Child custody- application by the minister for a full care order.
[2011]JRC228
Before : |
Miss P. Scriven, Q.C., Commissioner, and Jurats Morgan and Fisher. |
Between |
The Minister for Health and Social Services |
Applicant |
And |
(1) A |
Respondents |
And |
(2) B |
|
And |
(3) C |
|
And |
(4) D and (5) E (acting through their Guardian ad litem F) |
|
And |
(6) G |
|
And |
(7) H (acting through Guardian ad litem F) |
|
IN THE MATTER OF QQ
AND IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN (JERSEY) LAW 2002
Advocate B. J. Corbett for the Minister.
Advocate P. G. Nicholls for A.
Advocate D. A. Corbel for C.
Advocate R. E. Colley for H (acting through Guardian ad litem F).
judgment
the comissioner:
1. The Court is dealing with the future of a boy, H, who was born in 2010. He is therefore now nearly 15 months old and he has lived all his life to date in the care of his parents. They are his mother, A (to whom we shall refer to as the "mother"), and his father, C (to whom we shall refer to as the "father"). He has by all accounts thrived in their care. But there have been serious concerns about the care the mother and the father have given to their older children. It is those concerns that led to the Minister, through the Children's Services, commencing care proceedings in relation to H, very shortly after his birth. Whilst he has remained in his parent's care since then, it has been under the umbrella of a series of interim care orders and with a very high level of supervision and monitoring.
2. The Minister, through Children's Services, seeks a full care order with the plan that H be removed from his parents immediately and placed, first with short term foster parents, and then long term with prospective adopters. That is supported, at the moment, by the guardian. So, the proposed order sought by the Children's Services is of the most serious kind that any court is asked to make in this type of proceedings, one which would lead to the permanent separation of parent and child, and the severance of the bonds between them.
3. The concerns of Children's Services come from the findings that this Court has made in relation to the parents' treatment of their older children. H is the one and only child of the father and mother together but each has had children by previous relationships. The findings which are of concern are set out in detail in a judgment of this Court handed out in draft form in July 2010 and formally handed down on 17th September, 2010, (In the matter of QQ [2010] JRC 174) and we shall not repeat them here. As a result of those findings both Children's Services and the guardian are profoundly concerned that the difficulties which the mother had in meeting the needs of these older children and her behaviour towards them may be repeated in her care of H, particularly as he grows up and becomes more challenging; and that the father may be too passive to be a sufficiently protective influence.
4. The proceedings in relation to H have been the subject of a number of delays. In December 2010 the case came before us. At that stage Children's Services asked the court to make a final order leading to H's adoption. However, an adult forensic psychologist, Dr Briggs, had been asked to conduct a risk assessment of the mother and father. He was of the view that the risks presented by the mother remained, in particular of her lashing out at a child in a time of frustration, and that the father did not provide a strong enough counterbalance. He took the view that the parents needed to commit to, and complete, a lengthy programme of therapeutic work if they were to be able to parent safely. He advised that an initial assessment could be made of their ability to embark on and make progress with motivational work, following upon which other aspects of work relating to parenting skills, anger management and the like, could follow. He thought that within three months of the commencement of motivational work he would be able to see whether there were the beginnings of the necessary commitment to the process.
5. Dr Young is a consultant child and adolescent psychiatrist who has been asked to advise the Court in relation to welfare issues for H. He was of the view, by the time he gave evidence in December 2010, that H had an increasingly loving and significant attachment to his parents. Dr Young had serious concerns about moving H if there was a prospect of work with the parents taking place quickly. In his view then there were two trajectories of risk; one, of the baby being unsettled and potentially disturbed by removal and suffering separation anxiety, the other being the risk to H of physical harm. His view at that stage was that H would suffer emotional harm if moved then but the risk of physical harm over the immediately following months was probably less than the risk of emotional harm if H were removed. In the event the Court decided to allow the programme of work identified by Dr Briggs to commence and to permit H to remain at home whilst it did so. The relevant issues, evidence and reasoning appear in the judgment given on 3rd December, 2010, (In the matter of QQ [2010] JRC 217E) and we shall not repeat that here.
6. It was envisaged in December 2010 that the initial motivational therapy for the parents would commence in January 2011. Allowing for a three month period before assessment it was intended that the case would return to Court in May 2011. However, in the event it did not prove to be possible to commence that work until March 2011 and the case therefore did not return to court until October 2011, a far longer delay than had been in the contemplation of the Court when reaching its decision in December 2010. However, it is fair to say that during that period the parents' relationship with H, and his with them, strengthened and that their care of him was good, responsive and meeting both his physical and emotional needs. They cooperated, by and large, with a high level of supervision with good manners and cordiality. They attended NSPCC Pathways on a frequent basis. Their attendance at NSPCC Pathways was complicated by the fact that D and E, two of the mother's older children who are now living, as a result of orders of this Court, with an aunt, are at school in the same building which is used by the NSPCC for sessions the parents were expected to attend. Some of those sessions actually took place in a classroom in the school building itself. On occasion it appears (although we have not yet heard the parents' evidence on this matter) that the mother and father spoke to D and E in the playground. The situation must have been very difficult for the mother and the father and for D and E. As one witness accepted, it must have been rather like putting a child in a sweet shop and although perhaps this is a trite analogy, it is not difficult to understand how potentially fraught the situation was for the mother and also how difficult it was for D and E once they knew that the mother was visiting their school. For that reason the NSPCC no longer feel they can provide services to this family. But as far as H is concerned, he has flourished in his parents care and the bonds have grown stronger. They have dealt with stressful events such as the continuing court proceedings and, in relation to H himself, with teething and illnesses, and their care of him has been calm and appropriate. Of course he is getting older now; he is toddling and becoming inquisitive. The concern of the Children's Services is that, as he becomes older and more challenging, the risks grow incrementally that if and when frustrated and challenged by his behaviour, the mother may have no parenting repertoire on which to rely except for lashing out in temper. This is a view of risk which is shared by Dr Briggs. Dr Young felt that from the age of about 20 months on, and as he enters what is sometimes colloquially known as "the terrible twos", the challenges presented by H's behaviour are likely to increase.
7. When the case came on in October 2011 it was clear that the mother and father had been able to respond to the motivational therapeutic work only to a very limited extent. They had attended regularly and consistently and done their best but the mother in particular was a "concrete" thinker who did not respond to a more intellectual approach to therapy. The Court heard oral evidence from Dr Gwyer, the psychologist who had been working with the mother, and Dr Shobbrook who was working with the father. Both are adult psychologists and neither is experienced working with parents in the context of children who have been harmed or are at risk of harm and what they say must be looked at in that light. However, Dr Gwyer made it clear that he felt hampered in the work he was able to do with the mother because he was only able to work with her in the way he felt had been prescribed using a cognitive behavioural therapeutic approach. He could soon see that this was not right for her and would have wanted to deal with matters from a behavioural therapeutic perspective. Whether the mother would have responded to such an approach he could not say, but he would have liked to have had the chance to do so, which he did not. Dr Shobbrook expressed similar concerns on behalf of the father.
8. Doctors Briggs and Young had not been aware of these views when being asked to advise the Court again as to the future in October 2011. Having heard Dr Gwyer's evidence, which came after theirs, it was, in the judgment of the Court, clearly important that they should know of the therapist's view that another approach may have been helpful here and so, with regret and concern about the impact of delay, nonetheless the Court adjourned so they could have an opportunity to consider the transcript of Dr Gwyer's evidence. As a result the case was adjourned and resumed yesterday on 28th November, 2011.
9. Both Drs Briggs and Young gave evidence again yesterday, as indeed did Dr Shobbrook. Dr Shobbrook explained, when asked what form the behavioural therapy might take, said that he had in mind something of the process one sees in the television programme "Super Nanny"; that someone may go into the home with the parents and explain to the parents different ways of dealing with a problem which emerged. Both he and Dr Gwyer had felt that a referral to the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services, CAMHS, would be appropriate. When he gave evidence yesterday, Dr Briggs questioned whether there was a sufficient platform for change in the parents. He was not able to exclude the possibility that a programme of behavioural therapy may work with these parents. He said that he could not guarantee that it would fail or that it would succeed. He asked for detail of what was proposed. Reference was made to material which had been obtained in October 2011 from the Bridge but that was only short and generalised in form. Regrettably since October 2011 no-one on behalf of the parents had sought to obtain more information from either the Bridge or CAMHS as to what help/support they may be able to provide, despite the fact that both agencies were flagged up in answer to questions put on behalf of the parents in October 2011 as agencies who might provide the necessary support to help these parents parent safely. As a result, Dr Briggs' evidence was inevitably given in somewhat of a vacuum. Dr Young also gave evidence yesterday; he struggled to give definitive advice as to the balance of risk to H of staying with the parents or moving away. On the one hand H's bond with the parents has grown even stronger and also bonds have now developed between H and the extended family; and thus the emotional damage to him of removal would be a reality. On the other hand, can the risk of physical (with its concomitant emotional) harm in the future be sufficiently managed? We paraphrase the lengthy evidence of both doctors here. Both Doctors Briggs and Young agreed that now we are in a situation where H has lived with his parents for fourteen months; the care has been good and the bonds are established and that whether or not he can safely remain or should be moved for adoption is a finely balanced and complex decision. This Court accepts that it is indeed a complex and finely balanced decision.
10. In order to weigh up the risks and benefits it is important to have a picture of what support would in reality be available to this mother and father. The only possible specialist supportive agencies which have been identified are CAMHS and the Bridge. Urgent thought was given by all as to how that information might be made available to this Court during the course of this week. The guardian had contacted the Bridge before the hearing resumed this week, although her enquiries had not been able to be completed because the person to whom she needed to speak was not available. We are grateful to her for at least attempting to make those enquiries. A suggestion was floated as to whether evidence from CAMHS and the Bridge could be given in the course of this week but the reality is that both organisations would need to do their own assessments on a fully informed basis before either would be able to make an informed decision about the position that they would take here.
11. Dr Posner of CAMHS has kindly responded swiftly to enquiries that were first made only yesterday. It appears that if H were to be referred to CAMHS now, an initial assessment would be made in mid-January 2012. CAMHS would be unable to offer a more urgent appointment because those have to be reserved for young people where there is a significant and urgent risk to their mental health and safety. CAMHS has said, through a letter from Dr Posner dated today, that at the point of assessment they would be exploring with the family their concerns about their child and thinking about whether the family have taken on board any concerns that the Children's Service have raised. An assessment of whether the parents were motivated to change and whether they were able to see their own role in facilitating positive change with the child would be undertaken and they would often work in partnership with colleagues such as, relevantly here, the Bridge, and it may be that they would recommend that the needs are best met by those services. Dr Posner has said in this helpful letter that in a complex case it would normally take three sessions to complete an assessment so this could, hypothetically, be completed by the end of February 2012. Intrinsically then this line of enquiry is going to involve significant delay. As to the Bridge, the literature available, scant though it is, suggests that they provide a wide variety of courses and support groups. The extent to which the Bridge would be able to provide assistance in this case is of course a matter for them. Once again they have helpfully responded swiftly this week, and have indicated that they would be able to look at a referral made to them on the 9th January, 2012, would make a decision on that date and would then notify the referring party within seven days thereafter. Although their determination would be shortly before CAMHS, one can see that the time bracket there is also considerable. However, it is vitally important for this Court to know what, if any, help or support the Bridge and/or CAMHS might be able to provide this family.
12. It is worth flagging up here that the circumstances are different from the circumstances which pertained when the mother and father were caring for their older children. As we have already said, H is the child of both of them; he is the first child that the mother has brought up with the continued helpful support of the child's father. As far as the father is concerned, H is the only one of his children with whom he has been closely involved and to whom he has shown dedicated commitment. But can the parents be helped sufficiently to parent H safely as he grows? Are they able to take on board and utilise help that is given? These are questions which are at the heart of this case and at the moment, regrettably, the Court simply does not have the necessary information to be able finally to evaluate these matters. Can CAMHS or the Bridge provide any help or support? if so what? If so, in what timeframe? If so, how would it be monitored and assessed? We have been asked on behalf of the parents to adjourn the hearing now to enable this information to be provided. This is opposed by Children's Services who believe that a decision in relation to H needs to be made. After all, if he is to be moved, the sooner that is done the better. The risks grow as he gets older. We understand Children Services' concerns about delay but, unfortunately, that begs the central question as to whether or not he needs to be moved, and whether or not the Court can properly determine that now. In our view it cannot.
13. The guardian and Miss Colley, with great balance, have also expressed concerns about the impact of delay, but accept that the lack of information today from the Bridge and CAMHS is not the fault of either the mother or the father themselves. This is an important point to stress if, as we anticipate they will, those from CAMHS and the Bridge read this judgment. How, asks Miss Colley, can the Court make a decision now in the absence of this information without profound unfairness to the parents? It is an important point and well made, but even more important, bearing in mind that our paramount concern is the best interests of H, is the question how a decision can be made about H without this information? The answer, of course, is that it cannot. If he could be brought up safely by his parents it would be in his best interests for that to happen. But we cannot evaluate that fairly from his point of view, as well as from the parents' point of view, without having information about what, if anything, CAMHS and/or the Bridge might be able to provide.
14. And so for that reason we grant the adjournment.
15. In due course we shall give permission for a reading list of papers in this case to be disclosed to both those bodies. It is important for any reader of those papers to understand that we have had a considerable volume of oral evidence which is not necessarily reflected in what appears on paper and which we have not begun to approach in this judgment that is simply dealing with the question of an adjournment. The oral evidence has added dimensions and perspectives to what is written and so there needs to be caution in accepting what is on the page at face value. We shall also direct that transcripts of the evidence given yesterday by Doctors Shobbrook, Briggs and Young be prepared, and that they are made available as well as any other documents in the reading list to both CAMHS and the Bridge. This is to assist those considering the referrals at CAMHS and the Bridge to have an understanding of what was said to this Court yesterday, which we hope will focus their attention on what is thought to be needed here and whether they may or may not be in a position to provide what is necessary. We ask Children's Services to facilitate the referral to CAMHS and the Bridge, although it must be clear to any reader of this judgment that the referrals are not actively being sought on behalf of Children's Services but are being sought by the parents. In doing this, Children's Services are assisting the best interests of this child by facilitating the provision of the necessary information to the Court at the next hearing, for which the Court is very grateful. In doing so, Children's Services are behaving, if we may say so, in accordance with the highest standards that one would expect of them and we thank them very much indeed.
Authorities