Jew World Order

By
Helen Weathers

PUBLISHED:

17:22 EST, 20 July 2012

|

UPDATED:

07:37 EST, 21 July 2012

Reunited: Natalie Tung with partner Brendan Devine, daughter Adelle, son Daniel, and their six-month-old baby, Kaiden

Skin red raw and peeling, two-year-old Adelle Tung was crying with pain when she was admitted to Liverpool’s Alder Hey Children’s Hospital in May last year.

There were angry burns stretching from her lower back down to the backs of her knees. She had to be given morphine to ease her distress.

Concerned doctors questioned Adelle’s mother, 25-year-old Natalie, to try to ascertain what might have caused her injuries — which looked to them like scalds from hot liquid.

But Natalie could offer no
explanation other than that Adelle’s wet nappy had split during the
night, four days earlier, and had covered the sleeping toddler with
crystals contained within the absorbent padding.

This was dismissed by one medic, who, it is claimed, snapped: ‘If nappies were that dangerous, they wouldn’t sell them.’

She
was asked if she’d spilled boiling water on her child, used domestic
cleaning wipes on her by mistake, or accidentally sat her on a kitchen
counter covered with bleach.

The answer to all these questions was no.

That
evening, two social workers arrived at the hospital to further question
Natalie, who was eight weeks pregnant with her third child, about these
‘unexplained’ injuries to her daughter.

At
12.50am she was arrested on suspicion of grievous bodily harm and
neglect, then held in a cell for 36 hours before being released on bail.

Adelle and her
brother, six-year-old Daniel, were taken into care, and social services
warned Natalie that her unborn baby could be taken away from her at
birth.

‘I just had time to kiss Adelle on the head before police officers marched me through the hospital like a criminal,’ says Natalie, whose partner of two years, Brendan Devine, a 23-year-old civil engineer, was also arrested.

‘They handcuffed Brendan, and the only reason they didn’t handcuff me was because I was pregnant. I was in pieces, absolutely terrified, thinking I might never see my children again.

‘One police officer said to me: “You do know your daughter will be in hospital for weeks and will need plastic surgery.” We felt as if everyone had already decided we were guilty of harming her.’

Natalie later discovered — to her horror — that doctors suspected Adelle had either been scalded in the shower or deliberately held down while scalding liquid was poured from a jug onto her lower back and legs.

Welcome to the world of child protection post Baby P, where medical staff and social workers are now seemingly so terrified of missing signs of abuse that innocent parents are finding themselves under suspicion.

Until that night in May 2011, social services had had no involvement with Natalie — a full-time mother — or her family.

Despite this, and with no evidence that she or her partner had deliberately hurt Adelle, the two of them were taken into custody, along with Natalie’s former partner, a legal assistant, who is father to both Adelle and Daniel.

For eight months, Natalie had to live with the threat of criminal charges, her children being taken away from her permanently and her unborn baby being removed at birth.

Finally, an independent burns expert concluded that Natalie had been right all along, and Adelle’s injuries had almost certainly been caused by urine-soaked chemicals in her burst nappy.

Retired forensic burns consultant Colin Rayner reported that Adelle had sustained a ‘chemical injury to the skin’ caused by ‘lying for a prolonged period on a wet surface impregnated with a mildly noxious chemical’.

For eight months, Natalie had to live with the threat of criminal charges, her children being taken away from her permanently and her unborn baby being removed at birth

Mr Rayner, former director of the Burns Plastic Surgery Service for the West Midlands, added that there was anecdotal evidence that sodium polyacrylate — the gel-like water-absorbing chemical crystals used in disposable nappies — could cause skin reactions in some children.

He said that Adelle’s injuries, despite their initial appearance, were ‘superficial’ and, unlike serious scald burns, had healed without blemish or significant scarring within two weeks.

The police investigation was dropped, and in January — eight months after they were taken into care and two weeks after the birth of her son Kaiden — Natalie’s children were finally returned to her.

‘The nightmare may be over, but I don’t think we will ever fully recover from it,’ says Natalie in an exclusive interview with the Mail.

‘Adelle is too young to understand, but Daniel is now very quiet and withdrawn.

‘He keeps asking why they were taken away from me, and I don’t know how to answer him.

‘I try to be truthful, but I don’t want him to know he could have been taken away and adopted.

‘In the hospital, before I was arrested, social workers told me: “You understand we have to do this because we couldn’t allow another Baby P incident.”

‘But why did they have to take such drastic action without a more in-depth investigation? They had absolutely no evidence showing that Adelle’s injuries had been caused deliberately.

‘Since the scandal over Baby P, things have swung too far the other way. It’s completely over-the-top.’

Cuddling six-month-old Kaiden at her terrace home in Liverpool, Natalie recounts in chilling detail the Kafkaesque nightmare in which she found herself.

It was around 8am on Thursday May 26, 2011, that Natalie and Brendan woke to find that Adelle’s very wet nappy had split during the night and urine-soaked crystals had leaked down her legs.

Usually Natalie bought Pampers nappies, but she’d just changed to a supermarket own brand to save money.

The burns suffered by Adelle

Natalie says: ‘Adelle wasn’t crying, but the backs of her legs were very red and there was a small blister at the back of her knee.

‘I cleaned her up and put Sudocrem on the rash.

‘She seemed absolutely fine, playing in the garden, going down the slide, so I thought I’d see if it calmed down on its own before taking her to the doctor.’

The following day, Natalie thought the rash, though still red, looked a little better, but she put a bandage on Adelle’s legs to stop her scratching the blister.

Two more blisters had appeared on her back.

Later that day, Natalie, who shares the care of her children with her ex-partner, left them with him while she and Brendan went away for the weekend.

Before leaving, she told her ex-partner that Adelle had a rash and mentioned the burst nappy.

Over the weekend, Adelle’s injuries worsened. The skin started to peel off her legs and bleed. On the Saturday night, the toddler couldn’t sleep and was crying out with pain.

On the Sunday, Natalie returned and took her to AE.

‘I was scared out of my wits when I saw her skin peeling off and bleeding, and I thought “I’ve got to get her to hospital now”,’ says Natalie.

‘When I told them about the nappy they just dismissed it and said it was definitely a scald.

‘Different doctors kept questioning us, and from the start I felt the finger was being pointed at me and Brendan.

‘After Adelle was transferred to the burns unit, the nurses kept telling me to go and wait in the family room, as if they didn’t want me near her, but I couldn’t leave my daughter.

‘She was wide awake and I couldn’t leave her side, but the nurses never left us alone. They weren’t hostile, but they were very cold towards me and I felt their suspicion.

‘Then the doctors told us they were calling social services.

‘They were all saying that Adelle had a scald injury, so I started to think, “Did something happen when she was with her Dad? Was the bath too hot?” — and he was thinking the same about me and Brendan, wondering if something had happened to her with us.

‘It became very strained with my ex-partner, because we were both being asked the same question: “Well, if you didn’t do it, then who did?” We must have been questioned by five or six doctors.

‘When the two social workers arrived, they were very nice to me and explained the procedures, but I felt so confused because I didn’t know what was going on.

‘They were asking me all these questions about my childhood and my family. They asked me if Brendan was violent, or if we’d accidentally used chemical domestic wipes on Adelle.

‘They asked about the children’s school and nursery, and said they’d have to speak to their teachers.

‘Then all of a sudden, they said: “We are going to have to call the police.” I felt they’d already made up their minds about us.’

Brendan adds: ‘It was completely out of order. We’d done nothing wrong.

‘They had no absolutely no evidence to say that we were guilty of anything, but we were treated like criminals.

‘I’ve no problem with them taking us in for questioning, but did they need to march me through the wards in handcuffs and lock us up for 36 hours?’

Natalie continues: ‘When we were at the police station, two social workers came and asked me to sign papers allowing them to put my children in foster care, but I refused, asking them: “Isn’t there another way?”

‘If I’d agreed to put them in foster care, I doubt I would ever have got them back, as social workers were already talking about adoption in the long-term.’

Released on bail, Natalie was forbidden from entering Alder Hey Hospital to see her daughter. Instead, she had to return home to an empty house.

‘I didn’t know what to do with myself,’ says Natalie. ‘I missed the kids so much I felt sick. The only thing that mattered to me was getting them back.

‘I was in tears all the time, and I couldn’t sleep. I developed high blood pressure and had all sorts of problems with my pregnancy, which I put down to stress.’

Adelle, whose burns did not require plastic surgery, was discharged from hospital eight days after her admission.

She and Daniel went to live temporarily with their paternal grandmother, pending the outcome of the investigation, but their long-term future remained uncertain.

Natalie was allowed to see them for one hour, twice a week, at a contact centre, where she was supervised by a social worker.

‘I hadn’t seen them for 17 days and I was in pieces. I was crying my eyes out, but I was told not to show my emotions in front of them or upset them,’ says Natalie,

‘So I did my best to hold it together. I tried to be as normal as possible for their sakes, but it was so hard.

‘Adelle ran over and gave me a hug, but Daniel was very quiet.

‘When I had to leave, he was very upset and kept asking “When are we going home?” — but I wasn’t allowed to tell him anything.’

It wasn’t until September that Natalie saw the reports from the doctors at Alder Hey Hospital, outlining what they thought had happened to cause Adelle’s burns.

‘I couldn’t believe what I was reading,’ she says. ‘That anyone might think I could deliberately hurt my child or let someone else harm her made me feel ill.

‘I told my solicitor that I wanted a second opinion. It seemed as if I was the only person convinced that the nappy had caused her injuries, but no one would listen to me because they thought the doctors couldn’t possibly be wrong.’

Forensic burns consultant Colin Rayner examined Adelle at her grandmother’s home and studied all the photographs and medical notes relating to her injuries.

In his report, he disagreed with the Alder Hey doctors’ view that the injury was consistent with a ‘hot liquid burn’ or a ‘classic bath scald’ because there were ‘no splatter marks or area of intensity’.

Burns from hot liquid would have been deeper, he said, rather than superficial.  

Mr Rayner said her rash was most likely to be a reaction to ‘prolonged contact on a flat surface with a relatively weak chemical . . . exacerbated by soakage due to a large amount of urine or faeces’.

He noted that nurses at Alder Hey had reported that Adelle had very wet nappies while she was in hospital.

Natalie recalls: ‘I went to see my solicitor in early December and she showed me Mr Rayner’s report.

‘I was so relieved, but shocked, too, because it was the first time someone had actually believed me.
‘Only then did I allow myself to believe I could get my children back.

‘I was relieved, but also angry at the way we’d been treated. We went through hell, but no one has apologised or said “Sorry, we made a mistake”. We’ve just been left to pick up the pieces.’

A spokesman for Adler Hey said: ‘Patient safety is the number one priority, and we have a legal obligation to follow safeguarding policies and procedures.’

Clinicians at the hospital have challenged parts of Mr Rayner’s report and still believe Adelle’s burns could have been caused by a hot liquid.

A spokesman for Liverpool Social Services added: ‘When concerns are raised by clinicians, we have to carry out a full and detailed investigation.’

Natalie is the first to agree that vulnerable children such as Baby P should be protected from abusive parents, but asks where that now leaves innocent parents whose children suffer ‘unexplained’ injuries?

‘It took me almost 40 weeks to get my children back,’ says Natalie. ‘Once the doctors gave their opinion, the social workers simply accepted it and then acted on it.

‘Yet no one believed me when I told them about the nappy, and not one of them has since said: “I was wrong, sorry.” ’

• 
  Is this ‘The Joker’? Police probe adult website profile of…

• 
  The curse of The Dark Knight: Heath Ledger’s death, Morgan…

• 
  Teenager shouts ‘Allah is great’ in Arabic as he tries to…

• 
  The oh, oh, Ohhh-lympics! As record 150,000 condoms are…

• 
  Horrified father lost his BABY on the floor in panic at…

• 
  Neurosciences PhD dropout who was obsessed with Guitar Hero…

• 
  Ooops! Double trouble for sailors as their boat gets caught…

• 
  NY Giants star Tiki Barber marries 23-year-old pinup wife…

• 
  First victim named is aspiring young female sportscaster who…

• 
  Newspaper reporter found dead in home just hours after…

• 
  Fury as paedophile, 61, escapes jail after claiming girl…

• 
  The uplifting moment strangers lift disabled boy to their…

Share this article: