Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2010]JRC140

royal court

(Samedi Division)

29^th July 2010

IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN (JERSEY) LAW 2002

AND IN THE MATTER OF V

Advocate E.L. Hollywood on behalf of the Minister.

Advocate P. S. Landick on behalf of the Mother.

Advocate A. C. M. Pinel on behalf of the Father.

judgment

the bailiff:

1.        This is an application for care orders by the Minister in respect of the three children of E and D, namely A and C and B.  We have received detailed reports on each of the three children; it is clear that there are serious concerns about the levels of nutrition being given to C and B who are both seriously under weight.  In the case of A, who has now left home and is living with a half-sibling, there are concerns that A is suffering emotional harm. 

2.        The Minister, the mother and the father all agree that interim care orders should be made.  Nevertheless, we must satisfy ourselves that the provisions of Article 30 (1) are satisfied, namely that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the circumstances with respect to the children are as set out in Article 24(2).  That article sets out the threshold criteria for care orders and requires the Court to be satisfied that the children are suffering or likely to suffer significant harm and that the harm or likelihood of harm is attributable to the care given to the children, or likely to be given to the children, not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give the children, or to their being beyond parental control. 

3.        Having read the reports we are satisfied that the requirements of Article 30 (1) are met, namely that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the criteria in Article 24 (2) are present.  We have seen the care plans, we are satisfied that what is proposed is in the best interests of the children and therefore we do make the interim care orders. 

4.        We have been asked to make a number of ancillary orders including an appointment of a guardian and a number of consequential matters about obtaining expert reports.  We make all of the orders requested in the draft presented to us except paragraph 2 which says that local counsel should be appointed to represent the children.  We are not willing to do that at this stage; it is our experience that sometimes lawyers are appointed when they cannot really assist the position beyond that which the guardian can do.  So for the moment we are not going to appoint counsel.  There is liberty to apply and therefore if anyone wishes to apply and gives specific reasons as to why there should be legal counsel appointed in this case, we will consider it at that time.  Our view at present on the information before us is that these children's interests can be well represented by a guardian who will, of course, be an experienced person, well versed in dealing with children.  Therefore, subject to that we make an order in the terms of the draft. 

Authorities

Children (Jersey) Law 2002.