A baby was taken away from his parents for six months because of a bruise that was later shown to be not their fault. The Cardiff family court case ended with the baby being returned to his parents' care after it emerged that medical tests had not been carried out properly. The mum cried tears of joy as the judge granted permission for the case to be dropped.
Several months after the baby's birth there had been a routine appointment with a student health visitor, who raised concern over a 2.5cm bruise to the baby's lower rib area. The parents were not able to give a definitive explanation for the bruise but they said it could have been from their baby rolling on a plastic toy giraffe or accidentally being held too firmly.
Two days after the discovery of the bruise, a child protection medical was carried out by a Cardiff and Vale health board GP with a specialist interest in community paediatrics. Within the 2.5cm green bruise there was a 1.5cm darker green/blue area. Following tests -- which were later found to be inadequate -- the GP concluded that it would be "unusual" for normal handling or rolling over a toy to cause a "significant bruise to the chest wall" of a healthy baby. Her report stated that "the injury seen is highly concerning for non-accidental injury".
READ MORE: This 'drug-driving' dad proudly laughed, pumped his fist and shouted 'yes boy' after walking out of court
READ NEXT: Parents of missing woman 'livid' after finding out update from TV show
Contrasting medical evidence would later emerge -- though even the initial tests showed that the baby's levels of a blood protein were slightly below the normal range, which could have indicated an underlying blood disorder with a potential impact on bruising. Within days of the child protection medical, Vale of Glamorgan council had removed the baby from his parents and placed him in the care of other family members. His parents were only allowed to visit him under supervision.
The council -- which never previously had any involvement with the parents, who are in a stable relationship -- applied for a care order. This would give the council parental responsibility for the child and the ability to decide where he lived. The bruise was its only basis for making this application. District Judge Julian Hussell approved an interim care order and adjourned the case for the baby to be assessed by a consultant paediatrician -- who then cast doubt on Cardiff and Vale health board's initial child protection medical.
The paediatrician wrote in his report that the baby's initial blood tests and examination were "not carried out as recommended by the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health to exclude a bleeding or clotting disorder". He concluded that the torso bruise was "more likely than not an accidental injury" and that it could have been caused by the bar of a pram catching the baby as he was being placed in it.
After this report the parents, who by this point had been waiting almost five months for their baby to be returned, applied for the case to be dismissed. Their application was supported by the Cafcass guardian -- a social worker appointed by the court to help the judge make the best decision for the child -- because she felt it was unclear what the "areas of challenge were to the parents' case".
Judge Hussell did not dismiss the case at that point as he said it was not "obvious" that the council would fail to meet the criteria for a care order. But he adjourned the case for blood tests which he noted "should have been undertaken" earlier. These tests were then analysed by a haematologist, whose findings were a fatal blow to the council's application. He said the tests were indicative of mild von Willebrand disease, a condition which can make bruising or bleeding happen more easily, and he concluded the baby was likely to have a borderline bleeding tendency.
After this report the council accepted it was unable to prove the bruise was caused by inadequate care and asked the judge for permission to withdraw its application for a care order. The council's barrister James Lewis conceded that from the outset of the case "the medical evidence was not very firm". The court also heard a social worker had carried out a parenting assessment which reflected "very positively" on both parents.
In the final hearing, six months after the baby was removed from the parents' care, Judge Hussell said there were no concerns of the couple having substance misuse, domestic violence or anger management issues. He said they had been "totally cooperative throughout" and had been observed to give "excellent care" to their son with whom they had a "warm and loving bond". The judge also took into account evidence from one of the family members the baby had been staying with. That family member had kept a log of any bruises or marks to the baby, and these suggested that he bruised more easily than the average child.
The judge noted that the parents had never accused the council of acting inappropriately, despite how painful the application for a care order must have been for them. He added: "I have to say, I cannot imagine the strain these proceedings have put on the mother and father and the family as a whole. It is clear they love their son dearly and want to be reunified with him." Judge Hussell then granted permission for the council's application to be dropped, allowing the baby to be returned to his parents' care.
Speaking after the hearing, the parents were overjoyed but said the court case had been a "traumatic" experience. In light of the revelations over inadequate early testing, they felt the nuances of their son's situation were initially missed because of a "one size fits all" approach.
WalesOnline attended this hearing under a new transparency scheme that allows media to report on family court cases. The parties involved are always kept anonymous in our coverage. If you are aware of an upcoming Cardiff family court case that you believe we should cover, you can contact us at [email protected]