Jersey Unreported Judgments

Care proceedings- application by the Minister for an emergency protection order.

[2015] JRC097B

Royal Court

(Family)

8 May 2015

IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN (JERSEY) LAW 2002

AND IN THE MATTER OF HENRY (EMERGENCY PROTECTION ORDER)

Advocate S. M. Roberts for the Minister.

The Mother neither present nor represented.

judgment

the commissioner:

1.        This is an application for an emergency protection order in respect of Henry (which is not his real name) who is aged 10.  The Court was asked to sit as a panel as usual with a Judge and two Jurats; in fact of course applications for emergency protection orders are, under the statute, a matter for the Bailiff alone.  Accordingly, the decision that follows is my decision, although I have had the benefit of the views of the Jurats which have been of great help; and as it transpires they agree with me. 

2.        I have read the report of Ms Le Charpentier, the social worker from the Children's Service.  The concern in this case relates to the mental health of the mother.  She suffered a psychotic episode back in July 2014; she suffered a further such episode in February 2015 and was admitted to Orchard House.  Since 2^nd March Henry has lived with the partner of the maternal uncle.  She is Miss C and the Children Services are by all accounts content with the level of care which she provides in that household.  Indeed the Minister plans at present to apply for a care order and the draft care plan envisages Henry staying with Miss C.  However, what has provoked this application today is that there is evidence of a recent deterioration in the mother's mental health. 

3.        I heard evidence from Mr Ward the manager of the Community Mental Health Team.  He said that there had been reports received from Henry's school and from members of the mother's family that the mother is presenting as being paranoid, delusional, dishevelled and unkempt.  One piece of direct evidence in relation to this is a letter we have seen which the mother wrote and handed in to the school.  It alleges a wide spread conspiracy against her involving all sorts of people including the BBC and it clearly indicates that all is not well with her mental state.  I also heard evidence that yesterday she came to the home of Miss C and her condition was such that Miss C, together with Henry, hid in the home and did not come out to answer the mother's calls.  Ms Le Charpentier gave evidence that the Children's Services tried to engage with the mother, but at the last meeting, which was on Tuesday, the mother refused to do so; furthermore she accused them of being imposters even though she had met Ms Le Charpentier before.  The fear is that the mother may seek to remove Henry.  In fact she has done so on one previous occasion on 20^th March, although fortunately on that occasion a return to the care of Miss C was negotiated.  I am satisfied that if she did remove Henry then, given her present mental state, there is a real risk of significant of harm to Henry.  I am satisfied therefore that the terms of Articles 37(1)(a)(ii) of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002 are satisfied. 

4.        Now the Court has previously referred to the draconian nature of an emergency protection order.  I have again been reminded of the case of X Council v B (Emergency Protection Orders) [2005] 1 FLR 341 which has also been referred to in a number of Jersey cases, although these have not been included in our papers.  However, the draconian nature of an emergency protection order is usually related to the fact that by the order it is sought to remove a child or children from parental care ex-parte, or on a very short notice.  In other words it is the removal from parental care which makes it such a draconian step such that the Court must think long and hard before granting such an order. 

5.        Here in fact the situation is rather different.  Henry has been in his present home for the last two months and he has been placed there because of the mother's mental state.  All that is sought by the emergency protection order is to ensure that he remains there and is not removed unilaterally by the mother when she is in her present state.  The fear is, of course, that if there is no emergency protection order then the mother could remove Henry.  Although Miss C could call the police in such an eventuality, the police would have to be satisfied that they could properly make a police protection order.  Mr Ward has explained that the mother can present as being apparently reasonable for a short period and there can therefore, I think, be no guarantee that the police would feel able to make such an order.  If they could not, they would not be able to prevent the mother from removing Henry as she is at present the only person with parental responsibility.  I agree that it is vital for Henry's wellbeing that he remains with Miss C and is not removed by the mother. 

6.        I am satisfied that an emergency protection order is the most appropriate and proportionate method of achieving this because it will mean that, if the mother does try to remove Henry and Miss C calls the police, the police will be able to intervene and prevent removal on the strength of the emergency protection order. 

7.        Accordingly I think it is proportionate and right to make the order in the particular circumstances of this case and I do so until 21^st May, which is the date scheduled for an inter-partes hearing in relation to the application that the Minister is making for a care order.  The Minister has also asked me to make an order in relation to contact.  He wishes there to be an order that he does not have to grant contact pending the hearing on the interim care order, although he may in his discretion choose to do so.  I agree that this is the right thing to do and I make the order. 

8.        So in all these circumstances I make the order until the hearing. 

Authorities

Children (Jersey) Law 2002.

Re X Council v B (Emergency Protection Orders) [2005] 1 FLR 341.