Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2009]JRC008

royal court

(Samedi Division)

9^th January 2009

Before     :

J. A. Clyde-Smith, Esq., Commissioner, sitting alone.

 

IN THE MATTER OF S

Advocate E. L. Hollywood for the Minister for Health and Social Services.

Advocate S. E. Fitz for the mother.

judgment

the commissioner:

1.        The Minister applies under Article 37(1)(a) of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002, for an Emergency Protection Order in relation to S who is now aged 15.  Time does not permit me to set out the background in this short judgment but suffice to say that in the light of his attempted suicide last night it is not disputed by his mother, represented by Mrs Fitz, that an order should be made and it is accepted that his mother can not offer him the protection he needs certainty in the short term.

2.        The issues before me are a) over the length of the order, namely 15 days, sought by the Minister, at the expiration of which there will be an application for an Interim Care Order; and b) whether the lawyer to be appointed should only act in tandem with the Guardian. 

3.        In practice the Guardian, to be nominated by the NSPCC, will not be able to get over to see S probably until Monday week, the implication being that if a tandem order is made, S will not have access to an independent voice for potentially that period.  Mrs Fitz submits that the order should be for one week, expiring at a hearing to be fixed for next Friday, which by necessary implication means that the lawyer must be able to take instructions from and see S alone.  This, she submits accords with UK practice.  Mrs Fitz and S's mother feels that this will make it easier psychologically for S. 

4.        Miss Hollywood is concerned that access by a lawyer alone could be damaging to S and that he or she should only act in tandem with the Guardian and even then only on the advice of CAMHS as to when it is appropriate to see S. 

5.        Mrs Fitz has drawn to my attention paragraph 4(47) of the 'Child Care and Adoption Law, a practical guide' which provides as follows

"Applications for Emergency Protection Orders are specified proceedings for the purpose of Children's Act 1989 Section 41 so it should, as a Guardian, must be appointed for the child unless the Court is satisfied that this is not necessary, given the limited duration of  Emergency Protection Orders it may not be possible for a Guardian to be appointed in time to participate in the proceedings in which case the Court should appoint a Solicitor to represent the child".

6.        I have determined that in the case of an Emergency Protection Order a lawyer should be appointed immediately and should have access in this case to S without working in tandem with the Guardian, as soon as that lawyer deems it appropriate, no doubt after consultation with CAMHS. 

7.        However, having considered Mrs Fitz submissions very carefully, I agree with Miss Hollywood that S needs a period of stability and that 15 days will give both CAMHS and the staff at Heathfield, there being no alternative of him being placed there, proper time to give him the benefit of their input and help.  With access to a lawyer, of course, it will be open to S to apply back to the Court for the order to be lifted earlier if that is thought appropriate.

Authorities

Children (Jersey) Law 2002.