the logic seems weird.

--
醫生擺出很多證據，並且稱小孩診 斷為顱內膜出血以及視網膜後出血，以其專業的行醫經驗，小孩摔跤是不可能造成如此後果的，隻有可能是虐待造成
---

the logic seems weird. 這種反證法邏輯不嚴密，不成立。 The doc must approves that
(1) 以其專業的行醫經驗，小孩摔跤是不可能造成如此後果的.
(2) there is no other ways for the kid to get the problem other than child abuse.
i do not think the doc has enough evidence to prove these two parts.
Does the child look like abused? any sign of abuse in head and body? there are must be some sort of evidence other than this illogical 排除法。

law is law. law needs evidence. the child can get such problem during child birth (if the baby was delivered vaginally). or the baby had an another fall before without your notice etc.