Dad abuses 3-week-old son, then beats him up again in the hospital (United Kingdom)

UNNAMED DAD

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2717886/Father-beat-baby-son-hospital-child-treated-appalling-injuries-inflicted-previous-attack.html

Father beat up his baby son in hospital while child was treated for appalling injuries he inflicted in PREVIOUS attack

Infant was being treated at Rotherham District Hospital, South Yorkshire

Was brought in with a blow to the head and had suffered 'forceful shaking'

Father attacked him while he was being treated - causing extensive bruising

When nurse arrived - the parent claimed he tripped and dropped the child

Judge at Sheffield Family Court banned the father from seeing his son

Annabel Carr QC said baby would be in 'real danger' if left in his care

Police are investigating the incident but no arrests have been made

By Wills Robinson Published: 07:57 EST, 6 August 2014 | Updated: 10:54 EST, 6 August 2014

A father attacked his baby son in hospital while the little boy was being treated for injuries he had inflicted in a previous violent outburst, it has been revealed.

The child was taken to Rotherham District Hospital in South Yorkshire when he was less than three weeks old where medical staff found he had suffered severe head injuries and ‘forceful shaking’.

While he was still being treated for his injuries his father attacked him again - leaving him with extensive bruising.

Police are investigating the incident which took place in January, but no arrests have been made.

The shocking details of the father’s violence against the child emerged as a family judge banned him from seeing his son - saying the baby would be in ‘real danger’ if any further contact took place.

Judge Annabel Carr QC, sitting at Sheffield Family Court, said the injuries suffered by the boy could only have been caused by the father and it was ‘not possible’ they were accidental.

After the initial outburst, the child had been unresponsive for about an hour, but the father did not take him to hospital - saying he didn’t know where it was - and waited for the baby’s mother to return home.

The baby was initially treated for an infection, but scans revealed bleeding on the brain and social workers became involved after doctors suspected the infant had been assaulted.

While he was still in hospital recovering from those injuries, the baby suffered further harm.

The father called in a duty nurse as he was changing his son’s nappy and claimed he had ‘tripped’ on the wheel of a cot and dropped the baby face down on the bed.

After demonstrating to the nurse how he had fallen, the father said: 'I cannot believe this has happened'.

The judge said doctors were ‘deeply suspicious’ of both sets of injuries and, following extensive tests which ruled out natural causes, Rotherham Borough Council launched care proceedings.

The council did not take any issue with the mother’s care and accepted she is a ‘concerned and loving parent’ who is capable of caring for the baby.

During the family court hearing, the father’s version of events was ruled out by doctors, who said it was simply ‘not possible’.

Medical staff also concluded that both sets of injuries could not have been caused by anything other than deliberately inflicted trauma.

Judge Carr said the father’s evidence was ‘neither credible nor reliable’, adding that his failure to alert the mother sooner when the baby first fell ill was an attempt to cover up the harm the child had suffered at his hands.

She said: 'There can be no other explanation as only the father was present and therefore only he knows what happened.

'He left it to the mother and grandfather to raise their own concerns and to seek help for the baby, unaided by him.

'The only explanation is that these were inflicted injuries, as all the medical evidence now supports.'

She found that both sets of injuries could only have been caused by the father and ordered that he should have no contact with the baby.

The judge said: 'Those findings having been made, it makes any contact - supervised or otherwise - in the immediate future a very real risk and danger for the child.

'I have to bear in mind that, on the second occasion, this baby was in a place of safety yet came to be injured by severe bruising over his head and body, the explanation given by the father simply not being a possibility.

'As such, for the time being, there can be no safe contact between this child and the father.'