BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Jersey Unreported Judgments |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Jersey Unreported Judgments >> In the matter of FF (Interim Care Order) [2022] JRC 114 (24 May 2022) URL: http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/2022/2022_114.html Cite as: [2022] JRC 114 |
||
[New search] [Help]
|
Before : |
R. J. MacRae, Esq., Deputy Bailiff, and Jurats Ronge and Le Heuzé |
|
Between |
The Minister for Children and Education |
Applicant |
|
And |
(1) A (The Mother) |
First Respondent |
|
And |
(2) FF (The Child) |
Second Respondent |
IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN (JERSEY) LAW 2002
AND IN THE MATTER OF FF (INTERIM CARE ORDER)
Advocate J. A. E. Kerley for the Minister.
Advocate S. B. Wauchope for the First Respondent.
Advocate B. J. Corbett for the Second Respondent and the Guardian Eleanor Green.
judgment
the deputy bailiff:
1. On 3rd May 2022 we granted an interim care order in this matter, placing the child in the care of foster parents, approved by the Minister. The child FF was born in June 2008 and is thus aged nearly 14.
2. The Deputy Bailiff made an emergency protection order in this case on 8th April 2022 and the ex tempore judgment in that case has been distributed to the parties.
3. The Minister's application for an interim care order was supported by the Guardian and not opposed by the mother.
4. The child's father is presumed to have parental responsibility, but the mother has lost contact with the father and the child has not seen his father since he was aged three. The mother lives with her partner, Mr G and has done for some years. The child has a relationship with both his mother and Mr G.
5. The child has been living with foster parents since shortly before the emergency protection order was made. The Court heard evidence from the social worker and evidence from the Guardian. The mother did not give evidence but gave evidence on the application for an emergency protection order.
6. Although it was not disputed that threshold was met in this case, nonetheless it was important for the Court, as in every application for an interim care order, to satisfy itself, on the balance of probabilities, that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the circumstances of the child are as mentioned in Article 24(2) of the Law, namely that the child concerned is suffering or is likely to suffer significant harm and that the harm, or likelihood of harm, is attributable to the care given to the child or likely to be given to the child if the order was not made, not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give the child.
7. In short, threshold is met for the following reasons, which we list without necessity of making findings at this stage:
Parents of FF friends reported concerns to the designated safeguarding lead at his school regarding his home circumstances before the emergency protection order was made which FF repeated to the social worker and the Guardian that can be summarised as thus:
(i) [Redacted].
(ii) [Redacted].
(iii) [Redacted].
(iv) [Redacted].
(v) [Redacted]
(vi) [Redacted].
(vii) [Redacted].
8. In police interview, both the mother and her partner accepted most of the allegations made against them and have expressed remorse.
9. FF was interviewed by Achieving Best Evidence video and indicated that he did not wish to return home and indeed expressed the wish to be adopted.
10. Recently, for the first time since he was placed in foster care, he had a contact session with his mother which went well. His mother has written a letter to her son expressing sorrow for her parenting and said that if and when FF returns home she will "make it up" to him.
11. We were satisfied that threshold was passed. However, satisfaction of a threshold test is merely a necessary pre-condition for an interim care order, such an order should not be made unless there is proper consideration of the welfare checklist. Having considered this checklist, our findings are as follows:
FF has expressed a clear wish not to return home. He wishes to stay in foster care where he is better enjoying life and also seeing his friends. Owing to his age, we should give significant weight to his wishes. FF is also a mature and intelligent boy and his wishes have been well articulated to the Guardian and the social worker.
FF was examined by a doctor before the application for an emergency protection order and was found to be in good health, but very slim. Dr Hughes concluded that he was suffering emotional and physical neglect at the hands of his mother and her partner and that the treatment went beyond acceptable reasonably strict parenting. FF would remain at risk of further harm if he was returned to the care of his mother at this point. FF is doing well at school, achieving good marks for effort and homework. His emotional needs are being met in foster care and would not currently be met at home.
The child is content with the standard of care he is receiving with his foster parents and would not at the moment receive adequate parenting at home on the evidence available to the Court.
As stated, FF is nearly 14. He has no particular needs, although the Guardian took the view that there are certain elements of his presentation which do warrant neuro developmental screening as part of the report from a psychologist that the Court ordered to be prepared prior to any final hearing.
It is admitted by the mother that FF has suffered harm at home. There is no such risk of harm in foster care. The mother says that she is keen to address the behaviours of concern identified by the evidence.
The father's position can be discounted as his whereabouts are unknown and he has not had contact with the child for several years. There are no other family members in Jersey available to care for FF. As to the mother and her partner, neither are currently capable of meeting the child's needs.
All realistic options were considered by the social worker in her statement. To make no order may possibly lead FF to suffer further chronic emotional harm and neglect. A supervision order may expose FF to inadequate and unsafe parenting, as would an interim care order with FF to remain in his mother's care. Such an order it would be contrary to his wishes.
12. The Minister's proposal of sharing parental responsibility pursuant to the terms of an interim care order will allow FF to be safe from the risk of further physical/emotional harm and neglectful parenting and will meet his welfare needs and give time for the relationship between FF and his mother to be supported so as to rebuild their relationship.
13. Having considered the welfare considerations, we were satisfied that it was appropriate to make an interim care order. As we said, we heard evidence from the Guardian who made various helpful observations in relation to the orders that the Court was invited to make, which the Court accepted, including our view that it was not necessary for there to be the appointment of an independent social worker to carry out a parenting assessment in this case; that is a matter which the very competent allocated social worker can carry out. The Guardian said that FF enjoyed his contact with his mother more than he thought he would, and was content at this stage for contact to remain supervised and agreed with the Court's observation that, as indicated by the care plan, if the ultimate objective is rehabilitation and for FF to return home, the care plan should specifically envisage, if the same is in the best interests of FF, for contact to become unsupervised and ultimately for there to be staying contact at FF's home.
14. These proposals were accepted by the Minister and having made the orders, as amended by the Court, we approved the draft care plan and directed that those amendments suggested by the Court and accepted by the Minister, with the support of counsel for the mother and the Guardian, be provided in final form by 5pm on the day of the hearing for the Court's review.
15. Accordingly, we made the interim care order and other ancillary orders sought.
