Jersey Unreported Judgments

Care order - reasons for granting application for care order by the Minister.

[2015]JRC257

Royal Court

(Family)

16 December 2015

Before     :		T. J. Le Cocq, Esq., Deputy Bailiff, and Jurats Fisher and Grime
Between	The Minister for Health and Social Services		Applicant
And	A (the mother)		First Respondent
And	Fred ("the child"), through his guardian ad litem and personally		Second Respondent

IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN (JERSEY) LAW 2002

AND IN THE MATTER OF FRED (CARE ORDER)

Advocate C. R. G. Davies for the Applicant.

Advocate C. G. Hillier for the Mother.

Advocate R. E. Colley for the Child.

judgment

the deputy bailiff:

1.        This is an application by the Minister for Health and Social Services ("the Minister") for a care order pursuant to Article 24 of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002 ("the Law") in relation to Fred (this is not his real name).  On 25^th November, 2015, we granted the order sought by the Minister.  These are our reasons in brief for doing so. 

2.        Fred is one of four siblings.  He has an older brother and sister and another adult brother.  Fred was firmly of the view that he wished to be present in the proceedings before this Court and we gave him consent to do so.  Another application in relation to Fred's brother is to be dealt with at a later date.  Fred's older sister is not subject to any order or application. 

3.        The mother and B ("the father") were married but separated in 2008.  Both have parental responsibility for the child.  The father has not, however, attended any meetings in respect of Fred or his siblings and does not wish to engage with the Children's Service.  He was removed as a party to the proceedings by Act of Court of 17^th June, 2015. 

4.        There has been a significant history of involvement with this family by the Children's Service, which started in 2005.  More recently the Children's Service became involved from July 2013 as a result of concerns relating to the family dynamics and in particular the mother's lack of authority within the family unit. 

5.        Fred has been in the care of the Minister since 24^th April, 2015, when he was made the subject of an interim care order pursuant to Article 30 of the Law.  At this point Fred was placed in a three bedroomed residential unit called the C House where he still resides. 

6.        Both the mother and the guardian, Mrs Elsa Fernandes, agree that the threshold has been established and both also agree that the order should be made in the terms sought by the Minister and that the Minister's care plan is appropriate.  Naturally the Court has to be satisfied that the threshold has been passed and it is appropriate to make the order sought and to that end we have heard evidence and considered the extensive documentation before us. 

7.        Given that Fred expressed the wish to be present we proceeded as follows:-

(i)        Fred was present for the opening submission of the Minister;

(ii)       Fred retired from the Court when the evidence was given;

(iii)      Fred was present for the closing submissions of all of the parties;

(iv)      Fred attended upon us in chambers, with his guardian, to give us the benefit of his wishes and views prior to our making a decision. 

8.        We heard first from Mrs Rachel Maguire who had been Fred's social worker for more than two years.  She expressly adopted the contents of the draft threshold document placed before us and confirmed that her two reports which were presented to us were true and could be taken as her evidence in chief. 

9.        We do not need to set out the detail of her evidence which, in essence, was as follows:-

(i)        Fred had been exposed to violence both inside and outside of the family home.  He had been exposed to domestic violence and familial conflict between the father and Fred's older half-brother (an adult and not part of present proceedings) and between the mother and the father.  Between February 2006 and July 2008 the police had been called to the home on eight occasions and out of hours social workers had been called on six occasions in respect of altercations involving the mother, the father and the elder son.  These incidents included threats with a knife, head-butting as well as verbal abuse and Fred had witnessed a number of incidents including by his elder full brother who is subject to proceedings.  He had also perpetrated violence towards the mother, his siblings and professionals. 

(ii)       He has absconded from school and it appears that he has been physically abusive towards his mother.  In October 2011 a social worker has observed that Fred was trying to use a sharp knife to unlock a door during a home visit when she asked him to put the knife down he told her to "fuck off" and waved the knife around before throwing it across the room.  It was clear from the evidence that over a protracted period the mother was unable to control Fred or materially modify Fred's behaviour and Fred had frequently been involved in violence, destructive and dangerous behaviour including lighting fires on school premises in September 2012.  On that occasion, when a teacher had extinguished the fire, Fred had assaulted that teacher. 

(iii)      Fred had also suffered emotional harm during his exposure to the domestic violence and conflict mentioned above.  There is a very dysfunctional relationship between his siblings. 

(iv)      In one of the reports that we had in front of us, that of Dr Mair Edwards, Clinical Psychologist, it was stated:-

"[Fred] has grown up in a home environment that did not support his emotional behaviour and development.... on his father's release from prison, Fred's home environment appears to have become increasingly unstable, chaotic, and at times physically and emotionally abusive, and highly anxiety provoking for him."

(v)       Dr Edwards explains in simple terms that Fred had "not been adequately socialised" and this amounts to significant emotional and behavioural harm which could well cause Fred difficulties into the future. 

(vi)      In addition, Fred's educational development has been materially impaired because he has not attended school.  We were informed that between the start of the autumn term 2012 and the end of the spring term 2014 Fred's school attendance oscillated between 66% and nil and further expert input from a report presented by Mr Paul Eggert, Cognitive Behavioural Therapist, concludes that Fred's chronic dissatisfaction with any form of education is likely to require long-term work to rectify. 

10.      In the light of the evidence given to us by the social worker, and indeed the contents of her reports and the further expert reports from Dr Mair Edwards and Mr Paul Eggert, we are entirely satisfied that Fred was suffering significant harm and that the harm is attributable to the care given to Fred or likely to be given if the order were not made, not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give.  Accordingly in our view the threshold has clearly been passed. 

11.      In making this finding we would wish, however, to reflect that the mother has very clearly done her best for the children but has found it impossible to cope or to create an environment that is emotionally stable and safe and within which Fred can thrive.  In agreeing that the threshold has been reached and indeed in agreeing with the orders sought by the Minister the mother has taken the difficult step of recognising the reality of the situation and of acting in the very best interests of Fred and indeed her other children. 

12.      In addition to hearing from the social worker we also heard from the guardian concerning her understanding as to Fred's wishes and the nature of the orders sought by the Minister and the care plan. 

13.      Lastly we heard in chambers from Fred himself.  It was of great benefit to us to do so.  Fred is clearly a bright and articulate child and he has taken a great and considered interest in the plans being made for him and indeed in the various reports which he has troubled to read.  He indicated to us that whilst he wanted to go home and live with his mother he respected our decision and that we would do what we felt was best for him and in his interests.  He expressed the view that he would like increased contact with his older brother.  If he cannot go home he would wish to remain at the C House.  There was nothing that Fred told us that was at odds with his views communicated to us in open court through his guardian and through counsel. 

14.      In the light of the evidence before us it is entirely clear to us that the only appropriate order is a full care order and we accordingly so order.  We have considered carefully the Minister's care plan for Fred and, in particular, the proposal that he remains at the C House (which appears to us to be appropriate in the light of Fred's own wishes) and the proposals for contact.  We think that the Minister's care plan is appropriate in all of the circumstances. 

15.      We expressed the view that insofar as was appropriate and possible Fred should be involved in discussions about any material decisions taken about his future and to the extent that it is possible for Fred to have enhanced contact with his older sibling and then we ask the Minister to keep that very much in mind.  Neither of these observations are at odds with the Minister's care plan, however, which we approve. 

Authorities

Children (Jersey) Law 2002.