Jersey Unreported Judgments

Emergency Protection Order

[2020]JRC243A

Royal Court

(Family)

19 November 2020

IN THE MATTER OF QQ (EMERGENCY PROTECTION ORDER)

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

Advocate J. A. E. Kerley for the Minister.

Advocate C. G. Hillier for the First Respondent.

Advocate D. C. Robinson for the Second Respondent.

judgment

the COMMISSIONER:

1.        This is an application for an Emergency Protection Order in respect of QQ, who is 9.  QQ's parents are separated.  The father was granted parental responsibility in early 2020 and QQ has been living with the father since January 2019.  The father and the mother have two other children.  A final care order was made in respect of one sibling in January 2020, who now resides in the care of the Minister.  QQ's other sibling resides with the mother along with a half sibling. 

2.        On 6^th November, 2020, an Education Welfare Officer and the Head Teacher at QQ's school witnessed him being shaken roughly from side to side by the father in the father's car and they say that QQ appeared distressed.  Afterwards they say that he then disclosed to them that the father had assaulted him on previous occasions, that he did not want to live with the father and that he did not feel safe.  The police were contacted and an ABE interview took place that day.  During that interview QQ referred to four other occasions when he said the father had hit him either by punching or on one occasion by kicking.

3.        Following the interview QQ was placed in temporary foster care with, I am told, the consent of the mother and the father.  The mother in particular said she could not provide care for QQ because of his behaviour.  QQ was taken to foster carers that day by car with the social worker and a colleague.  They stopped off at the father's house to collect belongings.  According to the colleague, QQ was extremely fearful about this.  He did not want the car to be parked close to the home and, whilst the social worker was collecting belongings, he insisted that the colleague lock the car door where he and the colleague remained.

4.        Since being placed in foster care, QQ appears to be settled.  He has stated on a number of occasions that he does not wish to return to live with his father as he does not feel safe.  As to the mother, he says that he told her about the violence by the father but that she had not acted on this as she felt it would get the father into trouble.  QQ says that he does not feel his mother can keep him safe.  The mother has also said that she does not believe that the father has assaulted QQ.  QQ has had contact with the mother but is not having contact with the father at the moment as he says he does not wish to do so. 

5.        As a result of the events that I have just described, there is an ongoing police investigation into QQ's allegations against the father.

6.        On 16^th November, the father revoked his agreement to QQ being voluntarily accommodated by the Minister.  As a result, the police exercised their powers under Article 42 of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002 ("the Law") to place QQ under police protection for 72 hours, but that is due to expire.  It is in those circumstances that the present application is brought this morning before me.  If granted the proposal is for QQ to remain with the current foster carers pending further steps which may include an application for an interim care order or such other steps as the Minster considers appropriate. 

7.        This application is brought under Article 37(1) of the Law which provides, so far as relevant, as follows:

"37      Emergency protection orders

(1)     The Bailiff may, on the application of any person, make an emergency protection order with respect to a child if the Bailiff is satisfied that -

(a)     there is reasonable cause to believe that the child is likely to suffer significant harm if -

(i)      the child is not removed to accommodation provided by or on behalf of the Minister, or

(ii)      the child does not remain in the place in which he or she is then being accommodated;"

This application is being brought under Article 37(1)(a)(i).

8.        In the case of Re B [2008] JRC 026A the Court said this at paragraph 22:

"I was referred to the case of X Council v B (Emergency Protection Orders) [2005] 1 FLR 341 which, at paragraph 57 of the judgment of Munby J, sets out the overriding principles which should be borne in mind when considering whether to grant an emergency protection order under the equivalent English legislation.  I have carefully considered the matters summarised there; in particular the fact that summarily removing a child from her parents is a draconian and extremely harsh measure requiring extraordinary compelling reasons.  Such an order should not be made unless I am satisfied that it is both necessary and proportionate and that no other less radical form of order will achieve the essential end of promoting B's welfare."

I have reminded myself not only of that comment, but also of what was said in the case of X Council v B (Emergency Protection Orders) [2005] 1 FLR 341 to which reference is made. 

9.        Advocate Robinson on behalf of the father, has referred me to some of the findings of the Court in relation to QQ's brother and in particular the father's learning difficulties.  He has also submitted that the father's position and his ability to look after children was adversely affected by a decision of the Children's Service in September, 2020, to move him from 3 bedroomed accommodation to 2 bedroomed accommodation.  However, the father has very realistically accepted that QQ cannot return to his care at present and accordingly does not oppose the making of an Emergency Protection Order. 

10.      Similarly, the mother, although she was not here today, does not oppose the order.  The Guardian appointed on behalf of QQ supports the making of an Emergency Protection Order given the current circumstances. 

11.      I bear in mind the cautionary words in the two cases I have mentioned, but I am satisfied that there is no alternative to making an Emergency Protection Order in this case, in QQ's best interests.  This is because:-

(i)        The father was seen to assault QQ at the school on 6^th November, although he does not accept the circumstances.

(ii)       QQ has alleged several other occasions of assault which are the subject of an ongoing police investigation. 

(iii)      QQ is saying that he does not want to live with his father or his mother and he says that he would not feel safe living with his father and that he does not think his mother can keep him safe. 

(iv)      The mother has, QQ says, been told of the assaults by the father but does not believe them and has not done anything about them.  Furthermore, she says she cannot in any event have QQ living with her. 

12.      I am satisfied that QQ cannot for the moment remain where he has been living and therefore an Emergency Protection Order is necessary to prevent the likelihood of significant harm.  It will enable the Minister to arrange for QQ to continue for the time being in foster care. 

13.      I therefore grant an Emergency Protection Order for 28 days. 

14.      No order is made re contact.

Authorities

Children (Jersey) Law 2002. 

Re B [2008] JRC 026A. 

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