Secure Accommodation Order - reasons.
Before : |
R. J. MacRae, Deputy Bailiff, and Jurats Averty and Le Heuzè. |
Between |
The Minister for Children and Education |
Applicant |
And |
(1) (the Mother) |
|
|
(2) (the Father) |
|
|
(3) AA (the Child) (represented by his Guardian) |
Respondents |
IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN (JERSEY) LAW 2002
AND IN THE MATTER OF AA (SECURE ACCOMMODATION ORDER)
Advocate J. A. E. Kerley for the Applicant
Advocate C. G. Hillier for the First Respondent
Advocate D. C. Robinson for the Second Respondent
Advocate M. R. Godden for the Third Respondent and the Guardian
judgment
the deputy bailiff:
1. On 16 December 2022, we heard and determined an application made by the Minister to place ("AA") ("the Child"), in his early teens at the date of the application, in secure accommodation pursuant to Article 22 of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002 ("the Law").
2. The application was for a Secure Accommodation Order for twelve weeks. Ultimately, we made such an order but for a period of seven days only. This judgment provides the reasons for the Court making this order.
3. The Child has been in the care of the Minister since a Final Care Order was made on 10 January 2020. The reasons for the making of that order are set out in the Court's judgment.
4. The Child's usual place of residence since the making of the Care Order has been accommodation provided by the Minister at Support Establishment 1. The Child has consistently absconded from Support Establishment 1, with his whereabouts often being unknown. In the recent past his challenging behaviour has significantly escalated, particularly in the context of his brother's move to specialist therapeutic accommodation in the United Kingdom. The following incidents occurred in the days prior to the hearing on 16 December:
(i) [Redacted] when the Child was notified that his brother, ("CC"), had moved to the UK, he attended the Minister's premises at [Redacted], and damaged the glass entrance door causing the glass to break. The Magistrate's Court bound the Child over for a month, such order to run concurrent with his existing Probation Order.
(ii) Prior to CC's placement in the UK, the Child made various threats to harm members of the Minister's staff involved with the placement and on Tuesday 13 December 2022 a member of staff found the Child standing near their home and in consequence was forced to vacate their home and live, temporarily, elsewhere.
(iii) On 14 December 2022, the Child caused extensive damage to his room at Support Establishment 1, smashing a shower screen, breaking a television and causing other damage to property.
(iv) On 15 December 2022, the Child demanded access to a metal baseball bat which was usually kept in a locked shed. When this was refused, the Child assaulted the member of staff concerned and also damaged other property in Support Establishment 1. He said that there would be no peace at Support Establishment 1 until his brother returned to Jersey.
5. Article 22(1) of the Law provides:
"(1) Subject to the following provisions of this Article, a child who is being looked after by the Minister may not be placed, and, if placed, may not be kept, in secure accommodation unless it appears -
(a) that -
(i) the child has a history of absconding and is likely to abscond from any other description of accommodation, and
(ii) if the child absconds, he or she is likely to suffer significant harm; or
(b) that if the child is kept in any other description of accommodation he or she is likely to injure himself or herself or other persons."
6. The Minister submits that both limbs for making a Secure Accommodation Order are prima facie satisfied in this case, i.e. the risk of a child absconding and the risk, if he absconds, of the likelihood that he will suffer significant harm and if he is kept in other accommodation, other than secure accommodation, he is likely to injure himself or other persons.
7. We agree, and it was not challenged on the evidence, that the degree of emotional dysregulation currently exhibited by the Child means that prima facie both limbs for the making of a Secure Accommodation Order under Article 22 are met. Nonetheless, the Court has a discretion to exercise and must only make such an order as the last resort; for a maximum of three months only (subject to review by the panel constituted under the Children (Secure Accommodation) (Jersey) Order 2005), and only if it is appropriate to do so having regard to the welfare considerations, i.e. that the making of such an order must be in the best interests of the child.
8. At the date of the hearing, the Child was already in secure accommodation at Support Establishment 2 owing to a request for a 72 hour order made just after 8pm on 15 December 2022 which referred to the circumstances particularised above along with incidents such as the finding of a wrapped knife in the Child's bedroom on 23 November 2022, and other incidents involving the use of violence. The application was signed by the Group Director of Children's Services under delegated powers from the Minister.
9. We heard evidence from the social worker, the Mother and the Guardian.
10. The social worker has over thirty years' experience and has had direct knowledge of this case for over a year. She prepared the statement of evidence and the Care Plan. She said that she was very concerned by the Child's level of aggression and his vulnerability to criminal exploitation. She said that the Child's brother leaving the island had been a major event for him, representing a significant change in his family life. His current 'dysregulated state' was such that the Child 'cannot be reached' and he needed 'a period of secure care to allow staff to...assist him to regulate his emotions and to recalibrate his thinking around the perceived threat to his family' occasioned by his brother's removal from Jersey. Even though the plan to remove CC from the island had been something the Minister's officers had been trying to implement since the summer of 2022, it had been implacably opposed by the Child and the other members of his family. [Redacted]
11. The social worker said that a Support Establishment 3 assessment would be undertaken and a package of support and intervention would be made available to the Child at Support Establishment 2. The social worker said there were no other appropriate options. The Child's preferred alternative to secure accommodation, namely returning to Support Establishment 1, was not appropriate at this time as he would be likely to continue to exhibit aggressive and violent behaviour, posing a risk to himself and others.
12. It was suggested on behalf of the Father that the work with the Child that had been recommended by the Court after the final care hearing in January 2020 had not yet been carried out - this was rejected by the social worker.
13. The social worker said that, as things currently stood, they were unable to keep the Child safe at Support Establishment 1, as exhibited by what she described as the 'destruction' of his room there and the damage he had done to [Redacted]. Another concern was that the Child was coming and going freely from Support Establishment 1 and spending time with [redacted], notwithstanding measures put in place designed to prevent this.
14. The Mother's evidence was that this was not the first time that the Child had been in secure accommodation and such orders had been of no assistance to him. She said that she had warned that the Child's behaviour would be dysregulated if he was not adequately supported when he was told that his brother had been removed to the UK. She felt that Children's Services had not properly supported her son when this news was delivered to him. She criticised the plan for the Child's care in Support Establishment 2, which she described as a 'load of rubbish'. She said that she wanted the Child home for Christmas and that he would be unable to cope with the limited amount of contact with her proposed in the Care Plan prepared by the Minister for the period of the Secure Accommodation Order. The Mother told counsel for the Father that the Child had already calmed down significantly since his admission Support Establishment 2 and further progress could be expected over the next forty-eight hours.
15. The Guardian had seen the Child at Support Establishment 2 earlier that day. She described him as being quiet, on the verge of tears and missing his Mother and his brother. He said that he was sorry for his recent behaviour and she felt the family had been in 'crisis' owing to the removal of CC to specialist accommodation in the UK.
16. She felt that there had not been an adequate plan for helping the Child to prepare for the news of his brother's departure. In her report, the Guardian recalled Dr E's psychological report on the family from March 2019, which said that owing to the inability of the key adults in the Child's life to support him, he manifested a range of emotional and behavioural difficulties placing him at a disadvantage to his peers. The Child's needs are complex and severe, and it was essential that during his childhood he experienced a home environment that was boundaried, consistent and predictable, but also emotionally attuned and able to see beyond his immediate behaviour into his underlying emotional need. She confirmed that, as recommended by the Court in 2020, all those who care for the Child are trained in Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy ("DDP"), but she felt that the proposed Support Establishment 3 assessment would not reveal anything new. She was not convinced that he should be accommodated securely in Support Establishment 2 but if he should then a much shorter period of time was appropriate so as to permit him to spend Christmas with his family. Nonetheless, he would benefit from regular sleep and food at Support Establishment 2 in the short term. He was missing his Mother and should have regular contact with her. She confirmed in cross-examination on behalf of the Minister that the Support Establishment 2 unit was well run with trained staff who should be able to manage the Child. Nonetheless, the risks he presents should be able to be managed in the community.
17. As indicated, it was agreed that the threshold criteria for making a Secure Accommodation Order were met in this case. We were satisfied that in view of recent circumstances it was appropriate, as a last resort, for the Child to be kept in secure accommodation for a short period. We regarded such an order as being in the interests of the Child and the only way, during that short period, of guaranteeing his safety and the safety of those around him. But having heard the evidence that we did, we regarded it as appropriate for him to be back with his family, his Mother in particular, for Christmas, and accordingly we made a Secure Accommodation Order for the period of eight days expiring at noon on 24 December 2022.
Authorities
Children (Jersey) Law 2002.
Children (Secure Accommodation) (Jersey) Order 2005.