Jersey Unreported Judgments

Emergency Protection Order - reasons.

[2019]JRC112

Royal Court

(Family)

17 June 2019

IN THE MATTER OF SOFIA (EMERGENCY PROTECTION ORDER)

AND IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN (JERSEY) LAW, 2002

Advocate P. F. Byrne for the Minister

Advocate M. J. Haines for the First Respondent  

Advocate C. Hall for the Second Respondent

judgment

the Commissioner:

1.        On 1^st May, 2019, the Court granted the Minister a supervision order in respect of Sofia ("the Child"), who is now aged twelve, with the consent of the respondents.   The judgment setting out our reasons can therefore be brief. 

2.        In this case, the Child had been living with the first respondent, who is her maternal grandmother ("the Grandmother"), under a residence order granted on 28^th September, 2011, in what were private proceedings set against a background of public law proceedings in relation to her sister.  The Child thereafter lived with the Grandmother, but on 11^th June, 2018, made a disclosure of assault by the Grandmother, which led to the Court granting an emergency protection order on 11^th June, 2018, which was renewed until 20^th June, 2018, at which point the Court was satisfied that it was safe for the Child to return to the care of the second respondent ("the Mother"). 

3.        An interim supervision order was granted by the Court to the Minister on 5^th July, 2018, since when a good working relationship has developed between the Grandmother and the social worker, Ms Maureen O'Sullivan, such that, on receipt of extensive expert advice, the Minister concluded that reunification of the Child with the Grandmother was possible, although it was a finely balanced decision.  A care plan for reunification with the Grandmother was commenced at Christmas, 2018.  The Mother had not been assessed as being capable of parenting the Child, or of co-parenting her with the Grandmother. 

4.        The threshold test for the granting of a supervision order is the same as that for a care order, namely that at the relevant date, the child concerned is suffering or likely to suffer significant harm and the harm is attributable to the care given to the child not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give - Article 24(2)(a) of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002.

5.        The relevant date here is 11^th June, 2018, when this disclosure was made by the Child and the Minister first intervened, and the threshold document was based upon that assault (which the Grandmother had admitted), the Child's own complex needs and the inability of the Mother to parent her, due to her own needs.  Both respondents agreed that the threshold had been met.  Having heard the evidence of Ms O'Sullivan and of the guardian, Ms Susan Clarke, the Court agreed that it had been met and accordingly that it had jurisdiction. 

6.        Turning to the welfare stage, and having considered the welfare checklist with the assistance of the analysis both of the social worker and the guardian, the Court approved the very comprehensive care plan.  The Court agreed that a supervision order for twelve months was the appropriate order to make and to which both respondents consented. 

7.        The making of a supervision order was only possible because of an extensive package of support which the social worker has skilfully facilitated, liaising with the various agencies, and for which the Court commended her.  It was acknowledged by the Minister that the support and the therapy recommended constitutes a long-term commitment, which will endure long beyond the duration of the supervision order. 

8.        Both the guardian and the social worker expressed concern at the challenges being experienced in the Child's education.  Dr Elizabeth Gillett, a clinical psychologist, assessed her in this way in her report at paragraph 6.2.3:-

"6.2.3  I am confident that [the Child's] psychological profile is cognitively atypical with a reasonable likelihood of significant underlying neurodevelopmental vulnerabilities.  Intellectually [the Child] is bright, with above average verbal skills yet her adaptive and executive functioning skills are significantly impaired across the domains and all of her environments.  [The Child] self-reports extremely low self-esteem coupled with high levels of angry, disruptive, unruly and oppositional traits.  These generic psychological findings are consistent with an underlying neurodevelopmental condition/vulnerability".  

9.        Regular suspensions led to the Child, who is described as being bright, being educated away from the school at the public library for 1½ hours a day.  Although she is now being integrated back into the school, she is not achieving full-time hours, and there are apparently no plans to increase this.  Both the social worker and the guardian expressed serious concern over this, and the long-term implications to her education and development.  The guardian expressed her concerns in this way:-

"8.6     School A find [the Child's] behaviour difficult to contain and manage and have cited a lack of resources as a reason for her exclusion from the school site.  [The Child's] full compliance with all instructions from teaching staff seems now to be the requirement for her education to be provided consistently.  My concern is that this level of compliance will be difficult if not impossible for [the Child] to achieve on a consistent basis and such a requirement may simply set [the Child] up to fail.

8.7      I am concerned that for a child with [the Child's] significant and complex needs her educational provision remains a crucial component of the overall package of support for [the Child] along with her family, Children's Services and health.  If her education is fragmented or intermittent the risk is that this will undermine all other components of [the Child's] care plan.  I am aware that Ms O'Sullivan has made representations to [the Child's] head teacher with regard to the level of appropriate educational resources being made available to [the Child].

8.8      In my view [the Child] must be enabled to attend school on a full time basis.  There is sufficient expert assessment available to inform of her educational needs.  If [the Child's] ADHD or other aspects of her emotional or behavioural presentation are impeding her capacity to learn then specific plans should be made to address this.  If a factor of this is down to resourcing then this must be rectified.  I am aware that [the Child] has been referred to an educational psychologist and it may be that this leads to an assessment of whether [the Child] would benefit from an EHC Plan."

10.      It was confirmed that the Child is due to be seen by an educational psychologist with the possibility of an Education, Health and Care Plan being drawn up which may enable extra resources to be made available to the school, so that the Child can remain there.  We can only endorse the concerns expressed by the social worker and the guardian that the Child must be enabled to attend school on a full-time basis.  We understand the assistance of the Jersey Care Commission is also being sought. 

Authorities

Children (Jersey) Law 2002.