Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2011]JRC165A

Royal Court

(Samedi)

24 August 2011

IN THE MATTER OF DD

AND IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN (JERSEY) LAW 2002

Advocate D. C. Robinson behalf of the Minister.

Advocate D. A. Corbel on behalf of the Mother (present).

Advocate C. J. Scholefield on behalf of the Father (present).

judgment

the commissioner:

1.        The Minister applies for interim care orders to be made in respect of the three children, B, A, and DD.  We have received as evidence in chief the three reports of the social worker Miss Anna Flower, who has also given evidence before us and her evidence was not challenged.  For reasons which will become clear Mrs Corbel was not in a position to accept instructions from the mother but at our request she remained in Court to assist us. 

2.        The threshold for the imposition of an interim care order is whether there are reasonable grounds for believing that the circumstances of each child are as mentioned in Article 24(2) of the Children's Law, which is in the following terms:-

"(a) that the child concerned is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm; and

(b) that the harm, or likelihood of harm, is attributable to -

(i) the care given to the child, or likely to be given to the child if the order were not made, not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give the child, or

(ii) the child's being beyond parental control."

3.        The evidence that we have heard suggests very strongly that the mother is suffering from mental ill health with delusions in particular about the children's safety into which the children appear to have been drawn. 

4.        Many allegations have been made by the mother against the father, none of which have been substantiated; for example that he has attempted to poison their food and water supply.  This allegation has apparently led to the mother keeping the children's food permanently on her person and dispensing it from there.  The children have apparently witnessed her screaming and shouting at people who do not exist.  She has driven them around the Island for hours on end and moved from time to time to guest house or hotel accommodation, all for their "safety".  Their routine is irregular.  There are locks on their bedrooms, and indeed a bolt outside one of the bedrooms, with the implication that the children are locked in their rooms at night.  The front door is very heavily secured.  Contact with the father was prohibited by the mother, notwithstanding an order from the Family Division.  There are concerns as to over-physical chastisement by the mother with the use of a bamboo stick but these are secondary, on the evidence of Miss Flower, to the emotional harm that she tells us the children have, in her opinion, suffered.  The mother has consistently refused to engage with the Children's Services or to be psychiatrically assessed.  She has told Mrs Corbel that she refuses to cooperate with any such assessment because she fears that she will be harmed by the doctors concerned.  She has told the children that if they talk to the Children's Services, they will be injected with poison or sold abroad. 

5.        Matters came to a head on 5^th August, 2011, when, after a four hour stand off between the mother and the Children's Services and the police, access to the home was gained and the children removed to the care of the father, where they remain.  It was not suggested by either Mrs Corbel or Mr Scholefield that the threshold for making an interim care order had not been met.  We have no doubt therefore that there are grounds for believing that the circumstances are as set out in Article 24(2) and that the threshold test for the making of interim care orders is met. 

6.        The guiding principles for the making of interim care orders are set out in the case of In the matter of P [2009] JRC 206A at paragraph 10 as follows:-

"The general guiding principle is that interim orders are to be used to safeguard the welfare of the child until the Court is in a position to decide whether to make a care order.  An interim care order is an impartial step to preserve the status quo pending the final hearing and does not give the Minister a tactical advantage (see the case of Re G Minors (Interim Care Orders) [1993] 2 FLR 839).  An interim care order is a neutral and effective way of preserving the status quo designed to give the court the ability to maintain strict controls over any steps to be taken with respect of the child.  The court is not required to make a final conclusion at an interim hearing, the purpose of which is normally to establish a holding position pending a final hearing.  A court should make an interim care order only if an interim supervision order appears unlikely to be sufficient to obviate and meet the risks of harm to the child.  In addition the paramountcy principle, welfare checklist and principle of non-intervention apply to the decision regarding what, if any, order should be made."

7.        The father is employed full time on a farm and has two-bedroomed accommodation provided with that employment.  He lives with his partner of two years, and the oldest child F who had earlier left the care of the mother, of his own accord.  The children appear to have responded well to the move and, notwithstanding the inevitable difficulties in such a move, wish to remain there.  A real issue arose therefore as to whether the Court should make an order at all.  Why should the State intervene if the father and his partner are capable of meeting the children's needs, that capability being one of the matters that we are required to take into account under Article 2(3)(f)? 

8.        We are satisfied, after careful consideration, that interim care orders as opposed to no orders or supervision orders are necessary for the following reasons:-

(i)        Whilst the Children's Services are encouraged by the way the father and his partner have taken in and looked after the children, it was too early to reach a judgment as to their capability.  Parental assessments would need to be undertaken. 

(ii)       The impact upon the father and his partner had been substantial and the stability of the new arrangements are not yet clear.  In particular it had been planned that the partner's 17 year old son, who apparently lives in Madeira, was due to return to live with them after their planned four week holiday in Madeira.  That return by the son is clearly no longer possible in view of the limited accommodation.  It was not entirely clear that the father fully appreciated how the four week holiday itself could not now realistically take place in the interests of the three children. 

(iii)      The suitability of the father's accommodation needed to be addressed, which the Children's Services were in a good position to assist on. 

(iv)      The father did not himself appear to have taken any action to protect the children whilst they were living with the mother.  Such criticism may not transpire to be fair but a proper assessment is necessary. 

(v)       An interim care order would assist in protecting the children against the mother, who strenuously maintains a desire to have them back under her care. 

Mr Scholefield did not oppose us proceeding in this way on the basis that it is an interim order that we are making and not a final order. 

9.        Under the care plan, which we have considered and approved, it is not proposed that the mother should have contact with the children until she has been psychiatrically assessed.  In view of the statements she apparently makes to the children we think that must be right.  It raises however another issue which concerns us.  It is quite clear that the mother will not consent to a psychiatric assessment thus there is the prospect of there being no contact between her and the children indefinitely.  It is ordinarily in the interests of children that they should have a relationship with their mother and in this case with a mother whose apparent mental ill-health has been treated.  We were told that the mother's GP was extremely concerned as to her mental health but for reasons which were not clear, no application had been made for her to be admitted for observation under Article 6 of the Mental Health (Jersey) Law 1969.  That Article provides as follows:-

"(2) An application for admission for observation may be made in respect of a patient on the grounds-

(a) that the patient is suffering from mental disorder or, as the case may be, from addiction of a nature or degree which warrants the patient's detention in hospital under observation (with or without other medical treatment) for at least a limited period; and

(b) that the patient ought to be so detained in the interests of the patient's own health or safety, or with a view to the protection of other persons"

10.      Whilst this Court is not qualified to make any determination as to whether the mother is suffering from a mental disorder, the evidence appears to us, as lay people, to be overwhelming.  As to the second part of the test, we have no doubt that the children needed to be protected when they were living with the mother, and still need protection as she remains their mother, is desperate to see them, and may not be capable of understanding the orders that we make.  It is for the two GP's to recommend admission for treatment, not this Court, but from the point of view of the children, we can express the very firm view that it is in their interests that she be admitted, observed and if necessary, treated. 

11.      We ask the Minister therefore to provide the Court with a written explanation of what, if any, steps are taken in this respect within two weeks of today's date, with a view if necessary of the Court convening a further hearing to consider the issue further. 

12.      Thus to recap; firstly we find the threshold for the making of an interim care order met; secondly we make an interim care order until 7^th October, 2011, when it will fall in line with the monthly renewals; thirdly we ask the Minister to provide a written explanation as already indicated; and fourthly we give the directions sought as follows:-

(i)        A guardian ad litem be appointed for the children;

(ii)       there be disclosure of the papers to the said guardian ad litem;

(iii)      the parties shall, within ten days, jointly instruct a child psychologist to undertake an assessment in respect of the children, such assessment to be filed within ten weeks of receipt of the letter if instruction;

(iv)      all health medical records are to be made available to the appointed expert;

(v)       leave is given to the parties to disclose the assessments and reports produced within the proceedings to the appointed child psychologist;

(vi)      this matter is to be listed for a directions hearing within six weeks of the granting of the interim care order, and

(vii)     the parties shall have liberty to apply. 

13.      Finally, the mother has, we are informed, raised an issue as to the paternity of B in other proceedings and we do therefore order that this issue be resolved by paternity being established and for DNA samples to be taken in the usual way.  

Authorities

Children (Jersey) Law 2002.

In the matter of P [2009] JRC 206A.

Mental Health (Jersey) Law 1969.