Care order - application by the Minister for an interim care order.
Before : |
W. J. Bailhache, Q.C., Deputy Bailiff, and Jurats Le Cornu and Blampied |
|||
Between |
The Minister for Health and Social Services |
Applicant |
|
|
And |
A (the mother) |
First Respondent |
|
|
And |
B (the father) |
Second Respondent |
|
|
IN THE MATTER OF LEO (CARE ORDER)
AND IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN (JERSEY) LAW 2002
Advocate D. C. Robinson for the Minister.
Advocate P. G. Nicholls for the First and Second Respondents.
judgment
the deputy bailiff:
1. This is an application by the Minister for an interim care order in relation to Leo who was born in January this year, (this is not his real name and is used for anonymisation purposes only). The mother holds parental responsibility. The father, who is the Second Respondent, does not hold parental responsibility but it is clear from the papers that we have seen that he wants to be treated as the permanent carer for this child. The history in relation to the mother is complex and indeed her circumstances have been before the Court on a number of occasions in the past. Much of the material which has been put before us is what I would describe as historic material and one has to be careful to avoid taking the stance that because there has been a problem in the past, it inevitably follows that there is going to be a continuing problem now. On the other hand, Advocate Robinson has put before us a number of documents including assessments by Dr Briggs which were conducted in 2010, where the psychologist expresses some doubts as to whether there is ever likely to be an improvement in the material parts of the mother's psychological makeup. He has also shown to us the pre-birth assessment which of course is a much more recent document and which itself gives some causes for concern in relation to the care of the child in this case.
2. For the purposes of the application for an interim care order now, the Court's threshold is simply that it must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that the child may be at risk of significant harm and the basis for the Minister's application is that this significant harm arises in a number of different aspects but in particular includes the possibility of neglect, the possibility of physical harm, the possibility of emotional harm and finally the possibility of not being adequately protected against risk including risk of sexual assault.
3. In all the circumstances of the case, bearing in mind that all the Minister has to achieve for the purposes of threshold at this stage is to show that there are reasonable grounds for thinking that these risks of significant harm exist, the Court is satisfied that they do exist and is therefore going to go on to consider the next matters that we have to think about and that is, whether or not it is right to make no order or whether it is right if we do make an order, to make a lesser order than an interim care order and whether or not to approve the care plan.
4. In the circumstances of the history of this case we are quite satisfied that no order would be the wrong decision to take. We are equally satisfied that it is right to look at the question of care order or supervision order in the context of the care plan, and having looked at the care plan which call for an assessment of both parents at Orchard House in Somerset, we are satisfied that the right order is to make an interim care order here and to approve the care plan in an order that enables that assessment takes place.
5. We have noted that Ms Issac, the social worker, agreed immediately on behalf of the Minister that the Children Services are not at all closed to the idea that the long term care of this child might rest with the parents but she says very fairly and in our view appropriately, that the next twelve weeks will be critical for the purposes of considering whether that is possible long term outcome. One cannot really take a longer term view than the twelve weeks assessment at the moment. Those weeks are crucial.
6. In all the circumstances the Court approved the care plan having announced that threshold is passed and the interim care order is granted on that basis.
No Authorities