Before : |
R. J. MacRae, Esq., Deputy Bailiff, and Jurats Ronge and Le Heuzé |
Between |
The Minister for Children and Education |
Applicant |
And |
(1) The Mother (2) ZZ (the Child) (through her legal representative Advocate English) |
Respondents |
IN THE MATTER OF ZZ (INTERIM CARE ORDER)
AND IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN (JERSEY) LAW 2002
Advocate P. F. Byrne for the Minister.
Advocate C. G. Hillier for the First Respondent.
Advocate A. T. H. English for the Second Respondent
ex tempore judgment
the deputy bailiff:
1. This is an application by the Minister for Children and Education in respect of a twelve year old child, ZZ, for an Interim Care Order under Article 30 of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002 and the adjournment of the Minister's application for a Care Order under Article 24 to a date to be fixed.
2. ZZ is the only child of her mother. The mother is currently an in-patient at Accommodation A and has suffered poor mental health for a number of years. The application the Minister makes today is supported by the Guardian and not objected to by the mother. ZZ's putative father has not featured in ZZ's life to date. He is without parental responsibility, not a party to these proceedings and is currently a serving prisoner at La Moye.
3. The current position is that ZZ is receiving very high-quality care from her foster carer and the Minister's long-term plan is for ZZ to remain with that foster carer whilst maintaining a good relationship with her mother. ZZ is diagnosed with ADHD and autism spectrum disorder and experiences anxiety. Her behaviour can be challenging, although significantly less challenging in her current foster care environment where significant improvements have been noted in her behaviour and her school attendance, which has become consistent.
4. The mother is a vulnerable single parent with a diagnosis of severe personality disorder which affects her parenting, particularly when she is in crisis, or at least there is evidence to that effect and we make no findings today as this is an application for an Interim Care Order. As we have said, ZZ is currently thriving in foster care.
5. Under Article 30 we may only make an Interim Care Order if we are satisfied on the balance of probabilities that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the circumstances of ZZ are as set out under Article 24(2) of the Law in that she is suffering, or is likely to suffer significant harm and that the harm or a likelihood of harm is attributable to the care given to her, or likely to be given to her if the order were not made, not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give a child. If we are satisfied that those threshold criteria are met, then we must go on to consider the Child's welfare under Article 2 of the Law and scrutinise the Minister's care plan with care, particularly having regard to the planned contact arrangements between ZZ and her mother.
6. We have had regard to the threshold document prepared by the Minister and, without making any findings to this effect, we are satisfied that there is evidence that ZZ has suffered and is likely to continue to suffer significant harm if parented by her mother, by reason of the following:
(i) ZZ has been present during some of her mother's episodes in which she exhibited poor mental health. ZZ has witnessed those episodes and there is evidence that she will have suffered harm in consequence. They are particularised in the draft threshold document and they include evidence that she has witnessed overdoses and other serious incidents of self-harm.
(ii) On 25 September 2023, the mother asked that ZZ be accommodated by the Minister as she was unable to care for herself, and there is evidence that on same day, the mother took paracetamol and self-harmed, cutting herself, resulting in police attendance and her detention under the Mental Health (Jersey) Law 2016. She was discharged one month later and readmitted within seven days.
(iii) There is evidence that during episodes of poor mental health, the mother has been unable to care for ZZ, resulting in destabilisation of ZZ's home life and uncertainty about her future. There is evidence that ZZ is likely to suffer significant emotional and developmental harm in those circumstances.
(iv) Finally, owing to ZZ's diagnoses to which we have referred, she requires a care-giver who is attuned, skilled and consistent. Unfortunately, the mother's mental health difficulties prevent her from providing this level of care for her daughter, and there is evidence that ZZ, as we have said, is much more stable and engaged with her education and is generally more content in foster care.
7. Accordingly, we are satisfied that threshold is met, and we are satisfied - having regard to the matters set out in Article 2 of the Law - that it is in ZZ's best interests for the Court to make the order. We have scrutinised the care plan and made various observations to counsel for the Minister, which he has accepted, in order to address matters that needed to be improved in the care plan. We have considered the proposed contact arrangements which allow for frequent text and - at least once a month - video conference contact between ZZ and her mother while her mother is detained at Accommodation A; for supervised contact and then unsupervised contact and, finally, it (is hoped) staying contact when she is discharged, noting in accordance with the observations made by the Guardian and the contents of the Interim Care Plan, that it is important to take things slowly so as to ensure that continuing contact is built on good foundations.
8. Accordingly, we make the order, as amended during the course of the hearing by counsel. In particular, we make the Interim Care Order placing ZZ in the care of the Minister until the first renewal hearing on 3 April; adjourn the application for a care order; make the ancillary orders requested and approve the care plan.
9. We would like to very much commend the mother for your caring and sensitive letter that your advocate read to the Court. We wholly accept that you love ZZ and you want the best for her, which is something I think you have demonstrated today in the way you have conducted yourself during this hearing.
Authorities
Children (Jersey) Law 2002.
Mental Health (Jersey) Law 2016.