Youth Court Decisions How to Use Full list of key titles CYPFA section Date

Re AM [2000] NZFLR 97 (FC)

Case summary provided by LEXISNEXIS NZ

Name: Re AM
Reported: [2000] NZFLR 97
File number: CYPFS 048/73/97
Date: 30 November 1999
Court: Family Court
Location: Otahuhu
Judge: Boshier DCJ
Charge: Indecent Assault
CYPFA: s110; s117; s120
Key Title: Care and protection cross-over; Medical treatment

LEXISNEXIS Summary:

Children and young persons - Child in need of care and protection - Young person had propensity for sexual offending - Young person currently under the guardianship of the Family Court - Wish to have young person treated with the drug Prozac - Treatment opposed by young person’s mother - Whether appropriate for Family Court to order Prozac treatment programme - Directions appropriate for conduct of programme - Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989, ss 110, 117, 120 - Guardianship Act 1968, ss 8, 10B,10D.

A declaration that the young person (A), now aged 17, was in need of care and protection had been made in December 1995. A had been the subject of a custody order in favour of the D-GSW. This followed several incidents of A committing sexual indecencies on young girls. Further offences occurred after 1995. In June 1999 A was placed under the guardianship of the Family Court pursuant to s 10B and was staying with caregivers. The independent psychiatrist’s report obtained by the Court advised that A was at a very high risk of sexually re-offending. The psychiatrist concluded that Prozac would be an appropriate treatment for A and suggested that it be prescribed as a trial. A’s mother opposed treatment fearing side effects and long-term consequences.

A had indicated that he would like to stay with his present caregivers and would like to try Prozac.

Held (appointing the Chief Executive of the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services as the Court’s agent pursuant to s 10D of the Guardianship Act 1968 to facilitate and oversee a medication programme for A)

(1) Given the likelihood of A reoffending; the devastating and long-term consequences of sexual offending on young children; and A’s informed consent to a trial period of Prozac, the Court concluded that a trial period of Prozac was responsible and should be undertaken.

(2) When the Court made an order that A be placed under the guardianship of the Family Court the making of that order automatically caused the cessation of the guardianship order under the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act. The position in law at present was that although A had been under the guardianship of the D-GSW, and more recently the Chief Executive of the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services, he was no longer under that guardianship. The Family Court now had the responsibility to see through A’s immediate destiny.

(3) Orders were made as to commencement of the programme and future reporting and contact between A and members of his family.

Application

This was a hearing to determine whether it was appropriate for a treatment programme involving a young person under the guardianship of the Family Court to be treated with the drug Prozac.