The conviction of the director of a Santa Pola creche for causing minor injuries to a 16-month-old girl who shook her at the nursery school because she refused to feed has been upheld by the Provincial Court in Elche. It has denied the defendant’s appeal, which in court contended that the injuries could have been caused by the straps on a high chair. The Elche Court of First Instance convicted the director of the creche for minor injuries and ordered the child’s mother to pay €1,148 in compensation for the injuries and moral damages she suffered. The fine was €540.
On April 24th, 2024, at the “Chiqui School” nursery school in Gran Alacant, Santa Pola, the facts that were recently confirmed by Section 11 of the Court, based in Elche, and against which there is no longer any appeal, were declared proven. The worker enquired of the previous tutor, via walkie-talkie, whether she had any games or lullabies for the 16-month-old girl to eat, as she was resisting the teacher’s attempts to feed her. She declined and made another abortive attempt to persuade the young girl to consume food. After being unsuccessful, she enquired again via walkie-talkie. The nursery director responded by stating that she would accompany her.
The minor wept when the accused entered the classroom. The child was forcibly grasped by the headmistress, who then seated her on her knee and attempted to force the spoon into her mouth. The woman, “acting without any patience or consideration for the minor, shook her roughly,” when the little girl refused to eat.
A school assistant, who was in an adjacent classroom, observed these events. Upon hearing the girl’s loud sobs, the assistant turned around and observed the principal shaking the child.
The defendant then escorted the girl to the changing room, where she changed all of her clothing. She informed the girl’s teacher that her arms were slightly “red” and that if they persisted in this manner when she was handed over to her parents in the afternoon, she would go outside and converse with her mother. Nevertheless, she disregarded her, and when the teacher was about to provide her with a refreshment after nap time, she observed a redness on her shoulder that was visible through her T-shirt. According to the court ruling, she discovered bruises on her shoulder and both arms after removing the apparel.
Upon observing these injuries, the teacher contacted the principal to inform her that the girl did not exhibit the “redness” she had previously described, but rather bruising. The teacher was taken aback by the principal’s reaction, and she later discovered that Arnidol, a product intended for minor injuries, had been applied to her arms.
The minor sustained “multiple pressure bruises in the periumbilical area, back, and arms,” as per the forensic report. The ruling further states that she sustained “basic personal injury resulting from a temporary injury lasting four days” after receiving initial medical attention.
In court, the defendant denied that she had physically assaulted the girl and claimed that she has been employed at the creche for approximately 16 years. She also mentioned that she has been working with children and neonates since she was 17 years old and has never received any complaints or issues from parents. She contended that the restraints on the girl’s highchair may have been the cause of her injuries. She reported that she was in the highchair and did not wish to consume food when she entered the classroom. She retrieved her, changed her clothing, and attempted to administer yoghurt to her; however, she declined. She also claimed that she was unaware of the marks until she was roused from her slumber.
Conversely, an assistant claimed that the accused attempted to feed her by shaking her and that he found it peculiar that she took her to the changing room to change her clothing, a behaviour she did not typically engage in.
The mother, who was represented by attorney Francisco Moreno Arranz during the trial, testified that one of the teachers informed her that the woman who was later convicted intervened because she was unhappy with her daughter’s diet and had “some scratches.” She then removed her clothing and observed bruises and scratches on her back, neck, and arms.
The high chair restraints may have been the cause of the injuries, according to an expert report presented by the defence. However, the forensic doctor, an impartial expert, maintained that they were consistent with the hands and that it was highly improbable that they had been caused by the high chair buckles.
No Comment! Be the first one.