Child Custody - application by the Minister for an emergency protection order.
Before : |
Sir Michael Birt, Kt., Bailiff, and Jurats Morgan and Liston. |
IN THE MATTER OF B (EMERGENCY PROTECTION ORDER)
AND IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN (JERSEY) LAW 2002
Advocate D. C. Robinson on behalf of the Minister.
judgment
the bailiff:
1. This is an application by the Minister of Health and Social Services for an Emergency Protection Order, under Article 37 of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002, in respect of B, who is a girl born at the General Hospital earlier today. Article 37(1) of the 2002 Law provides as follows:-
"(1) The Bailiff may, on the application of any person, make an emergency protection order with respect to a child if the Bailiff is satisfied that -
(a) there is reasonable cause to believe that the child is likely to suffer significant harm if -
(i) the child is not removed to accommodation provided by or on behalf of the Minister, or
(ii) the child does not remain in the place in which he or she is then being accommodated;"
2. In this case the Minister seeks an order on the grounds of paragraph 1(a)(ii) because she believes that the child should remain in the General Hospital being looked after there, but with supervised contact with the mother.
3. I have been referred to Re X (Emergency Protection Order) [2006] EWHC 510. I have reminded myself of what was said in that case, particularly as to the draconian nature of an emergency protection order and the need for there to be extraordinarily compelling reasons in support of it.
4. Furthermore, in this case I am asked to proceed ex parte because the mother is in hospital recovering from the birth, although she has been notified in advance that this application was going to be made. As stated in Re X an ex parte application should only be brought where it is absolutely essential and the evidential burden on the Minister is then even heavier.
5. Given the urgency of this matter and the impossibility of the mother being here now, I do agree to this matter proceeding ex parte.
6. Turning to the merits, I am also satisfied that I should make the order. The mother has a long history of mental health problems having been compulsory admitted to mental hospitals on at least five occasions in England. Her two older children do not reside with her. She lives normally in Sheffield. On 25th June, 2012, she attended Sheffield Maternity Home for a routine appointment in respect of the baby she was carrying, and to which she has now given birth. Staff there became aware of bizarre behaviour on her part, so much so that a decision was taken to apply for her detention under Section 2 of the Mental Health Act 2005. However, before that application could be completed, she absconded from the hospital on 27th June and found her way to Jersey, where she appears to have arrived on 29th June. On that day she was brought into the Accident and Emergency Department of the Jersey General Hospital. On 3rd July, following assessment by the Adult Mental Health Services, she was placed under an order under Article 7 of the Mental Health (Jersey) Law 1969, which means she may be detained for up to a year.
7. The evidence before me shows that there are real concerns about her mental state and accordingly her ability to look after her new born baby. I have read carefully the reports which have been prepared for this application and I am satisfied on the basis of those reports that, if the mother removes the baby from the General Hospital, there is reasonable cause to believe that the baby is likely to suffer significant harm. Accordingly the conditions for making an order under Article 35(1)(a) are satisfied. I am also satisfied that it is necessary to protect the baby.
8. The Minister is liaising with Sheffield Children's Service and the plan is that as soon possible the mother and the baby should return to Sheffield where apparently the Sheffield Authorities are preparing an application for an interim care order and it may be that the Minister too will apply for an interim care order to cover the position pending any removal.
9. All in all I am satisfied that it is indeed necessary to make an Emergency Protection Order notwithstanding the ex parte application and notwithstanding the draconian nature of the order. This is necessary to protect this newly born baby girl and ensure that she does not suffer significant harm.
10. I therefore make the order requested in the terms of the draft that you have prepared Mr Robinson.
Authorities
Children (Jersey) Law 2002.
Re X (Emergency Protection Order) [2006] EWHC 510.
Mental Health Act 2005.
Mental Health (Jersey) Law 1969.