 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Jersey Unreported Judgments |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Jersey Unreported Judgments >> In the matter of Q (Secure Accommodation Order) [2012] JRC 020 (24 January 2012) URL: http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/2012/2012_020.html Cite as: [2012] JRC 20, [2012] JRC 020 |
||
[New search] [Help]
Secure Accommodation Order - application for an extension by the Minister.
[2012]JRC020
|
Before : |
J. A. Clyde-Smith, Commissioner, and Jurats Milner and Olsen. |
|
Between |
Minister for Health and Social Services |
Applicant |
|
And |
Q |
First Respondent |
|
|
B |
Second Respondent |
IN THE MATTER OF Q
AND IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN (JERSEY) LAW 2002
Advocate C. M. Davies for the Minister.
Advocate D. Gilbert for the First Respondent.
judgment
the commissioner:
1. On 8th December 2011, the Court granted the Minister's application for an extension to the secure accommodation order imposed by the Court on 21st October 2011 and this in respect of Q. This judgment needs to be read in conjunction with the judgment of the Court of 3rd February 2011 (JRC 031) which sets out the Court's reasons for imposing a final care order in relation to Q and its judgment of 14th November 2011 (JRC 218) in which the Court gives its reasons for imposing the secure accommodation order.
2. On 14th November 2011, the Minister recommended that the secure accommodation order be imposed for a period of three months but the Court, having heard representations from Q and the mother reduced that to two months, in order to give Q some light at the end of the tunnel, and an incentive to work towards the addendum care plan, at the same time noting that the Minister could apply for an extension, which she subsequently did.
3. Under Article 3(1) of the Children (Secure Accommodation)(Jersey) Order 2005 ("the Order") the maximum period for which the Court may authorise a child to be kept in secure accommodation is three months. However, Article 3(2) provides:-
4. The Court therefore has a discretion to extend a secure accommodation order for further periods of up to six month in relation to a child to whom Article 22 of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002 ("the Children Law") applies, but before extending the order, the Court must be satisfied that the criteria set out in Article 22(1) of the Children Law are met, namely that it appears to the Court that:-
5. The Minister's case was that Q continues to abscond and put herself at risk of significant harm. On 30th November 2011, during family contact, Q's mother allowed Q to go out unsupervised to meet some friends. Q did not return to her mother and the police subsequently located her around 1.30 am on 1st December 2011 at Les Cinq Chenes. She had consumed alcohol and was with two older boys, one of whom was Q's ex-boyfriend. Q was returned to G by the police.
6. Further, the Minister submitted that Q continues to show poor behaviour and her overall attitude continues to be argumentative and challenging, particularly within the educational provision. We were told that Q frequently refuses to attend lessons, she argues with staff, uses offensive language and writes notes about the teaching staff.
7. Under Article 9 of the Order, the Minister has a duty to review the placement:-
8. Further under Article 10 of the Order:-
9. Pursuant to Articles 9 and 10 of the Order a Secure Accommodation Order a Review meeting took place on 25th November 2011. It was chaired by Linda Dodds, Independent Reviewing Officer and had a member of the Board of Visitors and the Manager of G on the panel. Q, her mother and stepfather attended the review as did Kevin Mansell, head teacher at the Alternative Curriculum and Laura Stark, the social worker. This review concluded that Q continued to meet the criteria for secure accommodation.
10. The minute of the meeting of 25th November 2011 recorded that Q's conduct had been "really rude". Despite constant reminders, she had interrupted people while they were talking and had readily talked over others. She had shown a total lack of respect of others and had been quite aggressive in her manner at times.
11. The education report of 18th November 2011 makes difficult reading. The head teacher summarises what can only be described as unacceptable conduct concluding:-
"During this period of residence Q has either refused to come to school or had to be removed from lessons on 60% of the days, this means that she has missed 48% of the lessons she should have been in whilst in G. What is important to acknowledge is that the teaching staff, their methods and expectations have not changed. What has changed is Q's attitude and behaviour. (These figures are up until 24th November).
Another issue of concern is that Q is starting to make notes during lessons about particular staff. This is unacceptable behaviour and will not be allowed to continue and if it continues she will be told to leave the lesson."
12. One of Q's complaints to us was that there was no recognition for her achievements and improvements and it is the case that these episodes described above interrupt periods where her attendance and attitude were described as "good" or even "outstanding".
13. Under the new care plan, dated 1st December 2011, it is now proposed that Q will be gradually rehabilitated back to the full-time care of her family. Her time with her family will be increased to four nights a week beginning on 8th January 2012, five nights from Sunday 22nd January 2012, six nights from 5th February 2012 and full-time from 19th February 2012.
14. This gradual rehabilitation is more likely to succeed, we were advised by Laura Stark, in an environment of secure accommodation rather than Q returning to K. The primary responsibility for Q's care would in due course pass to her mother and her step-father. However, paragraphs 22 and 23 of the care plan state as follows:-
"22, A Secure Accommodation Order Review meeting will be held at the end of January 2012 to consider whether Q should remain in secure accommodation or not and will be based on her presentation and willingness to engage with staff in understanding why her current behaviour places other children and Q at risk. This will be done with consideration to Q's attachment difficulties and her educational ability as identified by the educational psychologist, Kathryn Robinson.
23. Care Planning meetings will take place once every fortnight."
15. As Laura Stark reminded us, the mother has historically found it difficult to care for Q as documented in the proceedings which led to the care order. Q, in her view, is likely to show challenging behaviour in the future and if she is rehabilitated to the family they will need to manage this with appropriate support until Q is an adult. She was concerned that they may be under-estimating the difficulties that may arise but it was thought that this needed to be balanced with the wishes and feelings of Q, given her age and her reluctance to accept the care offered by K.
16. Laura Stark informed us that the care plan for Q had been changed in the light of her wishes and feelings and Q had concentrated on this desire as being "a cure-all". Because of this, the re-unification planned for her to return to the full-time care of the mother is only likely to succeed if done from the provision of secure accommodation. This will allow the plan to proceed as smoothly as possible, using the positive relationship Q and her mother currently have with her key worker, whilst providing a sufficiently high enough safety net for Q to be kept safe should the plan fail, as the impact upon her at this time would be likely to be such that she will put herself or others at risk of harm. Secure accommodation in her view was needed to keep her safe.
17. Jane Ferguson, the guardian, acknowledged that this plan was a high risk strategy but she was supportive of it. In her view, a return to K would not be a positive move for Q and would cause further resentment and difficulties between her and the staff at the home. In view of the history, she advised that the Children's Service will need some assurances that they will be informed of difficulties and that the mother will work with them to ensure Q's safety, pointing out that whatever the care plan, Q will remain in the care of the Minister until such time as an application is made to discharge it. She recommended that the Court extended the secure accommodation order for three months to provide some boundaries during that time, as well as a placement at G, which would keep her safe if necessary. A change of placement back to K would not be in Q's best interests, as she had such negative views of it.
18. Q, in her position statement, reluctantly accepted the fact that on ongoing secure accommodation order would provide her with the continued support of her key worker at G and an incentive to make the return home successful. She consented to a renewal of the accommodation order for a period of one month, expiring on 21st January 2012.
19. She expressed some criticism of the delay in the implementation of the addendum care plan approved by the Court on 21st October 2011, and in this she was supported by Jane Ferguson, who said that initially developments were slow. The addendum care plan had been put together in Laura Stark's absence on leave and no one appeared to take responsibility for taking the revised plan forward until she returned from her leave, which she felt must have been frustrating for Q and her family.
20. There were issues, in Q's view, over her education. She had been worrying about losing out on her education and was able to recognise the disadvantage this would place her at in the future. She was desperate to learn and be educated but had a poor relationship with the teaching staff, who she felt were unable adequately to respond to her educational needs. Furthermore, she did not feel valued or respected by the teaching staff, since she is often excluded from the education classes due to her behaviour, which she is unable to recognise as being worse than other pupils who are not excluded. She has now been given a place at P, to start in January 2012 and she is keen to start there full-time with a clean sheet.
21. In her position statement, the mother said that the new care plan showed some light or hope for her and Q. She felt she was both mentally and physically ready to take Q back at any time the Children's Service were ready to return her to her care. She was appreciative of the challenges and difficulties it may bring, but was confident she could deal with them. She questioned why if two months under the previous secure accommodation order was not enough for the Children's Service to work with Q that a further three months extension would achieve anything.
22. Because Q was at G at the time of the hearing she thought that technically there was no ground to renew the secure accommodation order as she could not abscond. She reiterated Q's frustrations over her education. In Court, her husband, D, spoke on her behalf and explained that the rehabilitation in 2008 had not succeeded because they were not ready at that time and were given little notice. Her other children were much younger then and it had been hard for her. They recognised that the new care plan was important and were anxious to make it work. Suffice it to say that whilst the mother did not agree to the new secure accommodation order, she did not oppose it and was clearly pleased that there was now a plan for Q's rehabilitation.
23. We do not think it is a valid argument to say that because Q is currently in secure accommodation there can be no risk of her absconding and therefore the criteria under Article 22(1) of the Children Law cannot be met. If that was the case, no extension would ever be granted. The issues were firstly, did she have a history of absconding unsecure accommodation and secondly, if returned to unsecure accommodation, is she likely to do so? For that purpose, it is necessary to take into account her conduct at K before the secure accommodation order was granted on 21st October 2011 as well as her conduct subsequently at G. Her conduct before 21st October is summarised at paragraph 5 of the Court's judgment of 14th November 2011:-
24. We should note here that it transpires that in fact Q had not been permanently excluded from her school, but this does not detract from the overall assessment. As to her conduct subsequently, she absconded when with her mother on 30th November and this after only two overnight stays with the family following the initial period of one month at G after the imposition of the secure accommodation order on 21st October 2011. We are encouraged by her concern over her education and we can accept that she has felt frustrated (and in doing so wishing to imply no criticism of the alternative curriculum) but her conduct and treatment of the staff has been unacceptable. It is not all negative as the report makes clear, but we have come to know Q as strong-willed and reluctant to accept boundaries.
25. We therefore concluded that it did appear to us that Q had a history of absconding and was likely to abscond from any other description of accommodation other than secure accommodation. Bearing in mind the history and the fact that when she did abscond on 30th November she was found at 1.30 a.m. having consumed alcohol and with two older boys, it also appeared to us that if she did abscond, she was likely to suffer significant harm. We were satisfied therefore that the criteria were met.
26. As to the period of the extension, it was important that the secure accommodation remained available to provide a proper foundation for Q's planned return back to her family. It had been the only way in the past to manage her behaviour. The Children's Service advised that a three months order was the minimum required to enable the plan to succeed. We had to balance that against her right to liberty under Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights, but we concluded that a three months extension was proportionate. We therefore extended the secure accommodation order for a period of three months, ending on 21st March 2012.
27. In her statement, Laura Stark alluded to the deteriorating relationship between her and Q and the decision taken by the Children's Service to appoint a new social worker from 12th December 2011. D, on behalf of the mother, graciously thanked her in open Court and we wish to acknowledge and pay tribute to all she has done for Q over many years and for handling the transfer to a new social worker in such a professional manner.
28. In granting the care order on 3rd December 2010, the Court, on the application of the mother, made a minimum contact order in prescriptive terms, suspended during the intervening secure accommodation orders. It did so against the advice of the Children's Service. The Minister applied for that order to be discharged and that was opposed by the mother, as she felt it gave her security in her relationship with the Children's Service, which was not always amicable.
29. The difficulty, as we explained to the mother, was that any such order would need to be suspended again during the period of the extension we had just ordered, and its prescriptive terms would then bear no relation to the circumstances which would apply when the secure accommodation order expired, namely, and hopefully, that Q would then be living permanently at home. Even if that were not the case, it would be impossible to state now what the prescriptive terms of such an order should be. The Court therefore had no alternative other than to discharge it. It did so in the knowledge that the Minister is under an obligation, pursuant to Article 27 of the Children Law, to allow reasonable contact between Q and her mother and that the mother has the ability to apply for a contact order should she not be satisfied with the contact arrangements.