Supervision Order extension - reasons.
Before : |
R. J. MacRae, Esq., Deputy Bailiff, and Jurats Ramsden and Averty |
Between |
The Minister for Children and Education |
Applicant |
|
(1) B |
|
|
(2) C |
|
|
(3) FF (the Child) (through his legal representative Advocate Christina Hall) |
Respondents |
IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN (JERSEY) LAW 2002
AND IN THE MATTER OF FF (SUPERVISION ORDER EXTENSION) (ASSISTED BY HIS JFCAS GUARDIAN)
Advocate C. R. G. Davies for the Applicant
Advocate M. R. Godden for the First Respondent
Advocate A. T. H. English for the Second Respondent
Advocate C. Hall for Third Respondent
(Represented by his Guardian Ad Litem, Elsa Fernandes)
judgment
the deputy bailiff:
1. We heard evidence and argument over two days on 9 and 10 February 2023. At the end of the hearing we made our decision and we now give reasons for so doing.
2. There were two applications before the Court in relation to ("FF"), who was born in 2013 and is the adopted son of both ("B") and ("C").
3. The first application before us was to extend by twelve months the Supervision Order, first granted on 28 April 2021 and extended on 26 May 2022. The effect of an extension would be that the Supervision Order would expire on 10 February 2024 and would last in total for two years and ten months - the maximum permitted by statute being three years.
4. The second application before the Court was an application by C for their contact with FF, currently supervised by the Children's Service, to no longer be supervised by the Children's Service but be supervised by B only. C's application was opposed by the Minister and, for at least an initial period, by the Guardian. The Minister's application for the extension of the Supervision Order was opposed by the Guardian and B, with C resting on the wisdom of the Court.
5. It is not necessary to repeat the contents of the fact finding judgment, which followed a five day hearing from 8 to 12 March 2021. However, in the Court's judgment reported at In the matter of FF (Care proceedings) [2021] JRC 198, the Court rejected C's evidence on oath and found that C had searched for and viewed a number of indecent images of children; that C had a 'long standing sexual interest in children', and that C 'presents a risk to [FF] and children in general which needs to be addressed as a pre-condition to him enjoying any direct contact with the child'.
6. No adverse findings were made in relation to B.
7. Furthermore, in respect of the communication between C and an officer from the Metropolitan Police on 6 March 2020, in which the officer was posing as a person with a sexual interest in children, C claimed that they had ejaculated over the half-sibling of FF who was just ten months old and that they intended to engage in sexual activity with FF, the full contents of which are set out in the Court's judgment delivered on 28 July 2021, C was charged and convicted of an offence under the Telecommunications (Jersey) Law 2002. C was sentenced on 16 March 2021 to nine months imprisonment. The Court found that the offence was sexually aggravated under the Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010 and the Court made a Restriction Order in relation to C, an order which can only be made on the footing that the Court found to the civil standard that C represented a risk of sexual harm to others. One of the restrictions provided that C was not permitted to have unsupervised contact or communication with any child under the age of sixteen years, other than such contact or communication with their son that was permitted by the Children's Service or the Court.
8. When the Court determined that the Supervision Order should be extended on 26 May 2022, the Court noted the undertakings given by both parents, which included undertakings in effect that they have no contact with each other unless agreed by the Children's Service or the Court. The Court stated at paragraph 2 of the judgment given on that day that it was 'essential that [B] cooperate with the Children's Service as it was in [FF's] interests that he do so' and held that it was essential that work that was envisaged that would be done under the Supervision Order be completed. At paragraph 3 of the Court's judgment [unpublished], we said to B:
"A package was put together last year which has been expanded upon today and it has been put together to promote [FF's] best interests and to address the risks that exist in this case. The Court and the Children's Service have to proceed carefully and it is not something that has been revisited today but it is only just over a year since the five day hearing which led to the Court finding, having heard evidence, that [C] has a "long standing sexual interest in children" and that [C] "presents a risk [to FF] and children in general which needs to be addressed as a pre-condition to [C] enjoying any direct contact with [FF]". You might not agree with that, but that is what was found by three members of the Court having heard all the evidence and it is that finding, which was never appealed, that is guiding the thoughts and concerns of the Children's Service, and the other material available to them. So it is very important that you have that in mind otherwise, if this work is not done, we will be back here in just under a year extending the order again. The maximum duration of a supervision order is three years. That is not something that anyone wants and I know that you regard yourself as [FF's] gatekeeper and guardian of his best interests, but in many respects that is the job of the Court; we have made these decisions having regard to his interests, do you understand that?"
9. Unfortunately some of that work has, on any view, still not been done and it was the evidence of one of the witnesses who gave evidence before us that this work was 'crucial'. We accept this evidence. This work was set out in the Supervision Order at paragraph 9 which recited that B had agreed with the Minister, inter alia, that they would engage in work recommended by Jo Ziegert of Chapman Devere Consulting and Rob Tucker of RGT Trading and Consultancy Limited which was, inter alia, designed to safeguard FF. That was described in the hearing before us by the parties and the relevant witnesses as the 'Keep Safe' work recommended by Dr Briggs and endorsed by the Court. The work was to be undertaken by the Minister with input from Mr Tucker, a social worker specialising in child sexual abuse cases and was designed to assist FF in understanding C's behaviour, the safeguarding concerns about them, being able to perceive any attempts to groom him and challenge attempts to assault him. It was agreed by all the witnesses that in view of FF's special needs, this work needs to be carefully planned and B agreed that this work could finally start the week following the hearing.
10. The background to the hearing was coloured by the fact that the Minister and the Guardian were, understandably, taken by surprise by the fact that on 27 January 2023 C appeared before the Magistrate's Court in connection with an extradition request from Country 1, the allegation being of twenty-two sexual offences set out on a draft indictment. The summary within the extradition request, which was made by a judge of the Capital of Country 1 [Redacted] in January and June 2022, says that the complainant claimed to have been sexually abused by C when he was aged between three and six years, when C was aged between thirteen and sixteen years. The complainant is C's cousin; the alleged offences occurred at an address in the Capital of Country 1 when C was babysitting and the complainant's account is supported by his brother who has provided a statement confirming he recalled the complainant coming out of the bathroom (where the offences occurred) upset when C was babysitting. The most serious allegations include C [redacted]. C was interviewed by Country 1 police under caution. C accepted babysitting for his cousins, but denied the allegations made against them. C maintains the denials and, although they did not give evidence before us, they said that they were going to return to Country 1 voluntarily in the very near future in order to participate in the Country 1 Court process and maintain their denial of the allegations made against them.
11. The circumstances and outcome of the Country 1 proceedings are obviously uncertain and will, on any view, result in an alteration of contact arrangements.
12. Last year the Court ordered that the States of Jersey Police Offender Management Unit provide a report for the purpose of this hearing. Owing to the fact that C is a registered sex offender, C is currently managed by the Offender Management Unit which provided a report dated 1 February 2023. C has been managed by the Unit since his release from La Moye Prison on 15 September 2021. C is subject to two separate risk assessments, a Stable Risk Assessment and an Acute Risk Assessment. Both tools are used to assess risk of sexual offending. The Stable Assessment is usually conducted annually, taking information from the last twelve months; the Acute Assessment records day-to-day changes and takes into consideration factors which can vary rapidly.
13. C has been subject to three Acute Assessments since their release, in September 2022, December 2022 and January 2023. The most recent shows that they are at 'moderate' or 'high' risk of sexual offending. The Stable Assessments have been carried out in May 2022 and January 2023 and have yielded a finding that they are at 'moderate' risk of sexual reconviction. We do not summarise the remainder of the report which was extensive and commented on C's domestic and other circumstances. We noted that in relation to C's 'general self-regulation', it was noted that they 'regularly move the conversation on to their own grievances, mostly in relation to Children's Service. This is apparent no matter what the topic of conversation is when attempting assessments.' Under the title 'Cooperation with Supervision', the author of the report noted that C is 'generally compliant' but there was a 'suspicion of disguised compliance and diversion'. The concluding paragraph recommended that 'any child contact should continue to be supervised by Children's Service for the near future'.
14. At the date of the hearing, C was enjoying video contact with FF, supervised by the Children's Service once over the weekend, and twice directly with FF each week, supervised by Children's Service in a public place and in the presence of B, usually for about two hours on each occasion. The Court noted that the decision of the Children's Service to introduce direct contact between C and FF had been a matter that had not been the subject of prior Court approval / sanction, and that the Court was presented with a status quo of contact between C and FF which, on the evidence we received, was going well and was enjoyed by FF.
15. We heard evidence from a number of witnesses and will now turn to the pertinent parts of their evidence. We do not, in view of the length of the reports and statements filed in this case, attempt to summarise all of the evidence.
16. Dr David Briggs is a forensic psychologist and a clinical psychologist and produced two reports in this case, the last being dated 23 February 2021. He has also written letters subsequently. His last report was written after C had pleaded guilty to the Telecommunications Law offence, but prior to being sentenced and prior to the fact finding hearing. We note from paragraph 5.1 of the February 2021 report that Dr Briggs observed that he was told by C that they had 'very little contact' with B. Two years later when one might have expected that contact to have diminished to almost nil, it appeared from the evidence we heard that that was far from the case. In that report, Dr Briggs said that C faced a 'very significant period of rehabilitation' and would need to 'accommodate any findings made by the...Court'. He went on to say:
"[They] will have to build a credible formulation of the nature of [their] sexual interest and [their] sexual misbehaviour, exploring in more detail than [they have] been able to thus far the nature of those factors which may have predisposed [them] to problematic sexual behaviours. [They] will need to have an understanding of the nature of static (unchanging) risk factors as well as dynamic (changeable) risk factors, and the potential triggers to any collapse of self-control and self-regulation."
17. Dr Briggs went on:
"Once [they] [have] built a credible and robust formulation of the nature of [their] difficulties [they] will then be positioned to address dynamic risk factors. It is likely [they] will need to consider attitudes which could support [their] sexual offending, the sexual interests and complex sexuality, alongside strategies to manage inappropriate sexual thoughts and urges."
18. Commenting in his letter dated 17 October 2022 on the report from ("G") (probation officer) dated 8 July 2022, Dr Briggs noted that G said that although C had engaged with the probation programme, they were 'less able to explore and evaluate the sexually deviant aspects of [their] behaviour and the offence'. She noted that '[C] has maintained [their] position of not having a sexual interest in [their] son or any children, therefore discussion around the risk concern could not be explored in any detail'.
19. C still refuses to accept most of the findings made by the Court after the fact finding and accordingly Dr Briggs said that they were 'best described as partly treated'.
20. On the evidence, which we have referred to above, C plainly continues to represent a threat of sexual harm to children in general and FF in particular.
21. Dr Briggs accepted that B presented as a protective factor, i.e. with the capacity to protect FF from abuse at the hands of C. In relation to the continued contact between the parents, Dr Briggs observed that 'If [they] [B] has deliberately broken an undertaking then that would raise a question mark about how candid and open they [have been]'. Dr Briggs said he did not believe that B would deliberately expose FF to harm and that is an opinion which we accept.
22. However, he went on to observe that B 'can become arrogant and should take care that [they] [are] not perceived in that way'. Their approach could accidently expose FF to the risk of harm. Dr Briggs said that he did not think that B would 'step away' from [their] duty to supervise, but there 'could be drift and complacency'. He said there was a 'consensus' that contact between C and FF should not be unsupervised and, in any event, the proceedings in Country 1, particularly if they led to a conviction, would make moving to unsupervised contact 'even more difficult'. However, he felt that there could be 'direct contact electronically'. Dr Briggs said that he had not seen either B or C since 2021.
23. Jo Ziegert of Devere Consultants did not give evidence, but her statement dated 4 February 2023 was considered by Dr Briggs. She supported the making of a Supervision Order 'to continue to allow [FF] to have access to the work outlined in [Mr Tucker's] material, in whatever way that work is tailored for [FF's] individual needs'. Dr Briggs accepted that Ms Ziegert had seen the parents more recently than he had. Dr Briggs said that he thought that the 'Keep Safe' work was sensible, although in his view it was not fundamental and he did not know whether it was a necessary pre-condition for the change in supervision as per the current contact arrangements. He did think B could supervise video contact. He also expressed the view that the 'safety plan' for FF should be updated, with which we agreed.
24. Dr Murray is a clinical psychologist employed by Guernsey Health and Social Care, specialising in the psychological wellbeing of children and families and his focus was on the psychological wellbeing of FF and the relationship he has with his parents. He produced a report in September 2022 and updated his report in February 2023. He expressed the opinion that contact with C was in the best interests of FF, but that the contact needed to be safe and child focused. He agreed that the 'Keep Safe' work was a good idea and needed to be adapted to FF's needs. He said that the impact of the work may be less than for a child who was older and more cognitively able. He said contact with adults would always be risky for FF and he will be less able to spot signals and keep himself safe than an older or more cognitively able child. But even a very able child would not be able to resist the determined attempts of an abuser to abuse them. Dr Murray accepted that FF may conceal information from B, and that it was hard for a child to separate out good and bad secrets. The papers disclosed a recent example of FF keeping a secret from B. At a contact session on 19 January 2023, FF was playing with C and told them that he had downloaded App 1 on a device and that C should not tell B - the latter he referred to as [Redacted]. It was said on behalf of the parents that what FF was saying in this regard was untrue as he was unable to download App 1 owing to the control of the administrative functions of his devices. In any event, Dr Murray said it was concerning that FF had asked C not to tell B something as we do not know whether he was keeping any other secrets, in particular secrets from B. Dealing with the issue of keeping secrets would be part of the 'Keep Safe' work.
25. Dr Murray accepted Jo Ziegert's opinion that the Supervision Order should be extended to allow FF to do this work as recommended. Dr Murray said that FF will be upset by C leaving Jersey for Country 1 and that FF would have questions as to why C was going and when they might be coming back. In respect of what FF may be told about the Country 1 proceedings, Dr Murray said this was a difficult question as on the one hand it was important not to unduly alarm FF, but on the other he must not be misled or deceived. He should be told something which was true, but not alarming. What B should tell FF should be discussed with social workers before B communicates with FF about the questions which he is bound to ask. Dr Murray expressed a view that FF should continue to have contact with C by video when C returns to Country 1. Such contact sessions should be shorter as FF is not keen on video contact, but they could occur with the same frequency as existing sessions. Dr Murray did not know if, as suggested by the Minister in the draft supervision plan, FF would object to contact being reduced from three face-to-face sessions per week to two such sessions. Dr Murray said that video contact was 'much less risky for [FF]' than face-to-face contact; it was also easier to supervise or monitor. He thought that B could supervise such contact and / or record such sessions and make them available to the Children's Service for review. He said that [Redacted] was quite rarely diagnosed and that B could assist with the 'Keep Safe' work by repeating the work or subsequently going over work that had been done with FF. As to the Minister's proposal that FF may have sessions (supervised by Children's Service) with both parents separately, Dr Murray said this would be 'fairly normal' in circumstances where parents were separated and were not going to reunite. However, he said that he thought that the principal reason for introducing direct contact between FF and C would be because of the possibility that at some point in the future C might have unsupervised contact. He said that such a possibility may not arise 'for a very long time' and could be 'years away'.
26. Sarah Bateman is an independent childcare consultant who produced a comprehensive risk assessment report in August 2022. She has spent eighteen years as a practising social worker and interviewed both parents, Josephine Ziegert, and the social worker in the case last summer and undertook a risk assessment of both parents. Ms Bateman's report revealed that B believed that C was a 'good person who had done a bad thing'. C denied the Country 1 allegation and was unable to give Ms Bateman any details about the alleged incident. She said the Country 1 extradition proceedings represented a 'significant risk while the investigation was ongoing'. She confirmed that C did not accept the Court's findings from March 2021. In her opinion the 'Keep Safe' work which was still outstanding was 'crucial' for FF. She said that it was 'imperative' that it was 'impactful and delivered in a way that [FF] can be part of learning'. She thought that contact between FF and C 'could be supervised by [B],' but this did not come without risk. She said that in theory the 'Keep Safe' work could be delivered to FF absent a Supervision Order on the footing that he was a child in need pursuant to the provisions of the Law. However, a Supervision Order 'would give more robust direction' in her opinion. She also said that 'a Supervision Order can be helpful when parents have struggled to work alongside social workers'. This was, in our view, an apposite observation on the facts of this case. She also agreed that social work advice would be very helpful to B when attempting to explain why C had gone to Country 1. The Children's Service would also be a useful conduit for the purposes of obtaining information from Country 1 to the benefit of B and those assisting FF in Jersey.
27. Ms Bateman was shown the conclusion reached by the Offender Management Unit to the effect that contact should remain supervised at this time. She said that this was not an unreasonable conclusion for the States of Jersey Police to have reached on the basis of their assessments.
28. The social worker gave evidence. She had been allocated to the case in November 2022 after the previous social worker had left the Children's Service. However, prior to that time she had become familiar with the family and had supervised contact between FF and C.
29. In her view the news of the Country 1 proceedings and pending extradition meant there was objectively an increased risk to FF in this case. Pending his departure to Country 1, she proposed that the frequency of contact between FF and C be reduced from three to two sessions a week, on Tuesdays and Thursdays with B present. She said that FF had come to enjoy face-to-face contact with C. She said that now that FF was spending more time in education and had other demands on his time he was likely to become tired at the end of the day - that it was appropriate to have two rather than three direct contact sessions per week. She said that she was a sounding board for FF, offering him consistency and reassurance. She said that she would work with B to assist him in explaining to FF why C had left the island. She said that when C had left the island then contact between FF and them should continue by video contact. She said there should not be direct contact in Country 1, with FF travelling to Country 1 for that purpose. B, when he gave evidence, accepted that there is no question of FF leaving the jurisdiction for the purpose of contact with his absent parent.
30. The social worker said that she saw FF twice a week, once in person and once virtually, and would see B once or twice a week too. In her view, the continuance of supervision by social workers was essential in order to, inter alia, observe the interactions between FF and C. She said the existing and proposed extended Supervision Order provided a 'scaffold' which allowed social workers to assist and befriend FF. She said that they were 'on the verge' of starting the 'Keep Safe' work for FF. She agreed that this work should be tailored to his needs, and she expressed the view that it should be carried out under the Supervision Order. She said that the Family Group Conference has not made progress owing to a request made by B. She said the safety plan was, in her view, 'not yet in place' and one of the recommendations made by Dr Briggs was that after the 'Keep Safe' work had been done, the safety plan needed to be revisited and reviewed.
31. The social worker was asked about the fact that last autumn the Minister appeared to be promoting the suggestion that contact could move from being supervised by the Children's Service to being supervised by B only. The social worker said that with the benefit of hindsight it had been 'premature' to come to that decision. In any event, she could only speculate on the views of the social worker at that time. She confirmed that B had withdrawn FF from the educational facility that he was attending as he had been assaulted by another child and he was now receiving support of School 1 from a specialist teacher. She said that FF was a child with a high level of needs. She said that a family group conference was needed to explore additional support for FF and that the Children's Service would be funding the 'Keep Safe' work. She said in theory the Children's Service could supervise contact between FF and C without the Supervision Order, but that would be a voluntary arrangement with B and could not be overseen or enforced by the Court. As to the 'Keep Safe' work, the Children's Service had two family support workers available to assist, one of whom had experience of delivering such work and both had experience of working with children with learning difficulties. She confirmed that it could commence next week and had pencilled in a start date accordingly. As far as she was concerned, the 'Keep Safe' work should have started before now. In respect of the supervision of contact, the social worker accepted that there may come a time when B might supervise contact but she could not envisage when that would be and it should not, in her view, occur now. There was still 'a way to go'. She thought that the parents were deceiving Children's Service as to the reason for their meetings. When C goes to Country 1 and contact between them and FF became video contact, she felt that it was still important for the contact to be supervised by Children's Services for the sake of consistency. When asked questions on behalf of the Guardian, the social worker said that she struggled to see how B's cooperation would be achieved in the absence of a supervision plan and a Supervision Order. In addition to having contact with C after school, he needed to do the 'Keep Safe' work and might wish to do activities with his peers which she said was a 'tricky topic for [B]'.
32. She said she was concerned about reports of the parents meeting up - most recently a few days before the hearing on 2 February 2023 - when a member of the public photographed them together at the harbour getting into a car driven by B which they had borrowed from C. The social worker rejected the assertion that B had called her on the day in question to inform her of this meeting. She said that she would have expected a message or an email from B but they had not sent one. She accepted that the Children's Service were content with the parents meeting up for the purposes of discussing business matters between themselves. It was put to her that B had wanted help from C to deal with 'a mixer' which they were using in his [Redacted]. The social worker said that there were 'previous incidents' of the parents having reported to have met, but there was 'no evidence to back it up'. As to the extent to which contact between the parents was permitted by the Children's Service, she confirmed that was encapsulated in an email dated 17 November 2022 which set out, inter alia, that there was no need for the parents to be in direct contact regarding FF's contact arrangements or education, health or wellbeing, but contact between the parents 'around financial issues and practical matters relating to the business' did not require Children's Social Care to be notified in advance. However, the arrangements 'must be in writing and made available on request by Children's Social Care'. The undertakings given by the parties were recorded in the judgment and Act of Court dated 28 April 2021, and a subsequent attempt by C to be released from the undertaking not to attempt to make, directly or by third party, any contact with B or FF without the consent of the Children's Service was rejected by the Court on 26 May 2022 with the Court ordering that the undertakings previously given shall remain in force.
33. B gave evidence. They spoke about times in recent months that they had needed to contact C in relation to the business. One happened in the small hours - between 1 and 2 a.m. on 30 October 2022 [redacted]. B said, and we accept, that they are under substantial financial pressure, needs to make a living and does not fully understand the equipment that they need to use in the way that C did. They said they were currently facing legal proceedings issued by his previous lawyers and was likely to default on his mortgage in March. They described their situation as 'intolerable'. They said that the meeting shortly before the hearing, which was captured on photographs at the harbour, was not 'furtive'. They claimed that they had tried to call the social worker, although this is a matter which is disputed. They said that FF did not have App 1 or any social media; that everything was 'locked down' at home and FF could not in any event read or write. They said that they felt the contact between FF and C should continue thrice weekly by video link when C went to Country 1; that it needed to be fluid and flexible and some contact sessions may only last fifteen to twenty minutes. They said that the Court should trust them to supervise contact between FF and C. They said they accepted the findings the Court made in 2021 about C's conduct and long-standing sexual interest in children. They accepted that C posed a risk to FF and children in general. They said that owing to the business, their life and that of C had been 'intertwined'. They said they would like the undertakings to be relaxed to allow them to discuss business matters. They said they relied upon C for technical matters. They would also like contact with C in order to organise the supervision of contact. They said that when they heard that C was going to be extradited, they went to the Magistrate's Court to watch the proceedings in order to see what was going on. They denied he was supporting C by his presence - they said they were simply listening to what was being said.
34. They accepted that the police assessed C as currently being at moderate to high risk of sexual re-offending. They claimed that they had the benefit of living with C for twenty years and therefore would know when C was lying to them, but they accepted that they had no idea that C was deceiving them by watching child pornography and that that had been concealed from them. However, they accepted that paragraph 14 of the witness statement that they made for the purpose of the hearing which was dated 6 February 2023, and purported to deal with recent contact with C, did not mention the meeting at the harbour. They said they had not started proceedings to dissolve their relationship with C, which they said they were going to initiate some two years ago, for financial reasons. They said that the flat in which they lived was still a joint asset and both the car that they drove and the insurance were in C's name. They said that things 'need to be untangled'. They said that they were attempting to raise additional funds by doing human resources work to generate some income, had applied for disability benefit for FF, and also had 'taken in' someone who they referred to as 'N' for £400 per month. At no stage in their evidence or their witness statement did they reveal (that was a matter which the Court only became aware of during the evidence of the Guardian) that 'N' was in fact C's nephew and probably his closest relation in Jersey.
35. The members of the Court were extremely surprised that this was a matter that we learned about right at the end of the hearing. This evidence indicated that B whilst living with FF had chosen to sub-let part of his property to a very close relative of C.
36. B said that FF would be upset about the extradition proceedings and that they would not need assistance from a social worker in order to help him explain this matter to FF. They said 'the experts do not know how competent I am'. They did not accept that the advice of professionals was helpful and said that no one understood FF like they did. They agreed that they would not take FF to Country 1 and that contact with C whilst they were in Country 1 would be by video only. They said that they had always supported the 'Keep Safe' work and agreed that it could start next week. They accepted that the work needed to be 'ingrained in [FF's] procedural memory'.
37. They said the safety plan they developed was 'far superior' to Jo Zeigert's and the plan needed to be updated. They accepted a social worker should be involved in this, and B said that they could do that in an evening. They said that they were 'tolerating' the new social worker which was, in our view, a dismissive and (recalling Dr Briggs' evidence), arrogant remark. They said that if a Supervision Order was made then they would comply with it and work with the Children's Services.
38. The final witness was the Guardian. In her report, the Guardian noted that the Minister planned to reduce face-to-face supervised contact between FF and C from three times a week to twice a week, and from two hours to one and a half hours per session. She disagreed with this proposal. She felt that it was more important for a child to have contact with their absent parent than to carry out other activities such as playing with friends. She agreed that it might be beneficial for FF to have one-to-one contact with C in the absence of B, with the Minister supervising contact. She said that when she had recently seen FF, he said that his priority was to see ("CC") and ("GG"). Both have been adopted and this is unlikely to occur so far as we understand. He was also keen for C to come home to live with him and B. FF enjoyed direct contact, but not the virtual video contact which he found 'boring'. The Guardian noted a deterioration in FF's ability to concentrate since she had last seen him. However, he was enjoying School 1, which was an assessment facility available to children before they move on to more permanent educational settings.
39. The Guardian said that had this been a private law case, then she would not have recommended the level of contact that is occurring between the child and the absent parent - the recommendation would have been one or, at the most, two supervised contacts per week, and if a similar situation arose in the future, then she would seek to ensure that the Minister bought the matter before the Court before increasing contact which had not occurred in this case. She said that she fully understood and appreciated the Court's 'misgivings' regarding the substantial increase in contact that had occurred in this case.
40. The Guardian did not agree with the extension of the Supervision Order and felt that some services would be available in the absence of such an order. But she accepted that without such an order B may simply stop working with the Minister and that it was important for the 'Keep Safe' work to be done. She said that B 'needs to be part of this work but not lead it'.
41. The Guardian said that she would accept that the Minister would be entitled to reduce the contact sessions between FF and C from three to two if the Minister was doing so for reason of limited resources, but the Minister had said that that was not the reason for the proposed reduction. She felt that supervision by the Children's Service should continue for a few sessions until the 'Keep Safe' had been completed and then gradually be reduced. She felt that B could supervise the video contact on their own as she regarded them as a 'protective factor' to FF. B could record the sessions and the social worker would have that as evidence. She said it would be a 'negative thing' for FF if the 'Keep Safe' work was not done. It was the Guardian that revealed to the Court that C's nephew was living with B and FF, and she said the fact that B was proposing to rely on the nephew to assist with childcare was a matter of concern to her. She also agreed it was quite inappropriate for the Court to learn of this matter during the course of her evidence as the last witness in the hearing, when B had already given evidence and C had declined to give evidence. She agreed that FF was at risk of being groomed, and she said that FF had told her that the nephew brought FF presents when the nephew had hurt him. She said she accepted the accuracy of the recent risk assessment by the Offender Management Unit. She also accepted that B was undergoing a difficult time and accepted that they were experiencing a financial crisis; that C was going to either be extradited to Country 1 or return to Country 1 voluntarily which would have an uncertain impact on FF, and that face-to-face contact would accordingly cease at that time. The Guardian accepted that these were significant matters which were new and which were relevant to the Court's decision. She also accepted that since the Minister had, last year, suggested that contact could move to being supervised by B only, there had been significant developments including the news that C was to be extradited to Country 1 which were relevant to the assessment of the risks they presented, and the evidence from the Offender Management Unit that C still today represented a medium to high risk of sexual offending.
42. In the matter of the A Children (Supervision Order) [2014] JRC 160, the Royal Court held that there was no requirement to re-establish that threshold was passed on an application for an extension of an existing Supervision Order. Accordingly, it is the welfare of the child that is to be considered. Article 2(5) of the Law provides that the Court has a duty to apply the non-intervention principle, and to not make an order unless it is in the best interests of the child to do so.
43. We turn to consider the matters set out in the welfare checklist in Article 2(3) of the Law:
(i) The ascertainable wishes and feelings of the child, considered in the light of the child's age and understanding.
FF has a high level of needs and his expressed wishes need to be considered with some caution. One thing that is clear is that he enjoys contact with C and has no real objections to that contact being supervised. He would like to see more of C.
(ii) The child's physical, emotional and educational needs.
FF has a record of need at school and continues to require additional support within an education setting. He is accessing one-to-one support at School 1. These needs are compounded by [Redacted] and he has been recommended speech and language therapy for support. We have dealt with the 'Keep Safe' work extensively above, and we are satisfied that it is most likely to be delivered successfully in the context of a Supervision Order. The plan to keep FF safe is also most likely to be finalised in the context of the Supervision Order, and the Family Group Conference which is required, is again most likely to take place and recommendations implemented in the context of a Supervision Order.
(iii) The likely effect on the child of any change in his or her circumstances.
No substantial changes are planned to FF's circumstances. He will remain living at home and his contact, in our view, with C should remain supervised by the Children's Service, subject to what we say below.
(iv) The child's age, sex, background and any characteristics of the child which the Court considers relevant.
We have referred to FF's vulnerabilities above. The social worker says in the supervision care plan that FF's behavioural and emotional presentation continues to be that of a child who is struggling to understand what is going on around him. He frequently presents as angry, frustrated and confused. In view of the difficulties that he and his principal carer, B face, we are satisfied that it is in the interests of both of them to receive support at this time. We remind ourselves that the objective of a Supervision Order pursuant to Article 28 of the Law is for the supervisor to 'advise, assist and befriend' the child and, in this case in our view, where appropriate, B. A Supervision Order should not be seen, as it has been by B, as an interference in his life, but an essential part of support for the family.
(v) Any harm which the child has suffered or is at risk of suffering.
C presents a current real and significant risk of sexual harm to children, including FF. That is the evidence. Notwithstanding his evidence before us, we were not wholly satisfied that B accepts the extent of that risk. We were concerned with the frequency that he appears to need contact with C and their lives still appear to be intertwined, and that not only did he agree to C's nephew moving into his house, but he failed to see the significance from the Court's perspective of such a move. We were satisfied that any direct contact between FF and C should continue to be supervised by the Minister.
(vi) How capable each of the child's parents, and any other person in relation to whom the Court considers the question to be relevant, is of meeting the child's needs
We accept B is capable of meeting most of FF's needs. However, we accept the Minister's submission that arrogance can be a vulnerability for any parent charged with keeping a child safe, and it is not a good sign that a parent of a child with FF's vulnerabilities believes that they need no external or expert assistance.
We were concerned to hear that, owing to financial difficulties, B is unable to afford an electrician and that there were electrical cables running loose along the floor. We were told these were extension leads to bring power into the front room because the electrical sockets in that room were not working. This suggests a potentially dangerous electrical fault. We regard the risk of an electrical fault as a serious risk to FF, and this is a matter that should be remedied as soon as possible, and if necessary and if possible, with the assistance of the Children's Service. We were also told by B that they had only recently applied for disability benefit for FF - because "[they] didn't realise he was entitled to it". This is another aspect of parenting FF and keeping him safe, where B may find the support from the Children's Service and the Social Worker can help him.
(vii) The range of powers available to the Court under the Law in the proceedings in question.
We have, as required by the Law, considered whether or not we should make no order, but we are satisfied that it is appropriate to make the Supervision Order in the terms suggested by the Minister.
We have scrutinised the Minister's Care Plan, in particular the arrangements for contact. We reject the suggestion that direct contact between FF and C should be reduced from three times a week to twice a week. We accept the Guardian's evidence in this regard and the Minister amended, at our suggestion, the draft Care Plan to retain direct contact, whilst C is in Jersey, at three sessions per week, whilst discontinuing the Sunday video contact which FF does not enjoy.
The Care Plan provided that such contact should continue to be supervised by the Minister and take place in the community for a maximum of two hours.
We also accepted the Guardian's suggestion that there is no need for the Minister to supervise video contact, which will occur when C returns to Country 1. We agree that such contact should also take place three times a week but inevitably this will be for a shorter period, owing to FF's concentration span, than the direct contact sessions. We suggest that such sessions should last up to one hour, and to take place on weekdays to be agreed; but that the sessions must be recorded by B and sent to the Children's Service forthwith so that they could be reviewed.
We left it open to the Minister, in due course, and if it is appropriate to do so, to direct that one of the face-to-face sessions between FF and C take place, supervised by the social workers but in the absence of B, if that is in FF's interests.
As we told B and the other parties at the end of the hearing, we were wholly satisfied that the making of a Supervision Order was in the best interests of FF - to advise, assist and befriend him and support B. B had demonstrated that they have expertise in FF's care and in [Redacted], but no parent has all the answers and B is, in our assessment, under very serious financial and other pressures and, having regard to all the circumstances of this case as set out above, we were entirely satisfied that such an order was appropriate. It is essential that B and the social worker work together for the benefit of FF. We extended the order on the terms and subject to the detailed requirements of the order made on 28 April 2021.
Authorities
Children (Jersey) Law 2002.
In the matter of FF (Care proceedings) [2021] JRC 198.
Telecommunications (Jersey) Law 2002.
Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010.
At paragraph 3 of the Court's judgment dated 26 May 2022 [unpublished].
In the matter of the A Children (Supervision Order) [2014] JRC 160.