Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2011]JRC059

royal court

(Samedi Division)

22^nd March 2011

IN THE MATTER OF W AND J

AND IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN (JERSEY) LAW 2002

Advocate C. R. G. Davies for the Minister.

Advocate D. Gilbert for the First Respondent.

Advocate A. J. Clarke for the Second Respondent (not present and excused from attending).

Advocate P. S. Landick for the Third Respondent

Advocate H. J. Heath on behalf of the Fourth Respondent.

judgment

the bailiff:

1.        We are concerned today with two applications by the Minister for full care orders.  They are separate applications but we have heard them together.  The first relates to W, aged nearly 2½.  His mother is A and his father is B.  An interim care order was made on 5^th February, 2010, following which W was placed with foster carers.  The second application relates to J, who is aged 9 months and is W's half sibling.  In his case an interim care order was made on 3^rd August, 2010, shortly after his birth.  His mother is also A, but his father is D.  J has remained in the day to day care of the mother and D following the interim care order. 

2.        On 29^th November, 2010, the Court found that the threshold criteria in Article 24(2) of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002 were met in relation to both children.  However, the proceedings were adjourned until today because of the progress which the mother was making in relation to looking after the children. 

3.        Dealing first with W, we have today received much detailed evidence including a report from the social worker in the Children's Department, Sarah Jenner, a final care plan and a report from the Guardian.  W has been back residing with the mother and D since December 2010.  The reports of the social worker and of the Guardian suggest that there has been an enormous change in the mother's attitude to W.  Whereas previously there had been serious concerns about her parenting and her lack of willingness to work with the Children's Service, she is now, with D, providing a caring home for both W and J.  We refer in particular to the glowing commendation in the Guardian's report in relation to the approach of the mother and D.  The care plan envisages that a full care order should be made, but that W should remain living with the mother and D. 

4.        There are two main reasons for concluding that a care order is still needed; firstly, the change in the mother is comparatively recent and looking after two young children is challenging for most mothers and particularly for her.  There is therefore a concern that the Children's Service should be in a position to share parental responsibility with the mother and intervene quickly should this become necessary.  Secondly, the maternal grandfather is due for release from prison in May, following a sentence for sexual offences against the mother's sister and another young girl.  There is concern that this will present a considerable additional challenge to the mother; however, it is hoped that should all go well, it may be possible to discharge the care order in the future, and it is certainly intended to review it after one year to see if it is still necessary.  In the meantime, the support offered by the Children's Service will, we think, be of invaluable assistance to the mother and to D as they care for the children. 

5.        All parties agree with the care plan and that a care order should be made, in other words the mother, the father, D and the Guardian.  We have noted the observations by the Guardian in his report concerning the views of Dr Hunt, and those of the social worker in her report concerning the views of Dr Cameron.  But we agree with the Guardian and the social worker that the views of those two medical practitioners do not lead us to depart from the opinion that the care plan is the best way forward for W. 

6.        Turning to J, the reports are to like effect.  The position is, of course, that he has always been in the care of his mother and father and for the same reasons as in relation to W, we are satisfied that a care order should be made and the care plan approved; and again, all parties agree with this course of action. 

7.        So in summary, we are quite satisfied that the best interests of both W and J will be served by making a care order and approving the care plan.  In doing so we take account, of course, of the "no order principle", but we are satisfied for the reasons given earlier that it is appropriate to make a full care order but with the children continuing to reside with the mother and D under the care plan.  There is no need to make any specific order concerning contact in relation to W concerning his contact with B.  The proposals are set out in the care plan and the matter can of course always be referred back to the Court if this becomes necessary. 

8.        So having made the order we would like to repeat some of the observations we made during the course of the hearing.  We would like to offer sincere congratulations to all parties involved in this case.  Firstly, most importantly, to A and D.  A has made enormous progress over the period and it would be wonderful for both children to be with the mother and D because it is always a good thing if children can reside with their family.  Those congratulations extend to D's family who we know have been very supportive.  Secondly, we do wish to offer our congratulations to the Children's Service; they are sometimes subject to criticism but they have been commended warmly by the Guardian in his report and we endorse those sentiments; this has been a constructive, helpful process. 

9.        Finally we also wish to offer our commendations to the Guardian; his has been a constructive involvement and I have no doubt he has helped facilitate the actions taken by all the other parties which has led, we hope, to what will be a successful outcome.  So we wish A and D every success and we hope that all goes well. 

Authorities

Children (Jersey) Law 2002.