Jersey Unreported Judgments

Care proceedings.

[2021]JRC284

Royal Court

(Family)

12 November 2021

Before     :

J. A. Clyde-Smith OBE., Commissioner and Jurats Crill and Austin-Vautier

 

AND

IN THE MATTER OF PP (CARE PROCEEDINGS)

AND

IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN (JERSEY) LAW 2002

 

Advocate H. J. Heath for the Applicant.

Advocate D. C. Robinson for the Second Respondent.

Advocate B. J. Corbett for the Third Respondent.  

judgment

the commissioner:

1.        On 6^th September 2021, the Court made a supervision order placing the Child, ("PP"), who was about to turn 16, under the supervision of the Minister.

2.        PP has been the subject of a number of previous judgments of the Court, the most recent being that of 4^th May 2021, when a secure accommodation order was made (In the matter of PP [2021] JRC 128). The first Respondent ("the Mother") is a party but she has not engaged in any of the proceedings involving PP to date and was not legally represented.  She had indicated previously that she did not wish to be involved in any decisions with regard to PP's care.  She had been advised of the hearing, and given her lack of involvement, the Court proceeded in her absence, pursuant to Rule 17 of the Children Rules 2005.

Background

3.        PP has been known to the Children's Service since 2005.  There have been numerous social worker assessments on her and her siblings.  The assessments have concluded that whilst the Mother generally offers good basic care to her children, she finds it difficult to manage when her authority is challenged and they behave in ways which are risky or anti-social.

4.        PP was in her mother's care until June 2020 when she was voluntarily admitted into the care of the Minister under Article 17 of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002 ("the Children Law"), due to increasing concerns about her absconding and risk-taking behaviour.  PP was placed in a residential home.

5.        When PP absconds, she puts herself and others at risk of physical injury.  Her self-harming and distressed behaviours increase her vulnerability to a high risk of potential injury or death.  PP has been the subject of some seven mental health assessments under the Mental Health (Jersey) Law 2016.  The Police have also utilised their powers of protection on some six occasions.  The mental health assessments have concluded that PP does not have a mental health illness, but her actions are behavioural and she is distressed, possibly due to some undisclosed event. 

6.        Following a significant incident on [redacted] 2020, PP was made subject to a Secure Accommodation Order on 10^th July 2020, having been placed in a Secure Care Unit pursuant to the emergency provisions under Article 2 of the Children (Secure Accommodation) (Jersey) Order 2005.  The Minister subsequently applied to extend the Secure Accommodation Order on 21^st August 2020.  The application was heard on 25^th August 2020 when the Court declined it. 

7.        On 28^th September 2020, the Minister applied again for a Secure Accommodation Order and an Interim Care Order (under the beyond parental control limb) to safeguard PP.  The Court granted both applications on 2^nd October 2020.  The Secure Accommodation Order lapsed on 30^th October 2020 and PP returned to the Residential Home with a robust plan of support.  PP appeared to be doing well and she engaged with all professionals involved in the plan, including CAMHS.

8.        In approximately November 2020, PP made contact with the third Respondent ("the Father"), who had not been in PP's life since she was two months old.  The Father claims this was as a consequence of the Mother blocking him from contact.  PP and the Father initially had supervised contact.  However, PP was reported missing on numerous occasions and on the majority of those occasions she was located in the company of the Father. 

9.        From December 2020, PP was absconding on almost a daily basis and the staff at the Residential Home were not in a position to keep her safe.  Further, PP had disengaged from the wraparound team, including CAMHS, who have been supporting her since October 2020.  The presence of the Father on the scene did not assist the situation and PP's behaviour deteriorated. 

10.      As a result of the concerns, on 29^th January 2021 the Minister applied again for a Secure Accommodation Order.  The application was heard on the same day and the Court granted the Minister's application for a period of 10 weeks.  However, following a 28 day Secure Accommodation Order Review meeting on 26^th February 2021, the Independent Panel members reached a decision that the threshold to keep PP in secure accommodation was no longer met and PP was discharged and placed back at the Residential Home on the evening of 26^th February 2021. 

11.      In the meantime, at a directions hearing on 4^th February 2021, the Court joined the Father as a party to the proceedings, directed the Father to file a position statement setting out his intentions to care for PP by 12^th February 2021 and directed the Minister to file a risk/parenting assessment of the Father.  The Mother did not attend the hearing.

12.      The Father filed his position statement on 12^th February 2021.  He confirmed that he wished to put himself forward as a carer for PP and believed that with the help and support of the Children's Service, it would be in the best interest of PP to be settled and happy placed in his care.  PP confirmed she would like to be cared for by the Father. 

13.      Given the Father's position and PP's wish to be cared for by the Father, on 2^nd March 2021, with the consent of the Minister, PP and the Father, and in the absence of the Mother, the Court adjourned the final hearing to allow time for a parenting assessment of the Father to be undertaken. 

14.      Unfortunately, PP's behaviour started to escalate negatively from 16^th March 2021 and following a significant incident on 18th April 2021, PP was again made the subject of a Secure Accommodation Order on 19^th  April 2021 for a period of 12 weeks.

15.      On 6^th May 2021 the Court sat to consider an application by the Father seeking a Parental Responsibility Order in respect of PP.  The Court granted the application in the absence of the Mother.

16.      On 17th May 2021, a Secure Panel review meeting took place in respect of PP's placement at the Secure Care Unit.  The Panel members decided that the criteria for a Secure Accommodation Order was still met and the next review was listed for 14^th June 2021.  On 14^th June 2021 a second Secure Panel review meeting took place.  The Panel members decided that the threshold to keep PP in secure accommodation was no longer met and subsequently, PP was discharged and placed back at the Residential Home. 

Assessments

17.      On 2^nd June 2021, the Minister filed his parenting/risk assessment of the Father.  The assessment observed positives in respect of the Father and indicated the further work that the Father would need to address, to be able to care for PP in the long term.  

18.      At a directions hearing on 30^th June 2021 the Court, in the absence of the Mother's agreement, directed, amongst other things, Dr James Murray to provide an addendum assessment in respect of the Child.  Dr Murray's addendum assessment was received on 28^th July 2021.

19.      PP's presenting behaviours from the period that she has been in the care of the Minister have been described by professionals and by Dr Murray, as that of a young female who struggles with her emotional regulation.  

20.      CAMHS had diagnosed PP with [redacted] in October 2020 but despite efforts to support her to manage her [redacted] she had disengaged with support from CAMHS, had refused to take prescribed medication, was disruptive in the [Redacted] therapy group, and had disengaged with Headsight who were offering 1:1 therapeutic intervention work twice a week.  Despite all efforts made, PP is not yet at the stage to be able to seek the required therapeutic intervention to address the possible trauma suffered at a young age. 

21.      Dr Murray in his addendum report identifies PP's potential placement with her Father as the 'least worst option'.   The social worker has made reference to PP's reported behaviours (as noted by the Residental Home staff) since leaving the Secure Care Unit on 14^th June 2021 as 'self destructive challenging behaviours' with a clear motive to weaken positive relations with the staff team and force a move to reside with the Father. Dr Murray shares this opinion and identifies that "it is highly likely that she is motivated to undermine or attempt to destroy her current placement at [the Residential Home], with the belief that this is a way to get to live instead with her Father."

22.      The Minister acknowledged PP's wish to reside with the Father and it was the Minister's view that for this to work and to reduce the risk of a potential placement and relationship breakdown between PP and the Father, there was a need to support them both. 

23.      From 30^th July 2021, PP began having overnight contact and weekend contact with the Father in his two bedroomed flat and has been placed with him permanently for the last four weeks prior to the hearing, with no concerns arising. 

Threshold

24.      All of the parties agreed, and the Court found, that the threshold criteria under Article 24(2) of the Children Law were met.  PP was beyond the control of the Mother from 23^rd June 2020 (the relevant date) when the Father was not in her life and from which time she has been accommodated by the Minister.  Following serious risk-taking behaviours, and involvement in criminal activities, she has been the subject of no less than four secure accommodation orders, the last order expiring on 14^th June 2021, when she returned to the Residential Home, a placement she has sought to undermine in favour of a placement with the Father. 

Welfare stage

25.      The threshold criteria being met, the Court had jurisdiction and it went on to consider the applicable principles as set out in paragraph 8 of the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Re F & G No 2 [2010] JCA 051.

26.      Addressing the welfare checklist in so far as relevant, PP, who attended Court, was nearly sixteen and in her statement of 17^th August 2021 made it clear that she wanted to live with the Father, but she did not want any order to be made.  Having heard the evidence of the social worker, the reason for the Minister seeking a supervision order and the support that could be provided, she informed the Court during the hearing through Advocate Robinson that she recognised the need for such support and therefore consented to a supervision order being made.

27.      In terms of her emotional needs, she had been assessed by Dr Murray, who had been handicapped by a lack of information at his disposal, having only spoken to her once.  He described her needs in this way:

"51      It is my view that the pattern of behaviours [PP] has shown (including absconding, interpersonal difficulties with peers, interpersonal difficulties with adults, making verbal threats about others and herself, engaging in risky and harmful behaviours) indicate significant difficulties in her capacity to process, communicate about, and deal with her emotions and thoughts in functional ways.

52       PP appears to find it very hard to talk to others about how she is feeling, and to manage her own private thoughts and feelings in ways which are developmentally appropriate.

53       The information available suggests that PP's capacity to make and maintain successful interpersonal relationships with peers is impaired.

54       These arrears appear to me to be the most significant developmental needs that PP has."

28.      However, Dr Murray said that if PP was not placed with the Father, he anticipated a high likelihood of her behaviour deteriorating further.  Considerable work needed to be done on her emotional regulation and risk management.  She had not engaged with CAMHS, but they have made it clear that they would keep her case open for another four weeks, should she wish to engage, but in any event, she could always access their services for the provision of appropriate medication. 

29.      In terms of her education, she had the intellectual ability to do well, as she was bright and motivated, but her untreated psychological issues and [Redacted] impeded her learning.  She was currently attending School E and had expressed an intention not to go back to mainstream school until December 2021, due to another student targeting her.  However, at the hearing, she indicated through Advocate Robinson that she intended to go back to mainstream school in a week's time. She was due to be taking her B-Tech examinations [Redacted] in June of next year. 

30.      As to the capability of her parents, her Mother was demonstrably unable to meet her needs and had effectively abandoned her.  The Father, however, had come back into her life and had shown commitment to her.  The parenting assessment of the Father made it clear that despite the positives, there was further work that the Father would need to address, in particular engaging with professionals to understand in detail PP's needs and of course his own views of the agencies of the States of Jersey and how this could be a negative influence upon PP. 

31.      The assessment notes at paragraph 33.1 the reality faced by the Minister, namely that PP intends to place herself in the care of the Father, and it was encouraging that the Father had expressed himself willing to access the support offered, in particular by Headsight and CAMHS.  He wanted to learn about [Redacted] and was motivated to care for PP.

32.      PP has experienced trauma in her life and has a diagnosis of [Redacted].  She therefore has significant needs.  She had been receiving considerable support from the staff at the Residential Home and as the guardian said, would need ongoing support.

33.      There is no question that she has suffered significant harm with the Court having to step in on four occasions and place her in secure accommodation, and there was a risk of her continuing to suffer harm.

34.      The Guardian agreed that PP had experienced significant harm as a result of her Mother's care or lack of it, but pointed out that the same could not be said for the Father.  He was, at worst, untested. Furthermore, PP was effectively acting with her feet, and at nearly sixteen, the Guardian could not see how in practice the Minister could exercise parental responsibility under a care order.  There was nothing that could not be undertaken or provided within a supervision order which would be less draconian in the circumstances.  The Father was now the frontline and he had to be bolstered. 

35.      In view of PP's history and the new relationship with the Father, who had played no part in her life until late last year, the Court agreed that making no order at all would not be in PP's best interests.  Both she and the Father needed and recognised the need for support, which could be provided through a supervision order, rather than a care order, given PP's age and stated intentions. 

36.      In conclusion, and having considered all of the realistic options before the Court, it agreed with the care plan and the making of a supervision order for twelve months, conferring upon the Minister under Schedule 3 paragraph 1 of the Children Law then power to give directions to PP:

(i)        Specifying that PP live with the Father;

(ii)       Requiring PP to:

(a)       meet with the Minister or family support worker as and when required.  Such meetings may take place at the Father's home as requested by the Minister, and will be subject review;

(b)       attend all of her health appointments, and

(c)       participate in any other requirement reasonably in her best interests (to include education, extra curriculum activities, Headsight, Jersey Youth Service and CAMHS).

37.      By consent, the Father agreed to comply with sub-paragraphs 1(a) and 1(c) of paragraph 2 Schedule 3 of the Children Law, in particular to:

(i)        take all reasonable steps to ensure PP complies with the directions given by the Minister;

(ii)       speak or meet with the Minister as required;

(iii)      speak or meet with the Family Support Worker as required;

(iv)      attend Child In Need meetings/planning meetings with the Minister and other professionals as required to review PP's plan.

(v)       participate in any other requirement reasonably in PP's best interests (to include Headsight and CAMHS).

Authorities

Children (Jersey) Law 2002

In the matter of PP (Secure Accommodation Order) [2021] JRC 128.

Children Rules 2005. 

Mental Health (Jersey) Law 2016.

Children (Secure Accommodation) (Jersey) Order 2005.

Re F & G No 2 [2010] JCA 051.