Jersey Unreported Judgments

Care order - reasons for granting application for a care order by the Minister.

[2015]JRC258

Royal Court

(Family)

16 December 2015

Before     :		T. J. Le Cocq, Esq., Deputy Bailiff, and Jurats Fisher and Grime
Between	The Minster for Health and Social Services		Applicant
And	A (the Mother)		First Respondent
And	Ananzide ("the child") through his guardian ad litem and personally		Second Respondent

IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN (JERSEY) LAW 2002

AND IN THE MATTER OF ANANZIDE (CARE ORDER)

Advocate C. R. G. Davies for the Applicant.

Advocate C. G. Hillier for the Mother.

Advocate R. E. Colley for the Child.

judgment

the deputy bailiff:

1.        This is an application by the Minister for Health and Social Services ("the Minister") for a care order pursuant to Article 24 of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002 ("the Law") in relation to Ananzide (this is not his real name).  On 26^th November, 2015, we granted the order sought by the Minister.  These are our reasons in brief for doing so. 

2.        Ananzide is one of four siblings.  He has a younger brother (under a care order dated 24^th November, 2015,) and an older sister (who is not subject to any order or any proceedings) and an adult brother.  Ananzide was firmly of the view that he wished to be present in the proceedings before this Court and we gave him consent to do so. 

3.        The mother and B ("the father") were married but separated in 2008.  Both have parental responsibility for Ananzide.  The father has not, however, attended any meetings in respect of Ananzide or his siblings and does not wish to engage with the Children's Service.  He was removed as a party to the proceedings by Act of Court of 17^th June, 2015. 

4.        There has been a significant history of involvement with this family by the Children's Service, which started in 2005.  More recently the Children's Service became involved from July 2013 as a result of concerns relating to the family dynamics and in particular the mother's lack of authority within the family unit. 

5.        Ananzide has been in the care of the Minister since 24^th October, 2014, and currently resides in Brig-y-Don. 

6.        Both the mother and the guardian, Mrs Elsa Fernandes, agree that the threshold has been established and both also agree that the order should be made in the terms sought by the Minister and that the Minister's care plan is appropriate.  Naturally the Court has to be satisfied that the threshold has been passed and it is appropriate to make the order sought and to that end we have heard evidence and considered the extensive documentation available to us. 

7.        Given that Ananzide expressed the wish to be present we proceeded in the following way:-

(i)        Ananzide was present for the opening submissions of the Minister;

(ii)       Ananzide then retired from the Court when the evidence was given;

(iii)      Ananzide was present for the closing submissions of all of the parties;

(iv)      Ananzide then attended upon us in chambers, with his guardian, to give us the benefit of his wishes and views prior to our making a decision. 

8.        We heard first from Mrs Rachel Maguire who has been Ananzide's social worker for more than two years.  She expressly adopted the contents of the draft threshold document placed before us and confirmed that her two reports which were presented to us were true and could be taken as her evidence in chief.  She also confirmed that she had in her conclusions had due regard to the expert reports filed in this case. 

9.        We do not need to set out the detail of Mrs Maguire's evidence which, in essence, was as follows:-

(i)        Ananzide has been exposed to historical domestic violence and familial conflict between the father and his older half-brother (an adult and not part of present proceedings) and between the mother and the Father.  Between February 2006 and July 2008 the police were called to the home address on eight occasions and out of hours social workers were called on six occasions in respect of altercations involving the mother, the father and the older half-brother.  Incidents including threats with a knife, head-butting as well as verbal abuse were reported. 

(ii)       Ananzide himself had been violent both inside and outside the family home and this has led to him both suffering and being at risk of physical harm and also putting him at risk of prosecution.  This resulted in frequent calls by the mother to the police for assistance in managing Ananzide's behaviour.  Between May 2012 and April 2015 there were 44 incidents of police involvement with this family. 

(iii)      On 4^th April, 2011, Ananzide called the police stating that his younger brother had punched the mother in the face.  It was noted that the boys had been fighting and had to be separated by the mother.  On 14^th November, 2011, Ananzide was reported to the police for assaulting a support worker at a school by throwing objects at the worker.  On 22^nd June, 2012, Ananzide and his younger brother were detained by the police following abusive behaviour towards members of the public and in June 2012 Ananzide alleged that his father had punched him in the arm and stomach a month earlier.  There was an incident in August 2012 when Ananzide and his younger brother threw paint over the mother's car and Ananzide smeared himself in paint.  In September 2012 he was reported for common assault in school and received a written caution and also in September 2012 he was reported for setting fire to rubbish in school and was suspended. 

(iv)      Between June and August 2013 Ananzide was reported missing to the police on 10 occasions and on one occasion at least was found by the police with other pupils and thought to be under the influence of drugs (cannabis and so called legal highs).  On 9^th February, 2014, he was arrested on suspicion of larceny and in March of that year was reported to police for malicious damage after setting fire to a doorframe.  There has also been an incident in which he has threatened his mother. 

(v)       By reason of his exposure to historical domestic violence and familial conflict Ananzide has suffered and would certainly continue to suffer emotional harm were he to return to that environment. 

(vi)      Dr Mair Edwards, clinical psychologist, states:-

"["Ananzide"] received an unstable, chaotic, and at times physically and emotional abusive upbringing, which will have significantly exacerbated any innate difficulties....observed his father, and his older brother, being physically abusive towards his mother".

(vii)     Dr Edwards goes on to state that by mid-childhood Ananzide learnt that he too could exercise power and control over the mother and now has an insecure and dismissive attachment strategy towards both parents. 

(viii)    Dr Edwards opines that, as a result of this:-

"["Ananzide"] suffers from significant behavioural problems, sufficiently serious to meet the criteria for conduct disorder with limited social emotions (i.e. he presents as lacking remorse or guilt, is callous and lacking in empathy, unconcerned about his school performance, and has shallow affect)".

10.      In the light of the evidence given to us by the social worker, and indeed the contents of her reports and the expert report from Dr Mair Edwards, we are entirely satisfied that Ananzide was suffering significant harm and the harm is attributable to the care given to Ananzide or likely to be given if the order were not made, not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give.  Accordingly in our view the threshold has clearly been passed. 

11.      In making this finding we would wish to acknowledge that the mother has done her best for the children and that it has been difficult for her to recognise the reality of the situation.  She has acted however in the very best interests of Ananzide and indeed her other children in agreeing that the threshold has been breached and in agreeing with the orders sought by the Minister. 

12.      In addition to hearing from the social worker we also heard from the guardian concerning her understanding as to Ananzide's wishes and the nature of the orders sought by the Minister and the care plan.  Lastly we heard in chambers from Ananzide himself.  He impressed us as an articulate person and clearly has academic ability.  He told us that he believed that remaining in Brig-y-Don was the best place for him and although he would like to have been at home his experience in Brig-y-Don was improving.  He did not however want to establish new relationships in a different location and therefore was very keen to remain at Brig-y-Don.  He would like more independence and he aims to go to Highlands to do an art course in the future.  He would like to have more contact with his younger brother. 

13.      In the light of the evidence before us it is clear to us the only appropriate order is a full care order and we accordingly so order.  We have considered carefully the Minister's care plan for Ananzide and, in particular, the proposal that he remains at Brig-y-Don (which of course accords to Ananzide's own wishes) and the proposals for contact.  We think that the Minister's care plan is appropriate in all of the circumstances. 

14.      We think that Ananzide should be involved so far as possible with any discussions about and decisions taken concerning his future and to the extent that he can have enhanced contact with his younger brother which is clearly important to him we would ask the Minister to keep that very much in mind.  These observations, of course are not at odds with the Minister's care plan which we approve. 

Authorities

Children (Jersey) Law 2002.