Jersey Unreported Judgments

Interim Care Order.

[2023]JRC033

Royal Court

(Family)

2 March 2023

Before     :

R. J. MacRae, Esq., Deputy Bailiff, and Jurats Ramsden and Opfermann.

 

IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN (JERSEY) LAW 2002

AND IN THE MATTER OF NN, JJ, KK AND MM (INTERIM CARE ORDER) (ASSISTED BY AMAYA ARANA IN HER CAPACITY AS GUARDIAN)

Advocate C. R. G. Davies for the Applicant

Advocate C. G. Hillier for the First Respondent

Advocate S. B. Wauchope for the Second Respondent

Advocate R. E. Colley for the Third Respondents and the Guardian

Extempore judgment

in private

the deputy bailiff:

1.        Today we have heard an application for an Interim Care Order made by the Minister under Article 30 of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002 in relation to ("MM"), born in 2008 and thus aged 14, and ("KK"), born in 2011 and thus aged 12.  The step siblings of MM and KK ("the Children") are, ("NN") born in 2011 and thus aged 11, and ("JJ"), born in 2015 and thus aged 7, are already subject to an Interim Care Order made on 21 December 2022.  

2.        The First Respondent is the mother of MM and KK.  MM and KK's father is deceased.  The mother and ("D") are joint parents of JJ.  NN's mother is understood to be deceased and D is his father.  Accordingly, D is the father of the two children already subject to an interim care order (NN and JJ) and stepfather to MM and KK or at least the current partner on the evidence we have of the mother. 

3.        The mother is due to be released from a custodial sentence [date redacted].  Since she was remanded in custody the Children (as we have defined them) have been accommodated by the Minister on a voluntary basis under Article 17 of the Law.  The mother had recently suggested that she may withdraw her Article 17 consent on her release from custody which would automatically mean that the Children would be returned to her care on such release. 

4.        The mother was sentenced to a period of [sentence redacted] imprisonment [date of the sentence redacted].  After that time for a period of it seems approximately two weeks MM and KK were living with and cared for by D who was also caring for NN and JJ.  On 20 September 2022, D threw the Children out of the family home after an argument about sweets. 

5.        Since being accommodated by the Minister, MM and KK have made a number of allegations about D's aggression, fighting within the family home and coercive and controlling behaviour towards their mother.  Examples of those allegations were contained in an email dated 28 November 2022 from MM and KK's paternal aunt with whom MM currently lives.  These include:

(i)        [D] would get drunk all the time especially at weekends. He would often pass out on the stairs or wet himself. On one occasion he fell over with his trousers down and both [MM] and her friend were exposed to him with his trousers and boxers down.

(ii)       When [D] was drunk, he would take ["B"] to the bedroom.  It did not matter if it was day or night, the children had to listen to them having sex.

(iii)      [D] was verbally abusive to [B], screaming and calling her names and threatening to block her phone.  

(iv)      [MM] said that [D] has thrown a phone at her before and hit her head.

(v)       When [B] was working at the dentist and [D] was at home, he would ask [MM] to leave the house.  On a few occasions if she did not want to go he would physically push her out the house.

(vi)      [D] had control of all phones and iPads and set them so he had access to them all and when someone annoyed him, he would turn their access off or turn the Internet off.

(vii)     [MM] and [KK] witnessed [D] throw and break glasses and the mother's phone across the floor when angry. 

(viii)    [MM] witnessed [D] go after [B] with a pair of scissors.

(ix)      Both children witnessed [D] shouting, being abusive and trying to start fights with neighbours.

(x)       On numerous occasions [D] told both [KK] and [MM] that they are different as they are not his kids.

(xi)      When [B] went to Prison, before the children went into care, [D] would tell them he didn't want them, and he would put them in care. On the last day [D] had the children he threw them out of the house and threw an old pair of shoes at [KK].  [MM] said that she was told do all the housework and had to clean and wash [JJ].

(xii)     [KK] said that when they were all in the lounge watching a movie [D] 'made his mum stroke his trousers where his willy was'.

(xiii)    Both children have said they are very scared of [D].

6.        JJ and NN were taken into care subsequent to their father allegedly when in drink telling the Children's Service on 6 December 2022 that he could no longer cope with them.  On that day he attended JJ's school under the influence of alcohol, it is said, and NN and JJ were removed from his care by the police using their powers under Article 41 of the Law.  D was arrested on suspicion of child neglect pursuant to Article 35 of the Law.  He remains on police bail in respect of this matter and enquiries are continuing.  

7.        The following day 7 December 2022, the Minister applied for, and was granted, an Emergency Protection Order in respect of NN and JJ and as we have said, subsequently an Interim Care Order was granted on 21 December 2022.

8.        The evidence we have seen and heard, without at this stage needing to make any findings includes:

(i)        A long history of the Children being known to Children's Services, owing to concerns about inter alia the risk of sexual abuse, parental alcohol abuse, domestic abuse, coercive control and physical abuse.  

(ii)       MM and KK were made subject to a Child Protection Plan under the category of "neglect" on 21 May 2022; prior to that time they were supported by Child in Need plans. 

(iii)      During the course of the Child Protection plans, neither the mother nor D have engaged with Children's Social Care, nor accepted the concerns raised by Children's Social Care staff.  The mother fails to accept that she is a victim of domestic abuse and, as indicated, MM and KK were, after their mother's incarceration thrown out of the family home by D, who was to all intents and purposes their stepfather.  It was that incident which led social workers to make a Teams call to the mother in custody who in turn gave her consent to the Children being placed in foster care under Article 17.  

(iv)      The mother has been unable to prioritise the needs of the Children over and above her relationship with D and has indicated that she wishes to continue with that relationship when she is released.  Indeed most of her visits in custody have been - at her volition - visits by D. 

(v)       Concerns have been expressed that D is abusing alcohol which impacts the care he provides to the children.  On 6 December 2022, he told a social worker 'The pressure your department is putting me under, it's making me drink all the time, all I think about is drinking beer.  It's the pressure your department is putting me under, it's making me have a mental breakdown."  Whilst on bail he has either in breach of bail or, in the alternative, in breach of the advice of the Children's Service been attempting to contact the Children, mainly by a way of subterfuge using the names of others on App.1 and App.2 causing distress to the Children. 

(vi)      Evidence that MM and KK are at risk of neglect, physical harm and emotional harm, and are likely to suffer significant harm because of the care given to them or is likely to be given to them by their mother and D if returned to their mother's care. 

9.        The social worker gave evidence in accordance with her statement which we do not propose to repeat.  She told us that the Children feel safe where they are currently accommodated.  The Children do not wish to go home to their mother if she is seeing D or even in a relationship with him.  They did go to see their mother in prison two weeks ago.  It was a difficult meeting, and they felt their mother did not reply honestly to their questions regarding D.  The social worker last spoke to the mother on Tuesday and she said that she still wanted to be in a relationship with D. 

10.      At a recent review the mother's independent domestic violence adviser said that B had a good insight into the effect of her relationship with D and the effect it was having on the Children but has decided to choose the relationship with D.  The social worker was at a loss to explain this.  The social worker informed us that, as we have indicated, MM is living with her paternal aunt and is content there.  The plan is for this to continue.  

11.      As to KK, he is living at a small children's home run by the Minister called Accommodation A.  We were informed for the first time in evidence that the plan is that tomorrow he will be joined there by NN and JJ and that the three children will live at Accommodation A together until any further Court Orders are made.  We will return to this issue when we consider the evidence of the Guardian. 

12.      The social worker also told us that the mother failed to telephone KK as planned on his recent birthday [redacted] and also, on the evidence we have seen, failed to contact either of the Children on Christmas Day or shortly thereafter. 

13.      In answer to questions from the Guardian, the social worker said that MM was angry and traumatised by her experience of being cared for by D and her mother, and that KK was similarly traumatised.  He has been exposed to inappropriate sexual behaviour which may explain his current sexualised presentation which is quite out of key with his age.

14.      The Guardian gave evidence she has had limited time to investigate the Minister's application, having only recently been notified of its listing.  MM is concerned that her mother is choosing D over her and her siblings.  As we have said, MM is currently living with her paternal aunt and she said that she would like to spend half her time with her mother and half her time with her aunt but only in circumstances were the mother regained her trust.  MM said that much of the time prior to her mother receiving a custodial sentence she herself cared for her younger siblings KK and JJ. 

15.      KK was unaware of the Court proceedings until spoken to by a social worker.  He is young, immature for his age and is now at School A.  As we have said, he is currently accommodated at Accommodation A and he said he would only return to his mother's home if D was no longer there.  The Guardian said it is, 'exceptionally clear' that all four of the children in this case have been expressing concerns about their safety and wellbeing for a number of years, and she suggests that the Minister conducts a 'thorough review as to why the children were not properly safeguarded sooner, despite a number of referrals relating to domestic abuse, concern of inappropriate sexual behaviours, alcohol misuse, physically and emotionally abusive parenting practices and sexualised behaviours seen by the children'.  The Guardian supports the making of an Interim Care Order in the terms sought by the Minister. 

16.      In evidence the Guardian said that in relation to possible alternatives to the interim care order sought, namely an Interim Care Order with the children remaining at home with the mother or a Supervision Order both would rely on the Minister having a high level of trust in the mother.  The Guardian said the mother cannot be relied upon in this case; she has been compromised in her ability to protect the children for a number of years owing to her relationship with D and it cannot be guaranteed that she will protect them now.  

17.      In respect of the proposal that the three of the four children live together at Accommodation A the Guardian, quite rightly in our view, expressed some concerns.  She was not sure what the reason for the move was or its urgency and she said that she would have expected there to have been a clear risk assessment as to the siblings living together; a safety plan for each child and an assurance that they would never be left unsupervised owing to various tensions that may exist between them as revealed by the papers in this case.  Subsequent to the Guardian giving evidence, counsel for the Minister told us that such assessments would be carried out by tomorrow morning and copies given to the Court.  We directed, and the Minister accepted, that the care plans for each child would reflect that those assessments had been carried out. 

18.      We are satisfied that threshold has been met in this case.  In relation to MM, the Minister proposes that she remain in her placement with her paternal aunt and uncle and anticipates that the paternal aunt will be approved as a connected person's carer for MM, and we make orders in relation to that assessment.

19.      The paternal aunt has expressed the view that she would wish to continue to care for MM and that MM would be at the risk of harm if she was returned to the care of her mother and/or D.  We have also considered the proposal in relation to KK. 

20.      As to the contact between the mother and the Children, the Minister says that she will promote that.  Contact between the mother and KK will take place once a week, subject to KK wishing to have such contact.  Such contact will be supervised by the Minister for one hour per week and take place at the officers of the Minister.  KK seeks no contact with D and his decision is supported by the Minister.  Contact with KK's step siblings will be promoted by the Minister and if they live together at Accommodation A will occur in any event.

21.      As to MM, it is proposed that she will have contact with her mother on the same basis as her brother, that is to say there will be contact between herself and her mother once a week supervised by the Minister for up to one hour at the Minister's offices.  No contact with D is proposed but contact with her sibling will be promoted.  MM says that she does not want to have any contact with NN at this time. 

22.      We are satisfied that to make the order sought was in the interest of the Children, having regard to the matters set out in the welfare check list in Article 2(3) of the Law.  We accept what the Guardian said in relation to a Supervision Order namely that such an order would, in our judgment, be inadequate to protect the children from harm.  In particular the mother would fail to comply with any conditions or agreement preventing D from having contact with the children.  We scrutinised the proposed Interim Care Plans with care and, subject to the amendments that we have suggested to the Minister in the course of submissions which have been accepted.  We approve those Care Plans which we regard as reasonable.  So, accordingly we:

(i)        Adjourn the Minister's application for final care orders.

(ii)       Being satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing the circumstances in respect of the Children are those referred to in Article 24(2) of the Law, made an interim care order pursuant to Article 30 of the Law, placing the Children in the care of the Minister until 5 April 2023.

(iii)      Order that the Minister shall, by 12 noon tomorrow, file on the Court the updated care plan and impact and risk assessments in respect of KK, JJ and NN's accommodation at Accommodation A.  

(iv)      Order that the parties shall, by 5:00 p.m. on 3 March 2023, jointly instruct the psychologist already commissioned in the proceedings in relation to NN and JJ, namely Dr James Murray, to undertake a psychological assessment of the Children, whereby the Minister shall be responsible for sending the instructions, and the report shall be filed by the date already fixed for the assessment of NN and JJ.

(v)       Ordered that the parties shall, by 5:00 p.m. on 3 March 2023, agree any additional questions they wish to put to the experts already jointly instructed to assess the First and the Second Respondents, namely Dr David Briggs, Ms Sarah Bateman and Dr Tanya Engelbrecht.  The Minister shall take the lead and the reports of such assessments shall be filed by the dates already fixed in relation to proceedings relating to NN and JJ;

(vi)      Ordered that all health and medical records, including but not limited to GP records, and any mental health records of the Children shall be made available to the relevant experts;

(vii)     Ordered that School A and School B (the "Schools") shall, by 5:00 p.m. on 15 April 2023, file statements and up to date chronologies, detailing but not limited to the following:

(a)       MM and KK's attendance, behaviour, presentation in school to date.

(b)       Any reported concerns about the Children and the action taken.

(c)       The parents' interactions with the Schools. 

(d)       Any other matters of note.

(viii)    Ordered that paragraph 15 of the Act of Court dated 21 December 2022 shall be amended to read "...leave is given to disclose...", it being understood that the proceedings referred to in that paragraph relate to an application for parental responsibility in respect of the child JJ.

(ix)      Ordered that the First and the Second Respondents shall each provide the Minister with names and contact details of any persons whom they wish to be considered for a viability assessment in relation to the Children on or before 5:00 p.m. on 17 March 2023.

(x)       Ordered that any connected persons/kinship care assessments undertaken by the Minister in respect of the Children shall be completed by 5:00 p.m. on 17 June 2023.

(xi)      Ordered that the orders made at paragraphs 20 to 26 inclusive of the Act of Court dated 21 December 2022 in respect of NN and JJ shall apply in these consolidated proceedings in respect of all four children. 

(xii)     That there shall be liberty to apply. 

Authorities

Children (Jersey) Law 2002.