A Nonce child abuser and former lifeguard, Daniel Coombs from Gillingham, has been imprisoned for aggressively shaking a toddler he was supervising and striking the child’s legs and hips.
Daniel Coombs, 32, was charged with child abuse after his former partner witnessed him inflicting harm on an 18-month-old boy in his residence in Sittingbourne on August 26, 2023. Consequently, the infant was hospitalised for seven days to evaluate the effects of the shaking.
The relatives of the youth has informed KentOnline that the entire incident has been “profoundly challenging to comprehend.”
His parents stated, “The impact on our son and our family as a whole has been substantial.
”Witnessing our son transition from a mischievous, joyful, and curious average boy to one who is dependent, afraid, and apprehensive, while suffering from night terrors, is beyond description. “Bruises and marks may heal and diminish, yet the emotional and psychological trauma persists longer.”
The distraught parents added, “There is no justification for our son being harmed at 18 months old.”
The court was informed that Daniel Coombs, residing in Gillingham, was supervising two children alongside his former partner, who was acquainted with the children’s parents. Judge Philip Statman, addressing a sentencing hearing at Maidstone Crown Court, stated: “His parents were aware that you would be supervising him alongside your former partner.”
“She observed you gripping his head and shaking him forcefully.”
She characterised it as four instances of tremor. She subsequently observed you striking him with a closed fist.
Subsequently, she delivered two additional blows, which she regarded as considerably less forceful.
The court was informed that the partner perceived the lighter punches as an effort to “conceal” his prior conduct and to “create the appearance of a game” he was engaged in.
The judge stated, “You subsequently requested him to embrace you – which he complied with.”
Daniel Coombs’ former partner stated that during the event, he had an expression she had “never witnessed before.” [Editor’s Note – Bollocks!]
“He appeared either angry or something else,” she remarked.
The court was informed that the partner thereafter seized the 18-month-old and paused to contemplate her duties and responsibilities towards the youngster and his family.
At the time of the assault, Coombs was 31 years old, and the victim’s six-year-old sister was present in the room throughout the occurrence. Shortly after 8 PM on August 26, Coombs’ former partner conversed with the child’s mother on the incident.
The infant was subsequently admitted to the hospital, where a “superficial wound” or abrasion was observed on his left leg. The child’s father immediately reported the incident to the police. The judge stated, “It is acknowledged that the victim was hospitalised for seven days.”
The mother of the child, whose identity is withheld to safeguard the victim, stated in her impact statement that her son is now wary of individuals with beards similar to Coombs. “We have grappled with accepting what transpired with him,” she stated.
“We are attempting to comprehend that our son was assaulted by an individual we trusted.” I cannot comprehend how a someone can inflict harm onto a child.
Judge Statman stated: “The parents lack psychological or psychiatric qualifications… yet some might argue that no one is better suited to observe changes in their children.”
Bethan Rogers, in defence, articulated that the judge was considering a “singular incident” and noted that the offence appeared to lack a “satisfactory explanation.”
She stated: “Having conversed with him [Coombs] regarding the matter, that does not exempt him from comprehending the consequences of his actions.”
It appears evident that an issue exists; nevertheless, its nature remains ambiguous without further research or evaluation. She informed the court that Coombs’ childhood was “interspersed with violence” and that he had received learning assistance without any formal diagnosis. “He is no longer employed and is currently experiencing homelessness,” she continued.
The court addressed the defendant, stating: “You were cognisant at the time that you were responsible for an 18-month-old child while babysitting with your then partner, and you are an adult who possesses a clear understanding of the distinctions between right and wrong.”
The judge acknowledged that Daniel Coombs had previously held roles in which he had “cared for others,” specifically as a lifeguard and in geriatric care.
Additionally, the court was informed of Daniel Coombs’ history of depression and anxiety.
In response, the judge stated that he did not believe the incident was instigated by mental health issues and further articulated that he believed Daniel Coombs was fully aware of his actions and that his guilt, in the judge’s opinion, was not diminished.
Judge Statman stated, “It is well understood that a child must never be shaken; we are addressing a child who was 18 months old at the time.”
The act of cruelty occurred at a location where the kid ought to have experienced complete security.
In his sentencing remarks, the judge stated: “In my judgement, there is only one appropriate course of action for this court, which is immediate custody.”
Daniel Coombs received a 20-month prison term, which was subsequently reduced to 17 months due to credit awarded for his guilty plea.
He will serve 40% of the sentence and will stay on licence until its completion.
A restraining order prohibiting the offender from communicating with the family or visiting their residence has been issued and remains effective for 10 years.
The victim’s parents stated, “We are endeavouring to heal, process, and progress as a family, which is a challenging undertaking.”
“In our opinion, the sentence imposed on Daniel Coombs was insufficiently lengthy.” We are pleased that he has been sentenced to prison; but, this can never compensate for or excuse his actions towards our son, nor the repercussions it has had on our other children and ourselves.
If you or anyone you know have been affected by the people highlighted in this article, then please report those individuals to the Police on 101 (999 if an emergency) or visit their online resources for further details of the options for reporting a crime. You can also make a report at Crimestoppers should you wish to be completely anonymous. There is help available on our support links page.