|
Police v W , 3 December 2007, Family Court, Manukau, Judge Adams, CYPF 2005-092-001000, FAM 2005-092-002310
Name: Police v W
Unreported
File number: CYPF 2005-092-001000, FAM 2005-092-002310
Court: Family Court
Location: Manukau
Date: 3 December 2007
Judge: Judge Adams
Charge:
CYPFA: s101
Key title: mental impairment
Key title: care and protection crossover
Case Summary:
Following on from the judgment of Judge Malosi on 5 October 2007 in this matter, this judgment examined the issue of which organisation, the Regional Intellectual Disability Care Agency (RIDCA), or Child Youth and Family (CYF), should take responsibility for the care of W.
W has an intellectual disability and has been found unfit to stand trial on three previous occasions. He is a persistent offender, and absconder from care or custody placements. The Court said “[when] he absconds the community is placed at risk”.
A psychologist recommended that W be placed in secure care as he is at high risk of absconding and reoffending. CYF argued for a plan that would eventually lead to W no longer needing secure care, but the Judge noted that no agency has yet been able to deliver such a plan.
The Court noted that Judge Malosi reviewed the case again a month after the delivering her judgment of 5 October 2007, at which time she commented that W was due to be placed in the CYF secure care and protection unit for 6 months from 20 November 2007.
RIDCA informed the Court that it no longer consents to a support order being made against it, and the Court recognised that it cannot make such an order without the consent of the agency s91(2)(c) CYPFA 1989. RIDCA, however, did promise to provide a full range of support services to W, should he be placed at the CYF secure facility in question.
Counsel for CYF criticised RIDCA for not providing a secure facility for young people such as W. The CYF proposal, previously before the Court, and in support of the judgment by Judge Malosi of 5 October 2007, proposed a 6 month placement at the CYF care and protection unit, after which, W would be “transitioned home” and provided with further education assistance.
Counsel for CYF changed this offer in submissions in this proceeding. They opposed the cancellation of the CP(MIP)A order, proposed that RIDCA should take all responsibility for W, and backed away from a commitment to house W in their secure youth facility if the CP(MIP)A order was cancelled. CYF do accept that the current s238(1)(d) CYPFA order, under which W was remanded into the custody of CYF by the Youth Court, trumps the Compulsory Care order.
The Court held that it had no jurisdiction to order either RIDCA or CYF to be W’s lead care provider. It supported Judge Malosi’s call for a specialist secure facility for mentally impaired youth.
Decision:
Court directs that CYF stand by the plan it filed in response to the judgment of Judge Malosi on 5 October 2007. The Court identified CYF as being better resourced to coordinate and deliver services that W needs, but also relied on RIDCA to stand by its promises of support for W. Section 101 CYPFA order continued. Section 86 and 91 CYPFA orders discharged. Review of orders in 3 months. Section 84 ID(CCR)A order cancelled. Matter to be called in the Youth Court to deal with the s25 CP(MIP)A order, and stay proceedings against W on his most recent charges.
Top | Home | Publications | Ministry of Justice | Courts | Judiciary | Fines | Fees | Practice Notes | Vacancies | Tribunals | Media Releases | About Judgments | Addresses & Contacts | Disclaimer | newzealand.govt.nz
