A government attempt to place a two-month-old baby under state supervision has been rejected by the Royal Court, which ruled there was “no evidence of mistreatment”.

The court concluded the legal threshold required for state intervention had not been met in the case of the child, referred to only as ‘KK’ in its judgment.

The Children’s Minister had asked the court to impose an Interim Supervision Order after bruising was discovered on the baby’s left leg and concerns were raised that the father may have shaken the child.

One consultant paediatrician said “bruising in an immobile infant is of concern”, while another stated the marks were “strongly suggestive of finger marks made by a person gripping her leg very firmly and with significant force”.

However, extensive medical checks found no other injuries, and there was no evidence that the baby had been shaken. Doctors also confirmed that the infant otherwise appeared healthy.

“The court did not form the impression that the bruising… was particularly severe”

The court heard that the bruising occurred while the father was changing the baby on a bed.

According to the mother, he briefly turned away to get water and then saw the child moving towards the edge. He reacted quickly and grabbed her legs to prevent her from falling.

The mother also clarified that when she had previously referred to the father “shaking” the baby she had misspoken, explaining that English is not her first language and she had meant a rocking motion.

The judgment said: “Whilst the court does not pretend to be expert in injuries or specifically in bruising, having reviewed the pictures, the court did not form the impression that the bruising, whilst certainly present, was particularly severe. 

“Indeed, on the evidence it did not appear that the bruising had been sore to the touch.” 

During supervised contact, the baby showed no fear or resistance towards her father, and that both parents interacted “very well and very positively” with their daughter.

Threshold “not met”

The court also observed that the social worker giving evidence had no first-hand involvement at the time of the incident, while the social worker who had actually worked with the family was not present.

The judgment concluded: “From the court’s perspective, there was a child with no evidence of mistreatment and relatively minor though clear bruising from a single occasion which had been explained in a manner which had not been controverted by the expert evidence.

“In the court’s clear opinion, the threshold had not been met in this case, we so declared, and dismissed the minister’s application.”