Mum blamed son, 4, for fracturing baby's skull

The mother of a newborn baby boy who suffered a fractured skull and bleeding on the brain tried to blame her four-year-old son for the injuries.

A family court judge in Liverpool rejected her story as "inherently implausible" and concluded the injuries had been caused by her or by the baby's father, a convicted criminal who was not supposed to have contact with children without permission.

The woman had told the court her older child had climbed over a baby gate, taken the baby from a crib next to where she was sleeping, undressed him, carried him downstairs and dropped him into an empty bath - all without waking her.

Judge Steven Parker found it was likely either the mother and father had inflicted the injuries on the baby and then "conspired" to blame the four-year-old.

The court heard how in February 2024 the mother took the baby to hospital with swelling to the right side of his head and an abrasion on the left side.

A CT scan revealed an extensive skull fracture and bleeding around the brain and skull.

She initially claimed she had "turned her back for a minute" and turned around to find the older boy had thrown the baby, before later changing her story to say she was asleep when it happened.

Judge Parker said it was unlikely the injuries were accidental based on expert medical evidence, which indicated they were "not typically seen in a domestic setting".

The baby survived but the court judgment did not include any detail on lasting effects.

The mother, referred to in court as C, and her partner, E, began a relationship while E was in prison serving a sentence for conspiracy to cause grievous bodily harm - an offence with a background in organised crime.

She already had the older child, referred to as A, when she began the relationship while E had five other children by three different partners, none of which he had any contact with.

He was released from prison on licence in 2022, and the court heard he had not told his probation officer or social services that his partner was pregnant or that she had given birth.

The court heard the probation service had assessed him as a high-risk to adults and a medium-risk to children.

Regarding the pair, Judge Parker said: "Each of them is in the pool of possible perpetrators."

He said he considered it likely that they both knew the truth.

Judge Parker wrote: "I found the mother's second account for [the baby's] injuries to be inherently implausible and unlikely, indeed, even E was driven in cross-examination to describe the account as pathetic."

They had claimed he was not living in the house at the time, and was not present when the injury happened.

But Judge Parker noted mobile phone evidence and the presence of male clothing and toiletries made it clear that E was there.

He said he had concluded the mother had lied to put distance between E and the baby at the time when the injury happened.

The court heard the local authority is seeking care orders for the children, the details of which would be decided at a further hearing.

Listen to the best of BBC Radio Merseyside on BBC Sounds and follow BBC Merseyside on Facebook, X, and Instagram, and watch BBC North West Tonight on BBC iPlayer.