Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2009]JRC034A

royal court

(Samedi Division)

25^th February 2009

IN THE MATTER OF THE S CHILDREN

Advocate M. L. Hollywood for the Minister.

Advocate M. J. Haines for the Mother.

judgment

the COMMISSIONER:

1.        This is a further hearing and concerns four children aged 6 years, 5 years, 3 years and 4 months.  The three eldest children were fathered by Mr C who took his own life in the family home.  Miss S then took another partner, Mr M and had the youngest child from him.  They have now separated and his whereabouts are unknown.  Miss S has a new partner and is pregnant by him.  The baby is due in September.

2.        The first application is made by Miss S and is for a contact order which was much wider then the present order in respect of all four of her children.  Up until 10^th February, 2008, they were living with their mother at the family home.  Since that time the children have been placed into voluntary care at the request of Miss S.  Miss S has contact every Thursday between 2.30 pm and 4.45 pm and one hour per week with the youngest child.  She has unlimited telephone contact if she wishes to use it.  Miss S has had a serious heroin problem but she has shown signs of improvement recently.  Our duty is, of course, to these vulnerable children who have many problems.

3.        We have read all the papers most carefully and Advocate Haines is to be thanked for the way that he has presented the case.  We have also had very close regard to the Children (Jersey) Law 2002 and we have also had cited to us the case of Re P (Minors)(Contact with Children in Care) [1993] 2 FLR 156.  it is stated  in the head note to that case:-

"Reasonable contact was not the same as contact at the discretion of the local authority. "Reasonable" implied contact which was agreed between the local authority and the parents or, in the absence of such an agreement, contact which was objectively reasonable."

Initially we were of the view that contact could be restored to the previous level but we have heard at some length from Miss Aisling McNevin, a child care officer and although Miss S did not give evidence we have read most carefully her detailed written statement of 23^rd February, 2009.

4.        We are going to grant a further interim care order and while the contact is not to be increased we wish to make it very clear that we are not prejudging the final issue.  Her new partner, Mr F, has apparently a history of drug misuse and we are of the view that the children are developing as well as possible in the care of the Children's Office in all these extraordinary circumstances.  This is not the time to increase contact but there will always the possibility of the children returning home.  This is a matter that we have to decide eventually.

5.        We are able to agree the directions with some amendments.  There is, at direction 15, liberty to apply and no doubt Advocate Haines will explain to Miss S the purpose of this.  For the avoidance of doubt, contact is to remain supervised as at present.  We now set out the directions:-

(i)        That a children's guardian shall be appointed in respect of the children;

(ii)       that a lawyer shall be appointed to act as legal representative for the said children;

(iii)      that Mr F be joined as a respondent in the proceedings;

(iv)      that the parties shall identify a suitable person with a view to preparing a psychological and psychiatric assessment of Miss S and Mr F.  Once identified the CV of the said expert and a joint letter of instruction shall be agreed by all parties; if possible that person shall prepare a parenting assessment of Miss S and Mr F.  If not then a separate person will need to be appointed again with a joint letter of instruction;

(v)       that Miss Ruth Emsley prepare a joint instruction a risk assessment of Ms S and Mr F as a couple as an addendum to her risk assessment of 7^th August, 2008;

(vi)      that the papers shall be released to the aforementioned experts;

(vii)     that the aforementioned reports shall be filed by 14^th April, 2009, with liberty to apply for an extension;

(viii)    that a directions hearing take place on the first available date on or after 20^th April, 2009;

(ix)      that the papers shall be released to the aforementioned expert;

(x)       that the aforementioned report shall be filed by 26^th May, 2009, with liberty to apply for an extension;

(xi)      that the Minister for Health and Social Services files his final statement and care plans by 23^rd June, 2009;

(xii)     that Miss S and Mr F file their final statements by 7^th July, 2009;

(xiii)    that the children's guardian files his report by 21^st July, 2009;

(xiv)    that the final hearing be set down for 2 days on the first available dates on or after the agreed new direction 17^th August, 2009 and

(xv)     that there be liberty to apply.

Authorities

Children (Jersey) Law 2002.

Re P (Minors)(Contact with Children in Care) [1993] 2 FLR 156.