In the matter of CC and DD (Interim Care Order) [2024] JRC 278 (03 December 2024)

judgment the deputy bailiff: 1. This in an application for an Interim Care Order, the Court having dismissed an application for an Emergency Protection Order last week. We now give our reasons for the decision we are making today but reserve the right to amend these reasons when we have a written copy of this brief judgment before us.

2. The children subject to this application are CC, aged 14, and DD, aged 12. Until recently, both were in the sole care of their mother the First Respondent who is not here today as she is unwell and currently remanded in custody. CC's father is unknown, and DD's father is the Second Respondent, who is also absent today as he lives in [England].

3. CC and DD were made subject to a 12 month Supervision Order on 29 June 2023 following a significant period of time subject to public law proceedings focused on their welfare. There were also proceedings in respect of the youngest sibling, EE. In respect of EE, a Care Order was made permitting him to live outside the jurisdiction in England with his paternal grandmother, and there he has unsupervised overnight staying contact with the Second Respondent, his father. In the Care Proceedings, the mother was subject to a psychological assessment by Dr Briggs, a psychiatric assessment by Dr Engelbrecht, and an ADHD assessment by Dr Kaushal. The mother is diagnosed with ADHD and is currently medicated in that regard and also suffers from Emotionally Unstable Personality Disorder.

4. The history of this matter, including these proceedings, demonstrates that the mother appears to have difficulties with meeting her children's basic needs, including attending school, health appointments and the like. These concerns have been long-standing.

5. On 15 March 2024, the children's names were placed on the Child Protection Register on the ground of neglect.

6. The period during which the children were the subject of the Supervision Order featured a number of difficulties in respect of the standard of care provided by the mother to her children. For example, earlier this year DD disclosed to staff at his school that he had been physically assaulted by his mother leaving him with scratches, red marks and bruises. This led to an investigation which concluded that he had been assaulted by his mother but he did not wish to complete a best evidence interview and no prosecution took place. During these months CC has gone missing at night on many occasions, sometimes she has been found drunk, sometimes she has run away from the police and this has been in the absence of any missing report being made in respect of her by her mother. At school, her attendance has fallen drastically.

7. Now is not the time to identify whether or not the supervision order and supervision plan ordered by the Court in June 2023 were complied with to the extent expected - either by the Children's Service on the one hand or the mother on the other. Certainly we have heard from the social worker today that the family therapy that was envisaged fell through owing to the unavailability of a particular worker and was not complete. The trauma therapy that was anticipated was not completed when the mother stopped attending sessions. The emotional capacity therapy did not occur because the family therapy was not completed and it was known that the objectives of a supervision plan had not been met when it was decided not to renew the supervision order. The decision was taken instead for the family to receive the support that it was assessed that they required under a child protection plan.

8. The evidence of the social worker is that CC and DD have been exposed to physical and emotional harm attributable to the care given to them by their mother.

9. We remind ourselves that, for the purpose of an application for an Interim Care Order, the Court needs to be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the circumstances of each child are as referred to in Article 24(2) of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002 , namely that each child is "(a) ... suffering, or is likely to suffer significant harm, and (b) that the harm or likelihood of harm is attributable to - (i) the care given to the child in question, or likely to be given to the child in question if the order were not made, not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give to the child." 10. In this case, we have no doubt that the threshold criteria for making an interim care order are met, although of course satisfaction of threshold is a necessary, but not sufficient, basis for making an Interim Care Order. It is not disputed by any of the parties here that threshold is met. The Guardian agrees and says that we should make the orders sought by the Minster.

11. We can summarise the Minister's preliminary threshold document, as expanded upon in the statement and evidence of the social worker as follows - focusing on the events that have occurred most recently and have prompted the application for a Care Order and this application for an Interim Care Order.

12. Over the last few months CC's school attendance has fallen drastically - that is since September when the new academic year began - to under 5%, and DD's to approximately 49%.

13. At the end of October, there was a concern that the mother had tried to abduct EE - whom she had not seen since January - during a supervised contact session arranged with the mother at the zoo but she had been dissuaded from doing so by a family support worker.

14. On 22 November, police attended the home following DD missing school for approximately one week. The mother was described as heightened, manic, obstructive and abusive. She was arrested. Both children were at home when they ought to have been at school. It was 10:30 in the morning and DD was in bed and CC was found in the shed with two missing children. Clothes and bedding were in the middle of the kitchen and dog faeces were found upstairs on the carpet. The mother was discharged from police custody with bail conditions and the children were returned to her care.

15. Two days later on 24 November, at 3:30 am, the mother was arrested on the suspicion of breaking and entering, larceny and taking a vehicle without consent. During the period of the alleged offending, DD had been left home alone with four dogs and the mother did not know the whereabouts of CC. Since that time, DD has lived with his uncle and CC is now accommodated by the Minister in a small children's home.

16. On 26 November 2024, the mother was arrested for assaulting her mother and has been remanded in custody, in the first instance until 31 December 2024. She now faces a number of criminal charges, some of which are contested and, as we have said, she is currently at La Moye. Advocate Hall who represents her in these proceedings, has had a limited opportunity to take instructions and she has given, as best she can, her client's case on the threshold document - indicating that the mother disputes many of the assertions made, that she is happy with DD staying with his uncle and is concerned about CC staying at [accommodation provided by the Minister]. The mother says that during the supervision order she was let down by the Children's Services, and she would like to have continuing contact with her children whilst in custody but will be guided by the wishes of the two children.

17. We have considered the welfare checklist in Article 2 of the Law. In respect of the wishes and feelings of the children concerned we were assisted by the evidence of the Guardian to the effect that neither child currently wishes to live or even see their mother. The Guardian takes the view that both children are angry with their mother. DD in particular feels that he has been neglected and no longer currently trusts her owing to her recent behaviour towards him. The wish of DD is to reside with his uncle where he is thriving, going to school and living in an environment where he is happier. As to the child's physical, emotional and educational needs these needs were to a large extent not being met by the mother. She was certainly feeding the children but we have referred to the state of the accommodation and the failure of the mother to ensure that they were attending school. DD is now attending school and CC is, she says, keen to return to school although, unfortunately, at [the accommodation provided by the Minister] she is frequently still out and about at night. That is a pattern which the Children's Service and officers of the Minister have yet to break. As to the likely effect on the child of any change in their circumstances, DD is well settled with his uncle. It would be wrong to describe CC as settled at [the accommodation provided by the Minster] - but currently

that would appear to be the least worse option for her. However, we endorse the Guardian's observation that there is a possibility if not a likelihood that that placement could break down and that CC's behaviour could have a very adverse effect on the only other resident, a girl who is also a teenager living at [the accommodation provided by the Minister]. In our view the Minister should be looking now for other and more suitable accommodation for CC.

18. As to any harm which the child has suffered or is at risk of suffering, we accept the evidence of the Guardian that both children are at high risk of suffering from harm if they were to return to the care of their mother. And as to the capacity of each child's parents (and any other person in relation to whom the court considers the question to be relevant) is of meeting the child's needs, there can be no doubt that the paternal uncle is well placed to meet DD's needs and, in relation to CC, there being no other adult available the mother is currently unable to meet her needs.

19. We have considered the draft care plans for both children with care. It is essential that the paternal uncle caring for DD is given support so that he can continue working and see his young daughter in England. We are pleased to note that the Minister has agreed to set out in the amended care the details of that support. It is essential that he receive that support so that he can continue to care for DD, meet his needs and to ensure that he goes to school.

20. We approve the amended care plans and direct that the care plans, as amended in their final form be supplied to the Court and the parties by Friday of this week at noon.

21. In relation to contact we note that it is planned that both children enjoy remote contact with their mother whilst in custody by video call, and we also note that the Minister is going to endeavour to begin to restore the relationship between DD and his Father, the second respondent.

22. We make other orders in accordance with the draft order. We make the interim care order sought at paragraph 2 of the draft order and we make the other orders from 3 to 21 inclusive, to the extent that those orders are not varied in the course of oral submissions. Authorities Children (Jersey) Law 2002. Page Last Updated: 21 Jan 2025 Back to top About JLIB Accessibility Contacts Copyright Disclaimer Feedback Privacy policy Site map BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII