Care order - First Respondent's application to discharge care order
Before : |
R. J. MacRae, Esq., Deputy Bailiff, and Jurats Cornish and Le Heuzé |
Between |
The Minister for Children and Education |
Applicant |
And |
(1) The Mother (2) The Father (3) CC (The Child)(through his legal representative Advocate M. Godden) |
Respondents |
IN THE MATTER OF CC (ASSISTED BY SUE CLARKE IN HER CAPACITY AS GUARDIAN)
AND IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN (JERSEY) LAW 2002
Advocate J. A. E. Kerley for the Minister.
Advocate C. G. Hillier for the First Respondent.
Advocate S. B. Wauchope for the Second Respondent.
Advocate M. R. Godden for Third Respondents.
EX TEMPORE judgment
the deputy bailiff:
1. This is an application to discharge a care order made by the Royal Court. Pursuant to that care order the child, CC aged 13, is living in accommodation at Home 1 in England. This will not be a lengthy ex tempore judgment and we reserve the right to correct it when it is returned in draft form prior to being supplied to the parties.
2. It is not criticism of anyone, but it may be that with slightly better communication between the parties this application today might have been avoided. Nonetheless the application is made by the Mother to discharge the care order by reason of various concerns raised made by the Mother. Although she has not made a witness statement and is not in Court today because it is only a directions hearing, there is some detail set out as to the nature of her concerns. These can be summarised as follows. Firstly, CC has been absconding from the unit and on one occasion reached some 70 or so miles from placement. Secondly, he has suffered quite an unpleasant wound to his hand. Thirdly, he has been involved with taking cannabis and finally he has been also missing some of his education.
3. We have heard today evidence from the social worker, who has been CC's social worker since 2022 and has plainly built up a good relationship with CC and his family which is encouraging. The social worker was not critical of the parents or indeed CC and explained how it is that CC went missing for a significant period. It is accepted that the injury to his hand occurred in the home when he broke a cup. Overall he has been doing well at Home 1, particularly during the period - and again this is no criticism of the parents - when there was no contact between him and his family. He was attending school but also enjoying doing woodwork; building a bench and helping to construct the library there. In the Court's judgment there has been an element of the placement being undermined by a surreptitious supply of a bank card by his father to CC which he apparently may have used to buy the cannabis, and (it appears) a surreptitious supply of a mobile phone. These things are not helpful.
4. But there is no alternative advanced by either parent to this placement and all the parties, not least the Court, have been reassured to a significant extent by the evidence that the social worker has given this morning. In particular we note that she has extensive contact with CC, going to the placement for two weekends each month and also extensive contact with CC's mother when she visits. There is good flow of communication most of the time between the social worker and CC and his mother.
5. We also note that there is a care planning meeting on the week commencing 22 July to which the mother will be invited and is likely to be present. In view of the evidence we have heard, that meeting is the appropriate forum for the sort of matters raised by this application to be ventilated and resolved.
6. Nonetheless, in view of the matters raised we direct that the social worker and the appropriate officer from Home 1 provide a statement within the next three weeks indicating how CC is doing at Home 1 and addressing, where appropriate, the specific concerns that the Mother has raised. We order that the statements are shared with the parents and the Guardian.
7. The Court does have an inherent jurisdiction (and we have had regard to the case of In the matter of D (Care order) [2014] JRC 134) to dismiss an application to discharge a care order. In the circumstances of this case and bearing in mind the desirability of ensuring that CC is settled in his placement - while of course any legitimate concerns are ventilated and responded to - we dismiss this application to discharge the care order.
Authorities