Jersey Unreported Judgments

2002/124

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

4^th July 2002

 

 

 

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF the Adoption (Jersey) Laws, 1961 - 1995.

 

AND IN THE MATTER OF B, an infant.

 

Application by the Attorney General, on behalf of the Health and Social Services Committee for an order freeing B for adoption under Article 4 (1)(b) of the Adoption (Jersey) Laws 1961 to 1995; the application being opposed by B's mother, P.

 

Mrs S. Sharpe, Crown Advocate on behalf of the Attorney General.

Advocate C.R.G. Deacon for P.

 

judgment

 

the bailiff:

1.        This is an application by the Attorney General, on behalf of the Health and Social Services Committee, seeking an order freeing the child, to whom we shall refer as B, for adoption under the provisions of Article 4(1)(b) of the Adoption (Jersey) Laws, 1961 to 1995.

2.        Those statutory provisions provide so far as material:

"Article 4

(1) Where, on an application by the Committee the Court is satisfied in the case of each parent or guardian of the infant that   ...

(b) his agreement to the making of an adoption order should be dispensed with on a ground specified in paragraph (2) of Article 5 of this law,

The Court shall make an order declaring the infant free for adoption.

Article 5

(2) The grounds mentioned in sub-paragraph (b) of paragraph (1) of this Article are that the parent or guardian ...

(b) is withholding his agreement unreasonably".

3.        B's mother does not consent to the adoption, and the Committee seeks to dispense with her agreement on the ground set out in Article 5(2).  The consent of B's natural father is not required because he was not the husband of the mother and accordingly B was born illegitimate.

4.        B is the second child of the mother.  He has a half-brother, C, born in 1999, who has now been adopted.  C had a different father.  After C's birth the mother agreed that she should go and live at La Chasse Centre to allow a period of assessment of her parenting skills.  That was an unhappy time both for the mother and, more importantly, for C.  There is no need for us in the context of this application to spell out the inadequate parenting of which we have much evidence in the reports before us.  The mother has candidly accepted in her affidavit that she did put her own needs before those of the child.

5.        In December, 1999, the mother began a relationship with the father of B.  In September, 2000, she moved with that man into a self-contained flat at La Chasse Centre with C.  She was at that time pregnant with the child who is the subject of this application.

6.        The relationship began to deteriorate, but in November, 2000, the mother, the father of the child B, and C left Jersey to live in England with a view to starting afresh.  No permission from the Social Services Department was sought and arrangements were accordingly put in place to seek to return C to Jersey.  The mother was found in Weston Super Mare by the police, having spent at least one night in the car with her partner and the child C.  On the 24^th November, 2000, C was placed in care in Avon and subsequently returned to Jersey.  On the 1^st December, 2000, the mother returned to Jersey.  On the 15^th December, 2000, this Court confirmed an interim fit persons order in relation to C and he was placed in foster care.

7.        In January, 2001, the mother gave birth to her second child, B, who is the subject of this application.  She at first lived with B in La Chasse Centre.  The report on this period of her life indicated that she had great difficulties in coping with motherhood in those circumstances.  On 20^th February, 2001, the mother said to a member of staff "that she hated B and did not want to be a mum anymore".  On the 21 February, 2001, she repeated that she did not want B anymore, and that when she bumped the pram down the stairs, she wished that the bottom of the pram was open so that the baby would fall out.

8.        On 9^th March, 2001, she asked that B be taken away from her.  It is alleged that she threw the baby down onto a chair.  She subsequently left the premises.  On the 15^th March, the mother asked if B could be placed into care.  It was plain at that stage to the members of staff that the relationship between B's mother and B's father was deteriorating.

9.        On 15^th March, 2001, the staff witnessed a serious argument between them, which resulted in the Fire Service being called to the premises.  The father was drunk and had barricaded himself in the flat.  The Fire Service was called to open the door, and during part of this time the child B was present.  At that stage B was placed into foster care, where he remained until the 19^th March, 2001.  The mother at this stage stated that she had a new boyfriend and wished to resume care of B.  The child was returned to her but on the 20^th March, the mother stated that she was again unable to cope with the baby, and it was noted that she was again much more concerned with what was right for her, than what effect her actions were going to have on the child.  Because she wanted to go out that night B was re-admitted to foster care.

10.      The child was then returned once more to the care of the mother, at her request, and the mother and father of B resumed their relationship.  On the 19^th April, 2001, the mother and father left the Island returning on 22^nd April.  After her return the mother stated that they intended to remove B from foster care and to leave the Island with him.  That led to an application for an interim fit person order in relation to B which was granted on the 25^th April, 2001.  Following that interim fit person order an attempt was made by the Social Services Department to rehabilitate the mother with B and to undertake a further assessment of her parenting skills.

11.      On the 8^th May, 2001, B was returned to the care of his mother, but she refused to sign an agreement drawn up by the staff at La Chasse Centre and was verbally abusive.  On that occasion B was observed to be crying and distressed, and the mother was heard by a member of staff telling him to, "Shut up or I will sign you back into care".  On the 9^th May, 2001, B was found at the bottom of the stairs, sobbing and distressed.  On the 10^th May, 2001, B was screaming in his cot while the mother was watching television.  On 11^th May, the mother told a member of staff that she did not know if she could cope with B any more.  B was returned to foster care and was placed with long term foster carers on 12^th May, 2001. 

12.      A decision was then made by the Social Services Department to make arrangements provisionally for B's adoption and he was placed with his present prospective adopters, towards the end of 2001.  A fit person order was made by this court in relation to B on the 6^th November, 2001.  On 9^th January, 2002, the Committee decided to apply for orders from this court freeing both B and C for adoption.  As we have said the mother did not oppose the proposal that C should be adopted and that adoption order has now been made.

13.      A number of reports have been placed before us, including a report from Mr J P Hollywood, a consultant psychologist, dated 24^th June, 2002.  This report is important, and we will recite most of it:-

"I have again met with the mother and I have had the opportunity to spend time with her. I have also spent time with B within his foster home and with his foster parents who have now been caring for him since mid November, 2001.

The mother presented on this occasion as more self assured, relaxed and more mature than she was some two years ago.  The anger, hostility and frustrations she was then experiencing have largely evaporated.  She is in the early stages of a new relationship with its associated glow and optimism and she is convinced that this will be permanent and very rewarding. As part of this newly reconstructed life the mother wishes to be reunited with her younger son B, whilst being prepared to agree to the adoption of her older child, C.  She claims that the older child is already completely bonded with his foster parents and, therefore, it would not be in his interests for her to intervene.

With respect to B, the mother expresses the view that as he has only been with his foster parent for a much shorter time (7 months), similar bonding has not occurred with him and, therefore, a return to her care would have little or no detrimental effect upon him.  She is also confident that she has the skills, abilities and attitudes conducive to being an efficient carer for him.  The mother attributes her poor care of B in the early months of his life to her post-natal depression.  I am unable to comment upon this as I did not see her during this period.  However, the accounts given of her behaviour in the social work reports suggest a very distressed young woman in the throes of a deteriorating relationship with her partner and a myopic pre-occupation with her own life's problems.  The outcome for B was an emotionally disturbing and potentially disastrous start to his young life.  The acute distress suffered by the child whilst being cared for by his mother is well documented in the reports from the Children's Service.

B is now 17 months old and has spent a substantial proportion of his life with his present foster parents, who are also his potential adoptive parents.  I have now met with the child in the benign conditions of his foster home.  He is a highly attractive, engaging child who is relaxed, happy and full of the active curiosity characteristic of children of his age.  His physical dexterity and emerging language skills suggest a developmental level equal to, if not in advance of, his chronological age.  His degree of attachment to his foster parents, and particularly his foster mother, is clear and unequivocal.  Likewise, the handling and management of B by the foster parents is exemplary.  The relationship between this child and the foster parents mirrors that of any loving couple caring for their first child.   In my opinion, this child is bonded with this couple in as complete a fashion as if he were their own.  To remove B from the care of his foster parents at this time would, at best be bewildering and confusing for him, and at worst would re-create the earlier emotional disturbance which characterised the first four months of his life.

The mother appears to genuinely wish to be re-united with her son as part of her own personal rehabilitation and believes that such a move would have little adverse effect upon the child.  In my opinion, her assessment of the degree of attachment of B to his foster parents is erroneous and would be difficult to sustain.

In conclusion, I believe that this child has become an integral part of his new family and attempt to remove it would have adverse and probably long term detrimental consequences for his personal and emotional development."

14.      We have also read reports and heard evidence from the experienced Child Care Officer, Mrs Fay Buesnel, who has been concerned with B since his birth.  Indeed Mrs Buesnel - unusually in the context of this kind of case - has a very long experience of the mother herself, in that she has known her from the age of 3.  She has, therefore, had a long experience of the mother and no doubt has a good knowledge of her difficulties and of her abilities.  Mrs Buesnel's conclusion was that it was in the best interests of B that he should be adopted.  He needed, in her view, a sense of permanence and to know that he was loved and cared for.

15.      Finally we have received, as we have said, an affidavit sworn by the mother and we have also heard evidence from her.  She has found a new and satisfying relationship, and she told us that she felt more mature and able to cope with motherhood than she had at the time when she was carrying B.  She wanted B returned so that she could have a last chance to prove herself.  She clearly feels, - and understandably so - very emotional and distressed at the prospect of losing contact permanently with her child.

16.      That is the background to the difficult decision which this Court has to take.  It is clear from the authorities that we have to ask ourselves two questions.  First, is adoption in the best interests of the child?  Secondly, is the mother acting unreasonably in withholding her consent to adoption?  We have reached the conclusion that the best interests of the child would be served by freeing him for adoption.  The history of inadequate parenting which we have outlined has led the Children's Service to the view that B is not going to be returned to his mother in the foreseeable future.  This is an important consideration.  Even if this application by the Committee is refused, the intention is that B will remain in the care of his current foster parents, and they will simply be re-designated as long term foster parents, rather than prospective adopters.

17.      Unless the mother is successful in persuading the Court in due course to revoke the fit person order B will not be returned to her care.  The first and paramount consideration is the long term welfare of B.  The Court has no doubt that B's long term welfare would best be served by answering the first question in the affirmative.  Before turning to the second question we think that B will gain security and a sense of permanence from being with the family with which he has now bonded.  As the report of Mr Hollywood makes clear, to break that bond would be likely to have detrimental consequences for the child's personal and emotional development.  We therefore answer the first question in the affirmative.

18.      We turn to the second question which is: whether the mother is being unreasonable in withholding her consent to the adoption.  The test which we have to apply in answering this question is an objective test.  We have to ask ourselves whether a reasonable mother in the circumstances of this case would grant her consent for adoption.  We understand, of course, the anguish which the mother feels in relation to this application.  She is the birth mother of B, and we take fully into account the personal progress which from all the reports she appears to have made, and the increased self-confidence and the ability to cope with life which she now feels.

19.      On the other side of the coin, we have to take into account the fact that B has not lived with his mother since April 2001.  He has no effective relationship with her.  He has no effective relationship with his half-brother C, who was freed for adoption, with the consent of the mother.  There is no real possibility of rehabilitation in the foreseeable future.  It is the interests of B with which we must be primarily concerned.  We have reached the conclusion that we should answer the second question also in the affirmative, and find that the withholding of consent to the adoption of B is unreasonable.  We, therefore grant the application of the Health and Social Services Committee.

Authorities

4 Halsbury (1999 Re-issue): Vol.6:pp.225 -7.

Ibid: Vol. 5(2): paras 1068 - 77.

Re D (a Minor) (Adoption: Freeing Order) [1991] 1FLR 48.

In re B (an infant) (7^th October, 1992) Jersey Unreported; [1992/177]

In re T (an infant) (1987-88) JLR 677

Adoption (Amendment No. 3) (Jersey) Law 1995.