BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Jersey Unreported Judgments |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Jersey Unreported Judgments >> In the matter of UU TT and SS (Interim Care Order) 12-Apr-2021 [2021] JRC 101 (12 April 2021) URL: http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/2021/2021_101.html Cite as: [2021] JRC 101 |
||
[New search] [Help]
|
Before : |
J. A. Clyde-Smith O.B.E., and Jurats Crill and Olsen |
|
Between |
The Minister for Children and Education |
Applicant |
|
And |
A (the Mother) |
First Respondent |
|
And |
B |
Second Respondent |
|
And |
C |
Third Respondent |
IN THE MATTER OF UU, TT AND SS (INTERIM CARE ORDER)
AND IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN (JERSEY) LAW 2002
Advocate P. F. Byrne for the Applicant.
Advocate S. B. Wauchope for First Respondent.
Advocate B. J. Corbett for the Second Respondent.
Advocate R. Tremoceiro for the Guardian
judgment
the COMMISSIONER:
1. On 31st March 2021, the Court found the threshold for the making of an interim care order under Article 30 of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002 ("the Children Law") was met in respect of the three children UU (who is 15 years of age), TT (who is 12 years of age) and SS (who is 4 years of age). An interim care order was made in respect of TT and no order was made in respect of UU and SS.
2. The First Respondent ("the Mother") is the mother of all three children. She lives with the Second Respondent B, who is the father of SS. The Third Respondent C is the father of UU and TT and lives in England. Information came to light at the hearing that he had parental responsibility for these two children and an order was made during the hearing convening him to the proceedings.
3. The Mother, UU and TT are from a continental European country and until two years ago, TT and UU lived there in the care of their maternal grandmother. The Mother has lived in Jersey since TT was three years old, visiting the children every two years or so. It is understood that she left the European country to escape the relationship with C, which was marked by domestic violence, leaving them in his care. He subsequently left them in the care of the maternal grandmother.
4. The Minister's involvement was precipitated following TT attendance at school, when it was observed that she had significant bruising to her face. She disclosed that the Mother hit her approximately a week previously with such force that her head hit the wall. She also said that B had slapped her face repeatedly the night before.
5. TT repeated her disclosures in an ABE interview conducted by the police that same day, adding that being hit by the Mother and B was a regular occurrence. The Child Protection Medical found that the visible injuries (bruising to her face, ears, shoulders and arms) were consistent with her disclosure. The Mother agreed to TT's accommodation into foster care under Article 17 of the Children Law.
6. The Mother described TT's behaviour as "difficult"; that she would "lie and steal" and was incontinent. The Mother had not sought medical advice in relation to any incontinence. TT informed the Safeguarding Lead at School A that she is made to wash her own soiled clothes and bedding and also made to write essays on incontinence.
7. Subsequent disclosures by D, B's daughter from another relationship who visited the home every Sunday, painted a picture of the demonisation of TT in the home saying that TT was regarded as the "slave", UU as the "half angel" and SS as the "angel". D had also described cruel and degrading treatment of TT, such as being made to face a wall for an entire day. Other concerns related to TT's nutritional needs not being met, as she is very thin and is only just within the normal weight for her age. She had been observed to eat a lot during the school day, with the worry that food may be being withheld at home.
8. UU also completed an ABE. He said that he had not seen the Mother and B hit TT, but he did hear some shouting. He did not disclose abuse and did not want to be taken into foster care. There was a concern on the part of the Minister that UU has been involved in some of the emotional harm to his sister and perhaps he was not being completely open. He refused to undergo a Child Protection Medical.
9. SS has a diagnosis of autism and is not communicative enough to be able to say what life is like at home. He had a Child Protection Medical which did not reveal any concerns. TT stated that he was sometimes present during abuse of her and would become frightened and cry. The observations of SS with his parents by the Children's Service did not reveal any concerns, nor were there any concerns in relation to the home conditions. Due to his diagnosis, he has several professionals involved with him, and no concerns were raised by them, but that said, in the view of the Minister he is extremely vulnerable being unable to verbalise his life experiences to date.
10. D had undergone an ABE interview, telling the police that she had heard shouting and slapping in the home, and had seen TT looking upset with her hair all messy after the shouting.
11. During her ABE interview, TT was very clear that she did not wish to return home. She said she was frightened of returning home due to the disclosures she had made. She reported that the Mother had told her that if she brought trouble to the family, something worse than what had already happened would happen. Her wish not to return home has been repeated to the Social Worker. In terms of contact, she said she did not wish to see the Mother or B.
12. As a consequence of these allegations, the Mother and B were currently on police bail, pending a decision on whether or not to charge them, on condition that they did not have contact, direct or indirect with TT without the consent of the Children's Service, and not to go to, within or enter TT's school or perimeter roads. A further condition for B was that he should not have contact, direct or indirect, with his daughter D without the consent of the Children's Service.
13. The Court heard evidence from the Social Worker and from the Guardian. The orders sought by the Minister were agreed by the Guardian, the Mother and B.
14. The Preliminary Threshold Document of the Minister set out the alleged physical abuse of TT at the hands of the Mother and B, and the alleged cruel and degrading treatment described above. The Guardian said in her report that it could reasonably be described as compelling evidence as to TT's ill treatment within her current home environment, physically and emotionally. Pursuant to Article 30(1) of the Children Law, the Court was satisfied that there were reasonable grounds for believing that TT was suffering or was likely to suffer significant harm due to the care given or likely to be given to her.
15. The Court also found the threshold under Article 30 of the Children Law met in respect of UU and SS, who, living in the same household, would have been exposed to the physical and/emotional abuse of TT if it had taken place. TT had described SS as being present during the abuse of her, becoming frightened and crying. The likelihood of such exposure was further evidenced by D. It is likely that UU and SS are and would be exposed to the same parenting standards to which TT had allegedly been exposed.
16. The Mother agreed that the threshold criteria under Article 30(1) was met in respect of all three children and in particular the "read across" from TT to UU and SS. She was very distressed and wanted to engage with the agencies; in particular she wanted to rebuild her relationship with TT. B agreed to the orders being sought, but Advocate Corbett submitted that because no order was being sought by the Minister in respect of UU and SS the issue of the threshold criteria did not arise in their case. She relied in this respect on the wording of Article 30 of the Children Law which is in these terms:
It follows, she said, that if no interim care order was to be made, then the Court had no need to be satisfied as to the threshold criteria. This presupposed that the Court would agree with the Minister that no interim care order should be made, effectively putting the cart before the horse.
17. Before the Court can decide in any given case what orders, if any, it might make, it must first consider whether the threshold criteria are met. If they are not met, then it has no jurisdiction to make either an interim care order or a supervision order. If they are met then at the welfare stage it must decide what orders, if any, should be made. That this is the right approach is confirmed by the Court of Appeal decision In the matter of F and G (No 2) [2010] JCA 051 in the context of an application for a care order, but the same principles apply to an interim care order:
18. The Court of Appeal then went on at paragraph 8 to set out the principles to be applied when considering whether an order should be made, which of course includes the non-intervention principle. This was the approach followed by the Court in this case, namely first finding that the threshold criteria in respect of UU and SS were met, thus giving it jurisdiction to make an interim care or supervision order, and then at the welfare stage deciding whether an order should be made.
19. The Minister sought an interim care order in respect of TT, and, having regard to the no order principle, the Minister sought no order in respect of UU and SS. The risk assessment conducted by the Minister in light of the evidence available to date did not suggest to him that they were at risk to the extent that their removal was necessary. The Guardian described this as a finely balanced decision which did not sit wholly comfortably with the severity of the concerns raised in respect of TT, but she supported the decision of the Minister pending further work and assessments being carried out. These assessments were to include psychological assessments of the Mother and B, to which they have both consented. A psychological assessment of C was also ordered should he consent. The Mother consented to psychological assessments being undertaken in respect of UU and TT.
20. Applying the welfare principles set out in F & G the Court agreed that an interim care order was necessary for TT but that for the reasons given no order needed to be made in respect of UU and SS.
21. The Court granted the application of the Guardian, made through Advocate Tremoceiro, for the children to be made parties to the proceedings and to have an advocate appointed to represent them. There are significant concerns in this case and complexities in respect of any future planning for a sibling group of this size, age range and different parentage. The evidence indicated that UU and TT were of sufficient maturity to understand what is involved in these proceedings and to give coherent instructions. SS, due to his age, was unable to do so, but due to his diagnosis is extremely vulnerable. It was appreciated that there was the potential for conflict between the siblings that might give rise to difficulties but that, initially, is an issue for the advocate appointed. The application was agreed by the parties and as Advocate Corbett submitted came squarely within the guidance given in the case of Re B [2010] JRC 150.
22. In conclusion, the Court found the threshold criteria for the making of an interim care order met in the case of all three children, making an interim care order in respect of TT and making no order in respect of UU and SS. Psychological assessments were ordered, and other directions given by consent.
