Jersey Unreported Judgments

Supervision Order

[2022]JRC224

Royal Court

(Family)

11 October 2022

IN THE MATTER OF FF (SUPERVISION ORDER)

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

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

Advocate S. B. Wauchope for the First Respondent.

Advocate B. J. Corbett for the Guardian.

judgment

the COMMISSIONER:

1.        Today was originally fixed for an issues resolution hearing but the parties are now agreed on the way forward and accordingly the Court has been asked to make final orders.

2.        The background is that FF ("the Child") is now 14.  He came here from Country A with his mother when he was 2.  Until April of this year he lived with his mother ("the Mother") and her partner and the mother's half-sister.  Following a concern raised by others in March 2022 the Children's Service made enquiries and the police were also contacted.  On 8^th April, for the reasons set out in a judgment of that date the Deputy Bailiff granted the Minister an Emergency Protection Order as a result of which the Child was placed with foster carers.  The Minister was subsequently granted an Interim Care Order on 3^rd May with the reasons for that being set on in a judgment of 24^th May (In the matter of FF (Interim Care Order) [2022] JRC 114) 

3.        We have been provided with a threshold statement which sets out the matters which were also relied upon by the Court in making the Emergency Protection Order and the Interim Care Order.  We would summarise key points from that threshold document as follows:-

(i)        The Police located a signed contract between the parents and the Child which detailed a punitive regime of chores which the Child had to complete each day and a description of the punishments if he did not do so.  These punishments included running laps outside the house and missing meals.

(ii)       The Child was not allowed to have friends at home and was rarely allowed to visit his friends.

(iii)      The Child was only allowed one meal a day of rice and vegetables which he had to cook for himself.  If he had been good for a few weeks, he might be allowed something different to eat.  If he had done something wrong, he just had vegetables.

(iv)      The Child was forced to eat his meals alone in the bathroom.  His mother and partner sat watching television eating their food at the dinner table.

(v)       When the Child returned home from school, he had to go straight to his room and was not allowed into the rest of the house until after 5:00pm.  During this time he was only allowed to read books.

(vi)      The Child was not allowed to snack when he was hungry.

(vii)     The Child was made to run laps outside his house as punishment.

(viii)    He was often locked out of the home for 'bad behaviour' or not completing laps.

(ix)      [Redacted].

(x)       [Redacted].

4.        Since the placement in foster care the Children's Service has worked closely with both the Child and the Mother and her partner.  Amongst other measures the Mother and her partner have attended a program on parenting, and family support workers have been appointed both for the Child and for the Mother and her partner, with a concentration on parenting skills.

5.        It is clear that the Mother's behaviour was strongly influenced by her own upbringing.  She said early on that the punishments for the Child were mild in comparison to what she was given as a child.  The Children's Service is confident that she now appreciates that parenting in the way we have described is not appropriate. 

6.        Since the parenting course and the other work which has been undertaken, the Child has been having unsupervised contact with the Mother and her partner which has gradually been increased to three overnight stays per week.  In the light of this progress the Minister considers that there are good grounds for believing that the previous conduct will not be repeated if the Child returns to live with the Mother and her partner.  However, the Minister believes that it would be in the Child's best interests for there to be a Supervision Order rather than no order at all, so that help and support can be provided. 

7.        Accordingly, what is now proposed by the Minster is that there should be a Supervision Order for 12 months and that the Child should return to live full time with the Mother and her partner by 29^th October.  This proposal is agreed to by the Mother and by the Guardian on behalf of the Child.

8.        It is, of course, the case that the Court cannot make a Care Order or Supervision Order unless it is satisfied that the threshold criteria set out in Article 24(2) of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002 is met, namely

"(a)     that the child concerned is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm; and

(b)       that the harm, or likelihood of harm, is attributable to -

(i)        the care given to the child, ... if the order were not made, not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give the child, ..."

9.        The Mother and the Guardian accept that the threshold is met.  We are also satisfied on the evidence before us that this is so and therefore we have jurisdiction to make a Supervision Order.  We therefore have to turn to consider the question of welfare, in particular what is in the best interests of the Child. 

10.      We bear in mind the no order principle set out in Article 2(5) of the Law but we are satisfied that it is too soon for the Child to be returned to the care of his Mother without the support and help available pursuant to a Supervision Order. 

11.      The Guardian and the Mother agree that a Supervision Order should be made and that the Child should be returned to the care of the Mother. 

12.      Taking account of the welfare considerations set out in Article 2(3) of the Law, we agree that this is so and that it is the best course of action for the Child's welfare.  It is clear that the Mother and her partner love the Child and we are satisfied that they have learned from this experience.  The Mother emphasised to us today through her advocate that she realises that she had gone down the wrong road and she is grateful for the help and guidance she has received, particularly from the social worker.  We are satisfied that she will do this anyway but we emphasise to the Mother the importance of her continuing to accept and act upon the help and advice of the Children's Service and other agencies. 

13.      In these circumstances we are satisfied that the best course is for the Child to return to live with his Mother and her partner but with the benefit of a Supervision Order in the terms of the draft produced to us and we make an order in those terms.  We wish everyone every success and hope that all goes well. 

Authorities

In the matter of FF (Interim Care Order) [2022] JRC 114. 

Children (Jersey) Law 2002.