Supervision order - application by the Minister for an interim supervision order.
Before : |
Sir Michael Birt, Commissioner, and Jurats Blampied and Christensen. |
|||
Between |
The Minister for Health and Social Services |
Applicant |
|
|
And |
(1) A, the mother (2) B, the father (3) Linda, the child (acting through her Guardian ad Litem, Jane Ferguson) |
Respondents |
|
|
IN THE MATTER OF LINDA (INTERIM SUPERVISION ORDER)
AND IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN (JERSEY) LAW 2002
Advocate P. F. Byrne for the Minister.
Advocate M. J. Haines for the Mother (First Respondent).
Advocate R. S. Tremoceiro for the Father (Second Respondent).
Advocate M. R. Godden for the Child (Third Respondent).
judgment
the commissioner:
1. This is an application by the Minister in respect of Linda, (this is not her real name), who is 13. It was originally an application for an interim care order but the Minister now seeks only an interim supervision order. The application is agreed by all the parties, that is the mother, the father, the guardian and Linda herself through her advocate. Nevertheless the Court has to be satisfied first, that it has jurisdiction to make such an order and, secondly, that if it has, this is the right order to make.
2. Linda lived with her mother until December 2016 at which time she went to live in Accommodation A on a voluntary basis. However, in recent weeks there have been difficulties. They are described in the social worker's report but in a nutshell Linda went to live with her father for a while then, when there were difficulties there, went to live with her mother before there were difficulties there and she returned to live with her father.
3. We have been presented with a threshold statement for an interim order. All the parties agree that the facts spelt out there are sufficient to satisfy the test in Article 30(1) of the Children's Law, in other words that there are reasonable grounds for believing that Linda is likely to suffer significant harm and that this is the result of the care given to her. We have had the advantage of reading the social worker's report and we agree that, on the basis of the information in that report and in the threshold statement, the threshold test for an interim order is satisfied. We therefore have jurisdiction to make an order. So the question then is what, if any order, should be made.
4. As we say the papers originally suggested the Minister was applying for an interim care order with a care plan which involved Linda going back to live in Accommodation A. It is today proposed that she live with her father but with a supervision order. Because of the change we asked to hear evidence from the social worker, Miss McCann, the guardian, Mrs Ferguson, and from the father, B. Having done so we feel assured that the correct course is being adopted. The guardian in particular explained that she and Advocate Godden had met with Linda on two occasions recently and that Linda was adamant that she did not wish to live at Accommodation A and wished to live with her father. The guardian formed the view that it would not necessarily be in Linda's best interests to force her to go back to Accommodation A when there is a family member, the father, who is expressing willingness to look after her.
5. Of course, many of the concerns which led to the Minister initially applying for a care order related to the father's ability to provide a safe and satisfactory home for Linda but we noted that last week there was an adjourned hearing at which the father gave certain undertakings. These were discussed again with him today and, if he adheres to them this will give great comfort to all concerned that he will be able to provide a safe and satisfactory home. The father has assured us that he understands the importance of those undertakings and intends to stick by them and, most importantly, to work closely with the supervisor, Miss McCann of the Children's Service, in order to work as a team on a trusting basis in Linda's best interests. We note in particular the undertakings about not giving her alcohol and making sure she attends school. All the undertakings are important for a child of Linda's age and we do very much hope that the father manages to adhere to those undertakings because they are absolutely vital for the success of what is proposed.
6. However, we are satisfied for the reasons given by the guardian and the social worker that the best course at this stage is to make an interim supervision order in the hope that the placement with the father will be successful. Clearly if it can be successful that is by far the best outcome for Linda.
7. We do have concerns as do the Children's Service and indeed as does the guardian. One particular concern which we have relates to the immediate future. The holidays are just about to start and we were a little concerned at the lack of specific plans to keep Linda constructively occupied and busy during the holidays. The Court sadly is all too familiar with teenagers who are let loose with friends on the streets and fall into bad company and we would not wish that to happen to Linda. So we would ask the supervisor to work closely with the father in order to see what can be done to help prevent that. The supervisor, Miss McCann, said that she anticipated being in touch and seeing Linda at least once a week. We would tentatively suggest that in this early period, particularly with holidays about to start, more frequent contact would be appropriate. It is high risk for the first few weeks in particular and we would urge the Children's Service to be as proactive as possible in trying to help the father and Linda through this period. That is a matter for the parties but we just express that concern.
8. Nevertheless we are satisfied that this is the best course and we therefore make an order in the terms of the draft given to us as amended during the course of the hearing.
No Authorities