Care order - reasons relating to granting of application for interim care order.
Before : |
W. J. Bailhache, Esq., Bailiff, and Jurats Olsen and Thomas |
|||
Between |
Minster for Health and Social Services |
Applicant |
|
|
And |
(1) Mr C (2) Mrs C (3) A (the mother) |
Respondents |
|
|
IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN (JERSEY) LAW 2002
AND IN THE MATTER OF JOHN (INTERIM CARE ORDER)
Advocate C. R. G. Davies for the Minister.
Advocate A. T. H. English for the First Respondent.
Advocate C. G. Hiller for the Second Respondent.
judgment
the bailiff:
1. On 24th April, 2017, the Court received an application by the Minister for an interim care order in respect of John (this is not his real name), who is aged seven, which it granted with reasons reserved. This judgment contains those reasons.
2. The child is known as John. The First and Second Respondents are his maternal grandfather and his step-grandmother, who hold parental responsibility for him by virtue of a residence order made in 2011. The Third Respondent is John's mother who also holds parental responsibility for him. At the date of the hearing, she had not been served. She left the Island during the course of the residence proceedings in 2011, and has had no contact with John ever since. The Court determined, in accordance with the Children (Jersey) Rules 2005, that in the best interests of the child it would proceed in her absence as the arrangements for the child urgently needed to be considered, and the mother's present address appears to be unknown.
3. John's father is reported to have moved to Madeira a couple of years ago, and is believed to have died.
4. Following a disclosure made by John to his class teacher on 31st March, 2017, John was medically examined by Dr Timothy John Malpas, the consultant paediatrician at the General Hospital. As a result of that examination, John was taken into the voluntary care of the Minister with the consent of the grandparents. The application for the interim care order arose because the grandparents have withdrawn their consent to that placement. On the Minister's application for the interim care order, we heard evidence from Dr Malpas, Ms Laura Stark, a supervisor in the Children's Department whose knowledge of the case comes from her supervision of the social worker Lisa Lane, who was out of the Island, Ms Eleanor Green, the Guardian and, slightly unusually, from the grandfather.
5. We now turn to that evidence. Bearing in mind that we had to consider whether, on the balance of probabilities, there were reasonable grounds for believing that the circumstances of John are as mentioned in Article 24(2) of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002 ("the Law") namely that at the relevant date (31st March, 2017,) he was suffering or was likely to suffer significant harm, and that that harm, or the likelihood of harm, was attributable to the care given to him, or likely to be given to him if the order were not made, not being what it would be reasonable to expect his grandparents to give him. No question of John being beyond parental control arises in this case.
6. The disclosure made by John to his class teacher on 31st March was that he had suffered physical abuse at the hands of his grandparents including:-
(i) Being slapped by his grandmother on his cheeks, her nails dug into the back of his hand so that it bled;
(ii) That he was sometimes locked in the dark bathroom for as long as three hours; and
(iii) That he had suffered historical violence from his grandfather, and about a year ago had been hit with a belt. John said that "he makes it like a cowboy and hits me on the legs, ears and hands".
7. The medical examination showed John to be a boisterous talkative boy. He was wearing clean clothes and his fingernails and hair were clean. His nutritional status was satisfactory with weight and height unremarkable. Cardiovascular, respiratory and abdominal examination were normal. He had a small approximately 2mm scratch on the left side of his chin, which was very superficial in nature. There were a series of six bruises on the right side of the abdomen, just above the hip, ranging in size from ½cm to approximately 2cm long. Dr Malpas considered that the site of those bruises might indicate that they were abusive in nature and possibly may have been caused by pinching. However he noted that John denied that that was the case. There was also a circular mark on John's left buttock which is an unusual site for accidental bruising and may indicate an abusive bruise. This likewise may have been caused by pinching, but again John denied any such injury had been caused. There was a mark on John's left forearm, which is in a site suggestive of an abusive bruise, although Dr Malpas considered that it was possible that it was accidental in nature. In his opinion, it was necessary to explore further the nature of each of the individual bruises to ascertain whether they might have been caused deliberately.
8. Mr Malpas noted that the hospital records showed that John had been brought to Accident and Emergency in May 2015, with an injury to his scrotum, apparently caused by playing with a stick. The assessment at that time had been that it was likely to have been an accidental injury. The accident was said to have occurred the day before, but he had not told his grandfather until the following morning when said to be suffering pain. There was also said to have been some penile incident in 2011, although no records were available. In cross-examination Dr Malpas said that the likelihood of some of the bruises being caused accidentally was relatively small, and, if they were caused non-accidentally, that would be of significant concern.
9. The evidence from Ms Stark, in the absence of the social worker Ms Lane from the Island, was at least single if not double hearsay in most respects. She was however able to produce records of police interviews with John on 3rd April, and interviews with the grandparents on 31st March. As the grandfather speaks little English, the extent of the police enquiry of him was very limited, and he was described as angry and upset. He left the room and refused to engage any further. The interview with the grandmother continued, and she was described as being visibly upset but calm. She signed the authority for John to go temporarily into foster care. When the investigation was explained to her, she said that John "often says stuff". She also said that he had come home from school with bruises, black eye and once with a broken nose and nothing was done about that. She indicated around the waist when she was talking about John coming home with bruises. She also had a photograph on her telephone of John with a black eye, which she said had happened at school sometime previously.
10. In the ABE interview on Monday 3rd April, John was very nervous. He said he did not want to talk about his grandparents. He told the police that this grandparents were mean to him and he did not want to talk about it. He said that if the police told his grandparents what he said, they would get mad and hit him. He said that if he did not tell what had happened they would keep going and that is why he did not want to go home. He was asked how he got his bruises to which he replied he got them naturally and that nothing happens when he is at home. He was asked what happens if he is naughty at home and was adamant that he did not want to talk about it and he wanted to go back to see his foster carers.
11. Ms Stark said that while John has been in foster care, he has made other disclosures to his social worker which have included sharing a bed with his grandfather; an indication that his grandfather looks at other people's condoms; that there are monsters in the basement, that he sees the devil and that the devil's hour is three o'clock in the morning. When he was told that his grandfather denies locking him in the bathroom, he asked why his grandfather was lying, and he told his social worker to ask the police to look for a plank of wood behind the bedroom door which is used to lock the bathroom door. The police have not felt that there is sufficient to obtain a search warrant in that respect. Ms Stark confirmed in her evidence that John's main anxiety has been about returning home to his grandparents.
12. Ms Green has very recently been appointed and has not had the opportunity to speak to John. However she had never met a child who wanted to go into foster care. In her view, what John had said was troubling and she would be anxious about saying to him in effect that we, the adults, did not believe him. He would be unlikely ever to speak out again. Ms Green told us that the school had told the social worker that they were concerned about John's attendance and punctuality and there is obviously a communication issue between the school and the grandparents, particularly the grandfather, who is not able to speak English.
13. Finally, we heard from the grandfather. He told us that all the threshold allegations were untrue, save that it was correct that John sleeps in his bed. In that connection, there is a long history behind it. Since John was born, his mother used to put John in the grandfather's bed and John does not like to be on his own. Sometimes they have moved him to his own bed but he leaves it and comes back into the grandfather's bed.
14. The grandfather said that John was mixing up games which he played with John and other things. By way of example, they would play hide and seek and he would switch off the light and close the door. The grandfather would do the same to him and hide. He described their relationship as being one of two children and two adults at the same time. It was very good - they were like skin and meat.
15. He denied ever locking John in the bathroom and he produced photographs of the bathroom door, showing that it locked only from the inside. He denied ever hitting John with a belt. He described a game where John would pretend to be the grandfather and John would hit him with a fly swat, in a very mild or light way. He had never caused him pain or left any mark. He would discipline John by taking things away like his PC or i-Pad. As to why John should make a disclosure, he said that on 31st March, he understood from what the grandmother had told him, because he had been sleeping at the time, that John had been playing on his PC for a while. The grandmother had told John to close it, and he did not. John was upset when the grandmother did so, and he went all the way to school without saying anything. The implication was that when he did not get his own way with the grandmother he was likely to make things up.
16. The grandfather could not understand why John did not want to see him but he said that if John was afraid to come home, it may be because he has done something wrong. If John came home, the grandfather would certainly treat him with love and respect. He did not believe that John would have said all the things that it is said he said. The grandfather denied that he ever used condoms, and asserted that John could not have seen them in his house. Furthermore, the grandfather had never spoken to him about the devil. They lived on the second floor of the building and there was no basement in that building at all. He said in cross-examination that "I have never hurt him and I am not going to hurt him now".
17. For the purposes of granting an interim care order, the Court needs merely to find that there are reasonable grounds for thinking the circumstances in Article 24(2) of the Law might apply. The making of an interim care order is a protective order, granted at a stage when often neither the Minister nor the Court can have all the information available to be able to draw firm conclusions.
18. This is classically such a case. Until 31st March, John was not on the Minister's radar. However, we are now faced with a position where the child has some injuries, considered by Dr Malpas to be indicative of abusive injuries by virtue of the place on the body where they might be found, and those injuries are supportive of John's account given to the school and to the police. The injuries in themselves are not at the extreme end of the scale, but they could be indicative of significant emotional harm.
19. In our judgment, the single most telling piece of evidence which supports the Minister's submission that threshold is passed is that John, as a seven year old, does not want to go home because he is afraid he will be hurt again. That of itself is sufficient for the Court to reach the conclusion that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that, as a result of the care given to him by the grandparents, John has suffered or is at risk of suffering significant harm. The question of the injuries and the reasons for John's reaction, which is very unusual, need to be further investigated.
20. We have then applied the welfare test in connection with the care plan. There are too many unknowns at this stage to feel comfortable in sending this child back to live with his grandparents. Having regard to his wishes, which we are charged to do in particular, we do not think that would be the right course of action to follow at this stage. However, there is no doubt that John might have suffered some emotional harm from causes unconnected with the grandparents - he was after all abandoned by his mother and his father is said to be dead. In our view it is necessary to investigate the position with some urgency. We are mindful that delay can frequently work against the best interests of the child, and that appears to us to be especially true in this particular case. Accordingly, we have directed that an adult psychologist should undertake an assessment of the First and Second Respondents within four weeks of the receipt of the letter of instruction, which itself should be despatched within four days of the hearing on 24th April. Similarly, within the same period, the parties jointly are to instruct a child psychologist - we understand that Dr Carritt Baker would be available - to undertake an assessment of John which should be filed within four weeks of receipt of the letter of instruction.
21. Other directions have been given which are unnecessary for the purposes of this judgment, save that we note that a directions hearing should take place within one week after receipt of the child's psychological assessment.
22. The care plan is approved. However it provides for contact between John and his grandparents just once a week and is proposed by the Minister to be conditional upon John wishing such contact to take place. We do not resolve that issue finally today, and it is open to the grandparents to bring back an application for contact should they need to do so but we do express the view that it would be undesirable for contact to be other than supervised, that is should if possible take place twice a week, and that not too much attention should be paid to John's wishes in this respect. If reunification of John with his grandparents is to take place, which is on the face of it a desirable outcome, not only must there be enquiry as to why the present circumstances have arisen and such steps taken as are necessary to ensure they do not arise again, but there must also be some active continuity in contact before the damage caused by the circumstances giving rise to these proceedings becomes exacerbated.
Authorities
Children (Jersey) Rules 2005.