Distraught/confused/shocked

[QuestionMark]

Hello.

Basically last year I was left in a pool along with my ex husband for rib fractures and a bruise our late son suffered. The judge said that if he could find one person responsible for one injury, then they are responsible for all injuries. He applied this logic with me mam; who he said could not have caused the rib fractures and therefore did not cause the bruise. Unfortunately he left me in the pool for injuries I know I did not cause at a 50/50. At the time of this fact finding, our late sons (who died in his dads sole care) Inquest had not yet happened.

Fast forward a year and our sons Inquest happened. The coroner found that our son had 80% lung haemorrhaging and suffocated due to the neglect of his dad- he was in his dads sole care and I was at work. I emailed a solicitor to ask if this was evidence enough to prove I don’t belong in the pool. My legal team decided it was, based on the judges logic that he had applied to my mam, and they set the wheels in motion to re-open the findings.

The social worker back peddled and at review meetings stated that she “always had a hunch” I didn’t hurt my son and spoke of the “inherent likelihood of one perpetrator”. Another social worker said the “inquest could change everything” whilst another referred to it as a “game changer”. The local authorities barrister told me that they thought it would be “highly likely” that I’d be removed from the pool and that they accepted that the new evidence needed to be looked at. My barrister spoke of it being probable I’d be removed and how she’d get me overnight stays with my daughter, who has been in her dads sole care (different dad from my late son).

However, my daughters dad seemed on edge about the entire thing and made it obvious that he disagreed with me. I’m not sure what happened, but he decided he opposed my wish to re-open the findings and as soon as he opposed, the local authority, social worker and guardian all decided they opposed too. Despite all their talk of supporting it prior to my daughters dad disagreeing with it.

So even thought my daughters dad referred to the finding of my being in the pool as “just a piece of paper” and he said that he “knows it wasn’t me” as well as stating “the coroners verdict was enough for him to know it wasn’t me”. Despite all that, he opposed my wish to re-open the finding with the new evidence. The social worker also told me she “doesn’t believe it was me” but also opposed the notion. Why do they keep telling me that they don’t believe I belong in the pool, but they won’t give me the opportunity to leave the pool?

If I had been removed from the pool I would have been granted unsupervised access to my daughter and overnight stays. The real irony is that, even though I am still in the pool, my daughters dad has decided I can have unsupervised contact starting July and can have her for overnight stays come October (he has a CAO). So again, why did he oppose the findings being re-opened?

What’s also bizarre is that the judge did not follow his own rule; the rule of only one perpetrator. You’d think a person causing 80% lung damage to a baby and leaving them to suffocate in a position they put them in would be enough to tip the balance by 1% and make this individual 51% likely to have also been the person who fractured ribs and caused a bruise, right? Especially since that person admitted at the inquest that none of this would have happened if our son had been in my care. But according to this judge, and against his own rules, the death that my ex caused by “omission” is not the same as the injuries that were caused by “commission” and therefore, apparently there’s no connection. So even though my ex literally caused our son to die, the judge has decided it’s still a 50/50 on the other injuries and I’m still in a pool for something I blatantly didn’t do....

Can anyone help?