In the matter of YY (Secure Accommodation Order) [2024] JRC 153 (24 June 2024)

[ Home ] [ Databases ] [ World Law ] [ Multidatabase Search ] [ Help ] [ Feedback ] [

DONATE ] Jersey Unreported Judgments You are here:

BAILII >> Databases >> Jersey Unreported Judgments >> In the matter of YY (Secure Accommodation Order) [2024] JRC 153 (24 June 2024) URL: https://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/2024/2024_153.html Cite as: [2024] JRC 153 [ New search ] [ Help ] Secure Accommodation Order. [2024]JRC153 Royal Court (Family) 24 June 2024 Before : R. J. MacRae, Esq., Deputy Bailiff, and Jurats Dulake and Cornish Between The Minister for Children and Families Applicant (1) The Mother And (2) The Father (3) YY (The Child) through her legal representative Advocate M. R. Godden) Respondents

IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN (JERSEY) LAW 2002

AND IN THE MATTER OF YY (SECURE ACCOMMODATION ORDER) (ASSISTED BY ELEANOR GREEN IN HER CAPACITY AS GUARDIAN) Advocate P. F. Byrne for the Minister Advocate N. S. H. Benest for the First Respondent The Second Respondent did not appear Advocate M. R. Godden for the Third Respondent ex tempore judgment in private the deputy bailiff: 1. This is an application by the Minister for a Secure Accommodation Order in relation to ("YY") who is a child aged 16. She is subject to an Interim Care Order granted by this Court on the 24 May 2024. She was made subject to a previous Secure Accommodation Order on 17 April 2024 for a period of 8 weeks.

2. We do not have the ex tempore judgment delivered by the Court on that day to hand, but it is plain that one of the reasons for the court making that order were the events that took place immediately prior to that order being made.

3. We refer to the circumstances mentioned in the Child Protection Notification from April which indicates that immediately before the application was heard the police were called to apartments in St Helier. They found YY present with two other youths; she is recorded as having been mildly intoxicated. She spotted an open window which was broken and attempted to push the police to one side to get out of the window which was on the fourth floor. She threatened to jump and indicated a wish to take her life, she made various attempts to jump and on one occasion she was climbing over the rail on a balcony outside the flat with her left leg over the railing, her hands and body over the railing leaving just one leg on the floor. The officers grabbed her and brought her back into the flat.

4. The Secure Accommodation Order, as we said, was made for a period of 8 weeks. However, YY was discharged early by a Review Panel on the 13 May 2024, and we have a copy of their reasons at G91. We note that the proposed early discharge was objected to by the Childrens Service as they wanted YY to remain at ("Accommodation A") to embed changes that it was hoped would take place during the period for which the order was designed to take effect, but owing to, amongst other things YY's exemplary behaviour at Accommodation A and her wish to return to ("Accommodation C"), [Redacted] she was discharged.

5. Whether or not that decision was premature with the benefit of hindsight is not a matter for us to express an opinion on, but nonetheless what happened next is taken up by the evidence of the social worker, in this case ("B"), in her statement made for the purposes of today and that indicates that after a week or ten days YY began to go missing again. On 26 May 2024, she was missing from 11:30 until 4:00 am, her agreed curfew is 10:30 pm. She has gone regularly missing since. Before leaving this statement, we note that on the 24 May 2024 Doctors Birtwistle and Keep assessed that YY is currently functioning at the chronological age of an 8 year old and she is in the lowest one percentile for matters such as verbal comprehension, working memory, processing speed. It is agreed that she is a vulnerable 16 year old and particularly vulnerable when affected by alcohol. As the Guardian said today, "alcohol and [YY] are an unfortunate and risky mix".

6. It is appropriate, before revisiting more of the evidence in this case, to remind ourselves of the statutory test in this case which we must have regard to. Under Article 22 of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002 ("Children Law "): "..., the child who is being looked after by the Minister may not be placed and, if placed, may not be kept in accommodation provided for the purpose of restricting liberty unless it appears" - In the facts of this case that: (i) the child has a history of absconding and is likely to abscond from any other description of accommodation, (which we will call the first limb of the test) and (ii) if the child absconds, he or she is likely to suffer significant harm; (which we will call the second limb of the test) 7. If the court is satisfied in relation to these two limbs, then under Article 22 (3) the court shall decide whether the necessary criteria for keeping a child in secure accommodation are satisfied and if so it shall make an order. a) authorising the child to be so kept; and b) specifying the maximum period for which the child may be so kept.

8. It is clear from subsequent case law that the word 'shall' in the context of the court making an order does not suggest that the court must make an order, merely that it has a discretion to do so, and when exercising that discretion must have in mind that this is a draconian order of last resort which effectively deprives a child of its liberty.

9. Moving on to the first limb of the test there can be no doubt that that is satisfied. We note from the recent Child Protection Notification, dated 19 June 2024, produced by the police in relation to one of the gone missing reports that on that date, that report marked YY's 250 th Missing Person Report and 364 th Child Protection Notification.

10. What about the second limb - can the court be satisfied that YY is likely to suffer significant harm, it being accepted that it is not in her interests to go missing as she has and that there may be a consequential risk of some harm - but is there a risk of significant harm?

11. Our attention was drawn to two specific and very recent incidents that have occurred. The first of which is best considered by having regard to a log produced by the police and dated 13 June 2024. This indicates on that day YY was reported missing by staff at 12.50 am in the morning. She and the group were seen by police to have two litre bottles of vodka in their possession. On engagement with officers at 1 a.m. YY was noted to be intoxicated with slurred speech. The alcohol was eventually obtained by officers and disposed of. YY continued to cause anti-social behaviour in the town area including attending ("Hotel A"), taking luggage from a ramp before being stopped by the police. YY was also part of a group which attended the back of the hotel and was suspected of attempting to gain entry. She was eventually detained. She was displaying disorderly behaviour and remained under the influence of intoxicants. She was released to the care of her carers rather than arrested for drunk and disorderly.

12. When she was released from being detained to the care of her carers, the carers were advised to lock the doors and windows of their car due to YY being able open the doors from inside. Nonetheless whilst the vehicle was in transit back to the care home YY opened a vehicle door whilst the care was in motion, got out of the car whilst it was in motion and ran away. A short time later she was aggressive towards to an on-duty paramedic and was arrested for being drunk and disorderly. A further concern noted in the same log is that during this time she had been crossing multiple lanes of the carriageway at the Esplanade, stepping in front of police vehicles and members of the public, thereby putting herself at serious risk of harm.

13. In addition to the incidents referred to in logs recording her activities in the intervening period, over the weekend she has gone missing for a protracted period causing significant concern. Consumption of alcohol was again a feature. We heard evidence from the Head of Service, Family Support and Safeguarding this morning, who was the out of hours duty manager over the weekend just gone.

14. On Friday YY went missing, (if we can use this phrase), in the usual way and then returned to Accommodation C. On Saturday evening she also left Accommodation C. The staff lost contact with her then. They sometimes are able to locate via her mobile telephone. Staff went to find her and saw her at First Tower where they assessed her as being intoxicated. This was after 1 a.m. That was her last contact with staff for well over 24 hours. When they saw YY intoxicated, staff tried to persuade her to come home. She refused and she was abusive. The police could not find her for the rest of the night. Usually, they are able to do so, either by sightings whilst on patrol, (because they know her well by now), or on CCTV.

15. Yesterday there were three strategy meetings between the police and Children's Service in relation to YY, such was the level of concern owing to her disappearance. There was a belief that she may have gone to her father's house. One of her sisters, also a minor, was alone in the house as her father had gone away. The sister did not admit the police to the home and denied that YY was there. There was a suggestion, we do not know what the strength of the intelligence, that people may have been taking Class A drugs in the house during this time.

16. A second strategy meeting took place mid afternoon yesterday attended by two police inspectors, the Head of Service and a member of staff from Accommodation C. Everyone was very worried that YY still could not be found. There was a concern about alcohol and also drugs for reasons to which we have referred.

17. There was a third meeting at 8 o'clock last night attended by the Head of Children Services and a Police Inspector, who had contact with an older sister who offered to help find YY. All attempts to contact her on her mobile phone had failed during this period. Finally there was an observation of YY on CCTV at 3 am this morning. Care staff tried to persuade her to come home, which she did at 4:30 am. She came home upset, broke some items in the kitchen and locked herself in her room.

18. YY has been too distressed to give proper instructions to her counsel today, but she has expressed the view that she wishes to remain at Accommodation C and not go back to Accommodation A. Some of the staff at Accommodation C have said that she has made some positive progress there.

19. Counsel for the mother has not had the opportunity to take proper instructions from her client, who was not present today. This is no criticism of her because this is an urgent application. Although not opposing or supporting the application, counsel for the mother queries whether the Minister has been able to meet the statutory test and whether the court should exercise its discretion to make the order that is sought.

20. The Guardian describes this as a difficult case and she is right - it is a difficult case. But many of these cases are difficult. We note that concern that Accommodation A, although designed for eight young people, is now only effectively authorised for three and special permission from the Care Commission has been sought and granted to accommodate a fourth young person in response to this application.

21. Nonetheless, on the evidence that we heard we are satisfied that the statutory test is met in this case under both limbs, and that we should exercise our discretion to make the order sought for the period that is sought.

22. We agree that the Minister's description of YY as a vulnerable girl on a trajectory which will inevitably lead to serious harm if she is not given the help that she needs, and in that regard we note that at the Court's specific request the Minister through B has gone to the trouble of preparing a care plan which sets out in detail the package of measures the Minister has or will put in place to assist YY in Accommodation A, week by week.

23. The objectives for that placement are set out at paragraph 2.4 of the care plan and they include to ensure that YY has the parental guidance and support she needs at this stage in her life given her complex needs; to ensure she is supported around the choices she is making, particularly in relation to alcohol and the impact this will have on her mental health; and to help her to have childhood experiences appropriate for her age and development. As we have said, it sets out week by week what is proposed during the plan, but in particular towards the end proposes a gradual increase in activities outside Accommodation A which was on element missing from the early discharge that occurred under the recent Secure Accommodation Order.

24. In relation to any subsequent application for discharge we do hope that the Panel will review very carefully not only this judgment but also the terms of the care plan put together by the Minister for the purpose of ensuring that YY is supported at Accommodation A in such a way as to maximise the chances of breaking the cycle of behaviour to which we have referred only in part in the course of this ex tempore judgment. We approve the Care Plan. Authorities Children (Jersey) Law 2002. Page Last Updated: 24 Jul 2024 Back to top About JLIB Accessibility Contacts Copyright Disclaimer Feedback Privacy policy Site map BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII URL: https://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/2024/2024_153.html