In a case which has shocked one of our most senior family law judges, a father who was found responsible for systematically injuring and abusing his daughter and a mother who ignored these acts and failed to protect her baby now face criminal prosecution for their actions.
The father, who is twenty, has recently been jailed for 12 years for his actions, spending the first year in youth custody, and will remain on license checks for 17 years. Their daughter has been placed in care and is developing well, but slowly due to the many life threatening injuries she suffered. To date, there appears to be no further news regarding the mother.
In his statement to the court, the father referred to himself as a monster.
The injuries inflicted on his daughter, who was born in January this year, were as follows (warning: contains graphic descriptions of injuries sustained):
(a) squeezing her very tightly around her torso;
(b) pressing his thumb into her eye causing bleeding;
(c) picking her up by her legs and flicking her up in the air and catching her, and on one occasion dropping her on the floor;
(d) placing his hands around her neck and throttling her so that she would if not actually lose consciousness then nearly lose consciousness;
(e) when sitting on his lap, forcefully pulling her legs up, and pushing her head down so that she was bent double;
(f) holding her upside down by her ankles and shaking her;
(g) twisting her head so she was looking right over her shoulder;
(h) thumping her on the top of her head;
(i) pushing her toes backwards towards her legs;
(j) squeezing her hands very tightly;
(k) pushing hard down on her vagina to make her cry;
(l) inserting his finger into her anus in order to hurt her;
(m) pinching her cheek, causing a bruise;
(n) bashing her head against a cupboard, causing a bruise and a cut;
(o) scratching her hands;
(p) bruising her jaw;
(q) forcing her bottle into her mouth, causing it to bleed;
(r) pushing down on her tongue, thereby causing bruising; and
(s) submerging her in the bath, giving her the sensation of being drowned.
By all accounts, the judgment paints a picture of two young adults: a man who did not wish to be a father, and a woman who wanted to have a baby but did not wish to care for it. The resentments that flowed from this regrettable scenario appear to have culminated in the father physically abusing his daughter and the mother ignoring her injuries and delegating the lion’s share of the duties to the father, who washed, changed and fed their baby daughter, even at night, leading the father to feel fraught and angered by his lot. And although Mr Justice Mostyn took to calling this case “macabre and chilling” and the father “diabolical”, there is, sadly, nothing unexplainable, or mystical, about this turn of events.
One of the great difficulties the family court as a whole faces is working without a clear knowledge of and access to cutting edge psychiatric knowledge. Whilst Mr Justice Mostyn laments that if “ Freud or Jung were alive today and able to advise me, [I doubt] they would be able to give me an explanation for conduct…so completely at variance with any understanding of human nature…which has no basis rational or irrational… [and] which violates the most basic and elemental taboos which govern our society,” it is clear that what happened to this baby can be explained and indeed warrants further consideration.
Both parents though not from deeply troubled backgrounds exhibited violent and conflicted behaviours. There was a history of self harming amongst one of the parent’s family members. Both experienced multiple parents and homes but may not have experienced the smooth transitions which are an ideal feature of such phases. The mother, it is alleged, was controlling and dictatorial and would seek to anger the father often – perhaps a symptom of the difficulties present within her own childhood. There is no indication either that these parents were given the opportunity to further their education or improve their way of life such as it must have been in cramped accommodation with minimal interaction with the outside world.
Of course none of this excuses harming a child or is always a cause of crime, but if the family courts don’t start to look at, and try to understand the reasons why people abuse and physically injure children, we cannot hope to protect children from harm in the future. Though we have yet to see whether the mother is tried for neglect, doubtless neither parent will receive the clinical help they need in prison and they will simply be let out into the world to continue living their lives as before, in a cycle of conflict, and violence. If we agree that most people who cause pain and suffering would rather not do so, then we must also accept that they too must be victims of their own circumstance. Difficult though it is to accept, the reality for most of us is that given the choice, we would choose to be good. So what happens to those who choose not to be and is it really a choice they make?
Most of the time men and women who injure children with intent get thrown into jail and left to languish in their own un-natural state, only to be released into the world free to continue the cycle of pain and injury. These parents may not have experienced physical abuse as children themselves, but they were young, without the coping mechanisms they needed to communicate well with each other and their baby and appeared to be, despite a large and varied family, on their own.
Sometimes, victims of child abuse sit on both sides of the table – but we can only protect the most vulnerable if we commit to uncovering the cause.
Thank you to the lovely Jerry Lonsdale for alerting us to this story.
Jerry Lonsdale said:
I dear to think what the father would be like if and when he is released back in to society, if there is no help or understanding to find out why he carried out such heinous acts against his new born baby then upon his release he will remain without fetter into society to only carry on, without even knowing of his identity is causing me some serous alarm in that what happens when he may possibly meet a new partner, given the age of the Father he will be out by the time he is 25/26,
I know I am only speculating here as I do not know the Criminal Aspects of this yet even though since June I have known about this case and its re-released family court judgment, when someone carries out such horrific crimes against a human baby, or anyone for that matter why does he have the right to anonymity.
Notwithstanding Baby Peter Connolley’s so called parents were named and received half the sentence this father got, it still should be another wake up call here.
I wholeheartedly second your sentiments above, to understand child protection and make it better we need to have a stronger understanding of the all important WHYs!
LikeLike
Natasha said:
Hi Jerry, thank you for your comment. The only thing I can think of in relation to the anonymity issue, which I’m sure you know already, is the protection of the daughter – presumably as a child is involved anonymity is often considered. It’s a criminal court so perhaps different standards apply to family courts, but I think they have discretion too.
LikeLike
Dana said:
When the general public see such dreadful accounts of parents abusing or killing their own children they assume EVERY case is the same and the parents deserve to have their children taken from them and placed in care for their protection. Of course when such cases come to light they are dealt with in Criminal Court not family court where the majority of kids are taken from their homes and for much less! The public make no distinction between the two.
Every time this kind of case is publicised more children are taken in care as a result. The social workers seize the moment to justify their existence, declaring this is the reason why children are taken from their parents. The reality is it’s not because those parents are doing the same kind of thing but because social workers are fearful of any comeback while a child is known to them and on their books. The social workers are not making any distinction between the two types of cases because it suits them not to!
LikeLike
Natasha said:
Hi Dana, thanks for your thoughts; it’s a terrible mix of lack of understanding in the public domain, social work conflicts of interest and more. I still think we need to get someone really no nonsense inside the sector to make it ship-shape.
LikeLike
Dana said:
So true Natasha, but when someone speaks out from the inside this is what happened….
Councillor fired for raising concerns about social worker caseloads attacks ‘inaccurate’ report
Cllr Malcolm King was removed from his post but says he won’t stop until child protection is truly a priority.
A Wrexham councillor sacked for blowing the whistle on high social work caseloads has attacked the “inaccurate” report that led to his firing.
The council used a report into his claims, produced by independent investigating officer Helen Ryan, to remove King from his position as lead member for finance on the council’s executive board, saying he had made false allegations against the Children and Family Assessment Team (CAFAT)………
………..Cllr King submitted a list of 16 concerns to the former leader of the council, Cllr Neil Rogers, last autumn including high caseloads, high staff turnover and pressure being placed on social workers by managers to close cases early.
Ryan’s independent report, seen by Community Care, verifies that the average caseload of 40-50 is significantly above the national average of 21 in children’s services.
King had raised concerns about the level of experience in the team, with nine out of 13 social workers having less than three years’ experience between them.
Ryan’s report said out of a list of 23 staff members including agency staff, 13 had no post qualifying experience.
“The remaining 10 workers on the list had 43 years’ experience between them,” the report said. This would mean an average of just over four years’ experience each for the most experienced members of the team.
However Ryan concluded Cllr King’s “allegation is not supported by the evidence and lacks credibility.”
King told Community Care the independent report had also implied the concerns he brought up were his own, rather than concerns relayed to him by four separate social workers.
He said: “My purpose in writing the original report was to use my more protected position as councillor to raise the concerns of social workers who were afraid that their employment would be jeopardised if they raised their concerns directly.
“It is slightly ironic that I now appear to have been sacked for what I have done.”
Ryan said the fact that the four social workers would not reveal their identity cast doubt on the claims’ credibility.
“The ‘four social workers’ have not engaged in this investigation and Cllr King’s suggestion that to do so would put their future careers at risk is not convincing.
“The unwillingness of these workers to engage with the investigation calls into question their integrity and motivation,” Ryan said in her report.
Cllr King said in an interview with Ryan she informed him that in her experience no whistle blower had ever suffered as a result of their whistleblowing, a statement King described as “literally an incredible assertion”……………
…………“We must stop this relentless focus on historical information about safeguarding.” (Cllr Pritchard)
Full report : http://www.communitycare.co.uk/2014/12/03/councillor-fired-raising-concerns-social-worker-caseloads-attacks-inaccurate-report/
What an odd remark for Cllr Pritchard to make, considering focus has been on historical abuses of children in care!
LikeLike
Natasha said:
Funnily enough I tweeted this article today 🙂 People upsetting the status quo are always going to get pushed aside. There’s too much at stake, of course.
LikeLike
daveyone1 said:
Reblogged this on World4Justice : NOW! Lobby Forum..
LikeLike
Roger Crawford said:
This just makes me want to care for this child. I can’t add anything to what you have written Natasha, we must – we have to – find out what causes parents to act so unnaturally, and why people become paedophiles. What a dreadful case.
LikeLike
Natasha said:
Dear Roger, thank you for your comment. I can’t even imagine how that child will feel when she grows up and perhaps discovers what her biological parents did to her. I often wonder whether it’s best to keep things like that a secret, or let them out and risk causing more severe emotional harm, which may well not be fixable with therapy. We will all worry for her for many years to come.
LikeLike
Kingsley (Kip) said:
Natasha, Thank you for posting this account. I am particularly impressed by the judge’s references to Freud and Jung. It strikes me that the law is hamstrung my conventional wisdom influenced in society by the work of Dr John Bowlby. I believe his blinkered view has contributed to a misconceived view of parents and parenting and I attach an article about the proposed introduction of ‘baby hatches’ in Australia. I do not believe this is a gender political point and refers to the attitudes of some fathers as well as mothers in society. kip
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2846801/Too-babies-died-shocking-case-baby-abandoned-days-drain-renewed-calls-baby-hatches-introduced-Australia.html
LikeLike
Natasha said:
Hi Kip, thanks for your comment. This isn’t really about Bowlby, as I’m sure you know. This is about the psychology of violence, which can be present in both men and women, but in this case is about a father who physically hurt his own child repeatedly. As for Freud and Jung, I’m not sure how much they would have to contribute to this area today, with all the advances we’ve made in understanding the human mind, but as you’re aware, we have a long way to go.
LikeLike
Dana said:
Hi Natasha,
I just spotted this on your twitter flicker.
http://davidhencke.wordpress.com/2014/12/02/why-theresa-may-was-right-to-ignore-david-aaronvitch-over-child-sex-abuse-in-north-wales/
I would now be very worried about a journalist that does not want to report what has happened in the past, present or the future!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-north-east-wales-30268731
A paedophile who ran children’s homes in Wrexham has been jailed for life for sexually assaulting youngsters in a campaign of abuse spanning decades.
John Allen, 73, of Needham Market, Suffolk, had denied 40 counts of sex abuse against 19 boys and one girl in the late 1960s up to the early 1990s.
He was sentenced at Mold Crown Court on Monday after being convicted of 33 charges last week.
LikeLike
Natasha said:
I’m just at a loss as to how people can call these matters conspiracy theories in the twenty first century, when we see how endemic it is.
LikeLike
Dana said:
Well Natasha (Watson), “When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?” Sherlock Holmes
LikeLike
Natasha said:
🙂
LikeLike
Dana said:
http://www.communitycare.co.uk/2014/12/03/social-workers-feel-able-blow-whistle/
If any social worker wants to tell the truth….
LikeLike