the logic seems weird.

--
医生摆出很多证据，并且称小孩诊 断为颅内膜出血以及视网膜后出血，以其专业的行医经验，小孩摔跤是不可能造成如此后果的，只有可能是虐待造成
---

the logic seems weird. 这种反证法逻辑不严密，不成立。 The doc must approves that
(1) 以其专业的行医经验，小孩摔跤是不可能造成如此后果的.
(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.