Jersey Unreported Judgments

Secure Accommodation Order - reasons

[2023]JRC031

Royal Court

(Samedi)

23 February 2023

Before     :

R. J. MacRae Esq., Deputy Bailiff, and Jurats Cornish and Opfermann

 

Advocate J. A. E. Kerley for the Applicant.

Advocate C. G. Hillier for the First Respondent.

Advocate S. B. Wauchope for the Second Respondent.

Advocate M. R. Godden for the Third Respondent and the Guardian.

judgment

the deputy bailiff:

1.        On 3 February 2023, we made a Secure Accommodation Order for a period of 28 days authorising that the child in this case, CC, who is 11 years old, may be kept in secure accommodation until 3 March 2023.  We now give our reasons for so doing.

2.        CC was made subject to a Care Order on 15 June 2021.  He has a history of consistently absconding from his placement at Home 1.   As a result recovery orders were made by the Court on an ex parte basis on 1 May, 3 May, 6 May, 13 May, 15 May, 14 June, 24 June, 30 June, 2 September and 23 November 2022.

3.        He has refused to attend school since early September 2022.  He has been involved in a variety of criminal and antisocial behaviours over the last few months.

4.        After a two day hearing, the Court approved the decision of the Minister that CC be placed out of island at a therapeutic residential facility in the UK called Home 2 on 13 October 2022.  When an appeal by one of the parents against that order was withdrawn, efforts were made to place CC at Home 2.  Those efforts are recorded in a judgment dated 12 December 2022 (In the matter of CC (Secure Accommodation Order) [2022] JRC 277).  That judgment gave the Court's reasons for granting an urgent application for a Secure Accommodation Order on 25 November 2022.  The order was granted for a period of 28 days.  It was not challenged that the criteria for granting a Secure Accommodation Order were met at that time.  The judgment referred to efforts that had been made to place CC at Home 2.  Those efforts were unsuccessful.  CC's placement in Jersey at Home 1 had broken down and shortly before the hearing, CC and another boy had evidently been involved in the taking of a motor vehicle from a car park in St Helier which later crashed into a wall.  The police officer who gave evidence to the Court in November expressed the view that CC and the other boy involved could have been killed or severely injured, as could other people. 

5.        After CC was placed in secure accommodation, on 11 December 2022, he left Jersey and began living at Home 2.  CC's family were not supportive.  Both of his parents came to Home 1 uninvited to remonstrate and his brother, AA, damaged a glass door at a Children's Service office.  AA was arrested.

6.        Although generally CC has done well at Home 2, he has not always wanted to be there.  He went missing from Home 2 for forty minutes on 1 January 2023 and then again on 23 January 2023 and finally, with the assistance and, it appears, the encouragement of his parents, left Home 2 for Jersey on 31 January 2023.  His father and the elder brother, AA, were involved in the removal of CC from Home 2 and his return to Jersey.  CC's parents and brother have been arrested and a police investigation is ongoing. 

7.        CC's mother's view is that he is unhappy at Home 2 and should be in Jersey.  On the day of the hearing we were given a letter from Home 2, requested by the Court which, although untested by cross-examination, painted a positive picture.  The letter from Home 2 said that CC has 'settled into the home really well and built positive relationships with all staff within the home particularly his key workers....'.  CC is described as 'polite' and enjoying a wide range of activities.  He has built positive peer relationships, enjoyed playing in the multi-gym and, importantly, has attended the school on site and is making 'great progress' at the school.  Indeed, he had attended school every day since the beginning of the new term in January.

8.        So far as the Minister is concerned it is very unfortunate that CC's placement has been disrupted with the assistance of members of his family.

9.        Children's Service staff attempted to return CC to Home 2 by aeroplane on 1 February 2023 but he declined to get on the plane.  The decision was taken that he should be placed at Home 3 for his safety, a decision with which, it appears, CC was content.  CC was placed at Home 3 on the evening of 1 February 2023, just under 48 hours before the hearing.

10.      The 72 hour order made under Article 22(2) of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002 ("the Law") was authorised by the chief social worker and group director, acting on behalf of the Minister and exercising delegated powers from the Minister.  Her authorisation stated that her reasons for placing CC in secure accommodation were, inter alia, CC's 'very significant history of absconding', the risk of harm if he went missing from placement without permission; the fact that his family members had 'actioned a plan to remove him from his placement in the UK where he was living subject to a Care Order' and concerns, inter alia, for CC's safety whilst absconding.  The authorisation concludes 'There is no alternative to secure accommodation that can keep CC safe from risk of significant harm'.

11.      The team manager of the children and care team gave evidence before us.  She gave additional information about CC's removal / disappearance from Home 2, which occurred without any prior notice to Home 2.  She gave evidence about conversations she had had with Home 2 about CC's progress there which were consistent with the letter to which we have referred above.

12.      When she was cross-examined by counsel for the Mother, the social worker said that as far as she was concerned CC's Mother had not supported the placement at Home 2 and, in her view and from what she was told by Home 2 staff, CC's disappearance from Home 2 was arranged and planned with the Mother using coded language in conversations with CC.  She said the first time CC absconded from Home 2 for forty minutes, contact between him and his brother had just begun.

13.      As to CC's wishes, there was conflicting evidence.  The social worker said that CC had told her that he would like to return to Home 2 and wanted to see his key workers and others there.  The Guardian, when she gave evidence, said that CC did not wish to leave Jersey.  He wished to live with his mother, but, if the only option was Home 3, he would rather stay in Home 3 than have to return to Home 2.  The social worker said that CC was a child who needs help and support and it would simply not be possible for the Minister to keep him safe in Jersey if he were to return to Home 1 or equivalent accommodation.

14.      The social worker said she felt that Home 2 could keep CC safe, notwithstanding the fact that he had absconded on three occasions.  She said it was not a secure children's home.  She said that CC had spent Christmas at Home 2 and that staff had learned lessons from the times when CC had gone missing.  The social worker said that CC was not being schooled in Jersey and did not have a school place anywhere other than Home 2.  She said that Home 2 would provide CC with school work to do at Home 3, commencing the week after the hearing.  She said that referral had been made to 'Jersey Cares' for the appointment of an advocate to meet CC and represent him and express his wishes.  Jersey Cares is a charity independent of government.

15.      She said that CC had not been forced to go to Home 2, which is contrary to the understanding of CC's parents.  The Care Plan, which we approved at the same time as granting the application for a Secure Accommodation Order, provided that CC would remain at Home 3 whilst arrangements were made for him to return to Home 2; provided that the parents would not be advised of the return to Home 2 and noted that both parents were subject to police bail conditions preventing them from contact with CC without the express permission of Children's Services.  Any contact between CC and his family would occur in a secure place and be supervised. 

16.      The Father may not have been served with the application for a Secure Accommodation Order and in the circumstances was unable either to attend the hearing or play an active role through his counsel, Advocate Wauchope. 

17.      The Guardian gave evidence.  She said that CC had told her that he would prefer to stay in Jersey, at home.  She was concerned about the risk of CC absconding from Home 2.  She said that when CC had absconded, the establishment should have provided a report to the placing authority, i.e. Jersey.  We do not know whether such a report was made or the terms of any report.

18.      The Guardian accepted that CC met the criteria for secure accommodation.  He is an 11 year old child and at risk of harm.  She did not challenge the suggestion that 28 days would be an appropriate period.  She accepted the report from Home 2 was a 'glowing' one but it did not deal with the three times that CC had absconded.  The Guardian said that CC had told her that he enjoyed some of the schooling and liked some of the staff at Home 2.  She accepted that the report from Home 2 suggested that CC had made good use of his time there. 

19.      Advocate Hillier, for the Mother, did not suggest that the threshold for making a Secure Accommodation Order had been met - Advocate Wauchope for the Father and Advocate Godden for the Guardian accepted that the threshold had been met. 

20.      The Court directed itself as to the relevant legislative provisions for granting a Secure Accommodation Order under Article 22 of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002 ("the Law"):

"Secure accommodation other than for children on remand or following sentence.

(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 secure accommodation unless it appears -

(a)     that -

(i)      the child has a history of absconding and is likely to abscond from any other description of accommodation, and

(ii)      if the child absconds, he or she is likely to suffer significant harm; or

(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."

21.      We directed ourselves that the making of such an order is always the last resort and in addition to the criteria under Article 22, we had regard to the welfare of the child and the welfare checklist in Article 2 of the Law which included having regard to the wishes of CC (not to be the subject of a Secure Accommodation Order); his physical, emotional and educational needs, the harm that he is at risk of suffering, the capability of his parents, the other powers available to the Court and all the other matters set out in Article 2(3) of the Law, when considering whether or not to make the order applied for.

22.      We had no doubt that it was appropriate to make a Secure Accommodation Order for the 28 day period sought, made such an order and, as we have said, approved the Care Plan presented by the Minister.

Authorities

In the matter of CC (Secure Accommodation Order) [2022] JRC 277.

Children (Jersey) Law 2002