Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2008]JRC104

royal court

(Samedi Division)

3^rd July 2008

Advocate M. J. Haines for the Applicant.

Advocate C. M. M. Yates for the Minister for Health and Social Services.

Advocate L. K. A. Richardson fro the Second Respondent.

judgment

the commissioner:

1.        On 24^th June 2008, we made a residence order under Article 10 of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002 ("the Law") in respect of a child L, in favour of the applicant.  It is clear that a child should not be removed from the primary care of his or her biological parents without compelling reason (see Re G (Children) (2006) UK HL43) and we now set out our reasons.  For convenience, we will refer to the child, the great aunt (the applicant), the mother (the first respondent) and the father (the second respondent) respectively.

2.        The child was born in Jersey on 6^th July 2006 and is therefore just two years of age.  His mother is now twenty and his father twenty-five and they were not married at the time of the child's birth.  Their relationship ended shortly after his birth.  The father has not subsequently applied under Article 5 of the Law for an order that he shall have parental responsibility for the child.

3.        The Children's Service became involved in the child's welfare shortly after birth because of concerns as to the mother's ability to cope.  The mother is a habitual drug user.

4.        In September 2006, the mother commenced a relationship with H, a known drug user and supplier.  On 22^nd September 2006, she left Jersey for the United Kingdom, supposedly for 24 hours, leaving the child in the care of a sixteen year old boy.  She did not in fact return until 26^th September 2006.  The Children's Service placed the child with his great aunt (now aged forty-two) in her absence. 

5.        On the 26^th October 2006 the child was placed on the Child Protection Register under the category "neglect". The mother began to leave the child in the care of his great aunt for increasingly long periods and on 1^st November 2006 he went to live with his great aunt permanently. 

6.        On 30^th January 2007, the mother was placed on twelve months probation for larceny offences on condition that she attend a six months treatment order which required her to remain clean of non- prescribed drugs.  She was admitted to the Women's Refuge due to fears of domestic violence from her partner H, but she was evicted from there and subsequently from the Kensington Street Homeless Shelter. 

7.        On 12^th April 2007, the mother was sentenced to a term of imprisonment following further offences.  The father was also serving a prison sentence at that time for unrelated offences.

8.        In anticipation of the mother's release from custody the child was placed under an interim care order on 7^th September 2007, to ensure in particular that he remained with his great aunt.  Since the mother's release, she has seen the child infrequently.

9.        In April 2008, the father, who was due to be released from prison, said he wanted to look after the child full-time.  This was the catalyst for the great aunt applying for a residence order.

Application

10.      The great aunt's application came before the Court on 12^th May 2008 when she was granted leave to apply for a residence order pursuant to the provisions of Article 10 (4)(b) and (c)(ii) on the basis that the child has lived with her for a period of not less than twelve out of the fifteen months immediately preceding the application and the application is made with the consent of the Minister.

11.      We were satisfied that notice of the application was duly served upon the mother and the father both of whom attended the meeting before the Bailiff's Judicial Secretary to fix the date for this hearing.  Mrs Richardson appeared for the mother, who was not present in Court and with whom Mrs Richardson last had contact some four weeks ago, despite letters to her last known addresses and messages left on her voice mail.  Effectively Mrs Richardson was without instructions.  The father was also not present although a representative of Voisin attended as an observer on his behalf. 

Our decision

12.      We were reminded of the provisions of Article 2 of the Law and in particular that the child's welfare shall be the Court's paramount consideration.  The child is now very settled with his great aunt, with whom he has a very strong bond.  He is very much loved by his great aunt's daughter, aged twelve.  His care is shared by the maternal and paternal grandparents whilst the great aunt is at work. 

13.      The great aunt encourages contact with the mother and father, who have now apparently resumed their relationship but the mother shows little interest and contact with the father is sporadic, notwithstanding his request to assume full-time responsibility. 

14.      Neither the mother nor the father opposed the application which is supported by the Minister and the Children's Service and for good reason.  It is clearly in the child's interest to continue being looked after by his great aunt, who has had his care, with the help of his extended family, since November 2006.  She understandably needs some locus in his welfare to ensure that stability continues which will be provided by a residence order under which:-

(i)        it will be settled that the child would live her and

(ii)       she would assume parental responsibility for the child for the duration of the residence order pursuant to the provisions of Article 13 of the Law.

15.      It is obviously hoped that the mother, who does not lose her parental responsibility as a result of the order, will conquer her difficulties and in time begin to play a greater role in the child's life, but in the meantime, it will be clear that for the duration of the residence order the child will live with his great aunt, who will also have parental responsibility for him which, as made clear by Article 3(4) of the Law, she can exercise alone. 

16.      For these compelling reasons, we made the residence order and noted that, pursuant to the provisions of Article 66 of the Law, the interim care order was discharged.

Authorities

Children (Jersey) Law 2002.

Re G (Children) (2006) UK HL43.