GIST:
A couple whose
baby was handed to adopters even though a child cruelty case had been
abandoned were not the victims of a miscarriage of justice, a leading
judge has concluded after a review. Karrissa
Cox and former soldier Richard Carter, who are in their late 20s and
from Guildford, said they were 'innocent parents' and had been unfairly
blamed by Surrey County Council social workers and a family court judge.
The
couple, who are no longer together, said they would fight to regain the
child, and clear their names, after being acquitted on the direction of
a judge who oversaw a criminal court trial three years ago. They said
the 'family court process' had left them feeling 'presumed guilty'. But
a senior family court judge who reviewed evidence has now concluded
that their child was the victim of 'really serious' abuse and 'cruelty'
when a baby. Sir James Munby said that,
during the first few weeks of life, the child suffered an
'extraordinary constellation' of 'inflicted injuries' for which there
was no 'innocent explanation'. He said in a ruling published on Friday
that he could not be sure exactly who caused which injuries. But he said
only Ms Cox and Mr Carter, an Afghanistan war veteran, were 'within the
pool of possible perpetrators'. Sir
James, who until his recent retirement was president of the Family
Division of the High Court and the most senior family court judge in
England and Wales, said Ms Cox and Mr Carter carry a 'high measure of
responsibility' for 'serious parental failures'. He
backed the family court judge who analysed the case three years ago,
pointed the finger of blame at Ms Cox and Mr Carter and approved the
child's adoption. Sir James
said the
family court 'process' overseen by Judge Peter Nathan had been
vindicated and that neither Ms Cox nor Mr Carter, nor their child, had
been victims of any miscarriage of justice. The
judge also revealed that the couple, who are no longer together, had
abandoned their attempt to regain the child at an early stage of his
review. He said he thinks they realised 'the game was up'. Sir James had
re-considered the case
at a private hearing in London and imposed limits on what could be
reported pending the outcome of his review. He said the couple, and the
council involved, can now be named in reports of his new ruling. But he
said neither the child, nor the adoptive parents, could be named. In
2012 staff at Surrey County Council raised concerns, shortly after the
child was born, after medics found the child had broken bones in an arm
and leg, a torn upper lip frenulum and bruises on the chest, stomach,
legs, arms and back. In 2015 the child was adopted and the couple were
prosecuted, accused of child cruelty, but are later acquitted. The
trial at Guildford Crown Court, overseen by Judge Christopher Critchlow,
was abandoned after one medical expert says he cannot be sure that the
child suffered fractures. Ms Cox said after the trial that: 'We took our
child to the hospital and they stole our baby from us'. The
trial at Guildford Crown Court, overseen by Judge Christopher
Critchlow, was abandoned after one medical expert says he cannot be sure
that the child suffered fractures. Defence
lawyers argued the X-rays were consistent with rickets and the
prosecution later said one of their experts could not be sure of
fractures. It was later discovered that the child had a vitamin D
deficiency, which causes infantile rickets. The baby was also suffering
from the blood disorder Von Willebrand II, which causes someone to
bruise more easily. Speaking
in 2015 Mr Carter, an Afghanistan veteran with 2nd Battalion The
Rifles, described the moment his child was taken away from him and said
it ‘just rips your soul away from you’. Miss Cox said her child was
adopted in March, seven months before the criminal case was dropped. She
said: 'We took our child to the hospital and they stole our baby from
us.' ‘That was the hardest news we ever had to face. We had no say, no
choice. The judge just granted the adoption.’"
The entire story can be read at:
