Denia parents cleared of child injury charges after two years

A court in Alicante has cleared a couple from Dénia who had faced accusations of causing various injuries to their child when he was a baby several months old, more than two years ago. The ruling deems it proven that the infant suffered numerous wounds, bruising, and fractures, but concludes that it has not been established that these were caused by his parents or that the couple acted with severe negligence in his care.

The judgment by the Penal Section of the Alicante Court of Instance, resolves a case in which the Public Prosecutor’s Office charged both parents with an offence of injury and, alternatively, an offence of injury through gross negligence. The prosecution had requested prison sentences, alongside restraining orders and communication bans regarding the child.

The events date back to the early months of 2024. According to the resolution, the baby presented a traumatic injury in the pharyngeal area, an ulcerated lesion, various bone fractures in the healing stage, bruising, and different wounds and grazes. Judicial proceedings began following a medical report, which ultimately led to the arrest of the parents.

In May 2024, the baby was admitted to the Doctor Balmis General Hospital in Alicante due to a respiratory infection. Healthcare professionals detected several bone fractures in the ribs and other injuries in the infant that they considered potentially inconsistent with an accidental cause, prompting them to report the case to the legal authorities. One of the doctors who treated the child explained during the trial that injuries and bruising appeared progressively and that radiological tests revealed fractures and calluses on different costal arches.

The physician considered some of those injuries highly suggestive of a non-accidental origin. Nonetheless, she also made clear before the court that she had never stated that the parents were the ones who caused them.

That distinction proved decisive in the reasoning of the judgement. The magistrate noted that the indications might have sufficed to adopt precautionary measures and launch an investigation, but not to substantiate a criminal conviction, which requires overcoming any reasonable doubt concerning authorship and the manner in which the injuries occurred. The father and the mother, who is blind, have consistently denied inflicting any mistreatment upon the child.

The court questioned whether authorship could be attributed to the parents. The resolution concentrated particularly on the failure of the prosecution to determine how the injuries occurred or who caused them. The judge pointed out that the reasons for accusing both parents rather than solely one of them, or even third parties who might also have been in contact with the child, were never established.

The conclusions of the forensic doctors were also analysed. Although they deemed the traumatic origin of the injuries probable, upon studying certain individual injuries they acknowledged the possibility that they could have occurred accidentally. For the court, adding together various injuries capable of having an accidental origin does not necessarily allow for the conclusion that, collectively, they were caused intentionally.

Costal fractures received prominent attention in the sentence, having been initially regarded as one of the principal indications of potential mistreatment. The tribunal observed that an examination performed on the baby in March 2024 still did not show the fracture calluses detected subsequently. However, it maintained that neither the timing nor the manner of their production could be specified, considering both a non-accidental and an accidental origin possible.

The judge also examined the remaining injuries. In the case of the wounds in the pharyngeal and laryngeal regions, the ruling pointed out a potential explanation linked to the insertion or manipulation of a feeding tube worn by the baby.

Regarding other superficial wounds and grazes, the sentence similarly considered possible accidental causes connected to the infant’s clinical situation and the medical devices he carried. Consequently, it concluded that although the injuries might have had a traumatic origin, the evidence examined does not rule out their accidental production nor transform the accumulation of injuries into sufficient proof of mistreatment.

The resolution added another factor: during hospital stays, no behaviours were observed among the parents that drew the attention of healthcare staff regarding inappropriate treatment of the minor. Furthermore, it highlighted that the parents repeatedly brought the baby to primary care centres and various hospitals to receive assistance.

The judge noted the absence of a specific expert report regarding the fractures. According to the ruling, the proceedings focused fundamentally on gathering medical history and obtaining forensic reports, yet a specialised expert appraisal aimed specifically at determining whether the fractures could possess an accidental origin was not performed.

The magistrate considered that the evaluation of a traumatology specialist could have helped clarify whether the fractures were caused in a single episode—such as via crushing, a blow, or manipulation—or across multiple separate episodes. That evidence, however, was not incorporated into the proceedings.

In addition, the professionals subsequently tasked with monitoring visits between the parents and the child stated that these had evolved positively, underlining the good disposition of the parents and the presence of an affectionate bond without rejection towards the infant.

With all these elements, the magistrate concluded that substantial doubts exist regarding how the injuries occurred and applied the criminal principle of in dubio pro reo, which mandates ruling in favour of the accused when evidence fails to reach the certainty required for a conviction.

The ruling acquits the two parents of the charges brought against them and declares legal costs to be official.