[2011]JRC032
royal court
(Samedi Division)
4th February 2011
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
Ms E. L. Hollywood, Crown Advocate for the Applicant.
Advocate C. Hall for the First Respondent.
Advocate C. L. Nicolle for the Second Respondent.
Advocate C. R. G. Davies for the Third Respondent.
judgment
the commissioner:
1. This is the judgment of the Court on the Minister's application for full care orders in relation to C and L. Interim care orders were made for C on 3rd October, 2008 and for L on 11th June, 2010. There had been two fact finding hearings as a result of which a broad consensus has emerged. All the parties are agreed that the threshold criteria for the making of care orders as set out in Article 24 of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002 are satisfied and we so find. We accept in that respect the Minister's statement relating to the threshold criteria. This judgment is to be regarded again as supplemental to the judgments of 22nd March, 2010, and 2nd February, 2011.
2. The Minister has placed before us care plans in relation to both C and L and their contents have again been, broadly speaking, agreed by all the parties. The only real issue for determination by the Court relates to contact between the children and B. B is not the biological father of C but he has, until very recently, been the partner of A and he is regarded by C as C's father. He is the biological father of L. B accepts that contact between him and the children must be supervised for the foreseeable future and certainly until he is able to satisfy the Children's Service that he is no longer misusing drugs. He is currently remanded to HM Prison on drug charges and that has posed an additional complication in relation to contact. The children's guardian has expressed the view that B is close to the point where a decision might have to be made that continued contact between him and the children is simply not in their best interests. He has been a heroin addict for many years and this Court has found that he has been immersed in the drugs culture and involved in drug trafficking over an extended period. If he is to play a part in the lives of the children in future, he will need to demonstrate on his release from custody, that he has kept clean and free from the misuse of drugs and heroin in particular. B understands that and has resolved to change his way of life when he emerges from prison. We record our agreement with the guardian that B is close to the pivot point where the balance will tip against any contact being in the interests of the children.
3. As a result of all the evidence heard from Dr Ruth Emsley, chartered forensic psychologist, Dr Laura Posner, chartered consultant clinical psychologist, and the children's guardian, the Children's Service has modified its position on the question of contact with B at the prison. The Minister's proposal is now:-
(i) C will be told a truthful story about where B is and work will be carried out with C to ascertain C's views about seeing him in prison and to prepare C for at least one visit.
(ii) There may be direct contact between B and C while he remains in prison but limited to a monthly basis and will only continue to take place if it is in the best interests of C.
(iii) L will have direct contact with B on a monthly basis commencing once C has been told the story. If contact with C stops due to C being distressed before, during, or after contact, L's contact will continue. If L's contact upsets C, the Children's service will put in work to manage this problem; however the Children's Service is likely to take L whilst C is at nursery as this is during the afternoon when D is not working.
(iv) Indirect contact will be facilitated by B's mother, D as well as letter contact and the use of tapes to be facilitated by the children's social worker.
In order to achieve that end the Children's Services proposes a staged approach with the following time scale as set out in the closing submissions made by the Minister:-
Stage1:- within I week of the Court's judgment the Children's Service together with J and F, D, A and B shall develop an agreed story to be given to C regarding B's remand in prison.
Stage 2:- Telephone contact between C and B will commence once the story for C has been agreed. The telephone contact shall be supervised by D and initially observed by the Children's Service.
Stage 3:- over the following three weeks from the telling of the story the Children's Service shall:-
(i) undertake direct work with C to establish C's wishes and feelings and understanding about C's family circumstances as well as introducing information about the role of the Court. This work will include work with C alone, as well as some joint sessions including A and J and F.
(ii) Undertake work with D, to give guidance and to begin to assess her in relation to supervising contact between B and C and L.
(iii) Undertake work with J and F and A about supporting C around contact with B.
Stage 4:- On successful completion of the stage 3 work, the Children's service will liaise with the prison service to set up an initial direct contact session between B and C and L. This contact session shall be supervised by D and the Children's Service, and shall take place within one to two weeks of successful completion of the stage 3 work.
Stage 5:- subject to a successful initial contact visit, contact shall take place monthly supervised by D as agreed with the Children's Service. Contact shall be reviewed regularly at the looked-after child reviews, which will take place every three months, however in addition to that, Miss Stark will review contact and its progress.
4. We have some reservations about that time scale but we will return to those reservations in due course. The position of B in relation to the Minister's proposal is that he supports it except that he considers that contact should be more frequent and more specifically, should be on a weekly basis. None of the experts supported the notion that contact should be as frequent as weekly. Dr Posner, when pressed, considered that fortnightly contact would be workable on the basis that C was a well adjusted and happy child who could cope with contact at the prison. The other experts all favoured monthly contact, certainly at the outset.
5. When A and her father, J gave evidence they indicated support for contact between the children and B although J was not in favour in taking C to the prison, which he considered to be an unsuitable and potentially frightening place for C to visit. This morning counsel for the family expressed their reservation more strongly, having had the opportunity to consider the views of F, the children's grandmother. Her views, as the principal carer of the children, are entitled to considerable respect and weight; she does not consider that it is appropriate to take C to the prison. C is a well adjusted and happy child, in her view, because she and her husband have invested considerable time and care to ensure that C does feel secure in their family home. Counsel for the family requested the Court to give them some form of veto over the issue of contact at the prison. Counsel made it clear that they were content for the Children's Service to progress through stages one to three, as we have described them but submitted that at stage four it should be for them to decide whether contact at the prison was consistent with C's well being.
6. We do not think that the Court can go so far as to confer a power of veto upon the family. However, as counsel for the Minister readily agreed, if contact between C and B at the prison is to work, it can only do so on the basis that none of the parties feels anxiety or stress about it. Any such anxiety or stress would be perceived by the child and would be detrimental to C's best interests. Counsel for the Minister indicated that contact at the prison would be unlikely to take place against the express opposition of the family because it would be axiomatic that in such circumstances, contact could not be arranged in a relaxed and supportive way.
7. We think that in relation to C and subject to our views on timing, the Minister's proposals are sensible and reasonable. We are confident that the family will also be reasonable. They have agreed to progress through stages one to three and if it was then clear that C wanted direct contact with B and that such contact would not upset C, we are sure that they would not stand in the way of the plan. All the experts agree, as do we, that contact between C and B is, at this stage, desirable and in the best interests of the child.
8. We therefore approve the proposals of the Minister, which we have set out above, and we confirm that the Children's Service has an ultimate discretion as to whether contact should take place at the prison. That discretion should however be exercised against the background that contact between C and B is, in principle, desirable in order to keep alive the relationship between them.
9. We agree with the Minister and the guardian that such contact should be initially on a monthly basis but the frequency, as everything else, will need to be kept under review. Flexibility should be the hallmark of the arrangements.
10. Our reservations as to timing can be shortly expressed. The Minister proposes that the story to be given to C as to why B is where he is should be agreed within a week and that C's feelings should be established within three weeks after that, and that a further two weeks after that, contact should be arranged. We do not wish to be prescriptive but we do express the hope that a greater sense of urgency might be invoked. B was arrested on 21st December, he has now been in custody for six weeks; agreement on a truthful age-appropriate story ought, we think, to be possible within an hour or two. We understand that the concerns of the family will need to be handled sensitively but if C expresses a wish to see B we would hope that that could be achieved in rather than less than the six weeks set out in the plan.
11. We would like to emphasise at the same time that it is up to B to play his part in all this and to lay the foundations for successful contact. It is up to him to produce appropriate cards or letters, to record a bedtime story or other suitable memories on tape so that they can be read to C, and to cooperate in telephone contact when that can be arranged.
12. Contact with L poses no such difficulties. We approve the proposal that contact should begin as soon as practicable. It should be initially on a monthly basis but, assuming all goes well, that frequency could be increased subject to practical considerations and in particular, the wishes and availability of D who has agreed to facilitate such contact.
13. In summary we have considered the no order principle and we are satisfied, having studied the care plans as modified by the Minister's written closing submissions this morning, that care orders in relation to both children should be made. We so order.
14. We only add this by way of postscript:- both B and A have a difficult path to tread in the months and years ahead to rid themselves of their heroin addiction. It is very much in the interests of A and therefore in the interests of the children that there should be no contact with B for at least twelve months and we expect both A and B to acknowledge that fact and to abide by the agreements which they are to sign with the Children's Service.
15. We are grateful to all counsel and to the experts, in particular to the guardian for all the help and guidance that we have had during this rather difficult case.
Authorities
Children (Jersey) Law 2002.