Child Protector v Father of XZM and Mother of XZM

The Child Protector applied in the Youth Court to place S, a boy who was 9 months old at the hearing, with foster parents for 12 months, with a review in 6 months. Both parents opposed the application. The grounds of decision were issued for Youth Court Appeal YA-0002-2026-01, as the father appealed.

The parents had a tumultuous relationship. After S's birth in August 2025, several incidents took place. On 18 September 2025 the mother hit the father while he held S, and the father voiced suicidal and homicidal thoughts; the father allegedly choked the mother, which he denied. On 23 September 2025 a fight involving both parents and three grandparents took place while S was handled by several adults. Both parents took out personal protection orders. On 12 November 2025 the father changed the house lock, a fight broke out between him and the maternal grandmother while he held S, and she suffered an eyelid laceration and a nasal fracture; both parents were arrested for breaching expedited orders. S had a clubbed left foot and was prescribed a brace for 23 hours a day; it was worn for only 4 days, and the condition recurred. The parents blamed each other, and the Child Protector came to direct its medical neglect case at the father alone.

1. Whether S was in need of care or protection because of ill-treatment, emotional harm or medical neglect under s 5 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1993
2. Whether fostering, rather than statutory supervision in a parent's care, was the appropriate order in S's best interests

Ill-treatment needs only a risk that a parent's act endangers the child or is likely to cause harm. Given the fights over possession of S and the grandmother's significant injuries, either parent could have struck S or caused him to fall, and it was fortuitous that he was not hurt. On emotional harm, S had plainly been exposed to violence between his parents. On medical neglect, the father offered only a bare denial, had sought a second opinion in court, and did not rebut the evidence that he opposed the brace; the court found it more likely than not that he wilfully withdrew its use contrary to medical advice. The mother's limited compliance was explained by the difficulties she faced alone.

On the order, State intervention is a last resort and should be the minimum needed to protect the child. Each parent could care for S individually, and the danger lay in placing him with both together. The concerns in UNB v Child Protector [2018] 5 SLR 1018 about entrenching conflict did not apply: there was no prior access order, S was too young to form negative impressions of a parent, and placement with one parent did not mean the other was unfit. At the hearing the father said he would rather S be with the mother full-time than fostered, and the mother preferred her own care to fostering, so both ranked supervision in the mother's care above foster care. Medical neglect was not a strong basis for removal, as S's foot had improved in the mother's sole care.

The court found S in need of care or protection but did not grant the fostering order sought. It ordered that S stay with the foster parents only until 11 May 2026 and then be placed under the supervision of an Approved Welfare Officer, in the mother's care, for 12 months, with contact with both parents subject to the officer's approval. It also made safety conditions, ordered counselling and similar programmes, and required each parent to execute bonds of $1,000 each for proper care and for compliance with the counselling order.