Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2011]JRC019

royal court

(Samedi Division)

24^th January 2011

Before     :

M. C. St. J. Birt, Esq., Bailiff, and Jurats Clapham and Fisher.

IN THE MATTER OF Z

Advocate H. J. Heath for the Minister for Health and Social Services.

Advocate B. J. Corbett on behalf of the Guardian (for Z).

D (the natural father) was present but not represented.

Vicki Larbalestier (Social Worker YAT) present.

judgment

the bailiff:

1.        This is an application by the Minister for a secure accommodation order in respect of Z.  The unfortunate background to this matter is set out in the judgment of the Court dated 7^th September, 2010, and we do not repeat what is said there. 

2.        The previous secure accommodation order came to an end in early September; for a while after that Z resided at a specially created one to one unit but that did not unfortunately have the effect of stopping Z's consumption of drugs and alcohol and so in November, Z moved back to live at another unit. 

3.        The other matter outstanding at the time of the last judgment was the trial of BB.  That has now taken place and BB was convicted of sexual assaults on Z and is awaiting sentence.  We fully accept that this must have been a very stressful time for Z. 

4.        What has provoked this application now is that Z's consumption of alcohol and drugs has deteriorated recently over the Christmas and New Year period.  It culminated on Saturday when Z attended at Alcohol and Drugs intoxicated; Z said that Z had been drinking alcohol as well as injecting valium and a substance called devil's claw, which is apparently an anti-inflammatory and pain-relieving substance.  No-one at the Children's Service or indeed at Alcohol and Drugs had ever heard of anyone injecting devil's claw before and they do not know what the consequences of this might be.  There have also been occasions of self-harming. 

5.        Z's liver function has again deteriorated through the use of alcohol and similarly Z's short term memory is affected at times.   So it is in view of concerns that Z's risk-taking behaviour has increased to such an extent that Z poses a real risk of serious injury to Z that the Minister has now applied for the secure accommodation order. 

6.        We must remind ourselves of the requirement for making such an order; these are set out in Article 22(1) of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002.  The relevant sub-paragraph in this case is sub-paragraph (b) so reading just that passage it reads as follows:-

"(1) Subject to the following provisions of this Article, a child who is being looked after by the Minister may not be placed, and, if placed, may not be kept, in accommodation provided for the purpose of restricting liberty ("secure accommodation") unless it appears

(b) that if the child is kept in any other description of accommodation he or she is likely to injure himself or herself or other persons."

7.        We have carefully considered the evidence put before us in the reports from the Children's Service and we are quite satisfied from this evidence that, in view of Z's uncontrolled use of alcohol and drugs and the possibility of self-harm, the criteria are met.  Indeed, Advocate Corbett does not submit otherwise.  The real issue for the Court today is whether we should make the order; what is in Z's best interests?

8.        The Minister accepts that at Z's age nothing will work unless Z is willing to participate and desires to change.  What the Minister says is that a 28 day period without alcohol and drugs would enable consideration to be given as to what is best if Z agrees.  One possibility is dialectical behaviour therapy which would be undertaken by CAHMS; this needs to be investigated.  Another possibility might be a programme in the United Kingdom addressing not only the alcohol dependence but also its underlying causes.  As I say, these need to be investigated and the Minister says they need to be investigated in an atmosphere free of alcohol and drugs so that Z can consider the possibilities clearly and properly. 

9.        Z has given evidence before us and Advocate Corbett has made submissions on Z's behalf.  These are to the effect that Z now realises that Z must change and indeed wants to do so; Z realises that Z has a problem with alcohol and drugs and would like, for example, to attend Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous but will not cooperate if sent to Greenfields because Z views this as being others telling Z what to do, rather than being left to take responsibility for Z's own future; so Z urges the Court to let Z find Z's own way in the community in the hope that Z is now motivated to change. 

10.      We heard also from D (Z's father) who clearly cares deeply and wants to do what is best for Z.  The father says that things will only work if Z agrees to cooperate and change and he feels this is more likely in the community than in Greenfields. 

11.      We have considered all these points very carefully, as can be seen by the time we have been in retirement.  Just like the Children's Service, we wish to do what is best for Z; but having thought about it carefully, we have decided that what is best is to make the order for twenty eight days.  We will summarise our reasons as follows:-

(i)        Z has been in the community since the expiry of the last secure accommodation order at the beginning of September; yet far from things getting better, they have in fact got worse quickly over the recent past;

(ii)       It is the duty of the Children's Service, and indeed this Court to do all that we can to keep Z safe, particularly as Z is a child looked after by the Children's Service and although close to majority has not yet reached the age of majority.  We agree with the Children's Service that there is a real risk that if Z is left in the community, Z will overdose through a combination of alcohol and drugs or will self-harm;

(iii)      The twenty eight day period will enable Z to be thoroughly detoxed.  We think that Z's best interests are served by Z being able to consider all the various possibilities and the future clearly and sensibly; this means not being under the influence of alcohol or drugs.  At present the evidence is that it is quite difficult for the Children's Service to have a meeting with Z at which Z is not either under the influence of one or other, or suffering from short term memory loss because of alcohol or drug consumption;

(iv)      If Z really is motivated to change as Z says, then we think that motivation should not be affected by the Order we are making.  It is Z's future that we are all concerned with and we hope very much that Z will, once in Greenfields, have the opportunity of thinking about the future with the help of the Children's Service and others who wish to do the best for Z. 

12.      In this respect we do want to emphasise Z, this is not an order to punish you, this is something which the Children's Service and we believe is for your benefit.  It is quite clear the Children's Service thought very carefully about bringing the application and were quite reluctant to do so; we similarly have been reluctant to make the order but we think it is the right thing to do.  We think it is best for you.  Everyone wants to help and you will be in a position hopefully to take advantage of that help.  If you do indeed become negative whilst you are in there, then nothing will be achieved and you will be in the same dangerous position as and when you come out of Greenfields; so we hope very much that you will take advantage of the help that everyone wishes to give you because no-one wishes to see you continue on your present self-destructive course.  That is the Order we make. 

Authorities

In the matter of Z [2010] JRC 163.

Children (Jersey) Law 2002.