Children’s Services cases (FOI)

Request

I would like to raise a freedom of information request under the relevant legislation, please.

I would like to know the following:

A

Over the past three years, how many times, expressed as a percentage of all public law proceedings initiated by the Minister for Children, has the male and female partner been considered suspects together with regard to potential child sex offences and had their child(ren) removed and placed in foster care and for the duration of the associated police investigation?

B

Over the past three years (the "Relevant Period"), and in specific relation to individuals either prosecuted in relation to child sex offences (under any relevant law) and / or those individuals where the Minister for Children has undertaken a civil case (a Finding of Fact) against a parent:

i) How many times, expressed as a percentage of all cases managed by the Children's Service for the Relevant Period, has the Children's Service imposed restrictions on any and all communication between the male and the female partner?

ii) how many times, expressed as a percentage of all cases managed by the Children's Service for the Relevant Period, has / have (a) child(ren) of convicted sex offenders been allowed contact with the offending parent before the completion of the offending parent's rehabilitation work with the Probation Service?

iii) how many times, expressed as a percentage of all cases managed by the Children's Service for the Relevant Period, has the female partner of a convicted sex offender been considered a protective parent and been allowed to supervise online and / or direct contact?

iv) what is the maximum period of time that a convicted sex offender has gone without any contact with their child(ren) after their release from a custodial sentence? and

v) how many times, expressed as a percentage of all cases managed by the Children's Service for the Relevant Period, has the Children's Service refused all contact between the offending parent and their child(ren)?

Response

A

In the period from 2019 and 2021 there were fewer than five cases where a male and female partner were both considered suspects and had their child(ren) removed. This figure cannot be shown as a percentage as where numbers are fewer than five, disclosure control is applied to avoid identification of any individuals. Article 25 (Personal information) of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 has been applied.

B

The Government of Jersey does not hold the requested information in a reportable format for the purposes of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011. To determine whether the information is held would require a manual search of each individual file and therefore Article 16 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 has been applied. It is estimated that the cost of extracting the data in order to provide a response, would exceed the cost limit provisions set out in the Freedom of Information (Costs) (Jersey) Regulations 2014.

Article applied

Article 16 - A scheduled public authority may refuse to supply information if cost excessive

A scheduled public authority that has been requested to supply information may refuse to supply the information if it estimates that the cost of doing so would exceed an amount determined in the manner prescribed by Regulations.

Article 25 - Personal information

(1) Information is absolutely exempt information if it constitutes personal data of which the applicant is the data subject as defined in the Data Protection (Jersey) Law 2018.

(2) Information is absolutely exempt information if – (a) it constitutes personal data of which the applicant is not the data subject as defined in the Data Protection (Jersey) Law 2018; and (b) its supply to a member of the public would contravene any of the data protection principles, as defined in that Law.

(3) In determining for the purposes of this Article whether the lawfulness principle in Article 8(1)(a) of the Data Protection (Jersey) Law 2018 would be contravened by the disclosure of information, paragraph 5(1) of Schedule 2 to that Law (legitimate interests) is to be read as if sub-paragraph (b) (which disapplies the provision where the controller is a public authority) were omitted.