[2010]JRC060
royal court
(Samedi Division)
22nd March 2010
Before : |
Sir Philip Bailhache, Kt., Commissioner, and Jurats Clapham and Kerley. |
Between |
The Minister for Health and Social Services |
Applicant |
And |
A |
First Respondent |
And |
B |
Second Respondent |
And |
Advocate C. R. G. Davies (as legal representative on behalf of the Guardian appointed for C). |
Third Respondent |
IN THE MATTER OF E
HM Solicitor General H. Sharp Q.C. for the Applicant.
Advocate C. Hall for the First Respondent.
Advocate D. Gilbert for the Second Respondent.
Advocate C. R. G. Davies for the Third Respondent.
judgment
the commissioner:
1. This is the judgment of the Court in relation to a fact finding hearing which took place between 6th and 12th January, 2010. These findings relate to an "issues in the case" document distributed by the Minister on 12th January, 2010, to which no objection was taken by counsel for any of the other parties. A considerable amount of time was consumed in hearing expert evidence from scientists called by the Minister and by B. In dealing in abbreviated fashion with that evidence, we intend no disrespect whatever to the distinguished witnesses who gave evidence before us. It is simply our finding that the state of scientific knowledge of the effects of heroin and methadone upon a foetus in utero and even a very small baby is not sufficiently advanced to enable conclusions safely to be drawn from such evidence as exists in this case.
2. We are conscious that the Court's duty, in a preliminary hearing of this kind, as expressed succinctly in Re Y and K (split hearing: evidence)(2003) 2 FLR 282 is (per Thorpe LJ):-
"To determine what has happened historically and to provide a firm foundation to all parties to prepare their cases for the disposal hearing, the purpose of which is to determine the child's future".
3. We also acknowledge that the test for decision making in care proceedings is the balance of probabilities. This was well explained in two passages from judgments in the House of Lords case of Re B [2008] UKHL 35. Lord Hoffmann stated at paragraph 2:-
"If a legal rule requires a fact to be proved (a "fact in issue"), a judge or jury must decide whether or not it happened. There is no room for a finding that it might have happened. The law operates a binary system in which the only values are 0 and 1. The fact either happened or it did not. If the tribunal is left in doubt, the doubt is resolved by a rule that one party or the other carries the burden of proof. If the party who bears the burden of proof fails to discharge it, a value of 0 is returned and the fact is treated as not having happened. If he does discharge it, a value of 1 is returned and the fact is treated as having happened."
Baroness Hale stated at paragraph 70:-
"My Lords, for that reason I would go further and announce loud and clear that the standard of proof in finding the facts necessary to establish the threshold under section 31(2) or the welfare considerations in section 1 of the 1989 Act is the simple balance of probabilities, neither more nor less. Neither the seriousness of the allegation nor the seriousness of the consequences should make any difference to the standard of proof to be applied in determining the facts. The inherent probabilities are simply something to be taken into account, where relevant, in deciding where the truth lies."
4. C was born in 2007. C was breast fed for about 4 to 6 weeks following birth. Reports indicate that breast feeding had stopped by August 2007. In June 2008 hair samples were taken from C and subjected to analysis. They tested positive for methadone and for heroin. On 30th July, 2008 a Protection Order was made. C was subjected to assessment in the hospital for 48 hours, but no other concerns emerged. C was then temporarily placed in foster care before moving to live with maternal grandparents. On 5th August, 2008 a second hair sample was taken. That too tested positive for methadone and heroin. On 3rd October, 2008 an interim care order was made and that interim order has been renewed periodically since then. From August 2009 unsupervised contact between C and A and B was permitted by the Minister. In October 2009 A became pregnant, apparently by B. On 20th November, 2009 the police searched the flat occupied by A and B and found drugs and other drug paraphernalia. C was present at the time of the search. Unsupervised contact was suspended.
5. We deal first with issues assembled under the sub-heading "C's hair". They are set out below:-
"1. The experts agree that C's hair test results demonstrate that both methadone and heroin entered the child's body.
2. The first issue is when the drugs entered the child's body. There are two possibilities:-
(i) During pregnancy and the subsequent short period of breast feeding (4-6 weeks)
(ii) After breast feeding concluded and until hair samples were taken (August 2007 until August 2008).
3. If the Court concludes that drugs entered the child's body during period (ii) then a second issue arises: is it possible to determine how the drugs entered the body? Was it deliberate, accidental exposure or is it impossible to say?
4. If the mechanism cannot be ascertained, did the drugs enter C's body at a time when C was in the care of A and/or B?"
6. The first issue for consideration is how and when methadone and heroin entered C's body. There is no dispute that C's body was contaminated in this way. Somehow C had come into contact with both these noxious drugs. The Minister called Professor Robert Forrest, who is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Chemistry, a Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians of London and Edinburgh, a Fellow of the Royal College of Pathologists, a Fellow of the Forensic Science Society, and a Fellow of the Faculty of Forensic and Legal Medicine of the Royal College of Physicians of London. Until his retirement in 2007 he was consultant in clinical chemistry and forensic toxicology to the Sheffield teaching hospitals NHS Trust. B called Dr Julie Evans, who is a chartered chemist, a member of the Royal Society of Chemistry and the Forensic Science Society. She has specialised in the field of toxicology. She is currently Forensic Operations Director of ROAR Forensics Limited, having spent 23 years working for the Forensic Science Service. Both Professor Forrest and Dr Evans are very distinguished scientists.
7. They agreed that a significant amount of heroin and methadone had entered C's body. "Significant" means that the quantities were not microscopic, but that does not mean that the amounts were capable of causing a recognisable pharmacological effect. The analysis of the hair samples showed that there was a progressive diminution of toxicity in the hair over the period of time covered by the analysis. It was not possible to be precise in relation to what period of time was involved. The experts agreed that there was a paucity of scientific material relating to the growth of hair in the uterus during the final semester of pregnancy, the continued growth of that hair, and the growth of new hair in the first few months of life. It was not possible, therefore, to state with any degree of certainty whether the heroin and/or methadone had entered C's body in utero through the amniotic fluid or in the months after birth, or at both those times. As to timing, we find that it is not possible to reach any conclusion on the balance of probabilities.
8. As to how the drugs entered C's body, there appear to be a number of possibilities. Clearly the drugs were either intentionally administered or not. If it was not intentional, it was the result of some degree of negligence or carelessness. It is difficult to see how drugs of this kind could accidentally enter a small child's body without some element of culpable neglect on the part of someone. The experts agreed that there was no scientific evidence which enabled them to find that the heroin or the methadone was intentionally administered to the child. It was suggested by counsel for the Minister that there was evidence of difficulty in sleeping when C went to stay with C's grandmother which might indicate the drugs had been administered to C while with A and B. The experts did agree that the methadone prescribed for A during the pregnancy or the short period of breast feeding did not entirely explain the presence of methadone in C's hair. Counsel for the Minister suggested that B's association with an individual who had a conviction for supplying methadone was evidence that there was an illicit market in methadone. None of this evidence satisfies us on a balance of probabilities that either methadone or heroin was intentionally administered to the child. Bearing in mind the injunction of Lord Hoffmann not to sit on the fence, we find that the drugs were not intentionally administered. It follows that they entered C's body as the result of culpable neglect on the part of someone.
9. Whether that culpable neglect was that of A and B is difficult to say. Clearly, C was in the care of A, for most of the relevant time. B, apart from the periods of time that he was in prison between March and May 2008, and when staying with his mother, also had the care of C for substantial periods of time. There were occasions when C was in the care of maternal grandparents, although the likelihood of C being contaminated on those occasions is remote in the extreme, and we discount it. On other occasions, C was in the care of B's mother. We have heard no evidence from D, and it would be unfair to attribute any potential responsibility to her, although evidence has been given that another of her sons living with her is also a heroin addict. We find that on a balance of probabilities the heroin and methadone entered C's body when in the care of A and/or B.
10. We turn therefore to consider the issues relating to the family home and the presence of drugs in the home. We list the issues in question below:-
"The family home and the presence of drugs in the home:
5. Is the family home an environment in which drugs and drugs paraphernalia are present. If so, was C at risk of exposure to such items?
6. Were there times when no responsible drug free adult was caring for C?
7. Does the evidence gathered on 20th November, 2009 demonstrate that drug trafficking took place in the flat?
8. Were others invited to the flat for the purpose of taking drugs?
9. What was the extent of the drug use of both A and B? Was their drug habit controlled and measured or was it chaotic and driven by a craving for heroin?"
11. We will deal later with issues 7 and 8. The remaining issues concern the extent to which A and B misuse drugs, and in particular heroin. Both of them are addicts. A was convicted of an offence relating to a Class A drug in 2006. The social enquiry report prepared for the Royal Court at that time showed that she first used heroin in 2003 whilst in an abusive relationship with another heroin user. Although there were drug free periods, she was using heroin for 2½ years and was consuming two "50 bags" per day (i.e. standard street deals costing £50) at the time of her arrest. Between March and September 2006 there is no evidence that she was taking drugs, but she relapsed in about October 2006. She became pregnant in that month and she admitted that she was taking heroin. She was placed on a methadone programme in December 2006 but continued throughout her pregnancy to take heroin as well from time to time. Very shortly after C's birth in 2007 A had relapsed into regular use of heroin. She told the Alcohol and Drugs Service that she was using 1 to 3 bags a day, using up some savings but not really knowing how she was paying for it. In evidence before us, A stated that this was an exaggeration, designed to get her back on the methadone programme. On 12th September, 2007 there was a home visit by a social worker who recorded that A had injected 2 bags of heroin earlier that morning. She told the social worker that she could manage only up to 12 hours without injecting. At an assessment on 2nd November, 2007 she told the Alcohol and Drugs Service that she had been injecting ½ to 1 bag of heroin for the last three weeks as well as taking subutex. On 12th November, 2007 she signed a contract about the use of methadone and went back on that programme.
12. During the early part of 2008 she appears not to have used heroin but on 22nd April a urine specimen tested positive for opiates. On 7th May, 2008 she admitted to the Alcohol and Drugs Service that she was taking heroin twice a week. When told that an un-named third party had said that A was injecting regularly, she broke down and admitted that the reason why she felt that she could not share information about her heroin use was a fear that C would be taken away from her. Her methadone dose was increased at that time. On 13th May, 2008 she told the social worker that she felt better with the increased dose, but that she had still taken heroin over the weekend while C was with C's grandmother. On 2nd June, 2008 she admitted that she was still craving heroin and had been taking ½ a bag twice a week or so. On 13th June she again admitted that she had used heroin when feeling stressed about C. By 20th June a urine sample was clear of opiates, and A was reported as feeling brighter within herself.
13. During July 2008 matters continued to improve, and A reported no craving for heroin. Her urine screen was negative, apart from methadone. On 19th August, she attended an appointment with her social worker. The urine sample continued to be negative, apart from methadone. She reported that she was going on holiday to the UK with B the next day, although she did not want to go. She felt under pressure from B. The medical team was unwilling for her to take methadone with her to London because B had only recently been convicted of importing heroin. A and B returned to Jersey after their holiday on 28th August.
14. A did not attend the Alcohol and Drugs Service until 11th September. She admitted that she had used heroin as soon as she had arrived in the UK, and had binged heavily on heroin and crack cocaine while she had been away. There were visible track marks on her left fore-arm, and she said that she had begun injecting into her hand because the veins in her arms were no good. She had been using 2 to 3 bags daily since her return to Jersey. She was pale. She talked about having an in-patient detox. The following day she was admitted to St Saviour's Hospital. By 14th September, she was in the General Hospital and admitting that she had had 2 to 3 bags of heroin the previous night. On 17th September, she discharged herself from Orchard House.
15. By the middle of October 2008, she was using 1 to 2 bags daily, and causing concerns about the risk of an overdose. By the end of the month she was back on a methadone programme. On 1st December, 2008 she admitted that she had used ½ a bag of heroin the previous night as she had been feeling "crap", and she thought it would help her to feel more motivated. She had broken up with B.
16. By January 2009 she tested free of heroin. Testing during 2009 showed that she was free of opiates at all times except on 4th March, 9th April, and 8th June. She did not attend for appointments on 15th October, 11th November, and 18th November. When interviewed in November 2009, she admitted that she had taken heroin twice in the previous six weeks which no doubt explains at least some of the missed appointments. A agreed to a hair test on 10th December, 2009 which showed negative, or an insufficient quantity to test, for the period from April until August 2009. In September and October the analysis was positive for heroin. She admitted that she was using small amounts of heroin during October and November 2009. She was not craving it, but when it was put in front of her, it was difficult to say no.
17. A insisted in the witness box that her drug taking was under control and that her illicit use of heroin did not mean that she was unable to care for C. The small amounts she consumed did not affect the way she thought or behaved. When she took heroin, she was very careful to clean up after her and to put any used needles in the medical fit-pack. She claimed that she always injected and never smoked heroin. She injected in the kitchen of the flat. She admitted that there were occasions when there had been no drug-free adult in the flat when she had the care of C. Both she and B had injected, and C would have been asleep in a bedroom, or in the bouncer. She was, however, very careful and C would never have been exposed to any drugs or drug paraphernalia. She did not believe that there was a black market in methadone. She had always attended at the hospital or chemist to take her methadone except at Christmas when her mother had collected it and administered it to her later.
18. We turn to B's history of drug abuse. B was born in 1982 and is now aged 27. He began abusing drugs in 1998 at the age of 16. In 2000 he was sentenced for an offence relating to a Class A drug. Medical notes show that he was using heroin in July 2002. In January 2003 he was smoking (not injecting) 1 bag of heroin a day. He wanted to detox, but he did not want to go on the methadone programme. By the end of 2003 he was still smoking daily. In 2004 he was convicted before the Magistrate's Court of an offence relating to a Class B drug. In 2005 he was convicted of an offence relating to a Class A drug and given a prison sentence. During this period of imprisonment, his friendship with A, which had begun some years before, became more intimate. He was released in March 2007. After his release he went on a heroin binge in the UK. On his return, he continued to use heroin although at a level which he described as recreational. He managed at the same time to continue in employment. In August 2007 he and A moved into a flat where they now reside. In 2008 he was convicted of offences relating to Class A drugs. In August, September, October and November 2008 he tested positive for opiates. In December 2008 he was placed on the methadone programme. In 2009 he appeared before this Court on a breach of a Probation Order, but the Order was not revoked.
19. Throughout 2009, urine tests were negative for opiates. On 20th November, 2009 however, when the police conducted a search of his flat, they discovered a small quantity of heroin and other paraphernalia. The Court heard evidence from Detective Sergeant Paul Kennea in relation to that search which involved an element of surprise. Police officers had burst into the flat without warning. C was playing in the lounge and B was in the bedroom where he was detained. The officers found o-rings, that is circles of plastic cut from a plastic bag, in the kitchen. There was a plastic bag from which the circles had been cut. Detective Sergeant Kennea is an experienced drugs officer and his opinion was that this was all consistent with the preparation of "50 bags" of heroin, that is, the preparation of street deals of the drug, costing £50.
20. A set of precision scales was also found. Traces of cocaine and cannabis were later found to be present on the scales. A folded sheet of paper with the words £250 and £50 containing a brown powder later shown to be paracetamol was found. It is agreed that paracetamol is a common adulterant used to bulk out powder drugs, especially heroin. In the waste bin the officers found a number of used syringes, and a fit-pack containing used needles. They also found used needles on top of a kitchen cupboard. Two lumps of cannabis resin, and a wrap of heroin were found in a pot on the kitchen worktop. The number of used needles which were found totalled between 10 and 20. DS Kennea said that a further needle was found in the bedroom on a table top. DS Kennea saw no dartboard, but he testified that "dart" is commonly used slang for a heroin needle. He also stated that "chocolate" is slang for cannabis, usually in conjunction with cannabis from Holland. On top of the fridge the officers found 2 urine bottles containing a yellow coloured liquid. In the unlocked electricity cupboard in the communal hallway outside the flat they found a piece of silver foil which had scorch marks and was later found to have traces of heroin. It had been used to smoke heroin. 4 mobile telephones were seized from the flat.
21. F, the mother of A, gave evidence that she had visited the flat nearly every day since her daughter and B had moved there in August 2007. She had never seen drugs or drug paraphernalia although she knew that they were both addicts. She had once found a needle when she had been helping her daughter to clean the flat. On the occasion of the police raid on 20th November, 2009 she had collected her daughter from the flat earlier in the morning and had seen no evidence of what the police had later found in the kitchen.
22. The evidence of A was that she had had a cup of tea with her mother at about 9.30 a.m. on 20th November and had seen nothing unusual. Both B and C had been in the lounge when they had left. So far as she was aware, B was not dealing in drugs; she would not have allowed the bagging up of heroin in the flat.
23. B's evidence was that during 2009 until the police raid on 20th November he had only taken heroin twice, namely the day before the raid and about 6 weeks before. He denied that he had been dealing. He explained that the o-rings had been cut from the plastic bag to act as covers for yogurt pots that C had started but not finished. The scales had not been used for dealing; they had been in a box which he had taken from his mother's home and had just been thrown in the back of a drawer. He asserted that they did not work. The bag of heroin found by the police had been the remains of 2 "50 bags" which he had bought the day before. He had never had sufficient money to buy drugs to deal.
24. B testified about an ugly disturbance which had taken place on 26th December, 2009, when the police had been called. It appears that a man came to the front door of the flat occupied by A and B and tried to kick it down. There had been no prior warning. There had been a scuffle, and the man had called up assistance from four others. B had returned to the flat to arm himself with a knife sharpener. B's explanation was that he had bought the heroin found on 20th November from a man called G. Another man had been present at the time, and it was this man who had arrived with others demanding money. There must have been a misunderstanding. B did not know what the argument was about, but it was not, according to him, about a drug debt.
25. At the time of the police raid on 20th November, Detective Sergeant Kennea had taken possession of mobile telephones belonging to B. The officer placed before us an analysis of text messages passing to and from one telephone between 29th October, 2009 and 20th November, 2009. On the evidence of the officer, the messages were evidence of drug trafficking by B. We set out below some of the text messages. On 30th October, 2009 at 1314 a message was sent to Bredgy (sic) L:-
"just tell me honestly mate yes or no so Im not waiting here like a dickhead and ive got other people who are relying on me and waiting todays the day bruv the market is empty there for the taking and don't forget Christmas is coming up i know ur sat their comfortably but I could do with the extra work and if u my bredgy like u say we are u would understand my situation and would want to help u know what they say a friend in need is a friend indeed so come mate pull ur finger out and just let me know either way bruv please cheers mate"
26. On 11th November, 2009 at 1156 a further exchange with Bredgy (sic) took place:-
"well if u can come around b4 im interested but i cant be arsed with any fucking around like last time this has to be regular like clockwork so if u cant do it theres no point in us getting started a one off is no good to me i have many mouths to feed u understand this game and how its played so let me know how u wanna play this either way yes or no so i know wether to wait for u or go to my usual place its up to u im ready either way"
27. Ten minutes later at 1206 a further message was sent:-
"Sound mate see u soon keep it quite mate u are coming alone aren't u don't bring one of ur little helpers ok mate loose lips sink ships just between u and me thats the deal are u in"
28. On 11th November, 2009 at 2025 a further message was sent to Bredgy (sic):-
"Alright bruv I haven't forgotten Ive been going down there every hour the thing that annoys me is that its there but hasn't cleared yet it my fucking money an the bank wont let me take it out this seems to happen to us all the time with this bank so me and the missus are gonna changes banks tomoz so its up to u if u want to believe me or not anyway be here at 11 30 cause my other pennys will be there by then so il leave it down to u but the thing is i could have made up the difference if u had just trusted me for once so weve both missed out cause my phone hasn't stopped ringing and Ive had to knock people back all night so let me know either way mate ok im gonna keep trying till then thou alright blood chat to u later bredgy come round if u want chill here for abit we could get a j and that ok mate cheers"
29. On 13th November, 2009 at 2103 an exchange with H took place. H was convicted on 10th August, 2007 of supplying methadone. The message read:-
"its all good u were weirdo missing out 4 being a stubborn cunt if u are coming down don't knock on the door miss call cause my little princess is in bed asleep so don't forget its important alright buddy but thats even if u bother coming ok blood so let us know either way cause its a popular dish so most are wanting to try some i cant keep them waiting whilst u make ur mind up shall i shan't I so text me blood brother til death do us part u decide and quic Dont be making any noise at the door im telling u now text alright blood and bring ur own darts 4 the boared c u in abit bruv u fucking yid cunt as tight as a badges arse the lot of ya"
30. Later on 13th November, 2009 at 2155 a text was sent to a different mobile telephone in the following terms:-
"Alright mate what u up to u having a good night in with the family then bud listen im just texting to c if uve had any joy cing ur mate para au choclate"
31. An hour later at 2306 a text message was sent to yet another mobile telephone in the following terms:-
"mate i was just wondering if uve had any luck lately with any choclate u get me can u text me letting me know either way cheers blood"
32. On 14th November, 2009 at 1710 there was a text message sent to the same number from which "chocolate" was requested at 2155 the previous day stating:-
"Alright mate i take it uve done all ur moving then was that ur brother in law was it anyway mate are u up for doing what u done for me last time no different either and this time il make sure u get the pennys back without fail mate ok u know u cant lose mate and i will give u a tickle 4 3 bud like last time alright mate so let us know either way cause il have to find someone else ok buddy cheers lad"
33. Finally, by way of example, on 16th November, 2009 at 1257 a text message was sent from B's telephone in the following terms:-
"Alright lad what u up to listen be careful with whatever u do today cause ive had a shadow and a tail all morning and one of them was kenna so some cunt has bubbled me conveniently a week b4 my probation finishes so im raging did u not say titta had police protection so keep ur nose clean and double back on urself if u go out anywhere ok even if it takes u longer thats very important thats how i clocked them u at home anyway"
34. B denied that any of these texts were evidence of dealing in drugs. He suggested that Detective Sergeant Kennea had gained the wrong impression. When inviting friends round to play darts, the invitation meant exactly what it said. He had a darts board in his flat. We have no hesitation in rejecting the evidence of B, which we regard as utterly unreliable. He had glib responses for every incriminating circumstance. We regard him as a witness whose evidence is not to be trusted in any respect. The evidence that B was involved in drug trafficking between 29th October and 20th November, 2009 is overwhelming. Applying the balance of probabilities test, we conclude without any hesitation that B was dealing in drugs between October and November 2009, and that persons resorted for that purpose to the flat in which C was occasionally present. As to whether the dealing had been going on for a longer period, there is no evidence before us from mobile telephone recordings. The record shows that B was convicted of drug offences in 2000, 2005 and 2008. He was in prison on remand between March and May 2008, but has otherwise been at liberty since C's birth in June 2007. He was taking heroin with regularity between June 2007 and December 2008. A has been taking heroin regularly, apart from short periods of abstinence, between June 2007 and November 2009. Bearing in mind that B's dealing in drugs was so well obscured that F found no evidence of any drugs or paraphernalia when she visited the flat only shortly before the police raid took place, we think that it may be inferred, on a balance of probabilities, that drug dealing took place from time to time over a much longer period than merely between October and November 2009. Those are our findings in relation to issues 7 and 8.
35. Counsel for A placed before us, with the agreement of the other parties, a letter showing that Mrs Jean Du Heaume, a children's officer, had visited the flat occupied by A and B on numerous occasions between January and August 2009. We think it can be inferred, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, that she felt no concerns about the environment in which C was being cared for at that time. The evidence of F was that the flat was always well ordered and reasonably tidy. She went there during that period almost every day, and sometimes without notice. She never saw anything to give rise to concern, except that she did on one occasion find a used needle in a drawer. Furthermore, there is no evidence before us that C was not well cared for when she was being looked after by A, and indeed B. C appears to be meeting all developmental milestones, although that may be attributable at least in part to maternal grandparents. On the other hand, the evidence which emerged from the police raid on 20th November, 2009 and all the evidence of heroin consumption over a long period, showed that the family home was an environment in which drugs and drug paraphernalia were present. It may be that A and B are careful to clear up after they have injected themselves as they claimed. Nonetheless, A conceded that there was a potential risk to C from the taking of heroin in the flat. The evidence relating to used needles, and our finding that others resorted to the flat for the purposes of taking drugs, make it clear that C was at risk of exposure to drugs and drug paraphernalia. If the heroin and methadone were not deliberately administered to C, at least part of the drugs in C's body are likely to have resulted from environmental contamination of some kind. We so find in relation to issue 5.
36. So far as the credibility of A is concerned, we found her evidence to be occasionally guarded and less than open. She clearly, and not unnaturally, found it difficult to speak openly about her relationship with B in his presence. On the other hand, when asked a question which required a straight answer, (e.g. as to whether there were occasions when no drug-free adult was looking after C), she gave the straight answer. Her evidence to the extent of her addiction, and the effect of heroin upon her, was perhaps unduly optimistic and naive. Subject to those reservations we found her on the whole to be a credible witness.
37. In relation to issue 6, we have already found, and A has admitted, that there were occasions when no responsible drug-free adult was caring for C.
38. We turn to issue 9. Both A and B have been heroin addicts since at least 2003. They assert that their drug habit is controlled and measured. B has stated that he could hold down a job while taking heroin on a daily basis. A testified that the quality of heroin in Jersey was poor, and that small amounts of the drug did not affect her behaviour. She did, however, candidly admit that it was very difficult to refuse heroin when it was offered to her. There is no evidence of credit card debts, or the sale of furniture or other valuables to fund their habit, or theft (other than occasionally). A and B have not plumbed the depths of degradation. Even if it has been so in the past, we find that their drug habit is not at this time chaotic or driven by a craving for heroin.
39. We turn now to the question of domestic violence which can be addressed more succinctly. There is no doubt that the relationship between A and B has occasionally been violent and that heated arguments have taken place. That is admitted. It is the case that the police have been called to the flat on numerous occasions. On 22nd/23rd December, 2007 there was a serious incident involving a punch to the face, a bite to the arm and other bruising of A by B. The medical report of I, stated that A's injuries were consistent with her account of how they had been sustained. Since June 2009, there have been no reported instances of domestic disturbance. We hesitate to describe their relationship as "turbulent" but we find that in the past there were incidents of violence and dissension.
40. The evidence showed that on occasions, C was present (in particular on 22nd/23rd December, 2007 when A was holding the baby as she was assaulted) when these arguments and incidents took place. We so find.
Authorities
Re Y and K (split hearing: evidence)(2003) 2 FLR 282.
Re B [2008] UKHL 35.