In the matter of April and Taylor (Care proceedings) [2015] JRC 264 (18 December 2015)

judgment the commissioner: 1. On 11 th December, 2015, the Court sat for the final hearing of care proceedings instituted by the Minister in relation to April and Taylor (not their real names). At the conclusion of the hearing the Court approved the recommendation of the Minister, which was agreed to by all the parties. The Court accordingly made no order in respect of April and made a supervision order for 9 months in respect of Taylor. We now give our reasons. Background 2. The background is set out in the judgment of the Court dated 28 th September, 2015, In the matter of April (Contact order ) [2015] JRC 198 , and accordingly we will summarise only those aspects which are necessary for the purposes of this judgment. 3. April is 17 and Taylor is 14. They are both the children of the First and Second Respondents ("the mother" and "the father"). 4. In November 2011, the father was sentenced to a total of 5 years' imprisonment for eight counts of indecent assault and four counts of procuring an act of gross indecency on a boy who was between the age of 12 and 15 during the period of offending. He was also sentenced to 2 years' imprisonment, consecutive, for 12 counts of making indecent photographs of children. The father befriended the victim who was a particularly vulnerable child and ingratiated himself by buying sweets and expensive gifts for the boy. During his period of imprisonment, the father did not engage with any sex offender treatment and continued to deny his offending. He is subject to a restraining order under Article 10(4) of the Protection of Children (Jersey) Law 1994 which prohibits him from being alone with any person under the age of 16. 5. April and Taylor have lived with the mother throughout their lives. The father was released from prison in November 2014 but he lived separately from the mother and her children. The Minister was concerned that, upon the father's release, the mother would not be able to protect the children from the risk of harm because she was in denial over the father's offending. Accordingly, the Minister applied for a care order. An interim care order was granted by the Court on 3 rd December, 2014. On 11 th March, 2015, the interim care order in respect of April was discharged and replaced by an interim supervision order as she was about to turn 17 and a care order would not extend beyond her 17th birthday. 6. Subsequently Dr Dawn Bailham was appointed to carry out psychological assessments. Her report is dated 7 th April, 2015, with an addendum dated 9 th May, 2015. She concluded in her report that the father presented some degree of sexual risk to April and a high sexual risk to Taylor. There was a risk of sexual harm to April from a man within whom the father associates. He also presented a high sexual risk to other children and young people, both male and female. Dr Bailham recommended that contact with the father should be supervised. 7. Significantly, she recommended that concentrated therapeutic work should be undertaken with the children and the mother with a view to assisting them all to keep the children safe. After some initial delay, Mr Rob Tucker and Ms Jo Ziegert were appointed to carry out the recommended therapeutic work after the Minister had agreed the necessary funding. 8. On 27 th July, 2015, the Court sat to hear an application by April for unsupervised contact with the father. That application was rejected for the reasons set out in the judgment referred to at paragraph 2 above. However the Court indicated that it would be willing to reconsider the matter in early October after the therapeutic work had been undertaken by Mr Tucker and Ms Ziegert and they had reported on the outcome of such work. 9. Mr Tucker and Ms Ziegert undertook the recommended therapeutic work with the mother, the father and the children during the course of July and August. They reported on the outcome of the work on 24 th September. In essence, the report was very encouraging. All the parties had engaged very fully and had had to confront difficult issues. In particular, the mother and the children had moved away from a position whereby they believed the father to be innocent of the offences of which he had been convicted. The report recommended further work to develop a Family Safety Plan which was to be agreed by all family members and professionals. This was intended to set out a structure for keeping the children safe. The report further recommended that once the work on a Family Safety Plan had been done, April could start unsupervised contact with the father in the community and Taylor could move to contact with the father supervised by the mother. Furthermore long-term work was recommended to help with communication about sex offending and to ensure updates on the father's progress on work concerning sexual offending with the probation service. On 30 th September, the Court made orders to reflect these recommendations which were agreed by all parties. 10. The Family Safety Plans for April and Taylor have now been prepared and agreed. The programme for the more long-term work has also been put in place. The current application 11. The Minister has presented a threshold statement which has been agreed by all the parties. This indicates that as at 1 st December, 2014, (being the date of the application for the interim care order), April and Taylor were likely to suffer significant harm as set out in Article 24(2) of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002 ("the 2002 Law"). The basis of that likelihood was that the father had committed serial sexual offences against a child, that he had not undertaken any sex offender treatment work whilst in prison and that the mother was in denial about the father's guilt, thereby making it unlikely that she would be in a position to protect the children from the risk of sexual harm. 12. We agree that the threshold criteria in Article 24(2) of the 2002 Law was satisfied as at 1 st December, 2014. It follows that the Court has jurisdiction to make a care order or a supervision order. 13. The question then is as to whether it would be in the interests of either child to make such an order. 14. The report from Ms Caroline Glynn, the social worker in the Children's Service allocated to the children since 8 th September, 2015, is very encouraging. It shows that the family has engaged fully in the preparation of the Family Safety Plans for April and Taylor recommended by Mr Tucker and Ms Ziegert. Both Plans have now been agreed to by all parties and by the Children's Service. Unsupervised contact between April and the father has now begun, as has contact with Taylor supervised by the mother. Whilst it is early days and the father is a strong character, the Children's Service believes that, as a result of the therapeutic work and the efforts which she has made, the mother is now fully aware of the risks of grooming etc. and is in a position to protect the children. 15. The recommendation from the Children's Service therefore is that, given April's age and maturity - she will be 18 in spring next year - there is no need for any order to be made in respect of her. 16. As to Taylor, it is felt that a care order would not be proportionate. Given the progress by all parties following the therapeutic work, it is suggested that a supervision order would be sufficient. This would give the mother the support which she may need and enable the Children's Service to keep an eye on the situation but without the intrusion of having parental responsibility. It is agreed that contact between Taylor and the father should continue to be supervised by the mother. 17. The guardian is supportive of these proposals. She too is impressed with the progress which has been made and believes that the best course for the children is to make no order in the case of April and to make a supervision order in respect of Taylor. She too believes there has been a considerable change since December 2014 when the care proceedings were commenced. The therapeutic work has resulted in the whole family becoming much better informed about sexual offending and she believes that the mother is now in a position to safeguard the interests of the children, whereas this was not the case back in December 2014. 18. The mother also agrees with the proposal. When asked by the Court, she confirmed that she would have no hesitation in contacting Ms Glynn should any difficulty - no matter how small - arise. The Court emphasised that this was important and desirable, as indeed did Ms Glynn when she gave evidence. There may well still be challenges ahead and the wellbeing of the children - in particular Taylor given his age - require that the mother should have no hesitation in seeking assistance should she run into any difficulty or have any concerns. We are confident from what she said to us that she fully understands this. 19. The father also agreed to the proposed course of action. One of the issues which has arisen is that he has not yet commenced the sexual offending work with the Probation Service on a voluntary basis which all the experts agree would be beneficial. He has explained why he has not yet engaged fully with this work, namely that he wished to concentrate on resolving the position in relation to the children first. However, he accepted before the Court that he fully understood how important it was that he should undertake this work and he was fully committed to doing it as soon as possible. He had already begun. He said that he knew that the children both thought it very important that he should undertake this work. That was confirmed by the advocates for April and Taylor in their submissions to us. Advocate Myerson in particular said that she was specifically instructed to say that April felt that she had put in enormous work and effort to undertake the therapeutic work and help bring the matter to the current position. It was, he said, now the father's turn to show that he too could put in the necessary and perhaps difficult work to enable the family to move forward. April adored her father and wanted a normal relationship with him. She really wanted him now to do the necessary work. The advocate for Taylor endorsed these observations and we hope and believe that the father has appreciated this and will commit whole-heartedly to the necessary work with the Probation Service. 20. There was some issue as to whether the contact between the father and Taylor should remain at its present level or whether it would be preferable for it to take place twice as often but for half as long on each occasion. Ms Glynn explained why she did not think that this would be a good idea until the father had undertaken the work with the probation service and we accept that this is so. The matter can be kept under review as necessary. Ms Glynn also explained that the thinking behind a nine month supervision order was that it would coincide with completion of the continuing work to be undertaken by Mr Tucker and Ms Ziegert. 21. For the reasons put forward by the Children's Service and the guardian, we are satisfied that what is proposed is in the best interests of both children. In relation to April, given her age and level of maturity, we do not think it is appropriate to make any order. In relation to Taylor, we do not think a care order is necessary or proportionate but neither do we think that no order would give him adequate protection. We agree therefore that a supervision order is correct. That supervision order will include power conferred on the supervisor under Schedule 3 paragraph 1 of the 2002 Law to give directions to Taylor:- (i) specifying that he lives with the mother; (ii) requiring Taylor to:- (a) meet with the supervisor a minimum of every three weeks, such meetings may take place at home, school or in the community on a planned and unplanned basis and will be subject to review; (b) undertake direct work sessions with RGT Training and Consultancy Limited (Mr Tucker and Ms Ziegert) as required; (c) adhere to the rules and expectations stipulated within his Family Safety Plan created with RGT Training and Consultancy Limited; and (d) participate in any other requirement reasonably in his best interests. 22. We note also the undertakings which have been given by the father, the mother and April as set out in the draft order which give added comfort that what is proposed is the best course. 23. In conclusion, we would like to repeat some of the observations we made at the conclusion of the hearing. We fully accept that this has not been an easy journey for the members of the family. It has required them to confront some difficult issues. However it is clear that they have worked diligently and conscientiously under the expert guidance of Mr Tucker and Ms Ziegert and that the position is now most encouraging and very different from what it was when the care proceedings were instituted. We commend all those involved, both the family and the experts who have provided the necessary guidance. It is also clear that Ms Glynn has, since her appointment, worked well and constructively with the family. We hope very much that the progress which is so evident will be maintained and consolidated in the coming months. 24. In summary therefore, having found that the threshold criteria are met, we make no order in respect of April and make a supervision order for nine months in respect of Taylor. Authorities In the matter of April (Contact order) [2015] JRC 198 . Protection of Children (Jersey) Law 1994. Children (Jersey) Law 2002. Page Last Updated: 18 Jan 2017 BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII