contact our newsdesk on lancslive@reachplc.com.

Get all the latest news, sport and what's on stories sent to your inbox daily with the LancsLive newsletter here.

Read more here:
Preston mum investigated after son's face, jaw and chest injuries in their 'dangerous' home - Lancs Live