[2010]JRC138
royal court
(Samedi Division)
22nd July 2010
Before : |
J. A. Clyde-Smith, Commissioner, and Jurats de Veulle and Tibbo. |
Between |
"A" |
Applicant |
And |
The Minister for Health and Social Services |
Respondents |
|
"B" (the child's mother) |
|
|
"C" (the child's father) |
|
And |
"U" (the child) |
|
|
Tracy Goode (the Guardian ad litem) |
|
IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN (JERSEY) LAW, 2002
AND IN THE MATTER OF U
Advocate C. Hall for the Applicant.
Advocate C. R. Dutôt for the Minister and the Mother.
Advocate D. Gilbert for the Child and the Guardian.
judgment
the commissioner:
1. On 14th June, 2010, the Court granted the applicant, a residence order under Article 10(1)(c) of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002 ("the Children Law") in respect of the child, a relative; a residence order being an order settling the arrangements to be made as to the person with whom a child is to live.
Background
2. The child has lived with the applicant continuously since December 2008 and with a gap of several months, for six months prior to that.
3. The child was first made the subject of an interim care order, shortly after birth. The principal grounds for the application related to the mother's admitted drug use and chaotic lifestyle. Despite efforts by the Minister to support the mother to care for the child, it was necessary for the Minister to remove the child from the mother's care, at which time the child was placed in the care of the applicant.
4. Some eight months later, the mother and the father entered into a parental responsibility agreement. Following a period of assessment by the Minister, the father was approved as carer for the child who was transferred from the applicant to his full-time care, two months later the interim care order was discharged and a residence order granted to the father.
5. On 23rd December, 2008, the child was made the subject of a police protection order by the Metropolitan Police. This followed the arrest of the father, who had allegedly taken a heroin overdose during a trip to London, whilst having the sole care of the child. On return to Jersey on 24th December, 2008, the child was placed again with the applicant, where the child has remained to date.
6. The child was made the subject of an interim care order in January, 2009, and in January, 2010, the applicant was granted leave to be joined in to the proceedings and to apply for a residence order.
7. In December, 2009, the Fostering Panel approved the recommendation of the kinship assessment that the applicant should continue to undertake the full-time care of the child. The kinship assessment on the applicant was exceptionally positive.
Application
8. The applicant is a single carer and has other children. The family live in a house rented from the States of Jersey Housing Department, which is adequate for their needs at this time. However, the applicant has already applied for a transfer to larger accommodation to reflect the birth of her youngest child in 2010. The applicant will be supported financially by the Minister to care for U at the standard fostering allowance for a child of that age.
9. The mother realises that she cannot parent the child at this time as she has several issues of her own, not least her own substance misuse problem. Until recently, the mother was locked into a chaotic drugs lifestyle and visits to the child were sporadic. Currently, she has supervised contact with the child and following a recent positive report from the Alcohol and Drugs Service to the Children's Service, she has been offered the opportunity to have unsupervised contact.
10. Notwithstanding his own alcohol and drugs misuse problems, the father has demonstrated a solid commitment to the child throughout the child's life. More recently the concerns regarding his problems have reduced and so contact has been developed accordingly. He has had one overnight contact per week since April 2010. He is happy with the current care arrangements and there is a good working relationship between him and the applicant.
11. As advised by the Guardian, the applicant has given the child a secure and stable home. She has been able to protect the child from harm by placing appropriate boundaries and giving clear messages to the mother and the father in relation to the contact they have with the child. The residence order will allow the applicant to be in sole control in relation to ongoing contact.
12. There have been issues in relation to the applicant's ability to cope as a single mother with other children and the Child Care and Fostering and Adoption Jersey Teams will therefore continue to support the applicant for an initial period of six months when there will be a review to see if further support is required. The Minister did not recommend a supervision order, given the excellent working relationship that has developed between the Children's Service and the applicant.
13. Applying the "Welfare Checklist" and the "No Order" principle, and taking into account the detailed report and recommendation of the Guardian, the support of the Minister, and the views of the parents, we agreed that it was in the child's interests for the arrangements by which the child lives with the applicant to be settled by means of a residence order. Under Article 30 of the Children Law, that will give the applicant parental responsibility, which she will share with the parents, and legal backing to her need to continue to control contact between the child and the parents. It would, in short, offer security for the child's long-term care whilst providing the advantage of being brought up within the child's extended family.
14. Having made a residence order, the interim care order was discharged by virtue of the provisions of Article 66(1) of the Children Law.
Authorities
Children (Jersey) Law 2002.