fc_judgments_version: 56

This data as json

_id	_item	_version	_commit	tags	date	court	case-number	title	citation	url	counsel	timestamp	coram	html	_item_full_hash
56	48	1	1770	[ "Children and Young Persons Act \u2013 Care and Protection Orders" ]	2024-06-26	Youth Court	Care and Protection Order No 86 of 2023	Child Protector v WYQ	[2024] SGYC 2	https://www.lawnet.sg:443/lawnet/web/lawnet/free-resources?p_p_id=freeresources_WAR_lawnet3baseportlet&p_p_lifecycle=1&p_p_state=normal&p_p_mode=view&_freeresources_WAR_lawnet3baseportlet_action=openContentPage&_freeresources_WAR_lawnet3baseportlet_docId=%2FJudgment%2F31699-SSP.xml	[ "Ruth Tan Shi Hui (Ministry of Social and Family Development) for the Child Protector", "The respondents in person." ]	2024-07-05T16:00:00Z[GMT]	Patrick Tay Wei Sheng	<root><head><title>Child Protector v WYQ</title></head><content><div class="contentsOfFile"> <h2 align="center" class="title"><span class="caseTitle"> Child Protector <em>v</em> WYQ </span><br><span class="Citation offhyperlink"><a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/31699-SSP.xml')">[2024] SGYC 2</a></span></h2><table id="info-table"><tbody><tr class="info-row"><td class="txt-label" style="padding: 4px 0px; white-space: nowrap" valign="top">Case Number</td><td class="info-delim1" style="padding: 4px">:</td><td class="txt-body">Care and Protection Order No 86 of 2023</td></tr><tr class="info-row"><td class="txt-label" style="padding: 4px 0px; white-space: nowrap" valign="top">Decision Date</td><td class="info-delim1" style="padding: 4px">:</td><td class="txt-body">26 June 2024</td></tr><tr class="info-row"><td class="txt-label" style="padding: 4px 0px; white-space: nowrap" valign="top">Tribunal/Court</td><td class="info-delim1" style="padding: 4px">:</td><td class="txt-body">Youth Court</td></tr><tr class="info-row"><td class="txt-label" style="padding: 4px 0px; white-space: nowrap" valign="top">Coram</td><td class="info-delim1" style="padding: 4px">:</td><td class="txt-body"> Patrick Tay Wei Sheng </td></tr><tr class="info-row"><td class="txt-label" style="padding: 4px 0px; white-space: nowrap" valign="top">Counsel Name(s)</td><td class="info-delim1" style="padding: 4px">:</td><td class="txt-body"> Ruth Tan Shi Hui (Ministry of Social and Family Development) for the Child Protector; The respondents in person. </td></tr><tr class="info-row"><td class="txt-label" style="padding: 4px 0px; white-space: nowrap" valign="top">Parties</td><td class="info-delim1" style="padding: 4px">:</td><td class="txt-body"> Child Protector — WYQ </td></tr></tbody></table> <p class="txt-body"><span style="font-style:italic">Children and Young Persons Act</span> – <span style="font-style:italic">Care and Protection Orders</span></p> <p></p><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="80%"><p class="Judg-Hearing-Date">26 June 2024</p></td><td><p class="Judg-Date-Reserved"></p></td></tr></tbody></table><p></p> <p class="Judg-Author"> District Judge Patrick Tay Wei Sheng:</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_1"></a>1 The Child Protector sought care and protection orders (each, a “CPO”) for two daughters and a son who lived with their mother after the divorce of their parents in 2021. The 14-year-old elder daughter had cut her wrists, had brought a penknife to school on the instructions of the mother, and had been exposed to pornography. The 11-year-old younger daughter had, apart from similarly cutting her wrists and consuming pornography, threatened and beat up the mother. The 11-year-old son had scalded himself at home following inadequate parental supervision.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_2"></a>2 The parents of the children diverged in their views on this application. The father consented to the CPOs. The mother objected to the CPOs.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_3"></a>3 I agreed with the Child Protector that the children were in need of care and protection, and that the CPOs sought were in their welfare and best interests. The elder daughter and the younger daughter were committed to places of safety, Chen Su Lan Methodist Children's Home (“CSL”) and the Interim Placement and Assessment Centre, Marymount (“IPAC”) respectively. The son was placed under the supervision of an approved welfare officer (“AWO”), even as he remained in the care of the mother. With a view to re-integrating the children with their parents, I limited the duration of the CPOs to 12 months, with a review in 6 months. I also ordered the parents to work with the professionals and other allied services to improve their parenting abilities.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_4"></a>4 The mother is dissatisfied with these decisions and has filed an appeal against them. I now provide my grounds for them.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Background</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_5"></a>5 On 19 July 2021, the parents of the children divorced. The care and control of the children was awarded to the mother while access to the children was granted to the father. The children thus lived with the mother from day to day but saw the father frequently across his regular access sessions with them.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_6"></a>6 On 19 September 2022, the daughters’ school made a report to the National Anti-Violence and Sexual Harassment Helpline. The school claimed that the mother had dragged the elder daughter by the hair across their residence and hit her on the head repeatedly. It added that the elder daughter had brought a penknife to school and had threatened her classmates. It also reported that both daughters had been exposed to pornography. These reports were referred to the Child Protective Services (the “CPS”), which requested the children’s schools to monitor them.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_1" id="Ftn_1_1"><sup>[note: 1]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_7"></a>7 On 27 April 2023, the son’s school reported that the son had scalded himself on the thigh. On 11 August 2023, the daughters’ school reported that the younger daughter had burnt herself while cooking and that she had been hit with a backscratcher by the elder daughter. The schools also expressed concern that the mother had coached the children to downplay the events that had taken place at home. And on 30 August 2023, the son’s school reported that the son had sustained a bruise due to the elder daughter hitting him. In consequence, the CPS commenced further investigations into the family.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_2" id="Ftn_2_1"><sup>[note: 2]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_8"></a>8 On 14 September 2023, burn marks were found on the arm of the elder daughter during a visit to her school.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_3" id="Ftn_3_1"><sup>[note: 3]</sup></a></span> The CPS then exercised its powers under s 11 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1993 (2020 Rev Ed) (the “CYPA”) to admit the children to KK Women’s and Children’s Hospital (“KKH”) for medical examination and for their temporary care and protection. The CPS also applied to the Youth Court for the CPOs in respect of the children that were the subject of these proceedings.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_9"></a>9 On 18 September 2023, the CPS produced the children before the Youth Court, which made interim orders that committed the children to places of temporary care and protection pending the final determination of the CPOs. Pursuant to these orders, the children were committed to KKH and/or Gladiolus Place. At the same time, the CPS engaged the parents on addressing the concerns in respect of the children.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_10"></a>10 On 11 October 2023, the parents and the CPS agreed on a safety plan on the care of the children pending the final determination of the CPOs. Pursuant to this safety plan, the parents undertook to “use only safe methods of parenting to manage children (i.e. verbal instructions, removal of privileges, reward and praises for good behaviour)” and to “avoid any use of physical punishment (i.e. any form of physical contacts that causes pain that is not accidental regardless of purpose) at all times”. The parents also undertook to “attend relevant services (e.g. co-parenting counselling services, school counselling, family service centre, mental health assessment and follow-up services, if recommended) as identified by [the] CPS”.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_4" id="Ftn_4_1"><sup>[note: 4]</sup></a></span> Thereafter, the CPS returned the younger daughter and the son to the care of the mother while elder daughter continued to reside in KKH pending the conclusion of these proceedings.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_11"></a>11 On 23 October 2023, the Youth Court granted further interim orders. These further orders extended the placement of the elder daughter at KKH and that placed the younger daughter and the son under the supervision of an AWO welfare officer even as they remained in the care of the mother. The Youth Court also made directions for the hearing and determination of these proceedings.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_12"></a>12 On 13 December 2023, the Youth Court fixed these proceedings for hearing on 6 February 2024. The interim orders were likewise extended, save that the elder daughter was placed at CSL instead of KKH.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_13"></a>13 On 22 December 2023, the mother filed a police report in respect of the younger daughter, who had then been in her care. She alleged that the younger daughter had threatened her and beat her up. The police attended at the scene and found a scar consistent with self-harm on the wrist of the younger daughter. They took the younger daughter to the Institute of Mental Health (“IMH”), which warded the younger daughter for assessment. The younger daughter was eventually discharged on 8 January 2024 and resided at IPAC thereafter.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_14"></a>14 On 22 January 2023, the Youth Court made further directions in response to these developments and fixed these proceedings for hearing on 2 April 2024. The interim orders were likewise extended, save that the younger daughter was removed from the care of the mother and placed at IPAC.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Submissions</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_15"></a>15 The CPS submitted that the children were in need of care and protection on several grounds within s 5(1) of the CYPA.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_16"></a>16 For the elder daughter, the CPS submitted as follows:</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_16-p2_a"></a>(a) That she had not been properly supervised and controlled, and was exposed to moral danger under s 5(1)(c)(ii) of the CYPA because she was exposed to pornography while in the care of the mother and had even introduced the younger daughter to pornography;</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_16-p2_b"></a>(b) That she was at risk of ill-treatment by the mother under s 5(1)(d)(i) of the CYPA because the mother was using excessive and harsh physical punishment on her;</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_16-p2_c"></a>(c) That she was behaving in a manner that was likely to be harmful to herself and others under s 5(1)(f)(i) of the CYPA because she had cut her wrists, had burnt herself while cooking at home without adult supervision, and had injured her siblings during physical altercations; and</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_16-p2_d"></a>(d) That she had been subject to emotional or psychological abuse by the mother under s 5(1)(g) of the CYPA.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_17"></a>17 For the younger daughter, the CPS submitted as follows:</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_17-p2_a"></a>(a) That she had not been properly supervised and controlled, and was exposed to moral danger under s 5(1)(c)(ii) of the CYPA because she was exposed to pornography while in the care of the mother;</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_17-p2_b"></a>(b) That she was behaving in a manner that was likely to be harmful to herself and others under s 5(1)(f)(i) of the CYPA because she had cut her wrists, had burnt herself while cooking at home without adult supervision, and had sustained injuries during physical altercations with the elder daughter; and</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_17-p2_c"></a>(c) That she had been subject to emotional or psychological abuse by the mother under s 5(1)(g) of the CYPA.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_18"></a>18 For the son, the CPS submitted that he was behaving in a manner that was likely to be harmful to himself and others under s 5(1)(f)(i) of the CYPA because he had scalded himself at home following inadequate parental supervision.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_19"></a>19 The CPS added that the welfare and best interests of the children necessitated 12-month CPOs that committed the daughters to places of temporary care and protection and subjected the son to the supervision of an AWO even as he remained in the care of the mother. The daughters faced a high risk of physical and emotional harm, and 12-month CPOs were needed to put in place interventions necessary to support the daughters and the mother with a view to their eventual re-integration. The son faced a lower risk of harm and could remain in the care of the mother even as the supervision of an AWO would help address the safety concerns that he faced.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_20"></a>20 The father of the children agreed with the CPS that the welfare and best interests of the children would be served by these 12-month CPOs.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_21"></a>21 The elder daughter objected to the CPO sought in respect of herself and expressed a desire to return to the care of the mother.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_22"></a>22 The younger daughter desired to be removed from the care of the mother, save that she preferred to be committed to Gladiolus Place instead of IPAC because of the friends that she had made while at Gladiolus Place.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_23"></a>23 The son agreed with the CPO sought in respect of himself.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_24"></a>24 The mother objected to the CPOs sought and demanded that the children be returned to her care. She flatly denied the allegations made by the CPS and asserted that the children were not in need of care and protection. She added that the CPOs sought were inconsistent with the wishes of the daughters, and that the interventions of the CPS had adversely affected the physical health, mental health, and academic performance of the children.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Law on CPOs</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_25"></a>25 Two steps apply in an application for a CPO in respect of a child. At the outset, the child must be in need of care and protection within one or more of the grounds in s 5(1) of the CYPA. If so, the court will then determine the orders to be made to ensure the safety and well-being of the child (<em>UNB v Child Protector</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/SLR/22618-SSP.xml')">[2018] 5 SLR 1018</a> at [18] and [58]). In making this determination, the court will treat the welfare of the child as the paramount consideration and will “endeavour to obtain such information as to the family background, general conduct, home environment, school record, medical history and state of development” to enable it to deal with the matter in the best interests of the child (see s 54(13) of the CYPA).</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_26"></a>26 The judicial endeavour to obtain such information may involve recourse by the court to investigative and therapeutic reports. These reports are prepared by public authorities and allied professionals, and typically include comments on the welfare of the child based on a mixture of the observations of the author about the child and the information that had been received by the author from the child or from other persons.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_27"></a>27 The fact that such welfare reports may contain hearsay does not preclude their admission in proceedings in the Family Justice Courts (the “FJC”), of which the Youth Courts are a part. “Therapeutic Justice” underlies the entire approach to resolving family disputes in the FJC, and the path of family justice shaped by TJ envisions that the parties are not adversaries in court who take procedural objections to every assertion of fact. Applying the constraints of the hearsay rule in their full strictness may result in the exclusion of relevant evidence that paints a fuller picture of the family that can guide the court on the welfare and best interests of the child, which is the paramount consideration in family justice. Moreover, the authors of welfare reports are professionals who would have, in preparing their reports, engaged directly with the relevant persons involved in the life of the child and observed some of their interactions with the child. Given their expertise, they are well suited to identify issues, such as excessive gatekeeping behaviour by the parents and even possible signs of abuse. Absent good reason to doubt to objectivity of the reports or the accuracy of their contents, such welfare reports serve as useful independent accounts of the parents and the children (see <em>WKM v WKN</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/SLR/31403-SSP.xml')">[2024] 1 SLR 158</a> (“<em>WKM</em>”) at [43], [73], and [74]).</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_28"></a>28 Still, the court will be mindful that the information in such welfare reports remains untested by cross-examination. The court will thus carefully consider such reports, especially where there are observations made therein that contradict the narrative presented by the parties. When such contradiction exists, the court will examine whether the observations and assessments in the reports are clearly explained and the factual bases for them (see <em>WKM</em> at [74]).</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Necessity for care and protection of the children</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_29"></a>29 I began by examining the care and protection concerns identified by the CPS and thereafter, the appropriate CPOs to be made in respect of each child.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-2">Moral danger</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_30"></a>30 I agreed with the CPS that the daughters faced moral danger given their exposure to pornography while in the care of the mother. The daughters’ school had in 2022 reported that the elder daughter had informed the school authorities that she had been watching pornography for three years. The younger daughter corroborated this report in her communications with the CPS and added that she had been introduced to pornography by the elder daughter. The younger daughter lamented that her “childhood ended” at just five years of age (which was the time when the elder daughter introduced her to pornographic websites) when “childhood should only end when 11 years old”. And the daughters offered detailed and consistent descriptions of the website addresses that they had visited and of content that they had seen. I excerpt the evidence of the CPS:<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_5" id="Ftn_5_1"><sup>[note: 5]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">[The daughters] revealed to CPS that the pornographic materials would often include violent and “scary” scenes such as kidnapping. [The daughters] were also able to detail that some of the online websites they would visit are anysex.com, boyslove.com, and pornographic manga. For example, [the younger daughter] narrated a manga to CPS where the male protagonist ejaculates pearls for the wealth of his owner.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_31"></a>31 The mother argued that the daughters had not been exposed to pornography while in her care. She claimed that she had not seen the content in question and that it could not therefore have been pornographic in nature. She added that she had in any event blocked the access of the children to pornographic websites.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_32"></a>32 It was thus more likely than not that the daughters had been exposed to pornography while in the care of the mother. Given their tender ages, it was inconceivable that they could list the addresses of pornographic websites or offer detailed descriptions of the content thereon unless that they had been exposed to the same. The claim of the mother that the content could not have been pornographic because she had not seen the content was illogical and no reason to disbelieve the account of the daughters on what they had seen. The mother did not dispute the claim of the CPS, which claim was based on information from the children and the maternal grandmother, that the mother had spent most of her time in her room and had limited involvement in the daily routines of the children. In these circumstances, it was probable that the children had been exposed to pornography while in the care of the mother.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_33"></a>33 As the CPS deposed, the exposure of the daughters to pornography, particularly the graphic and violent pornography that they had consumed, risked desensitising them to healthy emotional connections and distorting their views on relational boundaries. In the words of the younger daughter, her “childhood ended” when she was exposed to such content. Worryingly, the mother displayed little insight into these risks and little desire to better supervise the daughters: she neglected to take positive steps to steer the daughters away from pornographic content,<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_6" id="Ftn_6_1"><sup>[note: 6]</sup></a></span> and instead blamed the father for buying laptops, mobile phones, and large computer screens for the daughters.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_7" id="Ftn_7_1"><sup>[note: 7]</sup></a></span> The daughters were thus bereft of proper supervision and control and faced moral danger while in the care of the mother.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-2">Ill-treatment</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_34"></a>34 I did not, however, agree with the CPS that the elder daughter had been ill-treated or was at risk of ill-treatment by the mother. According to the CPS, there had been multiple incidents of physical punishment of the elder daughter that caused her sustain bruises on the upper forehead and pain in the arms that lasted an entire week.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_8" id="Ftn_8_1"><sup>[note: 8]</sup></a></span> The CPS referred to the report of the daughters’ school that the mother had dragged the elder daughter by the hair across their residence and hit the elder daughter on the head repeatedly (see [6] above). The CPS added that the elder daughter had been distressed by the physical punishment and had sought to cope with the distress by distancing herself with her mobile phone and by playing computer games.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_9" id="Ftn_9_1"><sup>[note: 9]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_35"></a>35 The mother denied so punishing the elder daughter. She added that “no child could have survived such an ordeal” and that the child “would have died on the spot”. But such hyperbole did few favours for her credibility, and she would do well to curb such extravagance.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_36"></a>36 Even so, these denials were corroborated by the father. The father shared with the Clinical and Forensic Psychology Service at the Ministry of Social and Family Development (the “CFPS”) that he “did not perceive [the mother] to have mistreated [the elder daughter]” even as she “placed a strong emphasis on [the elder daughter’s] academic work”. He added that the “did not observe any noticeable injuries on [the elder daughter] and that [the elder daughter] did not shared about being physically punished by [the mother] during their regular access”. The CFPS reported that the father “impressed as a concerned parent who cared about the wellbeing of [the elder daughter]”.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_10" id="Ftn_10_1"><sup>[note: 10]</sup></a></span> Given the familiarity of the father with the elder daughter that had been built through regular access sessions, I accepted his account of the events.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_37"></a>37 Further support for these conclusions was found in the contemporaneous welfare reports on the elder daughter. A social report prepared by the CPS on 23 October 2023 recorded “a lack of evidence that suggested [the mother] may cause immediate harm on her children” even as “protection concerns in the case remained”.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_11" id="Ftn_11_1"><sup>[note: 11]</sup></a></span> The psychological report prepared by the CFPS on 14 March 2023 recorded that the elder daughter did not present with “clinically significant trauma symptoms” or “clinically significant depressive symptoms”.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_12" id="Ftn_12_1"><sup>[note: 12]</sup></a></span> It was thus unclear that the elder daughter had been ill-treated or was at risk of ill-treatment by the mother.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-2">Harm to self and/or others</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_38"></a>38 I agreed with the CPS that the behaviour of the children, particularly the daughters, was likely to be harmful to themselves and/or others, and that the mother was unable or unwilling to remedy the situation.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_39"></a>39 For the daughters, the CPS gave evidence that they had cut themselves on their wrists and had injured each other (and the son) in physical altercations. The mother did not deny that the daughters had harmed themselves intentionally but asserted primarily that the daughters were no longer at risk of self-harm. The mother added that the physical altercations between the daughters were unextraordinary.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_40"></a>40 But the mere fact that the self-harm did not recur recently did not remove the risk of the daughters harming themselves. The elder daughter was found by the CFPS to present with a “lack of adaptive coping strategies” and to tend to “deny or minimise her experience of negative emotions”. Even as her current risk of self-harm and suicide was “low”, the CFPS opined that her risks “might increase when her coping is taxed (e.g. in face of academic pressures)”.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_13" id="Ftn_13_1"><sup>[note: 13]</sup></a></span> The younger daughter had as recently as on 21 December 2023 informed the police that she had tried to cut her wrists.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_14" id="Ftn_14_1"><sup>[note: 14]</sup></a></span> But the mother dismissed the younger daughter’s mentions of self-harm as a “joke”. This dismissiveness did little to mitigate the risk that the harm would recur.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_41"></a>41 Also of concern was the risk of the daughters causing harm to others. The CPS deposed unchallenged that the daughters had inflicted bruises on each other (and the son) during their physical altercations, even if there was limited evidence on the extent of those bruises. The younger daughter, in particular, had been reported by her school to display aggression towards her teachers and school counsellors.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_15" id="Ftn_15_1"><sup>[note: 15]</sup></a></span> And this aggression went unchecked by the mother, who encouraged her to bring a penknife to school when she reported to the mother that she had been bullied at school. Matters came to a head in December 2023 reported by the mother to the police for violence towards the mother.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_16" id="Ftn_16_1"><sup>[note: 16]</sup></a></span> The daughters were thus a danger not only to themselves but to others.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_42"></a>42 For the son, the CPS deposed, and the mother did not substantially dispute, that he had scalded himself while at home following inadequate adult supervision. Troublingly, the daughters had also hurt themselves while attempting to cook at home without adult supervision. Even if the risks in respect of the son was less than those in respect of the daughters, the lack of adequate adult supervision of the son while in the care of the mother placed him in need of care and protection.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_43"></a>43 I thus found that the children were behaving in manners that were harmful to themselves and/or others. Given the limited insight of the mother into these concerns and the general neglect by her to address them, the children were in need of care and protection within s 5(1)(f)(i) of the CYPA.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-2">Emotional or psychological abuse</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_44"></a>44 I agreed with the CPS that the younger daughter suffered or would likely suffer emotional harm because she had been emotionally or psychologically abused by the mother. The mother had repeatedly used degrading language on the younger daughter and had thrown handfuls of salt at the younger daughter while saying “go away demon” with the family helper sweeping up the salt thereafter.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_17" id="Ftn_17_1"><sup>[note: 17]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_45"></a>45 The mother denied that she had emotionally or psychologically abused the younger daughter on the ground that the CPS “does not and could never have any evidence for any of their statements”.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_18" id="Ftn_18_1"><sup>[note: 18]</sup></a></span> The mother added, in respect of the incident involving the salt, that it was “not about throwing salt but salt cures”.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_19" id="Ftn_19_1"><sup>[note: 19]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_46"></a>46 Ultimately, these denials did little to controvert the claims for the CPS, which claims were well-founded in the evidence, that the younger daughter had been emotionally or psychologically abused by the mother, and that she had suffered emotional harm in the form of antisocial tendencies in consequence. The denials of the mother of the same revealed a lack of insight into the effects of her actions on the younger daughter that placed the younger daughter in need of care and protection.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Appropriate CPOs to be made</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_47"></a>47 Having found that the children were in need of care and protection within s 5(1) of the CYPA, I moved to consider the appropriate CPOs to be made in respect of each child.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_48"></a>48 The daughters faced grave risks. The elder daughter was at moral danger and was at risk of harming herself and/or others, even as she expressed a desire to return to the care of the mother. The younger daughter was likewise at moral danger and at risk of harming herself and/or others, had further been emotionally and psychologically abused, and resisted any attempt to return her to the care of the mother. Still, the wishes of a child on his or her care arrangements are not determinative, and the court will consider those views alongside the other evidence before it (see <em>WKM</em> at [62]–[64]) On the facts, the welfare and best interests of the daughters necessitated their committal to places of safety for a sustained period. This period would give the CPS time to put in place the interventions necessary to support the daughters and the mother while allied professionals worked with the mother towards her re-integration with the daughters.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_49"></a>49 The CPS proposed that the elder daughter be placed at CSL and the younger daughter be placed at IPAC. The mother complained that the elder daughter had suffered insect bites and the younger daughter had developed dermatitis during their earlier placements. In response, the CPS confirmed that CSL and IPAC had been made aware of and had the capacity to manage these skin conditions. I thus placed the elder daughter at CSL and the younger daughter at IPAC for 12 months. I also directed that these placements were to be reviewed in 6 months so that appropriate order can be made were the circumstances to change.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_50"></a>50 The son faced milder risks that stemmed from his inadequate supervision by the mother. These risks did not necessitate his removal from the care of the mother. Nevertheless, having an AWO supervise his situation in the care of the mother would conduce to his welfare and best interests. I thus placed the son under the supervision of an AWO for 12 months, with a review in 6 months.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_51"></a>51 With a view to addressing any underlying mental health concerns that had contributed to the risks that the children faced, I directed the parents to work with the CPS and other professionals to ensure the safety and well-being of the children. I also directed them to undergo such assessments, treatments, counselling, and programmes as identified by the AWO to be in the welfare and best interests of the children.</p> <hr align="left" size="1" width="33%"><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_1_1" id="Ftn_1">[note: 1]</a></sup>1CPSAEIC at [12]</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_2_1" id="Ftn_2">[note: 2]</a></sup>1CPSAEIC at [13]</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_3_1" id="Ftn_3">[note: 3]</a></sup>1CPSAEIC at [22(b)(iii),</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_4_1" id="Ftn_4">[note: 4]</a></sup>1CPSAEIC89</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_5_1" id="Ftn_5">[note: 5]</a></sup>1CPSAEIC [19(a)]</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_6_1" id="Ftn_6">[note: 6]</a></sup>2CPSAEIC at [12]</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_7_1" id="Ftn_7">[note: 7]</a></sup>3MAEIC16</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_8_1" id="Ftn_8">[note: 8]</a></sup>1CPSAEIC at [20(a)]</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_9_1" id="Ftn_9">[note: 9]</a></sup>3CPSAEIC at RT-35</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_10_1" id="Ftn_10">[note: 10]</a></sup>CFPS Report 14/3/24 at [14]</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_11_1" id="Ftn_11">[note: 11]</a></sup>Social Report 23 October 2023 at [5.1]</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_12_1" id="Ftn_12">[note: 12]</a></sup>CFPS Report 14/3/24 at [8]–[9]</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_13_1" id="Ftn_13">[note: 13]</a></sup>CFPS Report 14/3/24 at [11]</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_14_1" id="Ftn_14">[note: 14]</a></sup>3CPSAEIC at [11]</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_15_1" id="Ftn_15">[note: 15]</a></sup>1CPSAEIC at [23(c)]</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_16_1" id="Ftn_16">[note: 16]</a></sup>3CPSAEIC at [8]–[11]</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_17_1" id="Ftn_17">[note: 17]</a></sup>1CPSAEIC at [23(a)(ii)]</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_18_1" id="Ftn_18">[note: 18]</a></sup>2MAEIC at p 6</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_19_1" id="Ftn_19">[note: 19]</a></sup>2MAEIC at p 9</p></div></content></root>	7af7fd23d511e2d73a0e7d2657005b095d2f3df0

Links from other tables

11 rows from item_version in fc_judgments_changed